Jump to content

Does Enjoying GRRM Make Us Sociopaths?


Cantabile

Recommended Posts

You said "books" not "stories."

Actually you said books, I said stories.
It's perfectly possible for a book to be good without any particular story being told (and again, ASOIAF is a good example of this).

:shocked:

Do you seriously think there isn't any particular sequence of narrative events unfolding in ASOIAF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, there's a "sequence of narrative events." There's one on nature documentaries, too. But ASOIAF's isn't a very great deal more than a series of "shaggy dog stories;" if there's an overarching story being told, it isn't a part of canon yet and likely won't be in the next decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, there's a "sequence of narrative events." There's one on nature documentaries, too. But ASOIAF's isn't a very great deal more than a series of "shaggy dog stories;" if there's an overarching story being told, it isn't a part of canon yet and likely won't be in the next decade.

Whaaat, there's definitely an overarching story. The first chapter of AGoT thrones sets it up:

WINTER IS COMING.

And with it, the Others. Azhor Ahai(sp) is going to come and kick their asses. That's the real overarching plot. The rest of it is, who is Azhor Ahai reborn, and when are the damn Others going to kill Sansa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it isn't a part of canon yet and likely won't be in the next decade.

"Winter is coming" is an aphorism; it has not been shown, and neither have The Others, apart than two (?) isolated skirmishes. Azor Ahai is a myth, a fairy tale. Nothing is yet at all clear.

Is there a ton of material to speculate about? Sure. But all this is just that, speculation. Who knows, maybe your dog will be just shaggy enough, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the thoughtful responses. It's nice to have finally found an online community of mature and intelligent people :)

I also agree with the post about entertainment like Saw: in my mind there's a huge difference between stories where morbidity is a flavor of the story, as opposed to being the main dish itself. Art for art's sake is all well and good, but morbidity for morbidity's sake is more than a bit disturbing to me.

I feel like there's somewhat of a rift between the virtues of morbidity in storytelling though: many enjoy the trials and tribulations of a character because not only dues it add that third dimension of realism to the the two-dimensional medium of ink and paper, but it allows them to experience even greater pleasure when the character overcomes the conflict, as opposed to if they were spoonfed happiness and deus ex machina the entire time. From this point of view Mufasa's death was fine because in the end Simba triumphed. If the tale had ended instead with Scar killing Simba, and Mufasa's death being in vain, then ...

On the other hand though, there's those that enjoy the morbidity for what it is, without any expectation that the character will later overcome their hardships and experience any joys.

I understand the latter tastes, since I have no problem at all with tragic endings, and never have any expectation that there is a silver lining to any of the storm clouds, but can people with the former explain their point of view a little so I can understand? To use another post's SoIF example: if the series truly did end with the characters you've been rooting for dead, why do you think it would leave such a bad taste in your mouth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it is more how and why they die that matters.

If they die in-character, as the result of miscalculations of their own or others making or sheer bad luck (in reasonable doses) I don't mind at all. I've never felt that characters (or Houses) have been harshly dealt with or punished by GRRM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Winter is coming" is an aphorism; it has not been shown, and neither have The Others, apart than two (?) isolated skirmishes. Azor Ahai is a myth, a fairy tale. Nothing is yet at all clear.

Not only has it been shown since the very beginning of book one that the Others are the true threat, you get reminded of it constantly in Jon's and Sam's POVs. Are you forgetting the reason of Mance's attack on the Wall, or the wights trying to kill Mormont in book one, or Mel's endless talking about AAR, or the comet, or Bran's dream, and the Fist of the First Men? Obviously the Others and AAR are the overarching plot. In fact, all evidence points to AAR NOT being a myth. Are there still questions left unanswered? Yes. But it's pretty self-evident that there is an over-arching plot. As another person said, it's right in the title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait.

Why does the "story" have to be the overreaching plot. Other vs AAR (and we even don't know yet if the Others are THAT evil but whatever).

Even Tyrions bed adventures are a story. So I don't quite get how it is possible to have no story in a book. If I write a book about 32 POV's who eat something weird, then I have 32 stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Ha. Perfect!

So...would a sociopath enjoy dark literature? I'm not really sure. I mean, for me, I enjoy that it makes me sad, angry, etc., and a sociopath wouldn't feel any of those things, right? Would they even care about Ned?

Are we prone to depression? Well, I haven't seen any data, but I do think levels of depression are higher around these parts then they are in the general population. But as for all of that, Tears said it best, what can I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...would a sociopath enjoy dark literature? I'm not really sure. I mean, for me, I enjoy that it makes me sad, angry, etc., and a sociopath wouldn't feel any of those things, right? Would they even care about Ned?

