Do we CARE who wins the Iron Throne anymore?

[Robert's Bastard]

Are there any worthy candidates left? The only person fighting for the throne is Stannis. Aegon has yet to enter the field. Everyone else is trying to establish/re-establish rights to their former Kingdoms. House Lannister has fallen but stubbornly clings to the Throne through Tommen's claim. I never imagined they would have lasted this long. It's their reign that consumes the plot of each novel. I hope it ends in the next.

[HashRouge]

I don't really care, no. My problem is not so much the fact that there is no truly good character worthy of the throne because I like flawed heroes, but more the fact that all the people I thought would make good rulers have been killed off (Robb, Renly) or lost the side of themselves that I liked (Dany).

[Cruella]

Have people managed to care if Aragorn would sit on the throne? Aragorn? He's barely a character, he's just there.

[Wouter]

About consistent quality: for me, Dance was the most enjoyable book in the genre to read in 2011, so IMO the quality is indeed consistent. Obviously, it seems on this forum many disagree, though the reviewers in general liked it very much (usually better than AFFC, which I also enjoyed). Granted, I don't mind a relatively slow pace (still, it's faster than, say, Tad Williams writes).

Regarding the Iron Throne: I still care as much as in the beginning, but I care in the first place about what happens with my favorite characters, especially the Stark children, and with the north in general as it is threatened by winter, civil war and the Others.

The great strength of Martin as a writer is that he can make you feel sympathy for numerous groups who all more or less oppose each other, at once. The lively debates about the good and bad in the characters, on this forum, supports that. However, I wouldn't say Martin does not value morality. In the end, there is no doubt that people like Ned and Davos, and indeed Jon Snow, are people to look up to, even if they sometimes fail (as they do in real life, to), and that people like Tywin may be successfull, but they ultimately reap what they sowed.

[ghost the direwolf]

Who will sit the iron throne i do not care as long as it is someone i liked. Comparing this books to LoTR is not fair, as It is totally different. It is unique IMO. I loved LoTR but was not temped to re read it, right not i cannot find any othe book to fill the void left by this serie, so i am re- reading it.

[hesitantreader]

I care that someone will sit on the throne in the next two books and keep it till the end of the series, but I don't really care who it is at this point. The issue I have with these books is they seem to veering off into Robert Jordon levels of plot development (in that nothing seems to really be advancing) and I am concerned that Martin may not be able to hold the story together and give us a satisfactory ending.

[Faint]

I admit I've always been partial towards Daenerys storming into King's Landing and burning alive everyone: Jaime Lannister, Mace Tyrell, Stannis Baratheon, etc. Basically, anybody who has ever betrayed her family in any way. I don't even care if she's a good leader or not. I just want one, perfect, unadulterated scene of pure vengeance.

[jblair]

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?

This review is garbage. Tolkien made clear that individual choices had consequences? Fascinating, considering he essentially considered Good and Evil to be unchanging, fixed traits...except for the possible negative influence of magic. All elves are Good, regardless of choices. All orcs are Evil, regardless of choices. Haradrim? Evil. Southrons? Evil. Gondorians? Good (unless driven insane by a Palantir). Rohan? Good, although rough. Breelanders? Good, except the "swarthy" one, obviously the product of miscegenation (see below).

Tolkien doesn't give a single character a truly difficult moral choice. Caradhras or Moria? Listen to Gandalf or Elrond? Wait for spring or summer? Please.

All of the most powerful Good beings essentially abdicate responsibility for the most important decision there is, and then emotionally blackmail a peaceful little nobody into taking on a suicide mission. As they travel, a simple rule of survival become clear: the darker the skin, the greater the Evil. And since no one has sexually aged beyond 11 years, there are no trifling things like emotions to worry about.

Don't get me wrong, I love the books. But Tolkien has the emotional and moral depth of a Texas reservoir. He gave us a cartoon cut-out landscape devoid of any real issues. Martin gave us an actual world, and showed us why...somehow...none of us ever knows exactly who is good and who is evil, and why.

[Lord Damian]

I think it will be more a matter of survival rather than who is going to be the last King/Queen to sit on the the Iron throne before the series ends. I prefer the North to be independent and under Stark rule. Perhaps a lasting union with the Freefolk under the direwolf banner. I do not want a Targaryen restoration unless it is Jon because I do not like any Targs.

[kg1982]

Have people managed to care if Aragorn would sit on the throne? Aragorn? He's barely a character, he's just there.

I think that the reviewer missed the point about LOTR to begin with. The main heroes of the story are Frodo and Sam. Tolkien could have made a good quest novel about Frodo and Sam without bringing the politics of Gondor into the situation. Aragorn is pretty one dimensional in LOTR, as many of the side characters are. It's clear that the main story is about Mordor and Sauron, not who becomes king.

In ASOIAF, it is clear that the main plot is about the scary ice zombie army and the unlikely saviors of Westros - the young woman with dragons, the young man with a mysterious identity, and the disgraced children of a traitor... Classic outline of every single fantasy story. Where Martin veers from Tolkien is that he really enjoys the political machinations, character development, and scene setting. Although it isn't the main focus of the story, the fight over the Iron Throne seems to take center stage because Martin clearly enjoys writing about it.

