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

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Alcidas

It is difficult to put into words, but I will give it a go.

Tolkien's writing has a lyrical beauty of sorts that Martin just cannot match. I think he has drawn so much from our common literary heritage that it is almost impossible to read any of his works without feeling the resonances with previous works of literature, like Tennyson's 'horns of Elfland gently blowing'. I am not saying that he would have consciously created such resonances, as some modern authors may deliberately seek to do, but that, given his background, it would have probably come naturally to him, in the same way that one cannot read the poetry of Keats without at least subconsciously being reminded of the imagery of Shakespeare.

Martin's writing is different, and his is a modern novel written for a modern, 21st century reader. I think it is a great deal more realistic with a better sense of time and distance. The lack of a clear-cut distinction between Good and Evil characters and the literary device of telling the story from different points of view really makes for a good read, but, as I said, it does not have the same 'feel' as Tolkien.

I hope this makes some sense.

ASOIAF is terrible when it comes to realism, time and distance. Martin does not even bother to give dates or actual distances because it does not make sense.

The problem I find with Martin's work is that all the characters are so flawed they become unlikeable. With the exception of a couple of the children I don't care who lives or dies.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

ASOIAF is terrible when it comes to realism, time and distance. Martin does not even bother to give dates or actual distances because it does not make sense.

The problem I find with Martin's work is that all the characters are so flawed they become unlikeable. With the exception of a couple of the children I don't care who lives or dies.

Would you mind if I asked what you meant by 'realism'? I think you're the first person I've come across who has actually said that.

That's funny! I like his characters because they're flawed. They make for interesting reading.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Would you mind if I asked what you meant by 'realism'? I think you're the first person I've come across who has actually said that.

That's funny! I like his characters because they're flawed. They make for interesting reading.

Since it is fantasy the magic is not the problem. Rather the super human childen, the super human small person, the unrealistic distances, all characters being too flawed, the incredible plot devices guys like Littlefinger need to succeed.

It's a good book and enjoyable, but you have to constantly suspend your sense of belief chapter after chapter.

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.

[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.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Since it is fantasy the magic is not the problem. Rather the super human childen, the super human small person, the unrealistic distances, all characters being too flawed, the incredible plot devices guys like Littlefinger need to succeed.

It's a good book and enjoyable, but you have to constantly suspend your sense of belief chapter after chapter.

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.

Interesting that you should say the characters are 'too flawed'. Would you call, for instance, Jon Snow or Danaerys Targaryen 'too flawed'? I think they merely act their age, and for that Danaerys actually shows some incredible backbone. Then again, I do agree that, at some level, the amount of 'nice' or at least 'vaguely kind' people are surprisingly lacking.

'you have to constantly suspend your sense of belief'. I didn't, actually, though I found the last two books somewhat contrived and thinly spread.

'then there is a problem'. Is it necessarily so, though?

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Interesting that you should say the characters are 'too flawed'. Would you call, for instance, Jon Snow or Danaerys Targaryen 'too flawed'? I think they merely act their age, and for that Danaerys actually shows some incredible backbone. Then again, I do agree that, at some level, the amount of 'nice' or at least 'vaguely kind' people are surprisingly lacking.

'you have to constantly suspend your sense of belief'. I didn't, actually, though I found the last two books somewhat contrived and thinly spread.

'then there is a problem'. Is it necessarily so, though?

I meant 'too flawed' in terms of moral character not ability. Jon Snow is a fairly good sort, but Dany is slipping.

As for their ability, this is what I mean by super children. Dany is 14, Jon is 15 and they are already leading armies, conquering cities etc. It's just not very plausible. Usually children's stories have younger characters to appeal to children. Even then they usually create some kind of excuse like a magical climate increasing the maturity of kids. Arya, Bran, Dany, Robb, Jon and others just are not believable as children.

Things like the speed characters travel great distances, the climate in the North supporting farming are small things you can ignore. It's the big plot points I struggle with. For instance why does Tyrion not kill Littlefinger? Often in the books intelligent characters have to make stupid and decisions against their established character for the plot to advance.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

As for their ability, this is what I mean by super children. Dany is 14, Jon is 15 and they are already leading armies, conquering cities etc. It's just not very plausible. Usually children's stories have younger characters to appeal to children. Even then they usually create some kind of excuse like a magical climate increasing the maturity of kids. Arya, Bran, Dany, Robb, Jon and others just are not believable as children.

Things like the speed characters travel great distances, the climate in the North supporting farming are small things you can ignore. It's the big plot points I struggle with. For instance why does Tyrion not kill Littlefinger? Often in the books intelligent characters have to make stupid and decisions against their established character for the plot to advance.

The Mughal emperor Akbar came into power when he was thirteen years old, under the supervision of regent Bairam Khan, who was himself only around sixteen when he entered Babur's service. And Akbar maintained and even expanded his empire pretty well. At first glance I see how such things can be hard to believe, but also I feel one can be surprised as to how one can grow under challenging circumstances, so Jon Snow and Dany don't come as a huge surprise to me. They have several people guiding them or telling them what to do. Having said that, I have some difficulty taking in Arya's survival skills. With the kind of life she led as the daughter of a high lord (athleticism aside), she should have died of starvation on the streets without anyone helping her. Then again, I haven't read the books in a long, long time, so maybe I'm missing something!

[Galadriel55]

What bothers me is not how young the children are, but how old they are in the TV series. There is a trend among fantasy novels to make young children do things that are not meant to be done by such young children, and many novels/series are worse than GOT in that respect. At least in GOT its mostly some charisma or character of the children, and that's partially explainable by the fact that you get married at puberty and have to know how to act as a head (or any other notable position) of the household. Noble boys are also taught how to lead people, so by puberty they would have some idea, even if not that much experience. Compare that to children of 9-15 years old who do physically impossible things. My siblings have recently been reading the City of Bones series and Percy Jackson series, both of which I have read, which reminds me once again about how these little children get to rule their world at least in part due to physical feats that are simply not performed by children. And in the Percy Jackson movie, the 12-year-olds look 17. Just like in GOT. 'Nough said.

(If I ranted away without being clear on what I'm saying, it doesn't bother me as much, but I agree that the children are a bit too grown up, but that's not as big of a deal in GOT as it is in some other books. What really bothers me is the movie adaptations.)