What other fantasy books do YOU read?

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Ditto. I also think that she could really use some better vocabulary. Whenever I think of HP I think of "reckon" - she repeats that word waaay too often. I know she wants to imitate British slang, but it just gets on my nerves. As for the 5th book - I only read the 6th one to find out what Harry's OWL results were. I didn't see any other point in reading on.

Correct choice of words can make or break a book. One of the main reasons I absoulely hated Eric Rücker Eddison's Worm Ouroborous books (which some people regard so hightly they put them and Tolkein on equal fantasy footing, or even say Eddison is infinitely superior). was the language. In an effort to try and make the story as "old time epic" as possible, Edding's chose to usually go with extremely archaic language ("spake' instead of speaks, "crokindrell" instead of "crocodile" etc.) at the beginning this seemed to me okay, but as the book wore on, the choices of language and grammar just became wearying. Olde tyme spelling is fine for a period appropriate piece of literature (Oroborous was written in the 1920's so the "it was the way they talked then" argument doesn't really work here) but after a few hundred pages it get's tiresome. It's rather had to get into a book if you have to have a dictionary next to you and look up every other word. Eddison's work might have been good if it was being read to you, a la a saga or a play (in fact the one thing I came away from the book with was that it would probably make a very good tv series) but read on the printed page, it just got frustrating. I also did not like the end of the story, where the heros discover that not only have all the villians escaped but escaped more or less unharmed (i.e. all thier efforts and sacrafices were basically for nothing) and jump for joy becuse it means they can go through the whole palaver of the book all over again (minus the fairly large number of individuals who died the first time round trying to let the heroes win.). I have no problem dealing with things like odd language, but only when the story is worth it, and in my opinion, in Ourobrous, it isn't
I sort of feel the same way about David Lindsay's A Voyage to Arcturus also often considered a classic. In this case, after having read it through three times, I kept getting the impression that to understand it would require a couple years of modern philisopy, in particular Wittgenstein, and even then you'd have to 100% agree with those philosophers for the book to be meaningful.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

No, I'm referring to you. And I believe you were the one that first called me that in reply to one of my first posts! (This one, to be percise... took me ages to find! I was such an idiot back then!!!)

Ditto. I also think that she could really use some better vocabulary. Whenever I think of HP I think of "reckon" - she repeats that word waaay too often. I know she wants to imitate British slang, but it just gets on my nerves. As for the 5th book - I only read the 6th one to find out what Harry's OWL results were. I didn't see any other point in reading on.

Did I? I don't remember, forgive me. I shall take a look at that post And you never struck me as an idiot, my dear. Quite the contrary.

I thought the vocabulary in the narrative was fine. The truly awful bits were the dialogue. Yes, 'reckon' does seem to be her favourite word! She does a really poor imitation of British slang, sadly. They don't speak that badly I'm going to give the sixth and seventh books a go, but only because my mother says they were better than the rest (and because my friends would kill me if I didn't read them). *Sigh* It's irritating how they gasp and gawk when I say I haven't read Harry Potter.

PS - Can anyone tell me how to quote different bits of a paragraph at a time? I've no idea how

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE=LadyBrooke;658559]Personally, I hated the way it seemed that Slytherin automatically meant you were evil, with a few exceptions (and those weren't presented well either). What's wrong with ambition? And really, why would three people form a school with some evil guy?/QUOTE]

I concur, that was the part that seemed the most biased to me. I refuse to believe that so many students would be cheats and sneaks. One quarter of a school? Are you kidding me? All of them stuffed into the same house? That's a recipe for disaster, if you ask me. Yes, it seemed a bit foolish of those people to form a school with someone like that. Also, Rowling really makes it seem like Harry, Ron and Hermione are the only kids in the school with common sense.

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I concur, that was the part that seemed the most biased to me. I refuse to believe that so many students would be cheats and sneaks. One quarter of a school? Are you kidding me? All of them stuffed into the same house? That's a recipe for disaster, if you ask me. Yes, it seemed a bit foolish of those people to form a school with someone like that.