I think they would, you have to remember sociopaths possess empathy - "the intellectual identification of the thoughts, feelings, or state of another person" (they can understand others emotions), and extreme narcissism. A sociopathy doesn't care about other people's emotions. That's what makes sociopaths such good manipulators, they possess the ability to read emotions that we all do, but they're unrestricted in what they can do with that information.

That is to say, a sociopath could enjoy definitely enjoy a novel, but probably for different reasons. They can recognize the emotions of characters - but they don't give a hoot, what they can recognize is themselves in characters - narcissism. A sociopath would enjoy Littlefinger because he would project himself onto Littlefinger, while he wouldn't give a crap about Ned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that lack of empathy is one of the defining features of sociopathy.

Thus, I think they'd get frustrated with the character-driven aspects of ASOIAF, because we're expected to identify and sympathize with the characters in their plights, and a sociopath would be incapable of that. They might still enjoy the intricate plotting or the gruesomeness, but I'd expect them to like less character-driven works (mysteries, thrillers and so on) more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha. Perfect!

So...would a sociopath enjoy dark literature? I'm not really sure. I mean, for me, I enjoy that it makes me sad, angry, etc., and a sociopath wouldn't feel any of those things, right? Would they even care about Ned?

Sociopaths certainly do feel anger quite regularly. The often get very angry when their plans are thwarted or someone figures out they've been lying to them and confronts them about it.

A complete sociopath probably wouldn't care about Ned, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Lyanna said. And also: we like to experience stuff vicariously. We would rather read about people having a terrible time in order to 'see how it feels' than experience it for ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

What makes you say that?

Lack of Vitamin D.

No seriously, it just seems like that to me. But then I forgot how prevalent depression is in the general population also.

Anyway, to the OP, what about Russian literature for Christ's sake? But I suppose the OP's wife raises a good question - why is it so much easier to wring meaning out of tragedy as a writer than it is out of happiness? Why does meaning wrung out of happiness end up seeming schamltzy, in the genre wherein Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants is an epic masterpiece - is taking the dark route the "easy" way out for an author?

ETA: Also, what's interesting to me about the OP's wife's reaction, is that she's clearly trying to process feeling betrayed by the author - which is totally what GRRM intentionally did, as we all know. We all, though, apparently liked it, whereas her brain is apparently having a really hard time resolving the conflict inherent in feeling like the author betrayed you (which, by the way, the author only could have done if you really, really got sucked into the book, i.e. loved it). So tell your wife to resolve her cognitive dissonance in a healthier fashion - you don't have to "hate" the entire genre of dark fantasy because you feel betrayed by the author, and pick up the next book already, now alert to the possibly that any convention could be broken at any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When so much of the world population seems so content with generic tales where the good guy always wins and lives happily ever after with his princess, what gives us such a fine appreciation and joy for dark literature?

I am not sure about the statistics and personally I like equally both comedy and tragedies. (if we shall divide tales like that at all)

Are we prone to depression? Well, I haven't seen any data, but I do think levels of depression are higher around these parts then they are in the general population. But as for all of that, Tears said it best, what can I say.

I think (also never checked) that the most famous and popular songs, plays, symphony etc., are in minor mode. (That is to say a bit depressing if you ask me.) People love sad music.

To some extent ASOIAF might be compared with Rhaegar Targaryen (and his Harp):

- Melancholic, enchantingly beautiful, enigmatic and mysterious;

- Considered to have been promised;

- A dream almost unattainable and hopeless but still easy to fall in love;

- Heartbreakers; Mostly liked and sometimes deadly hated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of 'happy' stories - on TV, in books, in film, whatever - are wish-fulfilment stuff that is usually completely unbelievable. Even stories which have dark or cynical moments usually cop out in some manner (having characters repeatedly survive life-endangering scrapes without injury or any kind of PTSD, like Jack Bauer) which makes them harder to swallow. You can still enjoy or appreciate them, but their artificial parameters have become clear and that makes being absorbed into the world/setting/story is harder. Liking ASoIaF doesn't make a you a sociopath, it just means you have an appreciation for a work of fiction which doesn't cop out and doesn't compromise (at least not to anywhere near the level of 99% of other fictional forms out there) and doesn't override your personal bullshit meter (Wheel of Time, for example, has plenty of dark moments but it is way beyond credulity that not a single major 'good' character of note has died in the entire series to date given what they have been through).

Of course, you can go way too far in the opposite direction. Bakker's world is so unrelentingly grim, nihilistic and futile that it goes beyond credulity on its own merits as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...