What fantasy book have you read that gave you the same 'feel' LotR?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Flawed characters are okay, but when Ned and Davos look like saints compared to the rest then there is a problem. The show has actually had to whitewash so many characters to make people care about them.

I don't know. I cared about Ned because I really did like him at the beginning of the series, and I care about Davos because he's a character who has his own narration, but I can't say I like Davos very much, and part of that is because he's trying to be the virtuous saint. I like many characters better than that twain. I don't think that Martin purposefully painted others black so that these two can look white. I doubt that these two are meant to be pointed out as the "good people" (as discussed in previous posts, there are no "good" and "bad" standarts). Also, you have others who have some claim to virtue or innocence. Take Daenerys. Take Brienne. I stopped liking Daenerys after a while, but I like Briene very much despite her naive trust in the world. Moreover, the whole point of splitting the story into perspectives is to make each one believable/likable/existent. If Martin's goal was to make the "good" ones shine, his whole book structure loses its point.

So I think that this criticism is invalid, considering how many flawed or odd/unfitting-into-typical-standarts characters are likable and not all of the virtuous ones are. It depends of you whether you like them or not, but your own point of view isn't everybody's, so how can you make this objective claim?

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I don't know. I cared about Ned because I really did like him at the beginning of the series, and I care about Davos because he's a character who has his own narration, but I can't say I like Davos very much, and part of that is because he's trying to be the virtuous saint. I like many characters better than that twain. I don't think that Martin purposefully painted others black so that these two can look white. I doubt that these two are meant to be pointed out as the "good people" (as discussed in previous posts, there are no "good" and "bad" standarts). Also, you have others who have some claim to virtue or innocence. Take Daenerys. Take Brienne. I stopped liking Daenerys after a while, but I like Briene very much despite her naive trust in the world. Moreover, the whole point of splitting the story into perspectives is to make each one believable/likable/existent. If Martin's goal was to make the "good" ones shine, his whole book structure loses its point.

So I think that this criticism is invalid, considering how many flawed or odd/unfitting-into-typical-standarts characters are likable and not all of the virtuous ones are. It depends of you whether you like them or not, but your own point of view isn't everybody's, so how can you make this objective claim?

No viewpoints are objective when judging a story. To claim there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" is not true. Characters like Roose, Ramsey, Gregor and Cersei are without bad.

I never said that he made the other characters so black as to make Ned and Davos look good. Nor do I think Davos is trying too hard to be good. He is just doing what the average person does. Loyal to his family and king.

Martin tries to write "realistic" characters, but they are all so bad they become cartoon villains.

Anyway it's a matter of personal choice.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

No viewpoints are objective when judging a story.

In that case, do not speak for pther people liking/disliking other characters.

To claim there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" is not true.

Is there evidence to that in GOT+etc?

Characters like Roose, Ramsey, Gregor and Cersei are without bad.

Really?

And if you meant that they are without good, I disagree. Except for Ramsey. That guy is the only one that strikes me as pure evil.

The thing is, every character has his own good, his own ethical code. For some it is some abstract belief (eg: Ned). For others its what benefits their survival. Yet others don't even think in terms of what's good and what's not, but what is realistic and if it's worth doing it (eg: Baelish). This is the beauty of ASOIAF, that it allows for all these moral codes to coexist. You have Jack London's law of club and fang, but you also have Tolkien's gentler perspective, and many others besides.

He is just doing what the average person does. Loyal to his family and king.

Does the average person really do that? You may think so from a 21st century perspective, but to be honest, I think that Martin's idea of peasants caring about 1) their lives and 2) their crops/lands/livelihoods/etc is more realistic than peasants really caring who their lord is - so long as that lord treats them ok. In this sense, Martin is more realistic than Tolkien. As for the aristocracy, there are all kinds. Some that are loyal to their lords (that are present in both authors' works) and some that are loyal to themselves (ditto). The difference is that there are less of the latter in LOTR+others, and much more in GOT+others.

Martin tries to write "realistic" characters, but they are all so bad they become cartoon villains.

