Forums » Reading Corner » Read Thread

If that's the case, then you wouldn't like George RR Martin's books. 

Dont like meaningless death either. :P

From what I've read so far, (The first book) the deaths of main characters are few and far between. It's not like everyone just dies, it's just that there's no plot armor. Actually, there's probably a little plot armor involved, but it sure doesn't feel like it.

And the deaths certainly aren't meaningless.

Certainly contradicts what I've been told, but I think I ought to trust you on this subject.

I've only seen the show, but I dislike Martin. He feels manipulative. The char death isn't the inevitable outcome of events, it's the author delighting in upsetting the reader/watcher.  

In the name of "realism" He ruins/truncates story lines without setting up more interesting ones, and kills interesting characters without giving us anyone new to care about.

I thought the same thing before my mom blackmailed me into reading the book. It's a faux stereotype made up by philistines who don't realize the fact that just because more main characters die than usual, it means that all the main character are dying all the time. The deaths certainly aren't random either. Usually you can see it coming quite a few pages before the event, if not a whole chapter. The shock factor just comes from you not wanting it to happen. It's about as violent as Macbeth and pornographic as Leisure Suit Larry. But I haven't seen the show yet, soI don't know how true that statement is for the GoT show... Then again, I've only just started reading the second book, so I don't know whether it decreases in quality overtime and becomes the gorefest people say it is.

yeah, see, the first season was good. You're almost to the part where it goes downhill.

I think the third book is the best in the series and it has the most character death.

I don't know, I'd like to see how it could be justified that the character death isn't important to the plot / isn't predictable. Pretty much every single character who dies could have done something to prevent it if they were paying attention. This is supposed to be a deadly game and if everyone constantly survived, I think it would ruin the atmosphere.

If all of my favorite characters always escape unscathed, why should I believe the author that this political landscape is as vicious as he tells me it is?

Why don't the rules apply to Dany then?  She's a shite character on the show: a teenager's wish-fulfillment princess whose opinions always turn out to be totally correct.  Everyone who meets her inexplicably immediately falls down worshipping her awesome clearly totally righteous cause/ruling abilities. 

And now they're forcing Tyrion to bow down at the shrine of her glory.  Cause they know we love Tyrion. 

I would savage that char sheet if someone tried to make her for an RP. Ooh, she has purple eyes and dragons obey her and anybody who ever criticizes her turns out to be bad and evil and wrong.

Couldn't agree with you more, there. Dany on the show is a piece of shit that I hate watching. However, I don't necessarily think she's done enough to end up dead. As insufferable as she is, she has a tonne of allies and so even though she lives in the snake pit, she's well protected. Basically, as much as I hate her characterization on the show, I don't think it makes the show (or book) hypocritical for not killing her.

I will say that book Dany isn't nearly as shite. She endures a great deal more moral quandaries and is constantly second guessing herself.

Dany managed to massacre thousands of people at Slaver's Bay. She crucified Masters indiscriminately. She broke her deal with Kraznys and killed him and all the slavers. She ordered all the free males in Astapor to be killed.  

 Robb Stark was killed because he broke a marriage contract.

Yeah, and every time Dany kills people we're supposed to be like "yeah! That was awesome!"

Farking hell that was weak.  The unsullied are just plain stupid!  First of all, do a tiny bit of research on how many people lived in medieval cites.

second, No rational slavers would ever waste slaves like that. You're getting at best a 25% return on your investment. That's just not good business.

Third, seriously? You sold her your entire army? Everyone who deals with Dany is holding the idiot ball. 

And then of course the slave army just magically all willingly follow her because she told them they were free.

You know what would have been cool? If she'd had to make her unsullied fight a slavers army of unsullied.  Are you willing to kill the people you're ostensibly trying to rescue?

1. They're trained to obey, not to be smart.

2. Meh, I wouldn't know.

3. Well, she told them that she would give them a dragon, of which there are only three in the ENTIRE WORLD. You can always just make more Unsullied if you have to. 

I guess they thought that she was their new owner. I mean, technically the trade was made- Dany just gave the command AFTER Kraznys grabbed Drogon.

I'm rather "meh" on Dany at the moment. It really isn't her, so much as I think her goals of retaking the Iron Throne at this stage are almost sort of pointless. And if it's pointless…well there doesn't seem to be much reason to focus on whatever she's doing.

I was more invested in her character when she was hooked up with Khal Drogo, since I wanted to see a barbarian horde come over in a fleet and start wrecking Westeros and that seemed like that was going to be happening at some point in the near future, but that of course got nipped just as quickly.

She'd probably be a lot better off just staying in Essos and building an empire there and not bothering wasting any time even thinking about going back to Westeros. The place is a mess now anyway.

Remember the shitstorm that was Meereen. 

I have too much hate for one post.

Ned and Robert were cool. I want to watch the show about their rebellion against Aegon.

Robb is less interesting than Ned, Joffrey is just a joke-- every other character except Dany has layers, but he's nothing but a two dimensional evil man child.

Well, I guess I'll watch Robb & Joffrey.  Oh, okay, he's trying to make Robb a little more interesting. . .

Nope, killed by a guy we met once two years ago. Well, they killed Robb and Joffrey, and they're being replaced by. . . No one and Tommen, who is even more of a blank tapioca pudding than Robb was.

He killed most of the people I thought were interesting/ cared what happened to, and replaced them with characters who were less interesting, less nuanced, and I don't give a sh** what happens to them.

And more: he builds interest in plot lines, then truncates them abruptly and with no resolution.  Like Lucy and Charlie Brown.  Why should I care about character 242's tragic backstory and revenge quest-- he's going to die of dysentery three pages from now.

