I hate the Starks, should I keep reading?

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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.

I'm afraid that rape, murder , and pillage is just as bad  when done by a Stark  as by  a Stark's opponent.  Martin is not giving the Starks a pass.

[kissdbyfire]

@SeanF, I didn’t know Martin had said Dany is his 2nd favourite character. Do you happen to remember whether it’s in an interview or SSM or elsewhere? I only remember Martin being asked repeatedly, “who is your favourite character?”, and it’s always Tyrion. That and some random comments about loving all the characters yadda yadda yadda.

At any rate, that doesn’t really mean much [irt Dany becoming an antagonist or not]. We all know Tyrion is his favourite, and that he has said that Tyrion is a villain, and “don’t we all love a good villain”, or something along those lines. 

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

@SeanF, I didn’t know Martin had said Dany is his 2nd favourite character. Do you happen to remember whether it’s in an interview or SSM or elsewhere? I only remember Martin being asked repeatedly, “who is your favourite character?”, and it’s always Tyrion. That and some random comments about loving all the characters yadda yadda yadda.

At any rate, that doesn’t really mean much [irt Dany becoming an antagonist or not]. We all know Tyrion is his favourite, and that he has said that Tyrion is a villain, and “don’t we all love a good villain”, or something along those lines. 

When asked, he said " Dany or Arya."  Now, all three are varying shades of grey, but I'd be surprised if he wants his favourite three to be villain protagonists.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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. 

The problem with that critique is that it treats the culture of the Slavers as sacrosanct, whereas the culture of the slaves (far more numerous) is treated as irrelevant.  I don't think we're meant to see Ghiscsari slavers as just people who have a different point of view.

What is so valuable about the Slavers' culture that it must be defended against Daenerys?

[frenin]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The problem with that critique is that it treats the culture of the Slavers as sacrosanct, whereas the culture of the slaves (far more numerous) is treated irrelevant.

 What is so valuable about the Slavers' culture that it must be defended against Daenerys?

Nothing at all, i think tho that the slavers are there to open appetite...

[kissdbyfire]

23 minutes ago, SeanF said:

When asked, he said " Dany or Arya."  Now, all three are varying shades of grey, but I'd be surprised if he wants his favourite three to be villain protagonists.

But do you remember where, like, interview, SSM, etc? 

He also likes to say that the villains are the heroes of their own stories. 

[The Young Maester]

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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.

Yeah I get that the Targaryens acted like they were gods themselves. Seeing as how they married siblings without a care in the world. But since they were the royal house I never had any problem with their proud stance against those beneath them. Although it was unethical from our standards, they are still dragon-riders in a medieval fiction. Which would make them a lot more extreme and proud than medieval kings of our own era.

I don’t think Daenerys is a threat to Westeros (yet). I do believe her coming will cause a massive migration of former slaves from Essos to Westeros, causing a lot of instability in the continent. 
But yeah when Dany arrives in Westeros I have a feeling all the nobles will turn against her, most likely because of Aegon and because she will likely be sacking a couple free cities on her way, which won’t look very appealing to the westerosi nobility. 

[kissdbyfire]

Never mind, I’ve found it. He says,

“Maybe Arya or Dany... I have a soft spot for Sam. I like them all, you know. Jon Snow, Davos... You know, the viewpoint characters especially”. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFOepy7rJw#

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Nothing at all, i think tho that the slavers are there to open appetite...

D & D certainly wanted to make the point that reformers are tyrants.  We'll see if that's the point Martin makes. 

[Alexis-something-Rose]

15 minutes ago, SeanF said:

D & D certainly wanted to make the point that reformers are tyrants.  We'll see if that's the point Martin makes. 

I think they wanted to make a point that they no longer gave a rat's ass about any of this, if they ever did, about what they put out and effed a bunch of characters on their way out. 

[SeanF]

12 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

I think they wanted to make a point that they no longer gave a rat's ass about any of this, if they ever did, about what they put out and effed a bunch of characters on their way out. 

That is true.  All the characters became pod people.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

21 hours ago, Wholala17 said:

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.

Or maybe Daenerys Targaryen will roast that Jon Snow to a tender, but crispy little nugget.  That would be awesome. 

[Wall Flower]

9 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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. 