Personally, there are very few I would call absolute villains, and even fewer are cartoon villains.

Because of the whole perspective thing, you get to see the goodness in many initially bad characters, and even if they don't have so much of it, you get to see and understand their thoughts and feelings and their philosophy. If you see it through ther lens, maybe it's not that bad after all, or bad from an abstract objective "good" but not from the "good" of reality.

Anyway it's a matter of personal choice.

Agreed.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Does the average person really do that? You may think so from a 21st century perspective, but to be honest, I think that Martin's idea of peasants caring about 1) their lives and 2) their crops/lands/livelihoods/etc is more realistic than peasants really caring who their lord is - so long as that lord treats them ok. In this sense, Martin is more realistic than Tolkien. As for the aristocracy, there are all kinds. Some that are loyal to their lords (that are present in both authors' works) and some that are loyal to themselves (ditto). The difference is that there are less of the latter in LOTR+others, and much more in GOT+others.

ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

In that case, do not speak for pther people liking/disliking other characters.

I can speak for the other people I have discussed this with.

Is there evidence to that in GOT+etc?

Yes, because it's up to the reader to decide what is good or bad. Roose Bolton murdering peasants and then raping their wives puts him in the bad category.

Really?

And if you meant that they are without good, I disagree. Except for Ramsey. That guy is the only one that strikes me as pure evil

Cersei, Gregor, Roose, The Goat, the Bloody murmers etc. As for being pure evil, I never said such a thing. I don't think such a thing exist, but when you do enough bad actions, I believe you can be placed on the evil side.

Sauron has more good in him that a lot of those I listed.

The thing is, every character has his own good, his own ethical code. For some it is some abstract belief (eg: Ned). For others its what benefits their survival. Yet others don't even think in terms of what's good and what's not, but what is realistic and if it's worth doing it (eg: Baelish). This is the beauty of ASOIAF, that it allows for all these moral codes to coexist. You have Jack London's law of club and fang, but you also have Tolkien's gentler perspective, and many others besides.

Every character in every story acts according to their own code. It's very simplistic to think that anyone sets out to be evil. That being said when you keep doing evil actions you are going to be judged as bad.

Does the average person really do that? You may think so from a 21st century perspective, but to be honest, I think that Martin's idea of peasants caring about 1) their lives and 2) their crops/lands/livelihoods/etc is more realistic than peasants really caring who their lord is - so long as that lord treats them ok. In this sense, Martin is more realistic than Tolkien. As for the aristocracy, there are all kinds. Some that are loyal to their lords (that are present in both authors' works) and some that are loyal to themselves (ditto). The difference is that there are less of the latter in LOTR+others, and much more in GOT+others.

This is Martin's greatest failing. He is a pseudo historian and has actually not delved very deeply into what people thought at the time. People have not changed in the last 1000 years. Don't you care about who rules your country? Don't you care about if the laws are just? It's true that primary concerns maybe about self interest, but greater issues matter too. For a medieval audience the two were linked.

Loyalty to the Lord was incredibly important. You only need to read accounts of how people gladly died for their liege Lord. You get those out to further their own interest, but to think this applied to the majority is like thinking that the millions that volunteered to fight in the First World War were not patriotic.

Personally, there are very few I would call absolute villains, and even fewer are cartoon villains.

Because of the whole perspective thing, you get to see the goodness in many initially bad characters, and even if they don't have so much of it, you get to see and understand their thoughts and feelings and their philosophy. If you see it through ther lens, maybe it's not that bad after all, or bad from an abstract objective "good" but not from the "good" of reality.

Being completely evil is something that probably does not exist. When half the villains are worse than Sauron then there is not much good in them. Seeing why someone acts does not excuse their actions. Ramsey raping women or Cersei murdering innocent babies to massage her ego does not get better, because we see her point of view.

Agreed.

Yep.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

This is Martin's greatest failing. He is a pseudo historian and has actually not delved very deeply into what people thought at the time. People have not changed in the last 1000 years. Don't you care about who rules your country? Don't you care about if the laws are just? It's true that primary concerns maybe about self interest, but greater issues matter too. For a medieval audience the two were linked.

