asoiaf's place in cultural/literary history

[David Selig]

Allow me to point to Cat once again. Long before Jaime loses his arm, Cat releases him, because, after that masterfully written conversation they had at the end of ACOK, she strongly sensed a soul bellow Jaime's cover. Just remember that she doesn't lay the lives of her daughters in the hands of Tyrion, but in the hands of Jaime (even though Jaime himself thinks that Cat believed Tyrion more than him, as I recall).

Cat didn't believe Jaime - he was still in chains and under guard, despite all the oaths he took.

Don't even get me started on why Aragorn is more interesting than Jon Snow..

Talk about damning with faint praise... :cool4:

[Miodrag]

I will throw a few names of possible "flat" characters out there: Gregor & Ramsay are un-nuanced villians (IMO), as for POV characters Davos and Bran are paragons of virtue. Out of several dozen (maybe 50?) POV plus major non-POV characters even if you accept the ones I mentioned as "flat", that's a pretty good success rate.

I owe you a reply on this. I'll try to make it brief. Ramsay is a logical offspring of a man who's so self-centered and so obsessed with cheating the death as Roose is (just remember how scared Roose looks to Theon when death finally arrives in his proximity, in Winterfell chapters in ADWD). Ramsay is without redeeming qualities, but even he's not without depth. "Don't make me rue the day I raped your mother" is a line that goes a long way in explaining Ramsay, and it's a disturbingly hilarious line at the same time. In my eyes, that's the reason Martin made Ramsay, probably the worst villain of the series, to be Roose's bastard. Boltons have a purpose in the story, and they're 'explained' to us, which is why I don't find them flat, even though they're clearly villains.

Davos is among the best persons in the entire series, but even he knows he wasn't a great father. And, Davos can be properly analyzed only along with Stannis, in which case he can't look flat at all, because Stannis' arc is among the most fascinating for me personally (because of the themes of religion and faith).

Bran, as other posters already pointed out, possesses powers that are much bigger and significant than he's able to realize, let alone control. He is a child, which tends to limit the depth to an extent, but he is terribly wronged child, and he is on the verge of becoming possibly too powerful for his own good. Even if he's more flat than some other characters at this point, I'm certain he won't stay that way at the end of the series.

[Morienthar]

A minor disagreement. I love Tolkien. But LotR is not universally regarded as one of the greatest pieces of fiction in the English language. E.g. http://www.modernlib...00-best-novels/ where it's on the reader's list, but not the "official" list. I don't think ASOIAF will be either. So in that sense, they're kindred spirits.

I agree...

Not Gemmel,Martin,Jordan,Rowling or even Tolkien will actually make it to the Classics listings,But if any will come close it will be Tolkien and not the other four.

[Miodrag]

Cat didn't believe Jaime - he was still in chains and under guard, despite all the oaths he took.

Well, she'd be an idiot to set him loose without chains and unguarded. But, the fact that she did release him, despite his reputation, does speak volumes.

[Miodrag]

Funny how firm some people are in denying Martin (and everyone else, for that matter) a chance to be as good as Tolkien is, but not elaborating what makes Tolkien so untouchable (other than his language, which everybody agrees was masterful), while at the same time leveling Martin with Rowling.

[David Selig]

Well, she'd be an idiot to set him loose without chains and unguarded. But, the fact that she did release him, despite his reputation, does speak volumes.

Cat relied on Tyrion's public promise, Brienne and the chains, not on Jaime being changed or having a soul or anything about him. So I don't see how it speaks volumes.

[Morienthar]

Funny how firm some people are in denying Martin (and everyone else, for that matter) a chance to be as good as Tolkien is, but not elaborating what makes Tolkien so untouchable (other than his language, which everybody agrees was masterful), while at the same time leveling Martin with Rowling.

I don't understand what on earth is so bad with Rowling's writing,It's pretty much a few notches above all the other "youth fantasy" writers out there,Martin's style is different and he has a better way with words than Rowling,I'd say martin is one the same level as Gemmel and Jordan while Rowling may be a rung lower.

[Morienthar]

Well, she'd be an idiot to set him loose without chains and unguarded. But, the fact that she did release him, despite his reputation, does speak volumes.

Cat releasing Jaime was never about Jaime it was about Tyrion.

[Miodrag]

One more thing I keep posting in various threads:

Theon Greyjoy had once commented that Hodor did not know much, but no one could doubt that he knew his name.

This is a quote from AGOT, from Bran's chapter after he awakes from coma, when we meet Hodor for the first time. It could be written only by an author who's confident enough that the line will be reread after Theon's arc under Ramsay. Talk about the command of a story.

[Miodrag]

Cat relied on Tyrion's public promise, Brienne and the chains, not on Jaime being changed or having a soul or anything about him. So I don't see how it speaks volumes.