You seem to be suggesting that the only two choices with Dany are to be flawless or a supervillain. Surely, flawed protagonist would fit better, as it would for most of the other characters.

Cersei is a fascinating character but she is a villain because she only cares about herself and those she sees an extension of herself. Like her father, Cersei sees any noble who isn't a Lannister as a threat and doesn't even see the small folk as human. She would never have been moved by the plight of slaves as Dany was and she certainly wouldn't have put her goals aside to stay in Meereen.

[ravenous reader]

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.

 

The author conceived of the ASOIAF saga on the back of a vivid, indelible image he had of the kids finding the direwolves in the snow (as well as a boy falling from a tower). The dragons were added later as an afterthought, on the recommendation of a friend. 

The upshot: the Starks are central to this 'Bildungsroman' (coming-of-age story). They have the first word -- and they will have the last.

He is partial to the Starks over the Targaryens, the latter representing everything GRRM disdains. 

Don't read any further.  And don't watch the TV series. 

[Wall Flower]

9 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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.

Whereas to me, we need to look more deeply at the actions of all the so-called noble houses, not just the Targaryens.

Westeros has been riven by years of terrible, brutal war, faces a long winter and an existential threat to human life for which the realm is utterly unprepared. None of that is fault of Dany who hasn't even set foot in the place. Why is she the big bad of the story and not those callously warring noble or the supernatural would-be slavers of humanity?

[Tyrion1991]

2 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

The author conceived of the ASOIAF saga on the back of a vivid, indelible image he had of the kids finding the direwolves in the snow (as well as a boy falling from a tower). The dragons were added later as an afterthought, on the recommendation of a friend. 

The upshot: the Starks are central to this 'Bildungsroman' (coming-of-age story). They have the first word -- and they will have the last.

He is partial to the Starks over the Targaryens, the latter representing everything GRRM disdains. 

Don't read any further.  And don't watch the TV series. 

 

The Starks are everything I disdain about High Fantasy and I think they massively detract from the series.

Let’s have some ubermen with a fetish for wolves who are “morally superior” and “uncorrupted” to browbeat everybody for not being like them. Oh but we’ll keep the whole power fantasy thing going on the quiet whilst belittling other characters for it. As long as you’re reserved about it then it’s fine. It’s not about power if you’re outwardly humble and reserved.

Let’s make all their opponents so cartoonishly evil that you don’t have to question them being Lords, supporting feudalism and being hypocrites.

In fact let’s just play down any violence that would be caused by their actions. 20,000 men on campaign in the Middle Ages without any logistics, tax base or war chest; no problem! Let’s go out of the way to justify their wars. Attrition, pillaging, maybe the odd sentence but that just gets in the way of the Stark tragedy. Oh and we’ll blame Tywin for ignoring the nights watch but we’ll pretend Rob can’t have got the message. 

Stoic and rational people have never done anything bad. It’s all those horrible emotional people who think with the heart who lead society astray. Nothing goods ever come from love and nothing bad has ever come of blind duty. 

Yeah on the last bit, I must be honest, I think I seriously disagree with this assertion George repeatedly makes in Jon’s storyline. It’s a major reason I do not like him as he’s a vehicle to push this idea. But, Duty is something war criminals use to absolve themselves of genocide. Love is something that is inherently good unless you are writing a tragic melodrama and even that’s dependent upon circumstance. I do not believe  George gives a remotely balanced appraisal of the two concepts any more than he does between stoicism and emotion (Ice and Fire). He clearly believes that stoicism, rationality and being emotionless to the betterment of others are inherently good; incapable of being corrupted. There’s never been an instance of smart and cold blooded people doing bad things or starting wars. Whereas love and emotion always lead to DOOM and the scourge of war. It’s absurd and melodramatic.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

The Starks are everything I disdain about High Fantasy and I think they massively detract from the series.

Let’s have some ubermen with a fetish for wolves who are “morally superior” and “uncorrupted” to browbeat everybody for not being like them. Oh but we’ll keep the whole power fantasy thing going on the quiet whilst belittling other characters for it. As long as you’re reserved about it then it’s fine. It’s not about power if you’re outwardly humble and reserved.

Let’s make all their opponents so cartoonishly evil that you don’t have to question them being Lords, supporting feudalism and being hypocrites.

