116 replies to this topic

[Melpomene]

Mmm, I don't really fancy generalization of fans.



If you are a Sansa/Cersei/Dany fan, then you must be an over the top feminist.

If you are anti Sansa/Cersei/Dany, then you must be a mysogonist.


It isn't really that appealing when someone says something, then someone replies with a " OMG Lol, just wait until those crazy fans come in and attack this thread for that"


That sort of mindset peeks around a little bit around here. Obviously liking characters is a lot more complex than that and 99% varies more greatly then just two set categories   I guess it just feels like a pain of the butt that I'll be labeled some over the top feminist just because I like the later Sansa (Mind you, I dislike Cersei, and growing disapointed in Dany)


I also have a pet-peeve where people would actually insult each other over fictional characters. Everyone has the right to disagree or agree, and engage in a variety of different opinions, but to actually truly insult another living human being over a fake one? Seriously folks!

[another bastard]

"Bad-assed" is my personal pet peeve, for exactly the reasons the OP explains.

[butterbumps!]

cementing one's point with "it is known."

badassed as a description of why a character is awesome or should rule the 7 kingdoms is starting to give me apoplexy.

Edited by butterbumps!, 03 May 2012 - 02:11 PM.

[eyeheartsansa]

Errant Bard, on 03 May 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

Your definition of Fantasy is narrow. For one one thing even TOlkien doesn't have any Jon or Dany. It doesn't come with the territory, nothing does but the inclusion of a secondary world.

depends on what aspects of Jon you are referring to.  Obviously there is no direct parallel, since this is a completely different world and a different kind of story.  You can't deny that Jon and Dany have any number character traits that are common to lots of fantasy protagonists, including Tolkien's.

Most fantasy protagonists are either orphaned or have some mysterious heritege.  Frodo, Randal Thor, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, Jon Snow, you get my drift.

My point is that there shouldn't be a problem with this, but it seems to bother some readers.

Quote

badassed as a description of why a character is awesome or should rule the 7 kingdoms is starting to give me apoplexy.

I'm having flashbacks from some Dany thread.  To lots of us, 'baddass' is just another word for awesome.

I think we all agree that there are lots of awesome characters that shouldn't be rulers.

Quote

cementing one's point with "it is known."

Yeah.. it is known.. that this is annoying.

Edited by eyeheartsansa, 03 May 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Apple Martini]

butterbumps!, on 03 May 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

cementing one's point with "it is known."

badassed as a description of why a character is awesome or should rule the 7 kingdoms is starting to give me apoplexy.

I agree with both of these.

In the books, "It is known" is usually punctuation for a phrase that you know is nonsense.

And if "badass" was the best descriptor of a quality ruler, Robert would have been a success. Even within the story, I don't know how or why "badass" is seen to be, empirically, a "good" thing. Robert was a badass and a lousy king. Maegor I was probably a badass. Daeron I was a badass and was dead at 14. You know who probably wasn't a badass? Jaehaerys I. Or Aegon III. Or Daeron II. Or Aegon V. Why, it seems like some of the best Targ rulers were actually anti-badasses.

[butterbumps!]

haha-  yea.

I'm surprised you haven't yet addressed the issue of Targ fireproofing.  I got the sense badass to me, was "but Targs are fireproof" to you.

[Howling Mad]

I'm ok with the use of the abbreviations they are easy to figure out with a little work.  My pet peeve is the use of big fonts to emphasis a point.  We can all read so there's no compelling reason to figuratively through your argument in my face.

[Thunderfist]

Apple Martini, on 03 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

I agree with both of these.

In the books, "It is known" is usually punctuation for a phrase that you know is nonsense.

And if "badass" was the best descriptor of a quality ruler, Robert would have been a success. Even within the story, I don't know how or why "badass" is seen to be, empirically, a "good" thing. Robert was a badass and a lousy king. Maegor I was probably a badass. Daeron I was a badass and was dead at 14. You know who probably wasn't a badass? Jaehaerys I. Or Aegon III. Or Daeron II. Or Aegon V. Why, it seems like some of the best Targ rulers were actually anti-badasses.

butterbumps!, on 03 May 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

haha-  yea.

I'm surprised you haven't yet addressed the issue of Targ fireproofing.  I got the sense badass to me, was "but Targs are fireproof" to you.

But the fact that all Targaryens are totally fireproof is what makes them such badasses

It is known

[Night Gathers]

When someone spells the name of characters wrong, ones that appear from time to time that is. (Jacquen, Caleesi, Geoffry for instance) I understand that it can be hard knowing the real name if the books they read were translated, but still.

Edited by Night gathers, 03 May 2012 - 02:55 PM.

