A Song of Ice and Fire

[Firetalon]

At one point in time, I thought this was the greatest series of books ever. The writing style was one that really appealed to me. I liked the fact that while it was still fantasy, it was pseudo-historical, preferring political and psychological reasons for events to magical. However, as I get older and more cynical, I wonder why I enjoyed this series so much.

It's still well-written, and I still like the pseudo-historical approach. But the material! A dude sleeps with his sister, and somehow in the fucked up world Martin creates, the reader finds him or herself going, "He only wants to sleep with his sister. Why is everyone keeping him down?" A deformed, whoring, troll of a man is seen as the center of logic in a fucked up family. We cheer for a 11-12 year old who is TRAINING TO BE AN ASSASSIN. A guy confessed to a crime to save his daughter, got his head cut off for it, and we hate the retarded child who motivated his sacrifice. It's a screwed up world.

And somehow, SOMEHOW, I still want the next book to come out.

It would serve me right if the fat bastard author died before he finished writing the series.

[Conner Macleod]

My room mate's been reading through the series, he's currently on 'A Storm of Swords'. From what he's said about it it sounds like a well written series, so I've added it to my long list of books that I want to read.

You'll be happy to hear that the next book in the series is coming out on September 30th, it's called 'A Dance With Dragons':

http://www.amazon.com/Dance-Dragons-...6622389&sr=1-2

[Socratis]

what problem do you have with the material ? i liked the different portrayals of jaime through the various points of view. in the first books we have an utterly biased view of him added with moments of brutality (throwing a child off a building, murdering a few "good guys," etc) which paint him as evil incarnate, but by the third book, when his character's explored and the reasons and causes for his actions evaluated he comes off in a wholly different light.

not to mention the fact that when characters commit stupid acts they receive the full blunt of their actions. never before in a book series have i seen so many main characters die before their arc has come to full fruitation.

or do you mean the brutality which the books display in nearly every chapter?

[Firetalon]

Originally Posted by Conner Macleod

My room mate's been reading through the series, he's currently on 'A Storm of Swords'. From what he's said about it it sounds like a well written series, so I've added it to my long list of books that I want to read.

You'll be happy to hear that the next book in the series is coming out on September 30th, it's called 'A Dance With Dragons':

http://www.amazon.com/Dance-Dragons-...6622389&sr=1-2

I knew it was coming out, but I'm skeptical about the date. If he did a pushup for every time he pushed the deadline back, he would probably be healthier and less likely to have a heart attack before he finished the series.

[Firetalon]

Originally Posted by Socratis

what problem do you have with the material ?

People constantly do bad things, but in Martin's dystopian world, we are expected to sympathize with what are basically horrible people. Note, I didn't say "good people who do bad things". No, bad people fucking things up even more. The only arguably "good" person who fucks things up is Catelyn, and she's a bigot and a fountain of bad ideas. Sansa is a retard and is following in Catelyn's steps.

i liked the different portrayals of jaime through the various points of view. in the first books we have an utterly biased view of him added with moments of brutality (throwing a child off a building, murdering a few "good guys," etc) which paint him as evil incarnate, but by the third book, when his character's explored and the reasons and causes for his actions evaluated he comes off in a wholly different light.

He's still a horrible person, but we're expected to sympathize with him. He's getting better, yes, but there really is no excusing a lot of his actions. "He threw the kid off a building because he wanted to sleep with his sister and keep it a secret." The fact that that's seen as a good reason just shows it's a fucked up world.

not to mention the fact that when characters commit stupid acts they receive the full blunt of their actions. never before in a book series have i seen so many main characters die before their arc has come to full fruitation.

Not just "stupid acts". Martin seems intent on heaping unmitigated sorrow on anyone who seems vaguely interesting. Ned was one of the only good people there, and see what happened to him. Tyrion wasn't terribly bad either. But he has been shit on forever, and it's only getting worse. He's one of the people who ISN'T stupid, and yet somehow he gets shit on for being alive. I wouldn't be surprised that he dies and gets nothing for his troubles. What do they plan to do to him next? Cut off his legs?

