Post originally by Castigator at 2003-09-03 04:22:52
Converted from Phorums BB System
"The evil enemies in the book are really not all that evil. In fact, many of the supposed evil characters are CHILDREN!!!! I found it really difficult to like the protagonists in the book as they continued to do supremely stupid things at every turn. The characters we are supposed to hate aren’t actually all that evil. Plus, Martin’s portrayal of children in this book is totally unbelievable. I know that in the old times kids were supposed to grow up fast, but come on! Kids barely in their teens leading armies and beating experienced intelligent adults? What message is Martin trying to give here? That children can be inherently evil, and then they should be off-ed? Kids are way smarter that adults? Noble blood beats experience every time?"
Well, most of Martin´s Characters are inspired more or less by the english war of the Roses, and yes, protagonists were not much older back than...
As an Example, Edward - the Black Prince":
1330-76, eldest son of Edward III of England. He was created duke of Cornwall in 1337, (Age 7) the first duke to be created in England, and prince of Wales in 1343 (Age 13). Joining his father in the campaigns of the Hundred Years War, he established his reputation for valor at the battle of Crécy (1346) (by leading the army at 16 years).
It was apparently the French who called him the Black Prince, perhaps because he wore black armor; (since well before the battle of Crécy) the name was not recorded in England until the 16th cent.
In 1355 the prince led an expedition into Aquitaine, and in 1356 he defeated and captured John II of France in the battle of Poitiers .
Just the same, Martin does not try to portray a battle of good vs. evil.
Neither children nor other protagonists are supposed to be evil or good in any sense it is commonly used in fantasy literature.
If your looking for a Hero and a Villain, you will most defenitly be disappointed by George R.R. Martins books.
If you go at it with an open mind, your in for one of the best fantasy series ever written.
Post originally by Castigator at 2003-09-03 04:27:11
Converted from Phorums BB System
BTW..
Not to discredit the reviewers opinion, but in the first paragraphs he laments about the many clichees and stereotypes of fantasy and in the second half he complains about the parts were Martin (successfully or not) broke from standard fantasy clichees and stereotypes.
What message is the author trying to convey here?
"The evil enemies in the book are really not all that evil. In fact, many of the supposed evil characters are CHILDREN!!!!"
I say it again, there are no evil characters in the book! Even the undead have a unique purpose and motivation.
If you cope with that, read another book.
Post originally by Bryant at 2003-09-03 04:40:15
Converted from Phorums BB System
You made a lot of really good points regarding the Lannisters, the old King, Ned Stark, and so on. I think that what you're missing is this:
Martin put the ambiguity there on purpose. He's not trying to write evil characters, or even good characters; he's writing about people who sometimes do praiseworthy things and sometimes don't.
If you insist on the characters being evil, you'll be disappointed, because Martin's not writing evil characters.
Post originally by Obi-Wan Quixote at 2003-09-03 06:02:46
Converted from Phorums BB System
Others here don't want to invalidate the reviewer's opinion, but I'm perfectly willing to do so.
As another poster said, the review contains a dissonance: It accuses the author of overusing fantasy cliches and later castigates the author for not embracing those cliches.
When the reviewer contemptuously summarizes the book, he ignores much of what sets the book above other fantasy:
a) Epic feel. This is a "first book." That means that Martin -- the author -- is setting up his pieces. Crafting the board, if you will, for the game that follows. Many fantasy series (e.g. Xanth, Sword of Truth, Blood and Stone) introduce new fantasy elements in each book without providing context for them in previous books. Sword of Truth, for example, makes no mention of the "Old World" in the first book, yet this entire world suddenly springs into existence in the second novel in the series. In _Thrones_, however, Martin has set several plots in motion: The Northern menace. The war for succession. The final heirs of the old throne. The travails of the Starks. A smart reader can tell that Martin plans to bring all these plots together in future volumes. He's set his guns in place in this novel. By the end of _Storm of Swords_, the third novel in this series, many of those guns have been fired.
b) Character perspectives. Martin tells each chapter from the perspective of a different character. After a while, we settle into six to eight regular perspectives. Each of these characters comes at the conflict from a different view, or from a different place. Even those on the same side have their own agenda. By carefully choosing which characters will tell us the story, Martin has created a situation in which we simultaneously understand and don't understand the action. Through Catelyn, we gain some insight into her son Robb's actions. But we don't gain total insight, a storytelling decision that lets us guess at what motivates one of the main characters.