Cat releasing Jaime was never about Jaime it was about Tyrion.

Is that why she thinks of Tyrion as a vile little creature when she hears of his marriage to Sansa? With all the history between Cat and Tyrion, I'd never say she'd trust him at all, which is why assessing Jaime played a much more important role in his release. If Jaime's soul had no part in her decision, than why did she talk to Jaime at all? And why did she turned around to leave the dungeon at first? And why did she make him swear never to fight against Starks and Tullys ever again, if she didn't trust his word?

[Miodrag]

I don't understand what on earth is so bad with Rowling's writing,It's pretty much a few notches above all the other "youth fantasy" writers out there,Martin's style is different and he has a better way with words than Rowling,I'd say martin is one the same level as Gemmel and Jordan while Rowling may be a rung lower.

Rowling's writing is terrible. It may be above other 'youth fantasy', but I don't read 'youth fantasy' so I wouldn't know. Gemmell is much better than Rowling is, and even he wasn't a master of prose (though he was pretty good in characterization, and I always respected his unapologetic style of storytelling and writing). And GRRM is still way above Gemmell.

But, once again, it's not only about the quality of the prose. GRRM's prose maybe isn't of the highest order, but isn't bad in any way. In fact, it is more than good enough for what he's trying to convey.

[Miodrag]

Re: Cat releasing Jaime. This is what she thinks to herself at first, when she's not satisfied with his attitude:

There is nothing here but arrogance and pride, and the empty courage of a madman. I am wasting my breath with this one. If there was ever a spark of honor in him, it is long dead.

I'd say this speaks of how deep she's analyzing him at that very moment. Just like she should. Only when she realizes there's more than just arrogance and pride in him, more than an empty courage of a madman, she lets him go. And not before she makes him swear an oath or two. So, she probably believes in Jaime much more than in Tyrion, even though she hopes Tyrion will keep his public promise.

[David Selig]

I don't agree with the complaints about Martin's prose. Sure, nobody would ever confuse him with Nabokov, but he's really good at this for my money. Not "an all time best" level, but not that far off. He manages to make his prose easily readable without being too simplistic and is still able to write impressive descriptions and excellent dialogue.

Is that why she thinks of Tyrion as a vile little creature when she hears of his marriage to Sansa? With all the history between Cat and Tyrion, I'd never say she'd trust him at all, which is why assessing Jaime played a much more important role in his release. If Jaime's soul had no part in her decision, than why did she talk to Jaime at all? And why did she turned around to leave the dungeon at first? And why did she make him swear never to fight against Starks and Tullys ever again, if she didn't trust his word?

Before Cat went to Jaime, she questioned Cleos Frey. He told her about Tyrion's promise to exchange her daughters for Jaime, and that piqued Cat's interest. That's what she mainly relied on since it was a very public oath and the Lannisters for all their faults, tend to keep those. Of course it was a risk and she knew it. The oaths Jaime took was an additional guarantee which didn't hurt but Cat didn't put much trust in them.

“She will deliver Jaime to King’s Landing, and bring Arya and Sansa back to us safely.”

“Cersei will never give them up.”

“Not Cersei. Tyrion. He swore it, in open court. And the Kingslayer swore it as well.”

“Jaime’s word is worthless. As for the Imp, it’s said he took an axe in the head during the battle. He’ll be dead before your Brienne reaches King’s Landing, if she ever does.”

“Dead?” Could the gods truly be so merciless? She had made Jaime swear a hundred oaths, but it was his brother’s promise she had pinned her hopes on.

[Tharvot]

Seems like it will certainly be the best fantasy series of modern times.

[Miodrag]

Before Cat went to Jaime, she questioned Cleos Frey. He told her about Tyrion's promise to exchange her daughters for Jaime, and that piqued Cat's interest. That's what she mainly relied on since it was a very public oath and the Lannisters for all their faults, tend to keep those. Of course it was a risk and she knew it. The oaths Jaime took was an additional guarantee which didn't hurt but Cat didn't put much trust in them.

We're talking nuances here, but the difference, for me at least, is in this: she holds Tyrion for what he said in public, in open court, while she holds Jaime for what he said only in front of her and Brienne. At the time of release, Tyrion is The Hand, while Jaime is just a member of the Kingsguard, so of course Tyrion's public promise has more political weight. And she does trust Tyrion much more than Cersei. But, it doesn't take away from her trust in Jaime as a human, which was essential for her decision.

[Samsaptakas]

Lot depend on ending and IMO, not everyone will be happy with ending. He'd said that ending will be bittersweet, but I think it is going to be more bitter than sweet. No matter what, it will always remain in readers recommendation lists.

