What other fantasy books do YOU read?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Interestingly, I viewed Ned as being painted as fairly 'white' all the way through A Game of Thrones, as a man who would stand by his honour no matter what. That's why he agrees to go and serve the King even if it's not what is in the best interests of him, his family and his people.

That's not what made him grey. It's his treason to himself that made him so - one that he thought would save some lives. It's not his fault that it didn't, but if you're so stubborn about honour, be stubborn till the end.

Originally Posted by Lal

I think the worst of all the characters for me has to be Gregor Clegane - a truly horrible man. Though some others run him close though I don't know how far you are with the books so I won't do spoilers

I can agree that he's a horrible man, but he's a beautiful character. And his brother the Hound even more so (as a character, not actually... ). I actually like Sandor Clegane a lot. He's the most interesting beast in a Beauty and the Beast thing. But I actually like that one for more than being an interesting character. Somehow he's closer to being a Ned than all these "honourable" true knights... The good, white Ned...

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I can agree that he's a horrible man, but he's a beautiful character. And his brother the Hound even more so (as a character, not actually... ). I actually like Sandor Clegane a lot. He's the most interesting beast in a Beauty and the Beast thing. But I actually like that one for more than being an interesting character. Somehow he's closer to being a Ned than all these "honourable" true knights... The good, white Ned...

Gregor I never liked, but Sandor is quite interesting. I know that he's utterly ruthless, but for some reason I can't seem to think he's all bad.

[Lalwendë]

The Hound is a fascinating character. He's introduced as a brutal man, solely a fighter, and one with a very dry and dark sense of humour. But you gradually learn his background and he shows a caring side (which comes first though? I am going to have to read again to work that out!). I think it's right that he does have more of a true sense of 'nobility' than, for example, many of the other knights of the Kingsguard. He's simply not interested in chivalry and though he's uncouth and brutal, some of his actions show more 'honour' than most of his fellows show. I always find it interesting how Sansa idolises the young, attractive nobles and knights and yet it's the twisted, brutal Hound who treats her with respect.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I always find it interesting how Sansa idolises the young, attractive nobles and knights and yet it's the twisted, brutal Hound who treats her with respect.

I kept wondering how she can be so blind to not see anything beyond his face. She should have felt something for him - pity, at least. Respect. Understanding. I was waiting for the whole book for her to develop some kind of affection for him - and instead she goes for her Florian. Sansa disappoints me. I thought she learned her lesson of judging people by their appearance with her dear prince. It's unfortunate that it spread only as far as Lannisters go. But even so - she's closer to the young brave wounded Lancel Lannister who did her nothing than to the Hound who saved her a bunch of times and opened his soul to her and just did so much more for her.

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I kept wondering how she can be so blind to not see anything beyond his face. She should have felt something for him - pity, at least. Respect. Understanding. I was waiting for the whole book for her to develop some kind of affection for him - and instead she goes for her Florian.

True. But Sansa is ultimately shallow. Which springs, ironically, from her following rules religiously. She honestly thinks sewing and looking pretty will get her out of sticky situations. Her problem is that she takes everyone's word for it.

Sansa disappoints me.

As a person, yes. As a character, no. Still, she is one of my least favourites. Nearly at the bottom, in fact.

I thought she learned her lesson of judging people by their appearance with her dear prince. It's unfortunate that it spread only as far as Lannisters go. But even so - she's closer to the young brave wounded Lancel Lannister who did her nothing than to the Hound who saved her a bunch of times and opened his soul to her and just did so much more for her.

Always felt bad for Sandor

[Lalwendë]

Sansa, however, is the POV character for quite a lot of very interesting chapters, and they are all narrated very well. I often think Martin was using her fondness and awareness of stories to express those chapters in such a clear way. As a character, she does change, and I don't know if you've all got to A Storm Of Swords yet, but I think that's where we start to see her realising she has been used and will carry on being used.

I feel sorry for her. Yes, she made some awful mistakes when she was so young and petulant, but she has been raised as a courtly lady without learning all the skills of cunning and intrigue that other ladies have learnt. And in her own way, Arya is just as naive and has to learn for herself. The same goes for Robb and Jon.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

As a character, she does change, and I don't know if you've all got to A Storm Of Swords yet, but I think that's where we start to see her realising she has been used and will carry on being used.

I just started A Storm of Swords, but I didn't get to Sansa's narration yet. I think she began to realise that in A Clash of Kings, and she did absolutely nothing about it except for cry in her pillow about the big bad Lannisters.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

True. But Sansa is ultimately shallow. Which springs, ironically, from her following rules religiously. She honestly thinks sewing and looking pretty will get her out of sticky situations. Her problem is that she takes everyone's word for it.

I don't think she's shallow. She's just passive. And she lives in her dreams and in the songs that she hears, where every knight is a hero who protects the maiden and every villain is ultimately punished. She expected for it to be this way at King's Landing - everyone is honest and goodwilled and noble and etc. Well, they aren't. I'm looking forward to the moment when she'll discard that helpless damsel-in-distress passivness and start learning. I think she won't be as shallow after that.

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I don't know if you've all got to A Storm Of Swords yet, but I think that's where we start to see her realising she has been used and will carry on being used.

She does change, but I have doubts as to whether she's really over her gushing romantic stage.

I feel sorry for her. Yes, she made some awful mistakes when she was so young and petulant, but she has been raised as a courtly lady without learning all the skills of cunning and intrigue that other ladies have learnt. And in her own way, Arya is just as naive and has to learn for herself. The same goes for Robb and Jon.

