I hate the Starks, should I keep reading?

[HexMachina]

6 hours ago, JNR said:

I recall the first time I read AGOT being amused at how virtually all the Stark kids, at some point or another, ran from a room, their eyes wet with tears they feared others would notice.

"Weepy little freaks," I said to myself.

Fortunately, GRRM pushed them into a storyline where horrible things happened so often, they ran out of tears.

Well Bran at least did and will do very little running from rooms, eyes wet with tears or not

[kissdbyfire]

10 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Well Bran at least did and will do very little running from rooms, eyes wet with tears or not

I know a lot of people dislike Bran, but he’s high up there for me, top 5.

I can’t pick just the one, sorry. 

[Lord Varys]

Don't understand how one can dislike 'the Starks'. 'The Starks' are not a collective block. It is a rather strange thing to dislike all members of a particular family.

I agree that a lot of Stark POV chapters are pretty boring - pretty much all of Bran's until ADwD, basically, a lot of the Arya and Sansa chapters that were about boring stuff, too (traveling nowhere, the fifth time Sansa talked to Dontos, etc.) but I, for one, had never any issues with those characters.

And like pretty much any reader I really hoped Robb would kick some Lannister ass. Now Bran and Arya are finally among the most interesting characters in the series, and Sansa has a lot of potential, too.

As for this discussion about the First Men - we will very likely that those men were the worst butchers in the history of Westeros. There is a reason why the Others still want to eradicate mankind like they were a plague.

[The Mother of The Others]

Yeah i don't have a glowing opinion of the first men based on the references to them.   Nobody even knows enough about them to really be pro or anti.  They displaced the natives, and the text doesn't glorify that.  The fate of the Children taps into our guilt.  So i don't see the favoritism of first men you spoke of.    The books didn't give the impression we should approve of them.  They just were.   A bare bones skeleton of a myth that evokes misgivings.  

George seems much more obsessed with Targs.   The Targs had greatness, then like the numenorean kings their line faltered and produced some inferior rulers.   It happens.    Why would we expect them to be consistently awesome forever?   Was the incest supposed to have no cumulative effect on them?   We know more negatives about them simply because we know more about them than the first men.  If ice & fire humping is a fix for the targ insanity so we get true dragons like danny again, let's get these magic bloodlines a-humpin' !    What i'm saying is i really don't know how to predict the ending after all this time. And that's what's fun!   I can easily see some kind of targ restoration without jon, or with jon, with aegon, or without aegon, or does petyr succeed in putting sansa in the throneroom as queen, or does an Other claim the throne as all fades to black?  Is there a path for Stannis yet?  Everyone rolls their eyes, but i can still squint and see things lining up in his favor.   In a normal story you'd have to give Starks a...what....80% chance of pulling off a comeback?  But this story has taught me the errors of having any expectations like that.  It might still be as high as 51% Stark, 49% Targ, but I hesitate to even say that.  At every turn, this has been the story of Stark extinction, and the tide ain't turned yet in any real way.   It seems like a great series to read if you dislike Starks.  They're gittin the bejesus punished out of em.

I don't like the king in the north deal either.   It's one of those chain of consequences things the north didn't choose out of the blue, only after....you know.  It's not an ideal situation, and northerners know it.   They didn't seek out the situation.  Not this generation, anyways.  Aside from refusing to roll over.  Were they supoosed to roll over?   Accept the crown's abuse?   Ned gave in, killed Lady, and then became a Lady.  (Not in the Varys crossdressing sense, but as an example of how the north was screwed if they gave in too.)

[Axell Redhand]

I mostly just lurk here, but this thread caught my attention as being, more than most others, sort've absurd on its face. It feels very much like a person that has chosen a particular character they like (possibly for nebulous or imagined reasons) and certain themes they want explored, and are now angry that the character and themes may not prove central to the story. Essentially, it's a complaint of "George Martin is not writing fan-fic for me."

