Do we CARE who wins the Iron Throne anymore?

[longlivestark]

I was reading reviews of ADWD on Amazon, despite already buying and reading the book, I sometimes read reviews on books I have already read just to see how other readers felt and compare them to my own feelings on the book, where I came across something interesting one reviewer said about the book. This reviewer gave it the rather seemly average review score of three stars (no real average score actually, its REALLY spread across the board on this one), he criticized what most readers seem to criticize it for (not enough plot progression and the long wait for a rather below average book), but he had an interesting view on the moral ambiguity of the series, specifically pertaining to who sits on the throne in the end. There have been several threads about who you think WILL sit on the Iron Throne in the end, and even a thread (maybe a few) on who we would LIKE to sit on the throne, but will we even really care by the the? His exact words were:

Martin has been called the American version of J.R.R. Tolkein. That is most certainly not true! Not just because of the timeliness issues, but rather the fact that there is nearly complete moral ambiguity in these novels. At no time are readers clear about who is right or wrong, who is evil or good, and there is no one to cheer for that actually survives any given book. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings had no such issue. Tolkien made it very clear who were on the side of good and who weren't. He also made clear that individual choices had consequences and actions like courage, loyalty and truth were to be encouraged and greed, lust and dishonesty were to be discouraged. Martin conveys no clear moral compass. And this is a looming failure for this series: will we even care who wins the Iron Throne in the end?

The reviewer raises an interesting point, the traits we usually expect good rulers to have in other books, and usually want them to have, are noticeably absent from most of the frontrunners. In fact, people who are presented with traits that most people would think are positive such as courage, loyalty, and truth tend to end up being killed (or at least really screwed over) by people who are greedy and dishonest. Now while this certainly makes the series more complex and the characters more grey (and some would argue more 'realistic'), it does raise the question of how many will actually care, if say, its Cersei on the throne rather then Dany by the end.

[boojam]

I was reading reviews of ADWD on Amazon, despite already buying and reading the book, I sometimes read reviews on books I have already read just to see how other readers felt and compare them to my own feelings on the book, where I came across something interesting one reviewer said about the book. This reviewer gave it the rather seemly average review score of three stars (no real average score actually, its REALLY spread across the board on this one), he criticized what most readers seem to criticize it for (not enough plot progression and the long wait for a rather below average book), but he had an interesting view on the moral ambiguity of the series, specifically pertaining to who sits on the throne in the end. There have been several threads about who you think WILL sit on the Iron Throne in the end, and even a thread (maybe a few) on who we would LIKE to sit on the throne, but will we even really care by the the? His exact words were:

Martin has been called the American version of J.R.R. Tolkein. That is most certainly not true! Not just because of the timeliness issues, but rather the fact that there is nearly complete moral ambiguity in these novels. At no time are readers clear about who is right or wrong, who is evil or good, and there is no one to cheer for that actually survives any given book. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings had no such issue. Tolkien made it very clear who were on the side of good and who weren't. He also made clear that individual choices had consequences and actions like courage, loyalty and truth were to be encouraged and greed, lust and dishonesty were to be discouraged. Martin conveys no clear moral compass. And this is a looming failure for this series: will we even care who wins the Iron Throne in the end?

The reviewer raises an interesting point, the traits we usually expect good rulers to have in other books, and usually want them to have, are noticeably absent from most of the frontrunners. In fact, people who are presented with traits that most people would think are positive such as courage, loyalty, and truth tend to end up being killed (or at least really screwed over) by people who are greedy and dishonest. Now while this certainly makes the series more complex and the characters more grey (and some would argue more 'realistic'), it does raise the question of how many will actually care, if say, its Cersei on the throne rather then Dany by the end.

Heck! I don't have any problem with moral ambiguity, it's a hallmark of our real history.

One reason civilization got rid of monarchies.

(Not that we didn't, much of the time, replace them with an near equivalent!)

A great number of rulers who have sat Earth's historical thrones have more been more than morally ambiguous they have been sociopaths.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

it does raise the question of how many will actually care, if say, its Cersei on the throne rather then Dany by the end.