[UVA]

Not implying you implied, but I don't see anything wrong with story-driven novels. Many reviewers unfortunately seem to think exactly that, that the rich plot is a sign of a bad novel. However, that notion is young, it is based on wrong conclusions drawn from some famous works by Joyce or Beckett, and it is dying already, to my infinite pleasure. Not only Martin, but also novelists like Llosa and Saramago and Pelevin, to name a few, did bring innovative storytelling back in the high-literature business once again.

Well if I don't have to read Joyce again, I'll be that much happier. I've really enjoyed this discussion but I take issue with the general idea that Ice and Fire should compete with Virginia Woolf at the college seminar level. I think you're ascribing a great deal more profundity to how Martin applies the Big Ideas throughout the novels. There's the oft-cited quote from Faulkner that Martin is most interested in telling a story "about the human heart in conflict with itself." These ideas are in the text but I question the extent Martin has fleshed them out in his own mind. I don't even equate him in this context doing something similar to some of the more plot-driven high lit writers like Kundera and Richard Ford, for example.

Tangentially, yesterday I listened to podcast Martin had with a law professor exploring the role law in Westeros. The prof asked him to what extent he'd read about medieval legal customs and histories that may have informed his views for the series. Martin laughed and said that while maybe he should have some of these scholarly texts on his bookshelves, he tended to draw more from the popular histories. He mentioned that the fandom desires more complexity but that he tends to simplify things for the sake of storytelling. For example, he trimmed the traditional feudal hierarchies (e.g.,the roles of barons and dukes) such that he only has knights, lords and kings. Similarly, his views on law in Westeros are quite vague and simplified. The prof probed him deeper about the notion of sovereignty in ASOIAF, citing that this has typically formed the foundation for our real-world concept of the rule of law. Martin essentially punted the question by saying that sovereignty in Westeros was derived from god, but then acknowledged that there are competing gods and this muddles the issue. Martin, by his own admission, hasn't thought too hard about these concepts (which makes these rightful king debates kind of ridiculous).

To analyze the themes of identity in Jon's and Arya's arcs or to discuss the fallibility of human perception as evinced in Martin's use of POV presentation is one thing, but to draw greater 'lessons' that influence how a reader understands reality, the human condition, etc.is over-intellectualizing Ice and Fire. It frankly doesn't do the same thing for me as what great literature does.

[Miodrag]

@UVA

Yeah, perhaps I am over-intellectualizing ASOIAF. But then again, maybe it is you who are under-intellectualizing it. For example, maybe you were reading into Martin's chat with a law professor. I mean, law professors are the biggest experts on law and the history of legal systems. When talking to someone like that, of course Martin is not going to claim his saga is grounded in actual feudal systems. Especially because he doesn't even attempt to leave that impression in his books. He modeled ASOIAF after known historical systems, but it doesn't mean he created a system that is as thorough as those historical were. Same thing with cuisine: if talking with an expert on cooking, GRRM probably wouldn't state that the cuisines he came up with are as detailed as historical cuisines of medieval times were. Same things with religions: four religions Martin invented can't stand for actual religions from our world, that took thousands of years in making and practicing in order to reach what they are today.

But, in all those cases Martin was primarily focused on practical ways everyday life is influenced by legal system, economical system, cultural models, religions... And the level in which he succeeded in that is fascinating. Otherwise, law professors probably wouldn't debate him, I guess.

And, what 'lessons' was I talking about? All I said was that there's an extraordinary depth in ASOIAF even in regards of social and political aspects. GRRM came up with no less than four different religions, plus one cult. Any writer who does that, is probably after something that is bigger than the fates of his particular characters. And, speaking of gods, that Stannis Baratheon fellow is a pretty strong hint at Martin's ambition. For all we know, Stannis didn't denied the existence of a deity behind The Seven, but he decided to replace him with The Red God (Proudwings story, in Davos I in ACOK), because The Red God may be of a bigger practical use for him; and The Red God proves to be very useful to Stannis; and yet, there isn't s single line that suggests Stannis' views on deities are any different than in Davos I in ACOK, when he tells him of Proudwings. Stannis doesn't have to believe in gods. He knows they're up there. However, at the end of the day, he doesn't give a damn about them. They aren't subject to any duty, which makes them uninteresting for him. He's interested only in forms that are subject to at least some duty. Therefore, divine authorities don't concern him at all. But, he wants to serve as a king, which is the position given by gods. So, in a way, possibly even unwittingly, Stannis wants to overtake the position of a monarch away from gods. How's that for a revolution inside a human hearth, that can't help but have consequences on the entire society? Divorcing human from the perfect image of a god was one of the biggest changes in human mindset in our history, you know. It could easily be that important for Westeros, also.