I've read this thread very carefully to see if there was something I'm missing, but I'm not finding it. There's just.. weirdly concocted reasons for disliking the Starks which should really be problems one has with the entire concept of fantasy fiction. "I don't like medieval politics, therefore the Starks are the worst characters."  It doesn't even begin to make any sense. I'm -almost- convinced that this is purely a trolling thread. On the off-chance it's not:

Stop reading. You don't like or even understand the story. Try Dragonlance. Those books, many of which are fine stories by talented authors, seem more up your alley with much more clearly delineated good guys and bad guys and more focused stories with fewer main characters that you're asked to empathize with.



 

[shameeka]

Don't worry, Someday I'm sure someone will write fantasy series that is just to your liking!

[HexMachina]

13 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I know a lot of people dislike Bran, but he’s high up there for me, top 5.

I can’t pick just the one, sorry. 

Top 3 here too, i was just in a bit of dark humour frame of mind  

[teej6]

6 hours ago, Axell Redhand said:

I mostly just lurk here, but this thread caught my attention as being, more than most others, sort've absurd on its face. It feels very much like a person that has chosen a particular character they like (possibly for nebulous or imagined reasons) and certain themes they want explored, and are now angry that the character and themes may not prove central to the story. Essentially, it's a complaint of "George Martin is not writing fan-fic for me."

I've read this thread very carefully to see if there was something I'm missing, but I'm not finding it. There's just.. weirdly concocted reasons for disliking the Starks which should really be problems one has with the entire concept of fantasy fiction. "I don't like medieval politics, therefore the Starks are the worst characters."  It doesn't even begin to make any sense. I'm -almost- convinced that this is purely a trolling thread. On the off-chance it's not:

Stop reading. You don't like or even understand the story. Try Dragonlance. Those books, many of which are fine stories by talented authors, seem more up your alley with much more clearly delineated good guys and bad guys and more focused stories with fewer main characters that you're asked to empathize with.

Couldn’t have worded it better. 

[JNR]

14 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Well Bran at least did and will do very little running from rooms, eyes wet with tears or not

cough

Quote

He had gone to the stable first, and seen his pony there in its stall, except it wasn't his pony anymore, he was getting a real horse and leaving the pony behind, and all of a sudden Bran just wanted to sit down and cry. He turned and ran off before Hodor and the other stableboys could see the tears in his eyes. That was the end of his farewells.

I really think GRRM just forgot, while writing chapters, how many times he had used this particular device of characterization, invariably with Starks.

But, as I said earlier, he soon let it go.   By the end of ACOK Arya in particular has gone through hell and has developed far past such a problem.

[teej6]

14 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I know a lot of people dislike Bran, but he’s high up there for me, top 5.

I can’t pick just the one, sorry. 

I like Bran too. I haven’t found his chapters boring. In fact, I found his initial chapters quite moving. I do hope he remains sweet and doesn’t lose his humanity though. At this point in the books, I can’t see him, or BR for that matter, having any darker motives. Bran is still a child in many ways. His crush on Meera makes him all the more endearing. Meera is another wonderful character that gets overlooked. Jojen has his greendreams to assure him but Meera, on the other hand, is just going along on the word of her brother. She’s such a strong and selfless character and I want so much more for her than to just be a babysitter for her brother and Bran.

[teej6]

21 minutes ago, JNR said:

I really think GRRM just forgot, while writing chapters, how many times he had used this particular device of characterization, invariably with Starks.

But, as I said earlier, he soon let it go.   By the end of ACOK Arya in particular has gone through hell and has developed far past such a problem.

Yeah, the Arya chapters had a bit too much of her having to hide her eyes welling up with tears. There’s also the “I never asked for this” line or some version of it repeated by different characters. I recently read it in a reread of a Quentyn chapter. I’m sure Stannis and Jon has some version of this sentiment in their chapters. Didn’t Ned and Robert also say/think this line?