Well, I can believe that many people can be cheats, but believe me, it wouldn't be limited to one house. In fact, Slytherin seems like it'd also have a high portion of students who would never cheat, just because ambition is not a synonym with evil, and there are ambitious people who don't...in my experience, it was the lazy, unmotivated people who tried to cheat on me the most. It would be a disaster to have one house that was evil. For one thing, if Slytherin is so evil, then how come so many of them were trusted, like Lucius Malfoy (not saying he deserved to be trusted by Fudge...but he was.)

Also, Rowling really makes it seem like Harry, Ron and Hermione are the only kids in the school with common sense.

Yeah....and the rest of the school are mindless followers and gossipers (Hufflepuff, Justin), crybabies and traitors (Ravenclaw), or evil (Slytherin)...and only exposure and friendship with Harry and co can redeem somebody. It's stupid....and I'd end up strangling somebody, likely Ron.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I'm going to give the sixth and seventh books a go, but only because my mother says they were better than the rest (and because my friends would kill me if I didn't read them). *Sigh* It's irritating how they gasp and gawk when I say I haven't read Harry Potter.

My apologies and sympathy for how your friends act...mine are the same way about Twilight. It is rather annoying, isn't it?

PS - Can anyone tell me how to quote different bits of a paragraph at a time? I've no idea how

Err, copy or cut and paste, or use the enter and delete keys, to get the individual sections you want to reply to into different spots, separated by a line. Then put the [ quote ] and [ /quote ] at the beginning and end of each one. That's a really dumb explanation, that probably makes no sense.....

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

Well, I can believe that many people can be cheats, but believe me, it wouldn't be limited to one house. In fact, Slytherin seems like it'd also have a high portion of students who would never cheat, just because ambition is not a synonym with evil, and there are ambitious people who don't...in my experience, it was the lazy, unmotivated people who tried to cheat on me the most. It would be a disaster to have one house that was evil. For one thing, if Slytherin is so evil, then how come so many of them were trusted, like Lucius Malfoy (not saying he deserved to be trusted by Fudge...but he was.)

I shall try your suggestion right now

Call me gullible, but I can't believe that around fifty people in one grade would join with dark forces, murder and torture. They're kids, at the end of the day. You are right, it is usually the lazy people who are corrupt and surly. And you are right about Lucius.

Yeah....and the rest of the school are mindless followers and gossipers (Hufflepuff, Justin), crybabies and traitors (Ravenclaw), or evil (Slytherin)...and only exposure and friendship with Harry and co can redeem somebody. It's stupid....and I'd end up strangling somebody, likely Ron.

Haven't gotten to some of those parts yet, but I agree about Harry.

My apologies and sympathy for how your friends act...mine are the same way about Twilight. It is rather annoying, isn't it?

Twilight is still okay. I have such a vehement dislike towards it that most people don't even utter that word in my presence. But since I was neutral towards Potter, my friends thought they could persuade me to read it. Sadly, I know no one who is interested in Lord of the Rings. One of my friends is reading it now, at my suggestion, but I don't think she's going to get quite as obsessed with it as I am

PS - Wohoo, it worked!

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

I also did not like the end of the story, where the heros discover that not only have all the villians escaped but escaped more or less unharmed (i.e. all thier efforts and sacrafices were basically for nothing) and jump for joy becuse it means they can go through the whole palaver of the book all over again

Sorry, Alfirin, but I think you missed the point - the villains didn't escape, they were destroyed and then resurrected by the Gods at the request of the heroes, who, being victorious, found that their existence lacked purpose without villains to fight. It's almost a satire on heroism as an end in itself, if only Eddison didn't seem to endorse that absurd heroism - allegedly he was a big fan of Nietzsche, and the end seems to represent his version of the myth of Eternal Return (cf the book's title!).

Tolkien knew The Worm Ouroboros, and I think LotR can to some extent be read as a critique of Eddisonian heroism, starring a reluctant hero who is driven to heroism by fate and love for his home rather than chosing it as a way of life; and cf also Faramir's words in Ithilien: "I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend".