I wouldn't even be surprised if Jaime gets shit on just when he's starting to regret being an asshole for the first part of the series.

Catelyn, on the other hand, can't stop screwing things up. Even when she dies she can't even stop screwing things up. Anyone who has ever listened to her has ended up dying or being crapped on by the entire world. It's ridiculous.

It's a screwed up world Martin created.

[Juicy]

I've been reading this series. I still have A Feast For Crows sitting on my shelf and somehow I can't make myself read it because I know it'll leave me wanting for more and who knows when George RR Martin will release the next one.

[Socratis]

well, there goes any holding back i had with spoilers . anyone with any interest in reading the series should, uh, stay away

Originally Posted by Firetalon

People constantly do bad things, but in Martin's dystopian world, we are expected to sympathize with what are basically horrible people. Note, I didn't say "good people who do bad things". No, bad people fucking things up even more. The only arguably "good" person who fucks things up is Catelyn, and she's a bigot and a fountain of bad ideas. Sansa is a retard and is following in Catelyn's steps.

i see.

why do you think sansa is retarded? her actions in the first book? that was a combination of the fact that she is an 11 year old girl at the time and thus naive.. and also that eddard decided to not explain the situation to her. he kept his daughters dangerously aloof to the situation, though he was bringing them into enemy territory.

He's still a horrible person, but we're expected to sympathize with him. He's getting better, yes, but there really is no excusing a lot of his actions. "He threw the kid off a building because he wanted to sleep with his sister and keep it a secret." The fact that that's seen as a good reason just shows it's a fucked up world.

i do not think you are expected to sympathize with anyone if you do not want to. i did not feel that it was forcefully fed down my throat, at least.

i think you are dismissing the love between the siblings too quickly. by all accounts there is an intense love between the two, at least in the beginning. when jaime begins to change later he sees everything that is wrong with cersei, but the old jaime seemed perfectly content with being her dog.

think of his right hand as a symbol for the old jaime. it was that hand that killed, that finger-fucked his sister, and that murdered the king aerys. when he lost his hand he lost that part of him. his entire arc revolves around the question of whether rehabilitation is possible, if one can exonerate oneself from past sins. we'll find out. well, if the fat ass doesn't choke on a hot dog before then, at least.

Not just "stupid acts". Martin seems intent on heaping unmitigated sorrow on anyone who seems vaguely interesting. Ned was one of the only good people there, and see what happened to him. Tyrion wasn't terribly bad either. But he has been shit on forever, and it's only getting worse. He's one of the people who ISN'T stupid, and yet somehow he gets shit on for being alive. I wouldn't be surprised that he dies and gets nothing for his troubles. What do they plan to do to him next? Cut off his legs?

one of the things i best liked about eddard was the fact that it seemed that everyone around him (except his family) viewed him as a cold, stiff man. much like stannis, in fact. though we know better as we were shown his true self, it harks back to the fact that it all relies on points of view. to the audience eddard seems the good guy, but to the lannisters? cersei had every right to fight back and lock him up. she was, after all, doing it for her children and their future.

likewise tyrion from our point of view might seem a nice guy and we might understand what makes him tick.. but consider the fact that the afternoon of bran's fall, when the family was in mourning, he knew his brother had committed the crime yet said nothing out of pure love for his brother. would most do this? if you had sibling that just tried to kill a seven year old would you stay silent? again, we can (not necessarily have to, mind you.. it's a book after all..) forgive these because we have an understanding of the "what's and why's"

I wouldn't even be surprised if Jaime gets shit on just when he's starting to regret being an asshole for the first part of the series.

i expect to jaime to die strangling cersei with his left hand.