[Foot_Of_The_King]

I’m one of the few people on this forum who truly enjoy’s every character in these novels. The different “camps” I see in the fandom is something I can’t understand. If the character is written well (and most are) then I like them. 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

On 6/12/2019 at 7:14 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

So I didn’t come into the series because of these characters. I came in because of Daenerys and the Game of Thrones plot line; which only very partially involves the Starks. 

I honestly only really liked early Sansa (I think it’s increasingly obvious the character is heading down a grim dark path) and the rest were either boring like Arya/Bran or actively offended me like Jon. 

Should I keep reading? 

I know that the final book was meant to be called a Time for Wolves and the theory that Jon might be Rhaegars son. These things suggest that the series is built upon Stark fan service which would involve pushing aside other characters which I am more invested in.

For example, I actually don’t like the King in the North and Northern Independence thing. It feels forced, rammed down my throat and nationalism is kind of evil. The expectation that I should be rooting for this is disconcerting. Why are they more important than peasants in the Westerlands? Why is their society and culture set on a pedestal? I am not impressed.

So far I can keep reading because there’s enough characters, plot lines and all the Starks are weak with no real power. I am essentially ignoring their existence. Once that changes though and they all become major players I think it will be very difficult for me to carry on with the series. Frankly I skipped most of Jon, Arya and Brans chapters, skim reading them at best. I truly don’t care about them at all. In the case of Jon, even the authors best efforts to paint him in a positive light only increase my disdain and contempt for him.

 

You are not the only who hates the Starks.  I don't that like that family.  The Red Wedding took them down a step or several.  I don't like their chapters because I don't like the Starks.  They're a family full of hubris. 

A Dream of Spring replaced A Time for Wolves.  Maybe GM decided to give the Starks a less happy ending.  The titles is a clue to me that the story will end while it's still winter but near the season change.  The Starks are ice so it is possible they will lord over a kingdom of winter and corpses.  Just remember that ice is the biggest threat to the living.  But we will get reassurance in the end that the reign of ice will end when spring arrives. 

I read the books because the dragons, Dany, the plight of the slaves, the River Lands, and Dorne greatly interest me.  I don't care what happens in the north. 

 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

On 6/12/2019 at 8:42 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Because of the plot involving the intrigue at Kings Landing, the war, Tyrion and Daenerys story. Basically those two carry the series. Plus, we have a very strong supporting cast in Theon, the Lannister’s and the Baratheons. When you don’t have that (Jon and Bran) the story does suffer. That subsequently gets expanded upon with more POV and I can ignore Bran/Arya storyline until something relevant happens.

But it’s not carried by the Starks in of themselves or because GRRM sells the Northern Cause. The plot takes precedence over the characters with regard to the Starks. 

I don’t like them because I feel like Iam being told to like them. Which doesn’t feel earned. Especially with Jon. I am not impressed by a brooding young man with a chip on his shoulder. There’s also this surreal quality to all the Starks. They feel like they’ve been dropped from a Disney movie into this grimdark world rather than part of it. Which I find jarring and it breaks my immersion. Plus I don’t like how George sets the Northern cause on a pedestal.

Agree

[Daemon of the Blacks]

For what its worth I'm not particularly fond of the Starks either. A lot of people think their mistakes are just being ''too food for this sinful Westeros'' but I just find them poor leaders who find their own personal desires and sense  of honor more important than the people they are leading. Ned had it all. A golden ticket to win the game of thrones, to prevent a war and take power or at least establish order so he could return home to Winterfel. And whether Robb married Jeyne to protect her honor in the book or married Talisa for that sweet Volentine ass he knew it would have a detrimental effect on the war, just as he knew he had the option to take Karstark hostage rather than kill him and lose his troops. 