- That said, I quite like TWO for its vivid descriptions and some unforgettable characters on the villains' side (Gro!); but I'll gladly admit it comes nowhere close to Tolkien in depth.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Sorry, Alfirin, but I think you missed the point - the villains didn't escape, they were destroyed and then resurrected by the Gods at the request of the heroes, who, being victorious, found that their existence lacked purpose without villains to fight. It's almost a satire on heroism as an end in itself, if only Eddison didn't seem to endorse that absurd heroism - allegedly he was a big fan of Nietzsche, and the end seems to represent his version of the myth of Eternal Return (cf the book's title!).

Tolkien knew The Worm Ouroboros, and I think LotR can to some extent be read as a critique of Eddisonian heroism, starring a reluctant hero who is driven to heroism by fate and love for his home rather than chosing it as a way of life; and cf also Faramir's words in Ithilien: "I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend".

- That said, I quite like TWO for its vivid descriptions and some unforgettable characters on the villains' side (Gro!); but I'll gladly admit it comes nowhere close to Tolkien in depth.

Yeah, you're right. In my defense It's really been a long long time since I read the book, and my memory is far from perfect. I sort of remembered that things were as you said, but that ending seemed so momumentally absurd to me that I was sure I had remember it wrong. I stand corrected on my error (though that doesn't meant I suddenly like the book). I understand that on a certain level, the "life is a chess game" concept may have some appeal to some, but taking it to the level of, at the end of the game, putting all the same pieces back on the board and starting the game all over again leaves me flat. For the hero to desire to seek new challanges I understand, for him to desire to seek the exact same challenge as soon as he has won does not.

[Durelin]

Currently reading the Deverry series by Katharine Kerr (first book is Daggerspell. (Well re-reading so far...)

I still like the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan a lot, though I am several books behind now and need to re-read...

I re-read constantly a series of 'young adult' Arthurian fantasy by Gerald Morris. He recently finished the series. Really excellent and fun.

I also like the Redwall series a lot, though I agree it can be repetitive (he's written so many of them it's no surprise, and they all really stand on their own)...Brian Jacques is very missed.

My favorite book of all time if I have to give one is Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis, who of course has been mentioned, but I think mostly with the Narnia series...

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

I understand that on a certain level, the "life is a chess game" concept may have some appeal to some, but taking it to the level of, at the end of the game, putting all the same pieces back on the board and starting the game all over again leaves me flat.

Quite understandable. It's sort of interesting as a twist of convention, but that's it. What I liked about TWO wasn't the plot but, as I said above, the characters and, horribile dictu, the writing.

I've got to add a disclaimer here: I haven't yet read TWO in the original, only in two German translations, one of which was in more or less modern literary German while the other tried to reproduce Eddison's artificial archaism, but of these two I preferred the latter. I got the impression that E. uses archaism successfully to create a certain atmosphere both lofty and remote - e.g. calling a crocodile a crokindrell takes us back to a time where a crocodile wasn't to be seen in every zoo and made into handbags, but a mythical beast of the same order as a manticore or a hippogryff. But I withhold final judgment of his prose until I've read him in his own language (praise be to Project Gutenberg!).

One thing I dislike about the book is how he uses Demon, Goblin, Imp etc. as mere names for various humanoid races which don't seem to differ that much. When I hear Demon I expect to see a being of the under- or otherworld, not just a handsome heroic humanoid with decorative horns slapped on.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Quite understandable. It's sort of interesting as a twist of convention, but that's it. What I liked about TWO wasn't the plot but, as I said above, the characters and, horribile dictu, the writing.

I've got to add a disclaimer here: I haven't yet read TWO in the original, only in two German translations, one of which was in more or less modern literary German while the other tried to reproduce Eddison's artificial archaism, but of these two I preferred the latter. I got the impression that E. uses archaism successfully to create a certain atmosphere both lofty and remote - e.g. calling a crocodile a crokindrell takes us back to a time where a crocodile wasn't to be seen in every zoo and made into handbags, but a mythical beast of the same order as a manticore or a hippogryff. But I withhold final judgment of his prose until I've read him in his own language (praise be to Project Gutenberg!).