[Brucolac]

The Similarion and The Hobbit are Tolkien's actual masterpieces in my opinion. The first, though it non-descriptive in nature, has some of the best stories ever conceived in fantasy. The Hobbit, though much more childish, is great for its quick enjoyable pace and should be considered the reinvention of fantasy people credit to LoTRs because of publication dates.

As for GRRM, his footprint in the last decade is extremely small. He put out one book that was split up and neither are high in quality. The first two Dunk & Egg Novellas are close in quality to his first three books, but they can't really count because of their duration and publication style. Neither of his actual books published would make a top 10 of fantasy books in the last decade. The premier writers in the genre now are Neil Gaiman, Joe Abercrombie, and China Mieville. And there have been plenty of one hit writers that have put out better work too, like Susanna Clark with Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell.

[Grail King]

Not sure if the throne will still be there but if it is these are some options also some people may need some more years of seasoning before they may truly be ready to rule.

King Queen Hand

=================================================================

Stannis ------ Davos

Jon Daenerys Stannis / Davos / Selmy

Aegon Daenerys Tyrion / Connington /Selmy

Aegon Sansa Connington / Stannis / Blackfish

Tyrion Sansa Connington / Blackfish / Selmy

Wyillas Tyrell Sansa Blackfish / Tyrion / Selmy

Aegon Margery Connington / Garlan Tyrell

Aegon Areanne Connington / a Dorn that is trusted

=========================================================================================

North (Either part of realm or independent from it, Riverrun Saltpans, Iron Islands and North)

Rickon Sansa / Jon / Blackfish / Stannis-Regents (to far for Davos, home with wife enjoying retirement)

Bran (Same)

Jon

Sansa (Vale &Winterfell) Jon/ Blackfish / Stannis

Jon LC of Wall ????

Stannis

Jorah Mormont

I'm sure I missed some pairings and and I make an assumption that the people will prevail over the Others; since the political climate and warring factions are still evolving some of these people may not survive, also there is a possibility that there could be separate nations comprising Westeros.

So be my guest and beat this up.

[ckongo]

One of the aspects of the series that I most praise is for others one they criticize.

Black/white characters may be nice in bedtime stories you tell your children, but these books are for adults. I never was a big fan of Lord of the Rings partly because of this, along with the over-emphasis on magic.

One of GRRM's greatest triumphs with this series is that he puts realistic people in a fantasy world. He emphasizes how everyone thinks they are right and you get to look into their psychology and judge for yourself.

So how would this series be better by making the characters one-dimensional? And I personally do still have interest on who will win the throne. I'm not rooting for one person like jocks would a baseball team, but I'm still interested.

[ckongo]

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.

Dany lives too often with her head up her ass to be a good queen. Plus, she wants to rule a land she's never been to. She's very good at turning a blind eye to things she doesn't want to see. Her whole relationship with Khal Drogo was like that. His kind were savages. It annoyed me in ADWD how she thought it fair that Ned was beheaded without knowing anything about why he rebelled. I'd like to see Barristan tell her a bedtime story about the time Aerys burned Ned's father in a trial by combat against fire while Ned's brother was strangled.

These character flaws however are what makes these books great. Because people behave this way. And Dany may still be destined to be queen, but she isn't perfect.

[ckongo]

About consistent quality: for me, Dance was the most enjoyable book in the genre to read in 2011, so IMO the quality is indeed consistent. Obviously, it seems on this forum many disagree, though the reviewers in general liked it very much (usually better than AFFC, which I also enjoyed). Granted, I don't mind a relatively slow pace (still, it's faster than, say, Tad Williams writes).

I don't think GRRM's writing quality has hindered much in the last two books. The problem is very little story-wise has occurred.

AFFC felt very different from the others. It was shorter, and this whole dividing the north and south into two books was a big mistake. Finding characters dead or supposedly dead in the 4th book and alive in the 5th alone was stupid. In AFFC, between Jamie and Cersei there were like 17 chapters and many of theirs were intertwined (like Tyrion and Sansa's in ASOS). Too much of the book occurred between too few characters. I liked how the other books had plots jumping all over Westeros and beyond from chapter to chapter.

The writing was still good in ADWD (especially the Theon chapters), but most characters had little occur. Tyrion and Dany's POVs were interesting for what they were but not enough happened.

[Cold Mist]

Moral ambiguity suits the world that we live in. Apathy, even. Tolkien's world had clearly defined good and evil (and I mean his living world, not his literary world) subject to a system of rigidly upheld propaganda through governmental control and limited public knowledge and a strife of conservatism at the early part of a technologically limited century.

Our world is one that is fed by a Tower of Babel, i.e. the internet and network media. Good and evil are truly fairytale concept deep down where we can truly be honest about the state of humanity.

I am not blown away by the revelations in ADWD, but I also am aware that it was a period of storytelling never meant to be extensively told and only told for convenient procrastination purposes.