Catelyn, on the other hand, can't stop screwing things up. Even when she dies she can't even stop screwing things up. Anyone who has ever listened to her has ended up dying or being crapped on by the entire world. It's ridiculous.

catelyn is a realistic character; consider what happened to her that began leading to these screwed up decisions. her seven year old son, her (seemingly) favorite child fell and broke his back. though she took tyrion hostage at a moment's whim without much thought of the consequences, she was fueled by rage. she whole heartedly believed that it was him who did the act.

until the red wedding she experienced more loss than any character in the series. her entire character revolved around the fact that she is a mother first. that's why when robb died she lost the last ounce of sanity she had left, because (for all she knows at least) her entire family was dead. her children, her husband, everything she had to hope for gone in the span of a few years.

It's a screwed up world Martin created.

its also a screwed up world we live in.

[Firetalon]

Originally Posted by Socratis

why do you think sansa is retarded? her actions in the first book? that was a combination of the fact that she is an 11 year old girl at the time and thus naive..

I just believe all 11 year olds are retarded. Sansa is retarded inasmuch as the rest of the 11 year old population is retarded. But what's worse is that she's got a head start on Catelyn as far as fucking things up goes.

She fawns after and tries to please people. Because of her flaw, she talks with Cersei and prevents their escape, directly causing her father and many of his men to get killed, her sister's exile, and her own imprisonment. She almost single-handedly destroys the Stark line.

But it might not be fair to put all the blame on her. Rather, we should look at her mother.

Near the very beginning of the first book, Ned told Catelyn to go visit her sister and take the kids with her. Cat said the king was coming and they have to stay. Mistake 1. Ned was going to turn down being the Hand. But Catelyn said it was an honor, and thought it was a great idea that Sansa might possibly be queen one day. All aboard the sinking ship! Mistake 2. I can't possibly number all the problems she's caused, but she didn't like the wolves, she thought Robb should ride south, she thought that she could trade Jaime for Sansa, thought Robb should visit the Freys, etc. etc. etc. Whatever her motivations, anyone who listens to Cat ends up DYING A HORRIBLE DEATH.

i think you are dismissing the love between the siblings too quickly.

Dude, he loves his SISTER. Incest apologist, anyone? The fact that it's excusable to some extent shows that Martin's world is extremely messed up.

cersei had every right to fight back and lock him up. she was, after all, doing it for her children and their future.

If she had any redeeming characteristics, she would have thrown her own children off a building and killed herself. Cersei's motivations were only to herself. She didn't raise her kids. She just wanted to be in charge of something, and the only way she could do that is through her kids. Her father knew that. Her uncle knew that. Tyrion knew that. Even Jaime, to some extent, knew that.

Besides, Cersei's children really didn't have a right to the throne. Not to mention they'd ruin everything as well. Joffrey was a petulant brat, Tommen was weak, and we don't know Myrcella well enough to care about her.

likewise tyrion from our point of view might seem a nice guy and we might understand what makes him tick.. but consider the fact that the afternoon of bran's fall, when the family was in mourning, he knew his brother had committed the crime yet said nothing out of pure love for his brother. would most do this? if you had sibling that just tried to kill a seven year old would you stay silent? again, we can (not necessarily have to, mind you.. it's a book after all..) forgive these because we have an understanding of the "what's and why's"

All that proves is that Tyrion is just as morally reprehensible as the rest of them.

until the red wedding she experienced more loss than any character in the series. her entire character revolved around the fact that she is a mother first. that's why when robb died she lost the last ounce of sanity she had left, because (for all she knows at least) her entire family was dead. her children, her husband, everything she had to hope for gone in the span of a few years.

And most of that was her fault.

its also a screwed up world we live in.

Yes, but not to the degree in which Martin writes it. It's like he's playing character flaw/misfortune bingo and is trying for a blackout.

[Socratis]

Originally Posted by Firetalon

I just believe all 11 year olds are retarded. Sansa is retarded inasmuch as the rest of the 11 year old population is retarded.

ok, then..