One thing I dislike about the book is how he uses Demon, Goblin, Imp etc. as mere names for various humanoid races which don't seem to differ that much. When I hear Demon I expect to see a being of the under- or otherworld, not just a handsome heroic humanoid with decorative horns slapped on.

I understand, it's sort of like the cringe I get everytime I see any anime (and there are a lot of them) that has a natural born creature that happens to be made of rock and decides to call it a Golem. Not every rock based creature is a Golem, just as not every monster that sucks blood is a vampire.
It's really silly, but when you talked about an archaic German version, I suddenly had images of a version written in the old Gothic blackletter type (actually depending on when the book was fist translated into German, a blackletter version may actually exist; a lot of German publishers were still using that typeface for books in the 1920's)

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

Personally, I hated the way it seemed that Slytherin automatically meant you were evil, with a few exceptions (and those weren't presented well either).

I heartily agree and add to that that for some reason almost all Slytherins look like trolls. In the 7th book Malfoy shows some, errr, loyalty, but then it doesn't really last...So fits your description perfectly. But I won't press that point to avoid spoilers.

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

...of course, Remus and Fleur are my favorite characters so....

*giggles* My personal favourite as a character is dear Belatrix....

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I thought the vocabulary in the narrative was fine. The truly awful bits were the dialogue. Yes, 'reckon' does seem to be her favourite word! She does a really poor imitation of British slang, sadly. They don't speak that badly

I'm quite sure that the anglophones across the pond use more colourful words than "reckon" and "bloke" (the two most common words there, IMO)!

Originally Posted by Galadriel

It's irritating how they gasp and gawk when I say I haven't read Harry Potter.

I sympathise. They did it to me before I read it. And they still do when I say that I know many better books than HP.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

PS - Can anyone tell me how to quote different bits of a paragraph at a time? I've no idea how

You can copy/paste the bit you want to quote, hilight the text, and click on the "quote" icon on top of the post-box-writing-thingy. The computer will automatically quote it for you. Or, you can type [QUOTE ] (except without the space) when the quote starts and [/QUOTE ] (again, no spaces) when it ends. You can add a =name for it to say "originally posted by X" (like this: [Quote=X ]...[/QUOTE ]).

Edit: Ah, wait, LBrooke has already said that. I posted before I got to her post. Ooops!

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

*giggles* My personal favourite as a character is dear Belatrix....

Bellatrix? Why would that be? My personal favourites are Mad-Eye and Snape Harry is such a goody-two-shoes.

I sympathise. They did it to me before I read it. And they still do when I say that I know many better books than HP.

This.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Bellatrix? Why would that be? My personal favourites are Mad-Eye and Snape Harry is such a goody-two-shoes.

I don't really like Snape after some revelations in the 7th book. And MadEye is nice, but... For some weird reason, if I had a choice to be any of the characters, I'd be Belatrix. (My true nature showing! Mwahahahaha! XD)

Oh, and yes, Harry is always good and right. He does wrong, but then he solves all and saves all and is such a brilliant little Boy Who Lived.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Oh, and yes, Harry is always good and right. He does wrong, but then he solves all and saves all and is such a brilliant little Boy Who Lived.

Amazingly, some people argue that that's why he makes such a good character

[Galadriel55]

I just started reading A Game of Thrones, from the series of A Song of Ice and Fire, and I already love it!

A few pages into the first chapter Finlandmoot suddenly started to make sense...

Edit: and Shasta's recent WW game too... Winter is comming...

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I just started reading A Game of Thrones, from the series of A Song of Ice and Fire, and I already love it!

A few pages into the first chapter Finlandmoot suddenly started to make sense...

Please don't tell me you believe that stuff about Jon Snow being a self-pitying twat. He isn't really so bad even though some people try to portray him in a bad light.

I recently reread The Etched City by K.J. Bishop and if I had to name one book as my Favourite Ever, chances are good I'd pick this one. It tells the stories of a surgeon and a gunslinger who escape to the city of Ashamoil after a revolution gone awry. There's blood, mysteries, love, crime - and above all, Art. It is a truly beautiful, well-written and fascinating book.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Please don't tell me you believe that stuff about Jon Snow being a self-pitying twat. He isn't really so bad even though some people try to portray him in a bad light.