I think the reviewer you quoted made a common mistake (well, despite reading a book for grown-ups even though it seems he prefers lighter fare): Moral ambiguity does not mean moral arbitrariness.

That people (and sometimes even actions) don't sort neatly in the two categories "all white fairy superhero" and "all black cackling villain" does not mean that they are all the same from a moral perspective (though it usually does mean that in some instances readers will disagree about how exactly to judge them). I think few people would disagree with the assessment that despite Cersei having a few redeeming factors and Dany some flaws, Dany is the better person.

That being the better person does not mean being the better person for the job is a point the books repeatedly make (though I assume that a majority also think Cersei makes a worse queen than Dany).

[Slurms McKenzie]

A fair point to be honest......this civil war and ensuing conflict has been dragging on for a while now, perhaps GRRM ought step up the pace of the plot and get some decent action and candidates up there....at the moment I only like Stannis.

[1234567]

I don't care about the Iron Throne so much as "When are the Others getting her?" I have this vision of them rushing in on the second last page offering profuse apologies for their tardiness.

[Lummel]

I agree with the Dornishman's wife. There may be moral ambiguity in some situations (how best to act, what is the correct thing to do) but there is hardly any doubt as to the morality of individual characters. The difficulty for some may be that good people doing the right thing don't always achieve good outcomes and that some times bad people doing evil things get to prosper. But does anybody truly believe that King Bob was a good man because he killed Rhaegar on the Trident and got to be King?

Having said that at this stage I don't care who ends up on the iron throne at the end - I'm looking for a good story, but then that's the joy of fiction when compared to real life.

[kg1982]

Well, Martin's literature is really the hallmark of postmodern literature for all genres. It is full of flawed heroes and anti-heroes and villains with realistic grievances. Jaime, Littlefinger, Melisandre, Stannis, etc. are all common character types in modern fiction, which is why these characters have a huge fanbases. What is interesting about ASOIAF is that Martin is clearly playing in Tolkein's world and introducing some of the grayer, more realistic elements associated with postmodern fiction into that world.

There are clearly the outlines of the bad guys and the good guys - characters like the Starks, Jon, Dany, Davos, etc. are the good guys. But what makes it interesting is that even the good guys in ASOIAF can have very unappealing character traits. I think that Martin wants us to question whether the most obvious candidates for the Iron Throne (Jon and Dany) are really prepared to be rulers and wants to be clear that even the "good guys" can make awful mistakes. To translate over to Lord of the Rings, there is nothing to suggest that Aragorn was going to end up as a good king; in fact, the skills that made him a great ranger wouldn't translate well into the ambiguous world of politics. However, it is still possible to root for Dany and Jon to destroy the Others and the Stark siblings to reunite and get their revenge while questioning whether any of the prime candidates are fit to be rulers.

[MtnLion]

The pedulum is in motion, is the thought that crossed my mind at the conclusion of DwD. We started with very many things stacked against the characters that we see as the heroes of the story. Along the way some setbacks to the heroes are encountered, but in this volume we see that some parts of the set are actually rising up in support of the heroes. The ending books will see an ever-increasing surge in the direction of the characters' final destinations.

[longlivestark]

I suppose my real question is, do we care as much about who sits on the Iron Throne now as much as we did by the end of the first book? By the end of book one Joff was on the throne and without any real exceptions, EVERYONE hated Joffrey. Before ADWD many people debated who would be best suited for the throne, but now with Joffrey dead and Cersei largely out of power at the moment and the small council in control, Dany having shown she is not the greatest queen, Stannis currently buried in snow somewhere possibly dead, and Euron is who knows where and likely doesn't have many fans, do we still have the same debate as we did when it was Tywin, Renly, Stannis, Robb, and Balon?

[kg1982]

The whole plot of LOTR wasn't about who became king; it was about destroying Sauron and the ring of power. Dany wanting to reclaim the Iron Throne is a plot point that will be used to get Dany over to Westros and the final battle with the Others. The political intrigue and civil wars are really meant to up the stakes for the final battle. The nobles in Westros have spent five books squabbling over an Iron Throne which will end up being a meaningless diversion from the real threat.