[Errant Bard]

eyeheartsansa, on 03 May 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

You can't deny that Jon and Dany have any number character traits that are common to lots of fantasy protagonists, including Tolkien's.

Most fantasy protagonists are either orphaned or have some mysterious heritege.  Frodo, Randal Thor, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, Jon Snow, you get my drift.

My point is that there shouldn't be a problem with this, but it seems to bother some readers.

Oliver Twist is also orphaned.

There should be a problem with it it when it's trite, badly written and/or incongruous/inconsistent with the setting. It often is.

I see no problem with people pointing that Dany got "plot armour" and had the world dumbed down for her convenience. Or that Jon getting named LC was full on stupid. It's not a matter of Fantasy, it's a matter of writing a believable and consistent story. You can have a Fantasy story without the hobbit farmer being named general in chief instead of Faramir, or without some orc being inept and giving you armies of automaton soldiers.

[eyeheartsansa]

Quote

There should be a problem with it it when it's trite, badly written and/or incongruous/inconsistent with the setting. It often is.

I guess.. there is just so much badly written fantasy out there, so lumping GRRM with the rest of it, to me, is just barking up the wrong tree.  You can nitpck, but at the end of the day you have to agree that he is damn good, or else you wouldn't be in this forum.  There may be isolated moments of triteness here and there, or self-indulgent prose that slows down the story, but but nothing to really upset me.

Quote

Or that Jon getting named LC was full on stupid. It's not a matter of Fantasy, it's a matter of writing a believable and consistent story.

Jon as LC is consistent with George giving his characters more power and thus more challenging obstacles.  GRRM at least created a complex and believable scenario to allow for Jon's rise as LC.  The changing political climate with the arrival of Stannis, Sam's manipulation, Jon's general reputation and high birth, and information on Janos Slynt's shady dealings in KL were good enough for me.  And I don't think anyone envied Jon's big promotion either.  There was nothing easy about any of it.

And Dany's 'dumbed down world,' was equally if not more challening and complicated than Jon's.  If you really think Essos is 'convenient,' I have to question how closely you've read those chapters.

Edited by eyeheartsansa, 03 May 2012 - 03:25 PM.

[Lyeder]

The acronyms.

[butterbumps!]

I'd like to defend certain acronyms, if I may.  For some reason, I find "Rhaegar" really clumsy to type.  It usually takes me 4 revisions to get that word into a legible form.  Though, this is probably a pretty dumb excuse now that I look at it.   But it feels very tedious to have to spell out "If Rhaegar and Lyanna begat Jon is true...", especially because it seems to be a universally known acronym on the boards, and the first pinned thread is called "R+L=J."   Still, I think it's usually more helpful to introduce something by it's full name at the beginning of a post and abbreviate later, like you do in academic or legal writing.  (The party of the Night's King, hereafter referred to as NK...)

[Lyeder]

Maybe there could be a  sticky thread with the list of acronyms somewhere? There are just so many! (I use some myself, like those for the books, but others are really difficult, like Sansan - never thought of it before reading this forum)

[Faint]

"Agency" and "Mary Sue" and its variants.

[eyeheartsansa]

'Agency?'

[Patchface12]

Yeah, I agree with a ACoK. I too have a dirty mind. Even the other abreviations for the stories I'm not overly fond of (tho I have done it)

I just like to say Thrones, Clash, Storm, Feast, and Dance. It sounds much better to me that way

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

Lyeder, on 03 May 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Maybe there could be a  sticky thread with the list of acronyms somewhere? There are just so many! (I use some myself, like those for the books, but others are really difficult, like Sansan - never thought of it before reading this forum)

Good news, everyone!

I have no problem with the abbreviations, it's just so much easier to say:

blah blah blah, if R+L=J, of course

than:

blah blah blah, assuming the theory that states that Jon Snow is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark is correct, of course

As for it is known --- I thought everybody used it when they'd just said something completely nonsensical or something that clearly is not known..?

edit: bbcode fail

Edited by Howlin' Howland Reed, 03 May 2012 - 04:36 PM.

[jblair]

Sorry, I think "R+L=J" is an absolute necessity, jargon or not. It implies an entire theoretical framework that must be understood to put a post in context. If you don't know the theory, the post will make little sense to you.

[Sofia Aillard]

Lyeder, on 03 May 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Maybe there could be a  sticky thread with the list of acronyms somewhere? There are just so many! (I use some myself, like those for the books, but others are really difficult, like Sansan - never thought of it before reading this forum)

Oh God (old ones), another post that I have to open the "abbreviations for noobs" thread to understand!!! Foreigners all around are adding that to favorites...

Here it is, Lyeder (don't ever leave home without it again!)

http://asoiaf.wester...tion-for-n00bs/