And, you don't need Martin'd podcasts to realize how futile all those debates about rightful kings may be. If not for Mel, Renly would probably be on the Iron Throne by now, and who'd be there to deny his right? Even Robert's right wasn't undisputed, as he himself noted when he said there are still those who call him The Usurper. Whoever wins at the end of the day, will be considered the rightful king, at least until he's weak enough to be challenged. That is the nature of the monarchy in Martin's world, and it isn't unlike the monarchies from our history. I guess even the law professor agreed with that.

Speaking of the law professor, care to provide a link for the podcast? I'd really like to hear it, because honestly, I think you may be doing exactly the same thing you implied I might be doing: reading into it.

[Miodrag]

@UVA

Never mind, I found the link myself. From the description you gave, I guess it's the podcast Martin had with Dave Hoffman, because I couldn't find any other podcast Martin had with a law professor.

I listened through it, and, if we're definitely talking about the same podcast, I can't even fathom how did you draw your conclusions. It's quite the opposite of how you described it. GRRM hold admirably in the conversation with a law expert, even in parts that dealt with legal expertise. He didn't laugh off anything, and for every simplification he applied in the books he offered a perfectly understandable explanation. And there's very few simplifications to begin with. And, opposite to what you wrote, Martin's views on laws in Westeros were definitely not vague and simplified. If anything, this conversation can only strengthen the notion that Martin approached ASOIAF with an utmost seriousness and devotion, and with a tremendous amount of research behind him. In that, he's way ahead of great many other authors.

Since what I heard differs greatly from your impressions, I can't be certain we're talking about the same podcast. But, if we are - and participants, as well as questions raised, do suggest that is the case - then I'm sorry but I have to say your view on the podcast is as biased as any.

If anyone else is interested in hearing it, here are the links for the front page, and for the podcast itself:

http://www.concurrin...k_george_1.html

http://nboman.people...lk/LawTalk9.mp3

[mushroomshirt]

I owe you a reply on this. I'll try to make it brief. Ramsay is a logical offspring of a man who's so self-centered and so obsessed with cheating the death as Roose is (just remember how scared Roose looks to Theon when death finally arrives in his proximity, in Winterfell chapters in ADWD). Ramsay is without redeeming qualities, but even he's not without depth. "Don't make me rue the day I raped your mother" is a line that goes a long way in explaining Ramsay, and it's a disturbingly hilarious line at the same time. In my eyes, that's the reason Martin made Ramsay, probably the worst villain of the series, to be Roose's bastard. Boltons have a purpose in the story, and they're 'explained' to us, which is why I don't find them flat, even though they're clearly villains.

Davos is among the best persons in the entire series, but even he knows he wasn't a great father. And, Davos can be properly analyzed only along with Stannis, in which case he can't look flat at all, because Stannis' arc is among the most fascinating for me personally (because of the themes of religion and faith).

Bran, as other posters already pointed out, possesses powers that are much bigger and significant than he's able to realize, let alone control. He is a child, which tends to limit the depth to an extent, but he is terribly wronged child, and he is on the verge of becoming possibly too powerful for his own good. Even if he's more flat than some other characters at this point, I'm certain he won't stay that way at the end of the series.

Thanks for responding. I'm not at all convinced about Ramsay, but I may have to think about Bran and Davos more. I may be conflating their "goodness" with their "flatness".

And as for the "greyness", as others have pointed out, there are actually a lot of characters who are pretty clearly painted as Goodies and Baddies, albeit not as black/white as Tolkien would have painted.

Clear Goodies

<snip>

Clear Baddies

<snip>

There are more, but that'll do for now. Of course, I'm not saying there are no grey characters at all, but the idea that all of GRRM's characters are all hyper-realistic, nuanced with their own shady motivations is rather over-stated.

I'm thinking that "goodness" and "badness" does not necessarily equal "flatness". I might pare your list down to the following:

Potentially Flat

The Starks (yes, even Arya, even if she is a goodie more in the Clint Eastwood revenge-killer ilk) Certainly not Arya, Sansa, Robb or Rickon, perhpas Jon and Bran though.

Davos Seaworth

Tyrion Lannister

Daenerys

Barristan he seems to be going through a Brienne like arc where he is not sure what his vows really mean.

Jorah (Lando Calrissian-esque traitor with a heart of gold!) A traitor but Dany's most loyal man at the same time

Tywin Hard and cruel but not flat, I don't think

Cersei

Gregor Clegane

Littlefinger I don't get flatness from him at all. He seems quite complex with the whole Cat/Lysa/Sansa thing.

Melisandre

Kettleblacks and numerous other henchmen

Bolton I'm not sure Roose is "flat" she seems interesting to me (not sure that is the same as non-flatness). Ramsay probably is flat

Qyburn