When starting at the books I was a bit shocked how unlikable Ned turned out to be. I already didn't fully agree with his sense of morality since he felt preventing a war was less important than the ''honorable'' course but in the books he also very clearly and openly contentious of Baelish who as far as Ned knows hasn't dome anything to deserve it yet and who isn't as openly corrupt as he's in the show. His treatment of Jaime also rubs me the wrong way. ''You served him when serving was safe'' he sneers at Jaime in the show despite probably realizing fully well that serving the mad king was never safe. And in the books his treatment of Jaime still stems from a massive amount of hypocrisy. To Ned Jaime deserves to lose his honor because he's a kingslayer who broke his vows. But what exactly was Ned planning to do when he set out for Kings Landing? Kindly ask King Aerys for a cup of tea? Just pat him on the back for a war well fought? Offer exile? Probably not. Would Ned find himself a horrible kingslayer if the Lannisters hadn't beaten him to the capitol? And why is Jaime reprehensible for breaking his vows to the king but not Ned himself, his pall Robert and Papa Jon Arryn? He tells Robert that unlike Jaime they weren't Kingsguard but that excuse rings very hollow. 

I don't really begrudge the Stark's main status and screentime though. It really does make sense to pick the moral team and make them the main characters and the situations the Starks find themselves in are often fairly interesting. 

[Tyrion1991]

On 6/15/2019 at 8:41 AM, Axell Redhand said:

I mostly just lurk here, but this thread caught my attention as being, more than most others, sort've absurd on its face. It feels very much like a person that has chosen a particular character they like (possibly for nebulous or imagined reasons) and certain themes they want explored, and are now angry that the character and themes may not prove central to the story. Essentially, it's a complaint of "George Martin is not writing fan-fic for me."

I've read this thread very carefully to see if there was something I'm missing, but I'm not finding it. There's just.. weirdly concocted reasons for disliking the Starks which should really be problems one has with the entire concept of fantasy fiction. "I don't like medieval politics, therefore the Starks are the worst characters."  It doesn't even begin to make any sense. I'm -almost- convinced that this is purely a trolling thread. On the off-chance it's not:

Stop reading. You don't like or even understand the story. Try Dragonlance. Those books, many of which are fine stories by talented authors, seem more up your alley with much more clearly delineated good guys and bad guys and more focused stories with fewer main characters that you're asked to empathize with.



 

 

I think the preface mentions outright that I picked up the show and then the books on the recommendation of Danny’s storyline. Not sure how that’s some kind of reveal.

They are not nebulous or imagined reasons. She is one of the most iconic characters in the series. There’s a reason she became the face of the show and George got a prize for her Qaarth story.

That depends on how you define central. Dany is a central character and probably will be until the final book. Her themes are largely extensions of what George does in the other plots. Just better and more interesting. The issue is more to do with her possibly going down like the Hindenburg to force the ultimate Stark victory. Which I did not sign up for reasons I’ve already went into.

I am pretty sure I also mention liking the Game of Thrones part in the story. The Starks aren’t really involved in this. Jon is at the wall, Arya is in the Riverlands and Bran is becoming the God Emperor of Man on his Weirwood Throne. So not sure where you got the “don’t like political drama from”. It’s absence is what hurts the Starks. Not the other way around.

I am not sure how you read “Jamie and Theon are my favourites” and got that I like a morally black and white story. The fact that I don’t like the white as a white horse on unbroken snow Starks would suggest otherwise.

I believe I listed the earlier itinerary of stuff I read. Where they are all big series with loads of characters. Never had a problem with them and never said that I did. There’s a lot more books and characters in WoT than Ice n Fire. 

Plus we aren’t talking about plot and characters I do actually like here. 

As regards tone, I can take or leave the grimdark. What matters is if I get invested and care. If you don’t care, then it doesn’t matter if it’s tragedy or a power fantasy; apathy is the only result. 

 

 

 

[The Mother of The Others]

4 hours ago, Daemon of the Blacks said:

To Ned Jaime deserves to lose his honor because he's a kingslayer who broke his vows. But what exactly was Ned planning to do when he set out for Kings Landing? 