Not me. He's probably my favourite character so far.

All I meant was that now I understand where all the references came from.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Not me. He's probably my favourite character so far.

All I meant was that now I understand where all the references came from.

Fair enough.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Fair enough.

Can you (or anyone else who knows) just tell me, how in the names of all their seven gods does "Eddard" shorten to "Ned"?

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Can you (or anyone else who knows) just tell me, how in the names of all their seven gods does "Eddard" shorten to "Ned"?

It's about as logical as the English language. How does Richard shorten to Dick?

There might be some weird linguistic stuff behind it. Or then it's relevant for the plot and, at the end of the 7th book, the entire world is saved because of that little irrelevant thing. In other words, I don't know.

[Bêthberry]

Okay, I'm going to change the topic just slightly.

Has anyone else read Patrick Rothfuss? I've read The Name of the Wind and was quite entranced by it. There's travelling players with a wry, robust sense of the world, a school of magic, wizards, an orphan coming of age, strange mythology and legends, the spell of music, layers of narrative, a shrewd look at an heroic age--all well and tightly written--and very clear homage to Tolkien (without being derivative at all).

You can read an excerpt here if you're a wee bit curious: Chapter Eight

The sequel (and second book in a projected trilogy), The Wise Man's Fear, came out last March but I haven't had a chance to look at it yet.

Anyone interested?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Bb, I have both of those Rothfuss books waiting to be read! I'd heard so much good about them; they've been translated and published in Germany, so some of the recommendations came from friends here, some international. I bought the English books, as I always prefer reading the original language whenever possible. I will certainly let you know how I like them when I get the time to read!

[Aganzir]

My friend Annina is very excited about them, and her copies are safe in my shelf while she's studying in the UK. I'm now rereading Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere (which I found awesome when I last read it back in... 2005 I think), but I could check out Rothfuss when I'm finished with Gaiman.

[Galadriel]

I recently gave a try at Robin Hobb's Assassin's Apprentice. It was awful. Hobb can write well, but her plot is clichéd and her characters are cardboard cut-outs. There was, sorry to say, too much unnecessary description (rich, coming from a Tolkien fan!). But, where Tolkien's prose is lyrical and impressive in itself, Hobb's sounds forced, and lacks beauty.

I had high hopes for this book, but it was quite disappointing *Shields self from Hobb fans*

Right now I'm reading a fairly new fantasy novel by Fiona McIntosh, Royal Exile. The plot is good, and relatively original, but the prose could use a lot of work. There is little to no description, and most of the characters, houses, palaces, etc. are vague blobs. Still, it seems fairly promising, and I'll probably finish it.

I'm also in the middle of George R.R. Martin's Dreamsongs, Volume 1. It's very, very good. Managed to keep me entertained for a few nights, and I usually don't even like short stories! Two stories in particular, The Ice Dragon and The Lonely Songs of Laren Dorr, are my personal favourites.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Not me. He's probably my favourite character so far.

All I meant was that now I understand where all the references came from.

My second-favourite. Number one is Tyrion Lannister

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

My second-favourite. Number one is Tyrion Lannister

I changed my mind after some more chapters. Jon is second. Arya is first. The Imp is annoying. But less so than Theon: he's Viserys all over, just on the other side of the world.

I really like GRRMartin's style of writing. Although it has LOTR written all over it, it feels like a cross between Tolkien and Rowling. It has more day-to-day details like Harry Potter, but doesn't sound modern, and the plot and characters are much more Tolkien than Rowling. The style of writing is his own though. It's not as "ancient" as Tolkien's, but it's definitely not Rowling's modern style. It's different from both authors. Somehow it has HP's addiction and LOTR's beauty.