c) Well-developed characters. None of the characters in this book is a cardboard cutout. To an extent, you can reduce each character to a sentence or phrase. However, if you're willing to read the book rather than turn your nose up at "cliches," you'll see something much, much deeper than the one-sentence summaries. Eddard Stark, for example, is the "northern lord." While his lack of political acumen could be interpreted as a certain shallowness of character, we find that, plunged into court, he must slowly adapt himself to political gamesmanship. That journey -- from strong warrior to inept courtier. And Martin delivers a harsh lesson on adaptability when Stark loses his head.
I don't think this reviewer gave the book a fair chance. Instead, the reviewer has allowed himself to become so jaded that he ignores quality epic fantasy when it presents itself.
Granted, it's hard to develop a taste for good fantasy literature with some of the pap that's out there, but trust me when I say that _Thrones_ is one of the good ones.
Post originally by whollyrandom at 2003-09-03 06:28:50
Converted from Phorums BB System
I have to agree with Bryant. There are few characters in the books who are depicted as simply and genuinely evil.
Even Tywin Lannister, who could easily be shown as utterly evil, is given some justification for his actions (in book three) and even for his otherwise really quite unpleasant treatment of his dwarfish son Tyrion.
Even Joffrey, who is for the most part a thoroughly monstrous little turd, is portrayed with more sympathy than he probably deserves (he has very little concept of good and evil, so how can you REALLY blame him?)
I've finished book 3, not moved onto 4 yet, but already we see significant changes, characters who until now have been morally unsalvageable changing their behaviour significantly and characters who are supposedly 'good' performing some fairly unpleasant deeds ...
Post originally by Luke Silburn at 2003-09-03 06:43:26
Converted from Phorums BB System
Wow, not sure where to start with this.... I really liked this book and clearly you didn't (which is your perogative) - but your review *really* overlooks what Martin is driving at and, as such, I think betrays a fundamental misreading of the book on your part.
To address some of your specific points in more detail:
1 Plot Summary - leaving aside the sarcasm and snippy asides this is a good summary. However early on you claim that the plot is simple but then you expend a large part of your review ploughing through the various events and effects upon the numerous major and minor characters. I think maybe this indicates that the plot isn't quite as simple as you think it is.
2 Overabundance of sub-plots - the book *is* very long and could have been noticeably slimmed down if the northern zombie and southern (actually eastern) barbarian exile sub-plots had been cut. Viewed from the perspective of this single volume these sub-plots don't really go anywhere and I can see how you'd find them an annoying distraction (the Danerys segments especially). The problem however is that this book is the first volume of a fully plotted out six part series and you'll have to trust me when I say that, having read the four volumes published so far, they are utterly necessary to the overall story arc.
Related to this is the large number of protagonists that Martin uses for his story and the round-robin, one-chapter-each structure he adopts. This can be problematic for the reader and again its a valid criticism of the writing (although you only make it tangentially). The structure is pretty much forced upon Martin by his decision to write a sprawling, multi-plotted, epic series however and on the whole I think you have to do give credit to Martin that he manages to pull such a challenging writing assignment off at all.
3 Credible children - you find it incredible that characters such as Robb Stark are leading armies in their teens. You concede that children supposedly grew up faster back then yet you still don't buy it. Sorry, but you are off base on this point - medieval knights frequently embarked upon their first campaigns in their mid-teens (Henry V fought his first battle aged 15, the Black Prince was 16 when he led a division of the English army at Crecy) and nobles engaged in political intrigues at a similarly precocious age (Edward III led a coup which involved breaking into a royal castle and arresting his mother's lover at 18). The historical model for Robb Stark (Edward IV ) led a successful rebellion, winning three significant battles in quick succession and ultimately the throne aged 18. Robb Stark's precocity as a warleader is unusual (this is remarked upon by various characters who assume he will be a figurehead for the northern alliance rather than an actual General) but it is by no means unprecedented.
4 'Evil' villains vs 'honourable' heroes - a large part of your plot summary and subsequent negative conclusions seems to be centred on the fact that the antagonists aren't as evil and the protagonists aren't as good as they're 'meant' to be. You think that this is a bad thing and makes the book weak. This is where I think you really go off the rails.