The treatment of Jaime is Professional Jealousy!   The rebellion had seen lots of their friends die on the way to get to that king and ultra spank him....and now they're denied their moment of truth at the end, the deposing of the king that all the rest of it was leading up to?!  And the person who "deposed" the king had cheated like a coward traitor untrustable frenemy, sidling up to the king effortlessly and breaking vows to gank Aerys and steal everyone else's hard earned victory.  And then the spectre of Jaime seated on the throne, the idea that a person who just did this feels like maybe he should be in charge now, perhaps negating the entire need for Robert's Rebellion to stay?!  Like, if there'd been more of a delay and Lannisters had gotten dug in at KL, would the lions have told Robert he "wasn't needed there, the problem's taken care of.  Good day to you!   Off with you now."   Hell no, said Ned.   Jaime's sayso wasn't going to outshout the main usurpers, because how could they trust such a person at all, ever.   No.  Better to villify Jaime as an unworthy power grabber, not allow him credit for the kill that saved KL, because then he'd outshine Ned and Robert and Arryn, and the people might champion Jaime over the real rebels.   Also....after the fact.... it's very convenient to have a scapegoat.  Robert's reign doesn't have to carry that stain of regicide on it going forward.

 

The Starks had grown soft in their own way.  Summer Starks.  That's why Boltons were able to do this to them.   Starks have diminished like everyone else.   Does that help anybody to sympathize with them?  No?  Okay.  Thought I'd give it a try.  Yeah, Bran and Sansa and Arya chapters can be slow going.  But also can feature castles burning and sudden murdering, so it's like a box of chocolates.

[The Fattest Leech]

On 6/14/2019 at 1:01 PM, JNR said:

I recall the first time I read AGOT being amused at how virtually all the Stark kids, at some point or another, ran from a room, their eyes wet with tears they feared others would notice.

"Weepy little freaks," I said to myself.

Fortunately, GRRM pushed them into a storyline where horrible things happened so often, they ran out of tears.

I started rereading/listening just this past week (brain bleach, basically) and for the first time I also noticed how each of the Stark children were in tears. Anyway, just nice to see when others pick up what you think you’ve noticed as well 

[Bowen 747]

The only Starks that I dislike are Sansa and Jon.  Tbh,, I skimmed over a few of their chapters.  I don't like Jon and Sansa.  Arya and Cat were not that bad to read.   I am not a fan of Arya but I can read through her chapters most of the time.   Bran's chapters are the best of a bad lot.  He at least had supernatural magic.  I would not read these volumes were it not for Dorne and Essos.  I am a Daenerys fan and will continue to read because I want to know what happens with her and her entourage.  So be it if I have to endure a few chapters from Sansa and Jon.  

[The Sunland Lord]

On 6/14/2019 at 8:00 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

All this King if the Nurth, just increases my contempt for them even as it’s intended to make me root for them. It makes them feel out of place and untrue to the world. I can’t believe that Neds kids could be that sheltered from the real world.

It's not intended for anyone to root for them. If it caused you contempt them, then it's OK, because, it causes people to react differently. 

On 6/14/2019 at 8:00 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

To go down the list:

-  George acts like Iam supposed to think of Jon as a young Aragon but he’s done nothing to warrant that and it makes him feel generic. Iam not impressed. If he went through what Theon and Jamie did he would break a hundred times over.

The author doesn't act like you should think this way or that way. It's contradictive to claim so because in your case it's easier to say that he acts like you shouldn't be impressed, simply because you're not. It caused that effect exactly, didn't it?

On 6/14/2019 at 8:00 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

He’s introduced as a jock with a chip on his shoulder. He’s bland and lacks the flaws and conflicts which make, say, Theon or Jamie so compelling. He also has plot armour a mile deep and the whole “he’s the true heir” is offensive to me because that means Dany getting the throne taken away from her by somebody who has done absolutely nothing to earn it. He has achieved nothing and deserves to amount to nothing.

Daenerys did nothing to earn respect in Westeros. She is in Essos and nobody in Westeros is compelled by her simply because she is absent from the continent.

Jon is but a brother of the Night's watch, dead, or in a coma, probably to wake up again. It is not revealed if he is an heir to anything, be it made by Robb or Rhaegar.