In fact let’s just play down any violence that would be caused by their actions. 20,000 men on campaign in the Middle Ages without any logistics, tax base or war chest; no problem! Let’s go out of the way to justify their wars. Attrition, pillaging, maybe the odd sentence but that just gets in the way of the Stark tragedy. Oh and we’ll blame Tywin for ignoring the nights watch but we’ll pretend Rob can’t have got the message. 

Stoic and rational people have never done anything bad. It’s all those horrible emotional people who think with the heart who lead society astray. Nothing goods ever come from love and nothing bad has ever come of blind duty. 

Yeah on the last bit, I must be honest, I think I seriously disagree with this assertion George repeatedly makes in Jon’s storyline. It’s a major reason I do not like him as he’s a vehicle to push this idea. But, Duty is something war criminals use to absolve themselves of genocide. Love is something that is inherently good unless you are writing a tragic melodrama and even that’s dependent upon circumstance. I do not believe  George gives a remotely balanced appraisal of the two concepts any more than he does between stoicism and emotion (Ice and Fire). He clearly believes that stoicism, rationality and being emotionless to the betterment of others are inherently good; incapable of being corrupted. There’s never been an instance of smart and cold blooded people doing bad things or starting wars. Whereas love and emotion always lead to DOOM and the scourge of war. It’s absurd and melodramatic.

Well, Martin's quote about ice and fire upthread makes the point that fire is good as it represents love, while ice is bad, representing cold inhumanity.

And he was explicit that Northern soldiers committed atrocities.

[Tyrion1991]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Well, Martin's quote about ice and fire upthread makes the point that fire is good as it represents love, while ice is bad, representing cold inhumanity.

And he was explicit that Northern soldiers committed atrocities.

 

Martin can say whatever he wants, it is not the moral of the books he writes. All of the love stories in the series have ended in edgelord tragedies and are depicted as being inherently bad. The only conclusion to make is that being a workaholic who swears off girls is a good thing. That great suffering and hardship could be avoided entirely by not ever being in love. What positivity is shown is always set against that context and always a prelude to disaster. They have without exception been the cause of war, strife and death. Not a single war has been caused by people being cold blooded and rational. In George’s mind these things do not cause wars. George has the Old Bear and Aemon go out of their way to belabour this point. There’s never been a similar point made against being an emotionless drone who blindly does what other people tell you. George continuously weights the argument in favour of “duty”. Take the very first chapter. In that the NW leader is doomed because he’s a brash and headstrong young Lordling who thinks with his heart rather than heading solid elder wisdom from the stoic man of duty. That is a microcosm of what the series drives at and it never wavers from this line or offers a real counterpoint to it. Ice is depicted as inherently good because it’s stable, eternal and it keeps people alive. Fire is beautiful but it kills and always consumes itself. The subtext is that the Starks/North embody all of these values. I think George set out to satirise and go against certain recurring theme in stories; but that is not a serious appraisal. 

You think rustling a few sheep and a few rogue elements constitutes being explicit? Rob has no money, no supplies and has made no logistical preparations. He simply rounded up twenty thousand men (mostly illiterate, backwards serfs who want to get their end wet and pockets full) and took them to the Riverlands. That means his army should have been living off the land and exacting payment from the Riverlords. That means billeting soldiers on unwilling people, that means violence, rape, plunder, disease, famine. Rob stays on campaign for years in country Tywin is supposedly stripping bare, his army should have all died of attrition and disease. Soldiers in the pre modern world are the scum of the earth, they are not citizen soldiers fighting for King and Country; that’s a romantic invention of the 19th century. What George depicts is the Duke of Wellingtons army in Spain where a stern leader concerned for the locals he’s here to save can keep his men in check; this is absurd in the context of the Middle Ages. Rob should have no control over his men and would not be able to sustain his campaign so far from the North for so long without ANY attrition. But no these are the warriors heroes martyred at the Red Wedding and these Uber soldiers sent to save the Riverlands. Only the most trite criticism is given, even by the Lannister and Frey characters. Frankly the Riverlords and his own men should have killed Rob for being unable to feed and pay them.

 

[Ran]

I think OP has established that he should not continue reading, and the rest is just going around in circles. Feels like it's run its course, no?