There is only one thing that really buggs me, though. So many names are similar to Tolkien/Downs names. It gets me confused about the characters. I still can't get my head around Lommy being a boy. (this one is from the next book in the series - A Clash of Kings)

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I recently gave a try at Robin Hobb's Assassin's Apprentice. It was awful. Hobb can write well, but her plot is clichéd and her characters are cardboard cut-outs. There was, sorry to say, too much unnecessary description (rich, coming from a Tolkien fan!). But, where Tolkien's prose is lyrical and impressive in itself, Hobb's sounds forced, and lacks beauty.

I had high hopes for this book, but it was quite disappointing *Shields self from Hobb fans*

Ah, well, here's a newly-discovered non-Hobb fan to back you up.

My local library doesn't have the first book, but I got out the second, "Royal Assassin", recently, then started to read the third but couldn't finish it. I wouldn't say the middle book's awful, though, exactly– it is mostly well-written, and there are hints of an underlying mythos that sounds intriguing– but I just don't think that makes it worth wading through chapter after pointless chapter of Fitz-Sadsack-Chivalry whining drearily on and on and on about his loneliness and his health problems and his illegitimacy and his stigmatised psychic powers and his semi-unrequited love for Molly– and, of course, the overpowering angst of an assassin's lot. I'm not kidding when I say that I kept finding myself muttering "Just. Shut. UP!" though gritted teeth. It doesn't help that nothing much happens for ages, and that when the "real" plot finally gets going it becomes apparent there is no reason whatever for Fitz to be the main character, since he plays very little part in the overall story. Hobb tries to gloss over this by throwing in some prophecies about how Fitz is "The Catalyst... destined not to actually do anything but to be very important anyway, because... um... er... hey, look over there!", but needless to say, this doesn't work. As for the rest of the cast... well, to Hobb's credit she does try to give them some character development– in fact, she spends quite a lot of time establishing what they're like– but the trouble is, there's just not that much to establish, if you see what I mean.


Also, why is it always wolves and dragons? Why is no fantasy protagonist ever mystically soul-bonded to a sheep? I ask you.

~Yes, that was a bitter rant, that was. Put it down to disappointment– I'd heard so much praise for this trilogy.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Also, why is it always wolves and dragons? Why is no fantasy protagonist ever mystically soul-bonded to a sheep? I ask you.

Sheep are food.

People want to be bound to the hunters, not the prey.

Sheep are stupid, wolves and dragons are smart (well, every hunter has to be smarter than the prey...).

People worship the fierce animals.

What's mystical about sheep?

Sheep have no kind of loyalty except to the greens they much on.

I could go on for a while with this, but I'll stop here. There are peoples from fantasy novels that live off sheep and thus appreciate them more than just meat and wool, but they would not worship them or have some mystical ties with them. Sheep are too domestic, too tame, and too predictable to be mystical.

Though Erendis and Ancalime might not agree with me.

[Nerwen]

That was a joke, G55.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

~Yes, that was a bitter rant, that was. Put it down to disappointment– I'd heard so much praise for this trilogy.

I did a worse one on Amazon Some parts of the book were intriguing and could have been worked on, but for the most part it was just...ugh.

Yes, I am very eloquent.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I changed my mind after some more chapters. Jon is second. Arya is first. The Imp is annoying. But less so than Theon: he's Viserys all over, just on the other side of the world.

I liked Arya, too. That is, until the middle of the second book. Then she started to ANNOY me. I admit, Tyrion was initially not high up on my list, but after the second book...man, I think Martin put a lot of thought into this guy! And I can't believe I'm saying this, but...Jaime Lannister is slowly working his way up, too!

Can't wait till the next book comes out! Martin left us some huge cliff-hangers in the fifth book.

[Lalwendë]

Tyrion also gets very irritating after a while, there's only so much wise cracking you can take! I think that's one of the best things about Martin as a writer though - his characters change quite a lot. I don't think I could idolise any of the characters in A Song Of Ice and Fire, not even Ned Stark, it's not a world of heroes and villains.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Tyrion also gets very irritating after a while, there's only so much wise cracking you can take! I think that's one of the best things about Martin as a writer though - his characters change quite a lot. I don't think I could idolise any of the characters in A Song Of Ice and Fire, not even Ned Stark, it's not a world of heroes and villains.

SPOILERS AHEAD.

