Just Finished Game of Thrones Book 1 (No Spoilers on the second book)

[Allegra]

I wasn't happy when I first saw Peter Dinklage on the screen as Tyrion, but then when he opened his mouth and started talking... well now he is Tyrion in my mind. When I read the descriptions of him in the book I cringe because I feel that GRRM has it wrong.

I guess Martin himself will have Peter Dinklage in his mind when he is writing the following books! I watched an interview on YT, when asked which characters he's most satisfied for playing the roles he said Peter Dinklage and Sean Bean. And yes, the voice and speech of Dinklage is absolutely outstanding, he is no doubt a very talented stage/screen actor.

 

[Yavannie]

YES: All the Lannisters, all the Starks, Theon, Bronn, Daenerys (at least S3 - last season was underwhelming), Khal Drogo, Hodor, Petyr Baelish, Lysa and Robert Arryn, Davos, Barristan Selmy

Not as I pictured them, but work really well: Jorah Mormont, Sandor Clegane, Walder Frey, Ygritte, Salladhor Saan, Stannis, Renly, Melisandre, Jon Snow

NO: Asha Greyjoy, Daario (I suppose he could grow on me as it's early days but...), Loras Tyrell, Missandei (oh my god, don't get me started on this...)

 

[Allegra]

Not as I pictured them, but work really well: Jorah Mormont, ...

The description of Jorah Mormont in the book is quite different, but yes, the TV version is better, at least I like it better.

 

[juleska]

As one of many who are drown to the books after watching the TV series, I am reading book 1 right now and loving it. Martin is truly a master storyteller! His character building is amazing and I can't wait to read more to see them developing. The storyline flows well and the pace is just right. Even though I know what will happen the next I'm getting the background info and characters' details that were missing from the TV show.

The bonus is that because of the superb cast and acting in the TV series I found it quite handy to visualise the characters when reading the book. How else could I have imagined such a perfect Tyrion like Peter Dinklage's? So far the only characters I have to make up on my own are the queen and Catelyn. I don't think both actress fit their roles that well.

I was just on the verge of being horrified that I had let loose a huge spoiler for Book One a few posts up when you're still reading it....but then I realized that if you watched the show you already know that Ned is dead.

 

[Allegra]

No worries, I am safe till the end of book 2, but very careful not to read anything about book 3 as season 3 covers only part of it.

 

[chongjasmine]

I like Ned. He is one of the rare men, a man with honor. And it is really sad that such a good man died so early in the novel.

I wish martin hadn't kill him.

 

[Boaz]

chong, It was a shame about Eddard. Westeros would be a better place with him, and people like him, leading the country. But the story was able to expand greatly with his death.

Eddard wanted a world where they could spare the lives of political rivals... or even children who could be used politically. Unfortunately for him, Joffrey saw differently... and he acted decisively upon his philosophy. Still, Eddard was able to spare the lives of Dany, Joffrey, Myrcella, and Tommen... even if Joffrey did not know it, respect him, or honor the gift.

 

[Tywin]

chong, It was a shame about Eddard. Westeros would be a better place with him, and people like him, leading the country. But the story was able to expand greatly with his death.

Real life is immensely better if the "Ned's" stay alive and in charge.

What a boring book that would have been though...

 

[Brian G Turner]

I like Ned. He is one of the rare men, a man with honor. And it is really sad that such a good man died so early in the novel.

Ah - but if Ned had lived, he would have ensured that Stannis sat on the Iron Throne.

Persecution and civil war would have immediately followed, with Ned responsible for causing the bloodbath through his decision.

And through his indecision - and not supporting Renly, present with his troops at the time - allowed Cersei to usurp the throne from under Ned's nose.

Ned was a man of good character, but too loyal to vague ideals - that the succession must be technically correct, at all costs, was a terrible, terrible, idea that he insisted he cling onto - only rescinding at the very end when he realised - at last - that his family would suffer for his stubbornness - but by then it was too late, because Joffrey had Ser Illyn's ear.

The problem with Ned is that he seemed like a genuinely nice guy - but this was only because he abrogated his moral decision-making, making him too conservative to react to new circumstance, and adapt.

If Stannis had taken the throne, burned all his perceived enemies (even before we consider Melissandra!) and inflicted war on the Seven Kingdoms, Ned would have been unlikely to feel too guilty for it - after all, he'd done "the right thing".

