Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Quoth the raven,

GRRM speaks. Rolling Stone Interview 2014

Recommended Posts

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-242487/

I find the interviewer's observation encompass what A Song of Ice and Fire is all about.  

Quote

primarily a story about power and family, about the disastrous nature of both war and the human heart

The desires of the human heart drive the plot towards disaster.  

Quote

I knew at a very early age that we were poor. But I also knew that my family hadn’t always been poor. To get to my school, I had to walk past the house where my mother had been born, this house that had been our house once. I’ve looked back on that, of course, and in some of my stories there’s this sense of a lost golden age, where there were wonders and marvels undreamed of. Somehow what my mother told me set all that stuff into my imagination.

Sounds like the story of Viserys and Daenerys to me.  George and Daenerys goes on to build their own success from the longing of their respective family's past glories.  George and Daenerys are self-made successes.  

Quote

I wasn’t a complete pacifist; I couldn’t claim to be that. I was what they called an objector to a particular war. I would have been glad to fight in World War II. But Vietnam was the only war on the menu.

Our beloved author is not a complete pacifists.  I'm relieved to know that.  

Quote

I find it amusing, and secretly pleasing, that I have so many fans who are interested in the history. I’m not sure if they would so eagerly study real history, you know? In school perhaps they’re bored with all the Henrys in English history, but they’ll gladly follow the Targaryen dynasty.

Quote

I want there to be a possibility of redemption for us, because we all do terrible things. We should be able to be forgiven. Because if there is no possibility of redemption, what’s the answer then?

I guess we can expect some of the baddies to go through a redemption arc.  The question is, who?

Quote

It’s always the question, when you’re at war, do you do whatever it takes to win, or do you actually maintain your own moral standard and ideals? Should we be waterboarding people? What if we get valuable information that saves our lives? Well, even so, aren’t we compromising ourselves? But if it prevents another 9/11, is torture worth it? I don’t know, but it’s a question worth asking. Do you commit horrible crimes to stay alive so your side should win?

The red wedding saved more lives than it took.  It ended Robb's Rebellion before it can do more harm.  Nexit (Robb's exit plan for the North) is not in anyone's best interest for survival.

Quote

But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

I'm very partial to the Targaryens because I love Dany.  To me, this is a validation that Robert was wrong to send that assassin and Robert deserved to get drilled by the bore.  

Quote

What the hell were we fighting for? Why did all these millions of people have to die? Was it really worth it to get rid of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that we wiped out an entire generation, and tore up half the continent?

Robert's Rebellion did more harm than good.  In my opinion.

Quote

Men are still capable of great heroism. But I don’t necessarily think there are heroes. That’s something that’s very much in my books: I believe in great characters.

So there you go.  The answer to a recent poll on heroism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quoth the raven, said:

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-242487/

I find the interviewer's observation encompass what A Song of Ice and Fire is all about.  

The interview was verra interesting.

Thanks for sharing the link.

I find martins answers to the interviewers questions interesting.

2014, approximately four to five years ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quoth the raven, said:

I'm very partial to the Targaryens because I love Dany.  To me, this is a validation that Robert was wrong to send that assassin and Robert deserved to get drilled by the bore.  

Robert isn't a main character so the focus isn't on him as the story moves along. The focus switches to what Daenerys does with the slave masters and what Jon does with the wildlings. Both are the orcs, post-war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I opined on George Martin's idea of heroes in a recent thread and thought he is being cynical.  

 It seems I may have assumed a little too much.  Thank you for sharing his thoughts.  He's not cynical and nihilistic.  He has a story he wants to tell and he wants to be original.  Nothing wrong in that.  He likes grey characters and builds a system within the story whereby the fallen can redeem themselves.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

Look at that. Half a decade ago. 

Yeah, give or take a few months.

That is a snark about martins ambiguous ASOIAF time line.

Edited by Clegane'sPup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Artimicia said:

GRRM is an unreliable narrator himself, that's really all there is to say.

Pretty much.

 

 

One of the central questions in the book is Varys’ riddle:

The rich man, the priest and the king give an order to a common sellsword.

Each one says kill the other two.

So who has the power?

Is it the priest, who supposedly speaks for God?

The king, who has the power of state?

The rich man, who has the gold?

Of course, doesn’t the swordsman have the power?

He’s the one with the sword – he could kill all three if he wanted.

Or he could listen to anyone.

But he’s just the average grunt.

If he doesn’t do what they say, then they each call other swordsmen who will do what they say.

But why does anybody do what they say?

This is the fundamental mystery of power and leadership and war through all history.

Going back to Vietnam, for me the cognitive dissonance came in when I realized that Ho Chi Minh actually wasn’t Sauron.

Do you remember the poster during that time?

WHAT IF THEY GAVE A WAR AND NOBODY CAME?

That’s one of the fundamental questions here. Why did anybody go to Vietnam?

Were the people who went more patriotic? Were they braver? Were they stupider?

Why does anybody go? What’s all this based on?

It’s all based on an illusion: You go because you’re afraid of what will happen if you don’t go, even if you don’t believe in it.

But where do these systems of obedience come from?

Why do we recognize power instead of individual autonomy?

These questions are fascinating to me. It’s all this strange illusion, isn’t it?

 

 

 

Edited by Clegane'sPup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Artimicia said:

GRRM is an unreliable narrator himself, that's really all there is to say.

On purpose.  He wants to keep the reader off-balance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Robert isn't a main character so the focus isn't on him as the story moves along. The focus switches to what Daenerys does with the slave masters and what Jon does with the wildlings. Both are the orcs, post-war. 

Daenerys is willing to forgive the former  slave masters if they are willing to stop slavery and give her sincere cooperation.  Those are very generous terms. 

Jon has already chosen to side with the wildlings.  They're his people now.  A more accurate question for Jon = what will Jon do with Bowen Marsh and the brothers who knifed him.  Does Jon recognize that he was wrong and forgive them?  His history says he's very unforgiving.  Look how he handled Janos Slynt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Quoth the raven, said:

Daenerys is willing to forgive the former  slave masters if they are willing to stop slavery and give her sincere cooperation.  Those are very generous terms. 

From what Xaro says the former masters are now plowing her fields for her without wages. Some are probably pissed not because they lost their slaves but because they're now doing the work that their slaves did. She simply inverted the hierarchy and didnt understand how that would come across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 6:34 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

Are you the same Quoth the Raven that has achieved a degree of infamy in certain investment/automotive forums?

I am not.  I lost more money than I've ever made on the stock market.  You do not want my financial advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

From what Xaro says the former masters are now plowing her fields for her without wages. Some are probably pissed not because they lost their slaves but because they're now doing the work that their slaves did. She simply inverted the hierarchy and didnt understand how that would come across.

Xaro is not exactly unbiased and more than capable of bending the truth.  Those slave masters deserve to get back what they had been giving all those many years.  If that is actually happening then it's a fair punishment.  These former slavers support the Harpy.  That's the equivalent of supporting the KKK.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Quoth the raven, said:

Xaro is not exactly unbiased and more than capable of bending the truth.  Those slave masters deserve to get back what they had been giving all those many years.  If that is actually happening then it's a fair punishment.  These former slavers support the Harpy.  That's the equivalent of supporting the KKK.  

She confirms that's what is happening in her conversation with Xaro. This isn't race-based slavery, it's modeled after the Greek system of conquest. 

If she's not paying people a wage to work in the fields, that's slavery.

Even if it looks like justice, it's a very dubious version of justice, and readers are well within the rights to debate it.

Not to mention how she undermines the cause of abolitionism with a policy like that. Therefore, she is not an abolitionist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×