Loyalty to the Lord was incredibly important. You only need to read accounts of how people gladly died for their liege Lord. You get those out to further their own interest, but to think this applied to the majority is like thinking that the millions that volunteered to fight in the First World War were not patriotic.

I would suggest your historical viewpoint is a tad naive, particularly in regards to the medieval mind. Peasant uprisings against their "liege lords" were savage and pervasive across the European continent: the rebellions of Wat Tyler and Jack Cade in England, the Jacquerie in France, the Ciompi in Florence, and any number of workers' rebellions in Flanders and Burgundy. Violence and oppression was the the rule against the serfs in the Middle Ages, hence the rise of cities with thousands of workers fleeing manorial farms to escape their masters, who met this flight with repressive work laws and insuffereable taxation on everything from the hearth to salt to the heriot at death.

What any of this has to do with the thought processes of soldiers in WWI is anybody's guess.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I would suggest your historical viewpoint is a tad naive, particularly in regards to the medieval mind. Peasant uprisings against their "liege lords" were savage and pervasive across the European continent: the rebellions of Wat Tyler and Jack Cade in England, the Jacquerie in France, the Ciompi in Florence, and any number of workers' rebellions in Flanders and Burgundy. Violence and oppression was the the rule against the serfs in the Middle Ages, hence the rise of cities with thousands of workers fleeing manorial farms to escape their masters, who met this flight with repressive work laws and insuffereable taxation on everything from the hearth to salt to the heriot at death.

What any of this has to do with the thought processes of soldiers in WWI is anybody's guess.

Peasants rising against oppressive conditions is hardly proof that they did not care or have any loyalty to their Lords. It just shows that they used force and violence when pushed too far. This has nothing to do with peasants wanting to have the rightful rulers in charge or being loyal. I never claimed the peasants were happy to be oppressed. The discussion was about their feelings of loyalty and allegiance to the king or the Lord.



You mention the Tyler revolt, but from the accounts we have, even after they stormed the Tower of London, they showed a great deal of reverence to the king. Richard II was not even a good or popular king, but he stopped the people rioting and they did not kill him when they had him at this mercy.

The comment about World War I is very relevant, because nationalism as it is today was a fairly modern concept which grew in the late 18th century. For a long time the King was the nation. The feelings people had today for their country was similar to what they had towards their leaders.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Peasants rising against oppressive conditions is hardly proof that they did not care or have any loyalty to their Lords. It just shows that they used force and violence when pushed too far. This has nothing to do with peasants wanting to have the rightful rulers in charge or being loyal. I never claimed the peasants were happy to be oppressed. The discussion was about their feelings of loyalty and allegiance to the king or the Lord.

You are projecting a feeling on a whole population that simply was not there. It is a myth. There was continual revolt against the Count of Flanders by the weavers of Ghent, who followed their purse strings and supported the King of England and his endless supply of wool. France itself had no unity under a French King until the English had so exploited and ravaged France in the 14th century that the peasants chose despotism over having their villages burned and their daughters raped. In any case, Henry V's early death had more to do with France's consolidation, and it was more a wily centralization of huge duchies (Brittany and Burgundy were two) by the French monarchy than any sense of "patriotism". Also, the Swiss booted out the emperor and sundry lords quite early on and Bohemia was often a class battleground.

Of course, there was constant revolt among the Irish, Scots and Welsh, who never took kindly to the "liege lords" that were forced on them.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

You mention the Tyler revolt, but from the accounts we have, even after they stormed the Tower of London, they showed a great deal of reverence to the king. Richard II was not even a good or popular king, but he stopped the people rioting and they did not kill him when they had him at this mercy.

And yet it seemed they learned their lesson and did nothing when Henry IV had Richard II strangled a few years later.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The comment about World War I is very relevant, because nationalism as it is today was a fairly modern concept which grew in the late 18th century. For a long time the King was the nation. The feelings people had today for their country was similar to what they had towards their leaders.

I would suggest the French decapitated that idea in 1789. And a small band of Russian extremists exploded that myth altogether during WWI.