I liked him on the first reading, but too many conversations on chronicles have turned me against Ned's simplistic motivations.

 

[Boaz]

Ty, I'm an amateur historian... Here are some people that might be considered "Neds"... Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Crazy Horse, Yi Sun-sin, Joan of Arc, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Wilhelm Canaris, Claus von Stauffenberg, Thomas Beckett, Thomas Wolsey, Thomas More, Thomas Cranmer, Charles I Stuart, Flavius Aetius, Franz Ferdinand, Toyotomi Hideyori, Georges Danton, Maximilien Robespierre, and Jean-Paul Marat. And then again, somebody considered all of them traitors.

What if there was a movie about the "Neds" getting even? What would you call it?

Edit: Brian posted while I was reading about the French Revolution.

Yes, Eddard's plan would have pit Stannis, the Starks and the Tullys against the Lannisters.

Would Renly and the Tyrells have still set themselves against Stannis? Probably.

Would the Martells still have sat out or would they have jumped at the chance to punish the Lannisters? Knowing Stannis' intractability, I'd say they'd have at least given Stannis minimal support.

I'm not sure that the Arryns would have committed less than the Martells.

I think the Lannisters would have been in a bad way. Yet, I suspect that Tywin would have concluded a nonaggression pact with Renly and sought an alliance with the Greyjoys to protect his rear. And destabilization of mainland central government is always a goal of the Iron Islands.

Eddard would have bled and beggared the country.

The most pacific solution for Westeros was the one put forth by Renly. They both wanted Eddard to claim the Regency in Joffrey's name. Eddard could have had time to conduct secret negotiations with Stannis and to figure out Joffrey's character. He'd have had time to secure the allegiances of the Arryns, the Martells, the Tyrells, and Renly before he really chose between Stannis and Joffrey (and/or Renly). Seriously, Renly might have later approached Eddard about the Crown and Sansa.

Eddard even refused Baelish's "wisdom" because his plan was to similar to Renly's.

Renly was the wisest man in the succession crisis. Who'd a thunk it?

 

[Tywin]

Ty, I'm an amateur historian... Here are some people that might be considered "Neds"... Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Crazy Horse, Yi Sun-sin, Joan of Arc, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Wilhelm Canaris, Claus von Stauffenberg, Thomas Beckett, Thomas Wolsey, Thomas More, Thomas Cranmer, Charles I Stuart, Flavius Aetius, Franz Ferdinand, Toyotomi Hideyori, Georges Danton, Maximilien Robespierre, and Jean-Paul Marat. And then again, somebody considered all of them traitors.

I disagree with many on this list. You have equated Ned with people who are fanatical about their ideals, which I don't think is necessarily accurate here. A Dwight Eisenhower or even a GW Bush (doing what he thinks is the right thing and being oblivious to the unintended consequences) is more accurate to my reading of it.

Renly was the wisest man in the succession crisis. Who'd a thunk it?

Again I disagree. If Renly had supported Stannis (the rightful heir), there would have been no civil war, just a coup of Cersei's brood. Renly also would have been positioned to take the throne since his older brother had no male offspring.

 

[svalbard]

If Ned is to be compared to a character from history I think someone along the likes of Simon de Montfort would fit the bill. The man had a touch of brilliance about him, he wanted something different yet just lacked the foresight to carry his vision to it's logical conclusion. Like Ned he was ultimately loyal to the crown and too trusting of those around him.

De Montfort's death on the field of battle was unusual for it's time and with hindsight it was a clue as to how Edward I was to deal with all his foes.

 

[Boaz]

I was just looking at political deaths of idealists/reformers, not really at moral character.

I don't know that de Montfort's death in battle was unusual. But as a kinsman to Longshanks, his body should not have been mutilated. Edward rarely, if ever, showed mercy. And the comparison to Joffrey dealing with his enemies... he was just getting started with Eddard. Mayhaps we should call Joffrey something similar... shortshanks, youngshanks, goldshanks...

 

[svalbard]

I am open to be corrected, but I believe you could count on one hand the number of high ranking Anglo-Norman noblemen killed in battle between 1066 and the Battle of Evesham(struggling for a date 1269???). Edward did allow De Montfort's sons to go into exile, something he regretted later in life.

It was not until the Wars of the Roses that the English nobility set to on each other again and heads began to role quite regularly. Anyway enough of the thread highjacking...

Goldshanks sounds good for Joffrey