His wisecracks were the reason I did not like him at first. However, after reading a little more closely, I found he was terribly intriguing. He could possibly be called a romantic. Look at the way he keeps remembering his wife (I forget her name). He even feels for the girls working at brothels. But he knows that no one is going to take him seriously - less so if he acts all kind and encouraging. So he shrugs off emotions (or tries to) and acts tough. To put it bluntly, he knows how to play the game of thrones, even if he doesn't want to.

Of course, I'm not saying he's all good. He pretty much killed his lover and his father in cold blood, and he doesn't cringe at stealing or bribing. Still, I think he's less ruthless than Cercei and Tywin - and his greyness is what makes him so interesting.

Am I missing something here, because suddenly my argument sounds pretty stupid.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

That was a joke, G55.

Why do I always take jokes seriously and joke about serious stuff?

Originally Posted by Galadriel

And I can't believe I'm saying this, but...Jaime Lannister is slowly working his way up, too!

After a certain chapter of (supposedly) truthtelling, he went up my list as well!

Theon is the lowest on my list. He's such a low treacherous arrogant ungrateful big-headed coward!

Originally Posted by Lal

I don't think I could idolise any of the characters in A Song Of Ice and Fire, not even Ned Stark, it's not a world of heroes and villains.

I agree. Although I loved him for all his honourable traits, he deserved what he got. (do I hear some muttering? ) At Winterfell, where he and his justice ruled, he did fine - and got proper respect for that. But down south money is worth more than all his goodness and justice and etc. He couldn't get used to such a way of life, and wasn't fit for the game of thrones. But what really made him grey instead of white in my eyes was how he didn't stick to his honour till the end. Fine - if you value virtues above your life and the lives of those around you, so be it, don't listen to that fat ugly man telling you that you should turn around and lie to yourself and to others saying that you lied before to save your skin! And if you value truth so much, don't let it die with you! He belongs in the north, and that's that.

However, despite this, I have to give Ned his due respect for doing what he thought was right. He couldn't help it if what he thought and what others thought did not match, just as he couldn't help asking if honesty was always right.


Stannis is quite the intriguing character in the second half of the second book. If he'd only listen a bit more to some people around him! (You know, he, Viserys, and Theon remind me of the Hamptons - both father and son - from P&A :-D )


I have a feeling I'm getting as obsessed with talking about the Song of Ice and Fire as I was about a year ago with talking Tolkien. :/

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

SPOILERS AHEAD.

His wisecracks were the reason I did not like him at first. However, after reading a little more closely, I found he was terribly intriguing. He could possibly be called a romantic. Look at the way he keeps remembering his wife (I forget her name). He even feels for the girls working at brothels. But he knows that no one is going to take him seriously - less so if he acts all kind and encouraging. So he shrugs off emotions (or tries to) and acts tough. To put it bluntly, he knows how to play the game of thrones, even if he doesn't want to.

For me, it's how he is in A Dance With Dragons that forms the point at which I start to find him a bit irritating again. He's truly been through the mill at that point, and even here he doesn't stop with the clever lines. Though to be fair, I think that's why a lot of fans adore him, for his sharp tongue, and that might be why Martin chose to keep him that way. I agree he's a bit of a romantic, and that's probably his most interesting characteristic - he maintains an illusion that the women in the brothels love him for himself and not the money he has.

Originally Posted by Galadriel 55

I agree. Although I loved him for all his honourable traits, he deserved what he got. (do I hear some muttering? ) At Winterfell, where he and his justice ruled, he did fine - and got proper respect for that. But down south money is worth more than all his goodness and justice and etc. He couldn't get used to such a way of life, and wasn't fit for the game of thrones. But what really made him grey instead of white in my eyes was how he didn't stick to his honour till the end. Fine - if you value virtues above your life and the lives of those around you, so be it, don't listen to that fat ugly man telling you that you should turn around and lie to yourself and to others saying that you lied before to save your skin! And if you value truth so much, don't let it die with you! He belongs in the north, and that's that.

However, despite this, I have to give Ned his due respect for doing what he thought was right. He couldn't help it if what he thought and what others thought did not match, just as he couldn't help asking if honesty was always right.