[BloodOfKingu]

One reason civilization got rid of monarchies.

there's around 200 countries in the world, almost 50 of which retain some sort of monarchy. granted, almost all are constitutional monarchies of one form or another, with only a handful of absolute monarchies, but they have hardly been gotten rid of.

[TrueLion]

I'm with Lummel.

If I wanted to read something with clearly defined Good vs Evil sides, I would pick up LotR again. But this isn't that. I've gotta honestly say my reactions to ASoIaF have been much more emotional and satisfying in a way that LotR never achieved with me, and thats because of the realistic portrayals of all characters and their experiences. Character development ftw!

That being said, yea who really cares now about the Iron Throne. Will there even be a throne/kingdom by the end of the series? Whats going on in the Lands of Always Winter seems more intriguing. But I gotta say, I'm in the minority here I think; I don't see Dany being a good candidate at all. Girl had been floundering her way through life for far too long. She's always been mad, just sort of the nice 'tee-hee I'm a little girl with a superiority complex' kind of mad. It'll come out more in WoW, I think.

[Whatever]

I suppose my real question is, do we care as much about who sits on the Iron Throne now as much as we did by the end of the first book?

Only if it one of the good guys. I'd like one of my favorites for the IT to "win" the game because it would be nice. If it's somebody i dislike/ I don't care about.. well, i won't care. Thorugh the book we have seen that there's more to westeros than the Game of Thrones

EDIT: FANGIRL MODE:ON!!! of course, Stannis deserves it. We all know he's the only self-styled king who actually DID something for the kingdom. And if stannis is not available,.. well, Jon would make a better king than every other candidate. but, as I said, let it be. It's not the thing i care the most about ASOIAF.

FANGIL MODE OFF

[1234567]

EDIT: FANGIRL MODE:ON!!! of course, Stannis deserves it. We all know he's the only self-styled king who actually DID something for the kingdom. And if stannis is not available,.. well, Jon would make a better king than every other candidate. but, as I said, let it be. It's not the thing i care the most about ASOIAF.

FANGIL MODE OFF

Stannis will not be King. It is known.............................He will however get to be Hand, because that is the position he wanted and felt he deserved in ACOK and Mel has seen him sitting on the Iron Throne. :smug:

(Also Stannis rocks!)

[Whatever]

Stannis will not be King. It is known.............................He will however get to be Hand, because that is the position he wanted and felt he deserved in ACOK and Mel has seen him sitting on the Iron Throne. :smug:

(Also Stannis rocks!)

whose hand? (i like it though)

[1234567]

whose hand? (i like it though)

Ah now that is THE question! And I have no idea. :eek:

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Well, LotR has defined modern fantasy with its clear black and white. And GRRM doesn't into public expectations about fantasy. But is this necessary?

Remember greek legends like the Illias. Remember medieval stories like the Nibelungen. Remember Shakespeare. Or more modern stories like those from Howard or Moorcock. They all focused on grey characters. Just like Martin. And they are remembered after thousands of years.

I don't care who will sit the Iron Throne at the end (mostly). But I definitely care about how the struggle for it will affect all the characters I have grown to love.

[Silverin]

whose hand? (i like it though)

Jaime's, since he is missing one.

[Ivy Snow]

I really don't care much anymore. I just want the story in the North to advance more. I even dont care if Danny ever gets back to Westeros. The story in the North is more entertaining. I just wish IF there would be someone sitting on the iron throne ( if there still is one), I hope it's someone from the North or a Stark. Too tired of Danny's " I'm the blood of the dragon" thing. If Jon gets the iron throne, I hope he takes the name " Stark" or still use "Snow".

Edit: OMG this post made me a squire!!!! XD...

[Dunzel]

I really don't care much anymore. I just want the story in the North to advance more. I even dont care if Danny ever gets back to Westeros. The story in the North is more entertaining. I just wish IF there would be someone sitting on the iron throne ( if there still is one), I hope it's someone from the North or a Stark. Too tired of Danny's " I'm the blood of the dragon" thing. If Jon gets the iron throne, I hope he takes the name " Stark" or still use "Snow".

I completely agree. In fact, if there are no Jon POV's in the next book, I doubt I will buy it, although if there are no Daenerys POV's I will reconsider.