Yes, real life doesn't act like stories,  that's why we tell stories.

( all those buckshot based on a true story movies-- none of that is how reality went, we made it conform to the pattern of story.)

Because he likes to keep his readers on their toes. You know what's going to happen in almost every mainstream novel- The "good guys" win. There are way more grey characters in GoT and ASOIAF, and you never know who could die. 

You shouldn't pay too much attention to the side plots- if you do that, you'll never be able to focus on the main storyline.

Really, save for Arya, I find all the Starks pretty uninteresting and most of them are carrying the idiot ball that get themselves killed in the first place. Especially can't stand any of the stuff involving Bran. Just don't care about the whole beast master thing and it's just boring to me.

Don't get me started on Sansa. Someone I know who is a fangirl of Sansa keeps telling me how Sansa is slowly learning to become this "master game player" and will ultimately come out ahead of everyone…

And MAYBE that's how it's going to end, but so far I have not been impressed with her character or her skills at all. I get that she was supposed to start out young and naive, but I have not seen any great master "game playing" from her. Sure, she's managed to do just enough to keep from getting killed at times, but some of that was thanks in part of her being a "useful" pawn in someone else's schemes or dumb luck.

Half of the time she whines and cries about her current situation, the other half she spends waiting around for someone to come and save her like some damsel in distress.

Towards the very end of the 4th season, it looks like she might finally be living up to this master player I'm being told she's becoming, next season she's basically just the Bolton's whipping girl, rather than the Lannisters. Wow. Big difference in her character.

I used to like the Lannisters a lot more, but with Tywin dead, Tyrion exiled, Jamie not acting like a dick anymore and Cersi just completely losing her shit and not really thinking anything through, I don't really care what happens to their house anymore. (Still like Tyrion though)

Oh god yes!!

Would've at least liked to see it as Sansa tried to use her new manipulation/social skills, & it just doesn't work on Ramsay cause he's crazy.

Also, what happened to Baelish??  He was all "love you, Sansa, gotta check on Cersei"

Then he disappeared for the rest of the season?! His brothels are being wrecked by the faith & he's not there; Sansa's being abused by the Boltons & he's not there. Where'd he go?

I've never heard that complaint before. It's usually that he's in too many places at once for continuity to make sense. He's probably traveling.

I was wondering what happened to the Greyjoys.

Granted they're a bit silly with their whole "Pay the Iron Price, we do not sow Ragh!" viking theme, but I would have at least liked to have seen a single  follow up scene with Asha taking control of the house, since Baelon is supposed to be dead.

In the books, they have multiple POV characters and huge plans and they still play a big part. Totally excised from the show so I have no idea what will happen with them.
 

I was a little confused at first about how the economy was supposed to work in the Iron Islands.

I mean they make a big deal about just taking what they want rather than paying for it with actual money, and that works if you're just a roving horde going from place to place, but not so great for long term Empire building if everyone is just doing their "trading" by running merchants through with a sword. Even the mongols had the locals run the businesses of the places they conquered while they went off and did the "fun" aspect of war.

But then I figured it was just Baleon being a fanatic about things and the thugs that would rather raid rather than fish for a living.

My assumption is that there are slaves on the island who mine iron which they have plenty of. The rest is achieved by raiding. However, can everything you need really be raided? Do they raid gold and then spend it? Some unanswered questions there.

None of his countries make political or economic sense.

http://www.businessinsider.com/game-of-thrones-westeros-economics-2015-4

Note sure, it seems like there was some thought put into the economics of GoT. A lot of this video is based on quotes from the books.

I'm no economic expert though.

Well, I can at least see the rest of them working since they all seem to be at least based on some sort of feudal society and the specifics of how some things work isn't elaborated on because it's not the focus of the story.

The Iron Islanders though seem more like Wildlings with shipbuilding skills rather than any sort of proper kingdom.

Moved because I derailed the thread!

This thread got too messy for me to reply easily.

Basically, I agree that Dany's opponents weren't intelligent. You might consider that a flaw in the writing, but I think that complacency could definitely happen to rich overlords who haven't faced real opposition in their entire lives. That being said, Dany has behaved in such a fashion that she's really annoying, but I don't think that not killing her is necessarily plot armor. She's literally always surrounded by guards.

As far as Joffrey as a 2D character. You do know that he's a genetic fuck-up right? It's actually a common theme with Westerosi inbreeding. The Mad King suffered from the exact same plight. Beyond that, there is historical precedent for rulers almost exactly like him, so it's not as if he's an unreasonably artifical character.

I stopped liking feudalism long before this came about :P

But...the dragons were nice tho.

I still really want the series to end with a panned out view of King's Landing (Whoever wins the damn throne) and then a clear blue sky, then the continent of Westeros, then the world and then it ultimately shows that everything did in fact occur in the eye of a blue eyed giant named Macumber.
 

I want the whole thing to be a parable for global warming. Everyone ignores it because they're too busy with the economy and politics and then everyone dies. Literally, the north just comes south sweeping across the land and kills literally everyone as it descends into an ice age.

Then the last page is just this web address: http://www.ipcc.ch/

I think the reason that a lot of people think Dany is shit on the show is for the same reason all the Twilight characters become shit(tier) in the movies: All the characterization goes on in her head. If you take it strictly from a dialogue standpoint, she doesn't actually say or do that much other than agree, be somewhat waifish, scream, and talk to Sir Jorra. I think the longest time she's actually defined her own character was for a few paragraphs when she told those damn dirty horse guys to stop raping.