I hate the Starks, should I keep reading?

[SeanF]

14 hours ago, Elegant Woes said:

Except I am not. I had a feeling we would get a Dark!Dany way back in 2014 after I read the Meereenese blot essays, and GRRM has approved them. Besides George has always been upfront about the true role of Daenerys. 

A Song of Ice and Fire takes place in a fictional world, primarily on a continent called Westeros, and additionally on a large landmass to the east, known as Essos. Three main story lines become increasingly interwoven: a dynastic civil war for control of Westeros among several competing families; the rising threat of the Others, who dwell beyond the immense wall of ice that forms Westeros's northern border; and the ambitions of Daenerys Targaryen, exiled daughter of the deposed king, to return to Westeros and claim her throne. 

Notice how Dany is described in the same way like the White Walkers? Dany was never supposed to be a 'savior', she's just as much an existential threat like the Others. Dany/Dragons = Fire. The Others = Ice. Plus George also always said the dragons are basically a sentient version of weapons of mass destruction. The signs of Dany being the final antagonist was always in our face. 

 

Based on the original poem by Robert Frost, ice is hate, and fire is desire, but it is also potentially destructive.  So, ice and fire are not equal and opposite threats.  One is an unambiguous threat, the other can be good, but has the potential to cause destruction (the second probably sums up Daenerys pretty well).  The most obvious difference between the Others and Daenerys is that the former can wipe out humanity, whereas even the worst ruler cannot.  Daenerys is Martin's second favourite character;  nowhere is she placed in the same category as the Others.

This is what Martin said:-

" People say I was influenced by Robert Frost's poem and of course I was.  Fire is love, fire is passion, fire is sexual ardor and all those things.  Ice is betrayal, ice is revenge, ....you know that kind of cold inhumanity that plays out in the books."

The role of dragons is much more ambiguous than just being an allegory for WMD (bear in mind too, that Martin has always said that WWII, waged with WMD was worth fighting).  The climate of Westeros deteriorated when the last of the dragons died, so their reappearance should result in better harvests.  Dragons are likely to play some important role in the fight against the Others.

 

[SeanF]

On 12/23/2019 at 9:16 AM, Elegant Woes said:

@Dothraki Khal Dany is absolutely a main character. Without her and the Targaryens the story would fall flat. However just because they play a big role in the story doesn't inherently mean they are good people. In a way the Targaryens remind me of the Gaunt family from Harry Potter. A severely inbred family that has a special connection with reptiles and disturbing allegory to racism. If we look it at that then Dany is basically Voldemort. She's the final antagonist of ASOIAF and the Targaryen family will end with her. 

There are no good families or bad families in this series.  There are good and bad individuals, and sometimes the divide between good and bad runs within individuals.

As for Daenerys being Voldemort, well...........come on.

[SeanF]

On 6/13/2019 at 12:14 AM, 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.

 

I don't view nationalism as evil, but one would expect that the experience of a common enemy that can wipe them all out, in the form  of the Others, would bind the people of the Seven Kingdoms together, rather than driving them apart.

[SeanF]

On 6/19/2019 at 12:10 AM, HelenaExMachina said:

Nighteyes 

Hobb’s non-human characters are just as well done as her human ones. You can tell how much she loves animals

Nighteyes is my favourite wolf in literature.

[Elegant Woes]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

There are no good families or bad families in this series.  There are good and bad individuals, and sometimes the divide between good and bad runs within individuals.

As for Daenerys being Voldemort, well...........come on.

Sure there are some good Targaryens, I like a couple of them, but as an entity the Targaryen are really off putting. Their belief in exceptionalism and blood purity reminds me too much of fasicism. And though I enjoy Dany as a character she is too much of a white savior for me to truly like her. Last but not least the way Aegon and his sistsr-wives started attacking Westeros remind me too much of the British Empire terrorizing the world. With so many negative allergories you can't say the Targaryen family are the same as the other houses. The Targaryen family is one disturbing beast. 

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, Elegant Woes said:

Sure there are some good Targaryens, I like a couple of them, but as an entity the Targaryen are really off putting. Their belief in exceptionalism and blood purity reminds me too much of fasicism. And though I enjoy Dany as a character she is too much of a white savior for me to truly like her. Last but not least the way Aegon and his sistsr-wives started attacking Westeros remind me too much of the British Empire terrorizing the world. With so many negative allergories you can't say the Targaryen family are the same as the other houses. The Targaryen family is one disturbing beast. 

All the Great Houses outside Dorne comprise white-skinned people who believe their bloodlines and their descent entitle them to rule.  And who would disapprove of any of their number marrying the Smallfolk.  The Targaryens were just the most successful among rival imperialists.