My point exactly. I initially felt Arya may have been more mature and more understanding of the world around her, but in a sense she's just as clueless as her sister. IMO she does not yet know how to 'play the game' - she's too blunt and too headstrong. Jon seems to be getting more and more confused as the series goes on. A Dance with Dragons was certainly a shock, regarding Jon.

[Galadriel]

I think I finally realised why I put Tolkien ahead of other fantasy writers. It's not because I read him first; it's because he did things a little more realistically when it came to his protagonist. After all, many seemingly unimpressive people have done great things - and those great things have not always been appreciated or even acknowledged by other people. Frodo, just a three-foot-tall Hobbit, goes on a quest not for glory or vengeance, but because he feels it's right (from the heart), and actually succeeds in it. And yet people in his own village have no idea that he is the reason they are still there. The only people who know about it (aside from the Fellowship, Fatty and Bilbo) are a different species and live hundreds of miles away.

I mean, Frodo can barely fight with a sword - one could say Sting does all the work for him - and yet he's a hero. I hate the way most 'heroes' these days are just tall, slim, athletic boys and girls who are perfect at archery or can read minds or do other things that hardly anyone can relate to. Frodo's a hero from the heart - where it really counts.

Yeah, sorry for the sappy speech, and I'm pretty sure anyone could argue with what I've said because of my careless phrasing, but you get the general gist.

[Galadriel55]

Not gonna argue with you as you've just put most of my own thoughts into words. I think it's even sadder that Frodo's quest is not appreciated by those whose appreciation he would value above all others - the Shire. But again, I could argue with myself:

...that what he [Frodo] had to do, he had to do, if he could, and that whether Faramir or Aragorn or Elrond or Galadriel or Gandalf or anyone else ever knew about it was beside the purpose.

Such a simple quote, but tells so much! And notice that Frodo doesn't mention hobbits. Maybe he knows deep down that he doesn't want to be a hero among his own.



Am I turning into a schizophrenic, arguing with myself?

[Galadriel]

I'm currently reading A Wizard of Earthsea (did I mention that before?) but I'm a little surprised at Le Guin's portrayal of women - considering she herself is a woman. All the women in the first book are either old and useless or pretty and good. I was also taken aback by Le Guin's use of the phrases 'weak as a woman's magic' and 'wicked as a woman's magic' in consecutive sentences. So women's magic is either weak or evil? Wow. This book takes feminism back to the 1700s. Considering Earthsea is not set in the primary world (even if it is set a 'long time ago'), she could have easily given women at least intellectual strength.

Now, I get a bit tired of feminist arguments from time to time, but this lady really makes me want to hit her. I hear she gets really feminist in the fourth book, but that it's also really bad. Sigh.

I am also reading His Dark Materials, and would like to know if anyone else thinks that Lyra is a blatant Sue.

Yes, I am annoyed.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I'm currently reading A Wizard of Earthsea (did I mention that before?) but I'm a little surprised at Le Guin's portrayal of women - considering she herself is a woman. All the women in the first book are either old and useless or pretty and good.

Serret is beautiful and, if not definitely evil, at least highly morally ambiguous– but then as she's the only powerful female magic-user in the book, I'm not sure if that helps matters.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I was also taken aback by Le Guin's use of the phrases 'weak as a woman's magic' and 'wicked as a woman's magic' in consecutive sentences. So women's magic is either weak or evil? Wow. This book takes feminism back to the 1700s. Considering Earthsea is not set in the primary world (even if it is set a 'long time ago'), she could have easily given women at least intellectual strength.

I don't think it's clear, even in the first book, whether you're meant to take all that "wicked as women's magic" stuff as being real, or merely a matter of prejudice. Not that I buy that it's deliberate social criticism either– it's not like the belief is ever challenged, even in a "token" sort of way.

Now, I get a bit tired of feminist arguments from time to time, but this lady really makes me want to hit her. I hear she gets really feminist in the fourth book, but that it's also really bad.

Unfortunately, yes– mainly because so much of it consists of Le Guin vainly trying to talk her way out of the fairly gratuitous sexism of the previous books.

With all that, she is still one of my favourite SF writers, and the Earthsea trilogy one of the few works of high fantasy I think really compares to Lord of the Rings– by being as different as possible. Honestly I'm really getting rather jaded about the seemingly endless supply of brick-novels that do little more than recycle the old cliches.

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Serret is beautiful and, if not definitely evil, at least highly morally ambiguous– but then as she's the only powerful female magic-user in the book, I'm not sure if that helps matters.

I didn't find her all that ambiguous

I don't think it's clear, even in the first book, whether you're meant to take all that "wicked as women's magic" stuff as being real, or merely a matter of prejudice. Not that I buy that it's deliberate social criticism either– it's not like the belief is ever challenged, even in a "token" sort of way.

True - and there's little to prove those statements wrong.

With all that, she is still one of my favourite SF writers, and the Earthsea trilogy one of the few works of high fantasy I think really compares to Lord of the Rings– by being as different as possible. Honestly I'm really getting rather jaded about the seemingly endless supply of brick-novels that do little more than recycle the old cliches.

Aside from the sexism factor, I quite like her books as well. Ged is a really good character, and the philosophy about names is quite interesting. And I know what you mean about the recycling of old cliches. This seems to be the general plot of most fantasy novels, with nothing very different about the way it's done: orphaned/abused child - child finds out he/she is a great wizard/sorcerer or the last of a species or a great lineage - sets out for vengeance/identity and meets mysterious person (usually a man) on the way - man turns out to be the only person who can 'teach' the protagonist the things they want to learn - protagonist learns all ridiculously fast and well - protagonist up against a series of villains - protagonist comes out victorious without really sacrificing anything that is really important.

Sigh.