Interestingly, I viewed Ned as being painted as fairly 'white' all the way through A Game of Thrones, as a man who would stand by his honour no matter what. That's why he agrees to go and serve the King even if it's not what is in the best interests of him, his family and his people.

In the end, he did a bad thing like so many other characters. In going off to be The Hand, he broke his family apart and left his small children to the mercies of fate. I'm sure I'm not the only one who sits and thinks "If only..." Of course, half the story wouldn't exist if he hadn't gone, but it was his pride in his honour that led to his children suffering.

What fascinates me is how there's a really slow revelation about certain things which happened in the past, in the youth of Ned, Robert, Jaime and Rhaegar. I get the feeling that I'm going to learn at some point (once he gets the story firing up again...) exactly why Ned was so wedded to 'honour'.

I think the worst of all the characters for me has to be Gregor Clegane - a truly horrible man. Though some others run him close though I don't know how far you are with the books so I won't do spoilers

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I did a worse one on Amazon Some parts of the book were intriguing and could have been worked on, but for the most part it was just...ugh.

Yes, I am very eloquent.

Well, good for you. Pretty much all the reviews I've seen not only rave about the series' brilliance, they lavish praise on the "original" plotting and "deep, complex" characterisation. I mean, what the–? Yes, I know it's all in the eye of the beholder, and all that– but really, I was left wondering, "Have we been reading the same book?"

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Interestingly, I viewed Ned as being painted as fairly 'white' all the way through A Game of Thrones, as a man who would stand by his honour no matter what. That's why he agrees to go and serve the King even if it's not what is in the best interests of him, his family and his people.

That's not what made him grey. It's his treason to himself that made him so - one that he thought would save some lives. It's not his fault that it didn't, but if you're so stubborn about honour, be stubborn till the end.

Originally Posted by Lal

I think the worst of all the characters for me has to be Gregor Clegane - a truly horrible man. Though some others run him close though I don't know how far you are with the books so I won't do spoilers

I can agree that he's a horrible man, but he's a beautiful character. And his brother the Hound even more so (as a character, not actually... ). I actually like Sandor Clegane a lot. He's the most interesting beast in a Beauty and the Beast thing. But I actually like that one for more than being an interesting character. Somehow he's closer to being a Ned than all these "honourable" true knights... The good, white Ned...

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I can agree that he's a horrible man, but he's a beautiful character. And his brother the Hound even more so (as a character, not actually... ). I actually like Sandor Clegane a lot. He's the most interesting beast in a Beauty and the Beast thing. But I actually like that one for more than being an interesting character. Somehow he's closer to being a Ned than all these "honourable" true knights... The good, white Ned...

Gregor I never liked, but Sandor is quite interesting. I know that he's utterly ruthless, but for some reason I can't seem to think he's all bad.

[Lalwendë]

The Hound is a fascinating character. He's introduced as a brutal man, solely a fighter, and one with a very dry and dark sense of humour. But you gradually learn his background and he shows a caring side (which comes first though? I am going to have to read again to work that out!). I think it's right that he does have more of a true sense of 'nobility' than, for example, many of the other knights of the Kingsguard. He's simply not interested in chivalry and though he's uncouth and brutal, some of his actions show more 'honour' than most of his fellows show. I always find it interesting how Sansa idolises the young, attractive nobles and knights and yet it's the twisted, brutal Hound who treats her with respect.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I always find it interesting how Sansa idolises the young, attractive nobles and knights and yet it's the twisted, brutal Hound who treats her with respect.

I kept wondering how she can be so blind to not see anything beyond his face. She should have felt something for him - pity, at least. Respect. Understanding. I was waiting for the whole book for her to develop some kind of affection for him - and instead she goes for her Florian. Sansa disappoints me. I thought she learned her lesson of judging people by their appearance with her dear prince. It's unfortunate that it spread only as far as Lannisters go. But even so - she's closer to the young brave wounded Lancel Lannister who did her nothing than to the Hound who saved her a bunch of times and opened his soul to her and just did so much more for her.