[Elegant Woes]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

All the Great Houses outside Dorne comprise white-skinned people who believe their bloodlines and their descent entitle them to rule.  And who would disapprove of any of their number marrying the Smallfolk.  The Targaryens were just the most successful among rival imperialists.

Even if we throw out colonialism allegory out of the window, you still cannot deny the fascism imagery that surrounds the Targaryen family. The Targaryens believe themselves to be above law and men because of their Dragon blood and they practice incest to preserve that. On top of that the family produces a lot of tyrants. A lot of people suffered under them. So no they aren't nearly as successful as you seem to believe they are. 

[SeanF]

33 minutes ago, Elegant Woes said:

Even if we throw out colonialism allegory out of the window, you still cannot deny the fascism imagery that surrounds the Targaryen family. The Targaryens believe themselves to be above law and men because of their Dragon blood and they practice incest to preserve that. On top of that the family produces a lot of tyrants. A lot of people suffered under them. So no they aren't nearly as successful as you seem to believe they are. 

I see the Targaryens as being fairly typical of royalty, throughout history.

[James West]

It's been a good story for the readers who don't like the Starks. Jon Snow just died in the last book. I don't like the Starks and I have been liking the story so far. But yes, the story would go downhill for me if something bad happens to my favorite Targaryen, Dany.

I don't foresee a happy ending for the hapless Starks, tbh. At least not the crazy ass ones like Jon and Arya. They are hard to kill and will continue living in the form of direwolves. 

[The Young Maester]

11 hours ago, Elegant Woes said:

Even if we throw out colonialism allegory out of the window, you still cannot deny the fascism imagery that surrounds the Targaryen family. The Targaryens believe themselves to be above law and men because of their Dragon blood and they practice incest to preserve that. On top of that the family produces a lot of tyrants. A lot of people suffered under them. So no they aren't nearly as successful as you seem to believe they are. 

Thats just the general mindset of a ruling dynasty. Back in the middle/renaissance era, all royal houses considered themselves chosen by God himself. Making them something akin to semi-gods (mortal semi-gods). This sort of arrogance and pride is or was normal for royal houses.

But to be fair towards the Targaryens, they are pretty much above all noble houses by both blood and stature. They are the blood of valyria and are dragon-riders.

And about the tyrants. The only kings akin to tyrants were Maegor, Aerys, and possibly Aegon the unworthy. All the others were either good kings or just bad kings but not tyrants. 

[Wholala17]

On 12/23/2019 at 9:24 AM, Jeeves said:

You're allowing the show to influence your prediction.  The two, book and show, are not the same.  Jon and Arya are the villains of the story.  Jon is the fuckup who brought down the defenses of the wall because he couldn't keep to his duties.

When Jon skewers the villain Daenerys Targaryen in ADOS, people will lose their minds. Can't wait! Just 59 more years to go til the series is complete guys! 
 

oh wait, y'all probably gonna be dead by then.

[Wholala17]

On 12/23/2019 at 2:00 PM, Elegant Woes said:

Except I am not. I had a feeling we would get a Dark!Dany way back in 2014 after I read the Meereenese blot essays, and GRRM has approved them. Besides George has always been upfront about the true role of Daenerys. 

A Song of Ice and Fire takes place in a fictional world, primarily on a continent called Westeros, and additionally on a large landmass to the east, known as Essos. Three main story lines become increasingly interwoven: a dynastic civil war for control of Westeros among several competing families; the rising threat of the Others, who dwell beyond the immense wall of ice that forms Westeros's northern border; and the ambitions of Daenerys Targaryen, exiled daughter of the deposed king, to return to Westeros and claim her throne. 

Notice how Dany is described in the same way like the White Walkers? Dany was never supposed to be a 'savior', she's just as much an existential threat like the Others. Dany/Dragons = Fire. The Others = Ice. Plus George also always said the dragons are basically a sentient version of weapons of mass destruction. The signs of Dany being the final antagonist was always in our face. 

 

Any Dany fans who don't see this by now are in for a rude awakening.

you know, I think they are better off not knowing the book ending. He's probably gonna write her death and downfall more brutally in the books anyway. At least they didn't mutilate her in the show. Who knows about George lol.

 

[Wholala17]

2 hours ago, Dr. Miguelito Loveless said:

It's been a good story for the readers who don't like the Starks. Jon Snow just died in the last book. I don't like the Starks and I have been liking the story so far. But yes, the story would go downhill for me if something bad happens to my favorite Targaryen, Dany.

I don't foresee a happy ending for the hapless Starks, tbh. At least not the crazy ass ones like Jon and Arya. They are hard to kill and will continue living in the form of direwolves. 

I don't see a happy ending for Daenerys. Can't wait til Jon skewers her.