The simple initial response to this is that I think you are exagerating for effect in your synopsis; the 'bad guys' actually do do quite a lot of bad things (incestuous adultery, murder, assault, treason, oathbreaking etc) and are mostly unsympathetic characters - cruel, arrogant, predatory and deceitful even where they aren't mentally unstable sadists (as Joffrey quite clearly is, although he doesn't get much screentime to demonstrate his batshit craziness in the first book). In contrast the 'good guys' tend not to do bad things as their default, reflex response to a situation and are for the most part sympathetic characters (honest, friendly, caring, thoughtful etc).
The more complex and accurate response however, is that fundamentally you are correct but you seem to overlook that this is entirely intentional on the part of the author. Martin *wants* you to be questioning the situations, characters and events and drawing your own conclusions about what is going on in this book. He is taking genre conventions and tropes, provoking an 'I am supposed to think these characters are evil' reaction in the reader and then subverting these genre-driven responses through plot exposition and character revelation.
- Yes the queen is set-up as a manipulative, treacherous bitch (in fact she *is* a manipulative, treacherous bitch) but she is also trapped in a loveless, political marriage to a man who is a boorish, drunken thug who treats her abominably and has reasons (petty and vindictive reasons for the most part but still reasons) for what she does.
- Yes the king set up as a jolly, lusty 'Good King Robert' type (think Richard IV in the first Blackadder series) but it quickly becomes clear that he is a boorish, drunken, thug; a lousy father and husband and a pretty lousy king when it came to the boring but necessary stuff of being a ruler. He is also a once-valiant knight who earned the friendship of Ned Stark and was a heroic leader in a rebellion that overthrew a tyrannical madman (although this is by no means the whole story - as is revealed in the later books).
- Yes Ned Stark is set up as an honourable, honest, caring family man who commands the genuine loyalty and affection of his following; but these admirable personal qualities mean that he lacks the machivellian steel required to hold the kingdom together during the succession crisis. His refusal to dirty his hands in the mucky trade of politics to scotch the queen's treason (and incidently save his life and family) results in a catastrophic descent into civil war and untold misery for many people across the seven kingdoms.
I put it to you that these and the many other examples of characters and situations where things aren't clearcut and black/white are actually a good thing; a sign of strong writing and evidence of a desire in the author to transcend or subvert the cliches of the fantasy genre in interesting and thought provoking ways.
Your repeated assertions that characters are 'meant' to be evil or 'meant' to be good shows that you are aware of the genre buttons that Martin is pushing. Your complaints that actually things aren't so clear cut shows that you are paying attention to what is happening and refusing to let those genre buttons dominate your reaction to the book. What I find interesting (and what has provoked this lengthy rebuttal) is that you fail to close the loop on this and recognise that the negative reactions you have based so much of your criticism of the book upon are actually what the author is trying to achieve.
Post originally by Vishanti at 2003-09-03 06:46:18
Converted from Phorums BB System
...wow.
I guess that's one way to look at the book. Maybe. Sorta.
There is so much in this review that's wide open for debate, but I don't want to get into a point-by-point argument with Mr. Bigelow.
I would like to say, however, that I had a very different reaction to the novel.
Where Mr. Bigelow sees stupidity and cliches, I see characters struggling in strange environments. I see parochial attitudes clashing with personalities that just don't exist back home. I see the tragic results of jumping to action without trying to understand the other guy.
I think Martin is brilliant with his depiction of "happily ever after." The fairy-tale, romantic adventure happened years ago. We're looking at the aftermath.
Guess what? All those daring heroes who saved the day are totally unsuited to running a kingdom at peace. Completely different skill set. It's painful watching them crumble under the stress, never thinking to cultivate allies who could cope with the new job description.
But that would be unheroic.
I'll readily admit that Martin isn't for everyone. He's created a wonderfully complex world of details...and he keeps track of all of them...and they all are important. Every problem has its cause and follows logically from that cause. Every character has a motivation and believably follows that motivation. Every action has repercussions, often beyond what anyone expects.
I am delighted by _A Game of Thrones_ and think the Song of Ice and Fire is the best writing I've read in years.
Don't be put off by Mr. Bigelow's claims of critical reading or by his invocation of the dreary David Brin. Read a few chapters for yourself. You may well be pleasantly surprised.
Linear Mode