Let us read the next chapter (sometime in the next decade) before we condemn the sum of efforts.

And for the record, I think the Iron Throne will be irrelevant as a climactic device.

[Brucolac]

I am not blown away by the revelations in ADWD, but I also am aware that it was a period of storytelling never meant to be extensively told and only told for convenient procrastination purposes.

That is actually the best defense of the book that I have seen, and I don't really keep it in mind when I critique the book. However, that isn't really a defense of him as a writer. If he couldn't maintain quality plot and timely writing, he should have stuck with his time skip.

[The Marquis de Leech]

"The American Tolkien" is marketing terminology, nothing more: sticking Tolkien's name as a comparison point is designed to sell more books. In reality, GRRM and Tolkien are as different as Shakespeare and Homer.

This review is garbage. Tolkien made clear that individual choices had consequences?

Yes. Like Bilbo voluntarily giving up the Ring to Frodo. Like Frodo sparing Gollum's life (which is what saved the Quest). Like Galadriel, Gandalf, and company choosing to reject the Ring despite enormous temptation. And so on.

Fascinating, considering he essentially considered Good and Evil to be unchanging, fixed traits...except for the possible negative influence of magic.

"Good" and "Evil" (or more accurately, "Good" and "Absence of Good": LOTR is not manichean) are absolutes in Tolkien, yes. But the characters themselves are not fixed, and are scattered all along the Good-Evil spectrum.

All elves are Good, regardless of choices.

Never read The Silmarillion (or even The Hobbit), have you?

All orcs are Evil, regardless of choices.

Careful. Tolkien, as a devout Catholic, believed very strongly in the notion of free will: the idea that Orcs were a race of creatures irredeemably bad was uncomfortably Calvinst for him. He spent years trying to work out the moral problem of the Orcs, but never worked it out to his satisfaction.

Haradrim? Evil. Southrons? Evil.

See Sam's comments about the dead Southron soldier (incidentally: Haradrim *are* southrons).

Gondorians? Good (unless driven insane by a Palantir).

Putting Denethor and Boromir to one side, you mean the same Gondorians whose ancestors fought civil wars over blood purity (hint: the blood purists were not the good guys). Or whose even more remote ancestors established a slave-driven Empire in Middle-earth? The Numenoreans have a very dark past.

Rohan? Good, although rough.

Fengel, Wormtongue, etc. Or just the fact that they stole the Dunlending land? And used to mistreat the likes of Ghan-buri-Ghan (who is a good guy)?

Breelanders? Good, except the "swarthy" one, obviously the product of miscegenation (see below).

Bill Ferny wasn't swarthy.

Tolkien doesn't give a single character a truly difficult moral choice. Caradhras or Moria? Listen to Gandalf or Elrond? Wait for spring or summer? Please.

OK, so "refuse to use the most powerful weapon in the world and see your land destroyed" vs "use the most powerful weapon in the world and see your soul destroyed" isn't a tough choice.

All of the most powerful Good beings essentially abdicate responsibility for the most important decision there is, and then emotionally blackmail a peaceful little nobody into taking on a suicide mission.

Talk about missing the point. The likes of Tom Bombadil (and Radagast) abdicate responsibility. Gandalf doesn't: he's simply rejecting power, while trying to ensure that Frodo succeeds.

As they travel, a simple rule of survival become clear: the darker the skin, the greater the Evil.

Ghan-buri-Ghan vs Saruman the White?

And since no one has sexually aged beyond 11 years,

There's no sex in Beowulf either. I suppose that makes that worthless.

there are no trifling things like emotions to worry about.

Nah, it's not like Sam's love for his master, or Eowyn's deathwish desire, or Denethor's sorrow over Boromir are real emotions, is it?

Don't get me wrong, I love the books.

Great. Try reading them next time.

But Tolkien has the emotional and moral depth of a Texas reservoir. He gave us a cartoon cut-out landscape devoid of any real issues.

Because it's not like issues of corruption, power, and environmental destruction have anything to do with the real world?

Martin gave us an actual world,

Yes, and no. GRRM's strength is is characterisation, not his worldbuilding.

and showed us why...somehow...none of us ever knows exactly who is good and who is evil, and why.

Again, utterly missing the point. "Kill all the bad guys to solve your problems" is about about as far away from Tolkien's message as it is possible to get.

[Cold Mist]

That is actually the best defense of the book that I have seen, and I don't really keep it in mind when I critique the book. However, that isn't really a defense of him as a writer. If he couldn't maintain quality plot and timely writing, he should have stuck with his time skip.

How else would he have kept the true meat of his epic untold and still kept reader interest while pimping his HBO master plan to misogynistic production executives?

GRRM has known the end of this story since he first put pen to paper.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I never was a big fan of Lord of the Rings partly because of this, along with the over-emphasis on magic.

Actually, GRRM has said that the low-level magic in LOTR (and it is low-level: try the likes of Erikson's Malazan series for comparison) was his preferred way of dealing with magic. He believed that magic should be mysterious, rather than a sort of quasi-science.