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, Wholala17 said:

Any Dany fans who don't see this by now are in for a rude awakening.

you know, I think they are better off not knowing the book ending. He's probably gonna write her death and downfall more brutally in the books anyway. At least they didn't mutilate her in the show. Who knows about George lol.

 

Given that Martin has said she's his second favourite character, compared her to Aragorn, and writes her very sympathetically, that may not be the outcome.

And, if Jon skewers her, that's a wretched end for Jon, as well as Daenerys.  The kinslayer is cursed by gods and men in this world.

[Rose of Red Lake]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Given that Martin has said she's his second favourite character, compared her to Aragorn, and writes her very sympathetically, that may not be the outcome.

I think he's using her as a white savior critique of cultural outsiders taking over the natives and becoming a messiah to them, in the tradition of Frank Herbert and Joseph Conrad. I'm sure both authors also ranked Paul and Kurtz as favorites as well, but favor seems like "my unique creation," not in the sense of agreeing with everything they do or having them be the goodest good person to ever good. I'm pretty sure Dany represents something more interesting than Amazing Woman Fights Baddies. Some people clearly see her flaws and stan her as a supervillain anyway. Readers who like Cersei already have a head start on this. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

13 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Thats just the general mindset of a ruling dynasty. Back in the middle/renaissance era, all royal houses considered themselves chosen by God himself. Making them something akin to semi-gods (mortal semi-gods). This sort of arrogance and pride is or was normal for royal houses.

But to be fair towards the Targaryens, they are pretty much above all noble houses by both blood and stature. They are the blood of valyria and are dragon-riders.

And about the tyrants. The only kings akin to tyrants were Maegor, Aerys, and possibly Aegon the unworthy. All the others were either good kings or just bad kings but not tyrants. 

But Targaryen entitlement and superiority is next level among the royal houses. Targaryens didnt believe they were chosen, they believed they were gods, which is setting up even more delusion. The bigger they are the harder they falland the Starks are the underdogs.

I just don't agree with this normalization view that comes up. It seems like an excuse so that any time Daenerys dials it up to 11 its just "normal" behavior for nobility. Dany pillaging like Khal Drogo may also be normal for warlords in Mongolia but like...so what? She's still a main threat to Westeros, which is a statement from the author himself. These points just seem like an unwillingness to run a deeper analysis of this character or House on the whole so that Dany can be the hero played straight. It's like an addiction to savior tropes.

[Mystical]

33 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

She's still a main threat to Westeros, which is a statement from the author himself.

I can't believe that even needs to be said at all. Dany has dragons, THE END. That's all you you need to come to the conclusion that she is a threat. Those things are weapons of mass destruction. What was the saying in the books? 'Dragons plant no trees.' Enough said.

[Wholala17]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Given that Martin has said she's his second favourite character, compared her to Aragorn, and writes her very sympathetically, that may not be the outcome.

And, if Jon skewers her, that's a wretched end for Jon, as well as Daenerys.  The kinslayer is cursed by gods and men in this world.

George isn't writing a story that will fulfill your hopes and dreams for Dany or his "second favorite character" (where'd he even say this?). He probably doesn't care about whether we think it's wretched or whatever. This world is built on realism, and that's how George wants to separate ASOIAF from generic fantasy stories where the heroes get happy endings and live happily ever after. Sometimes wretched things just happen. That's reality. That's life. Getting his head chopped off was a wretched ending for Ned. Are you complaining?

say what you want about the people who wrote the show. George told them his ending. You and I, we don't know anything. they do. 

[SeanF]

40 minutes ago, Wholala17 said:

George isn't writing a story that will fulfill your hopes and dreams for Dany or his "second favorite character" (where'd he even say this?). He probably doesn't care about whether we think it's wretched or whatever. This world is built on realism, and that's how George wants to separate ASOIAF from generic fantasy stories where the heroes get happy endings and live happily ever after. Sometimes wretched things just happen. That's reality. That's life. Getting his head chopped off was a wretched ending for Ned. Are you complaining?

say what you want about the people who wrote the show. George told them his ending. You and I, we don't know anything. they do. 

But D & D say they came up with Jon killing Daenerys in Season 3, before Martin told them the ending.  I accept, they may be liars.

Sure, if you like pointless endings to stories, enjoy it.  Most of us won't.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Mystical said:

I can't believe that even needs to be said at all. Dany has dragons, THE END. That's all you you need to come to the conclusion that she is a threat. Those things are weapons of mass destruction. What was the saying in the books? 'Dragons plant no trees.' Enough said.

Well, you have to pretend that Martin is a pacifist who thinks injustice will end non-violently (despite his repeated comments on war) to say so.  Martin is not Ghandhi.