She fawns after and tries to please people. Because of her flaw, she talks with Cersei and prevents their escape, directly causing her father and many of his men to get killed, her sister's exile, and her own imprisonment. She almost single-handedly destroys the Stark line.

you are blaming a child for being irrational; that's the crutch of this argument, yes?

But it might not be fair to put all the blame on her.

perhaps not.

Near the very beginning of the first book, Ned told Catelyn to go visit her sister and take the kids with her. Cat said the king was coming and they have to stay. Mistake 1. Ned was going to turn down being the Hand. But Catelyn said it was an honor, and thought it was a great idea that Sansa might possibly be queen one day. All aboard the sinking ship! Mistake 2. I can't possibly number all the problems she's caused, but she didn't like the wolves, she thought Robb should ride south, she thought that she could trade Jaime for Sansa, thought Robb should visit the Freys, etc. etc. etc. Whatever her motivations, anyone who listens to Cat ends up DYING A HORRIBLE DEATH.

there are a few mistakes here; i dont know if they are exaggerations or not.

i dont see how refusing to go visit her sister could be a "mistake" or come from a "retarded decision." eddard only asked her to because her sister's husband died. there was no danger yet, so deciding to stay was not out of fault of her own. it is like condemning a man for walking across the street only to get hit by the delorean, back from 1955.

catelyn did not care about the honor. her first argument (before the investigation of jon arryn's death came up) was that if ned refused it could spark suspicion in robert's eyes. unlikely, maybe, but again not a bad decision at the time from any perspective (irrational argument, perhaps, but we are arguing actions not irrationality..). also, what woman wouldnt want their daughter to become queen in the medieval ages? especially over an entire continent the size of south america?

she didnt like wolves. ok, so she didnt want to give her five children (all under the age of fifteen) dangerous wolves as pets. i dont see the problem with that decision, personally.

her husband was imprisoned, her daughters hostage; robert, the king, was dead and the enemy that had done it all was now invading her birthplace. yes, i should hope that she should want her son to ride south.

she did think she could trade jaime for sansa (and arya), and she was right. if she so chose she could have and the offer would have been gladly accepted. catelyn might not have been thinking politically here, but then what good mother would choose politics over her two daughters' lives?

robb visiting the freys almost won him the war. he scored a large command of invaluable troops which allowed him to capture jaime, defeat the besieging army at riverrun, and continue the campaign south and west. it would have worked, too, had robb not violated the terms of the alliance. this is was a good decision by catelyn.

another "good decision" was when she told her brother to listen to robb and let tywin's armies ford the river. he didn't listen and instead scored some easy victories at the cost of the campaign

robb, his generals, and catelyn died because robb did not listen to catelyn. you also forget renly died when he refused to consider atelyn's request that he bow to his brother and surrender his armies.

Dude, he loves his SISTER. Incest apologist, anyone? The fact that it's excusable to some extent shows that Martin's world is extremely messed up.

not true. though the thought of incest with a family member almost physically makes me sick, i would never condemn another's relationship between siblings (father-daughter, mother-son involves too much authority), especially twins. if it is what they want then it doesn't matter to me. i doubt i'm alone. also, how is it excusable? everyone in the book seems to think the idea is sickening, except the lovers.. and well, incest exists in the real world.. and i'm sure the people involved in such relationships "excuse it" as you say.

If she had any redeeming characteristics, she would have thrown her own children off a building and killed herself. Cersei's motivations were only to herself. She didn't raise her kids. She just wanted to be in charge of something, and the only way she could do that is through her kids. Her father knew that. Her uncle knew that. Tyrion knew that. Even Jaime, to some extent, knew that.

unrealistic demands. cersei suffers some flaws, but her devotion to the wellbeing of her children is not one of them. you don't seem to understand the bond mothers have with their children.

Besides, Cersei's children really didn't have a right to the throne. Not to mention they'd ruin everything as well. Joffrey was a petulant brat, Tommen was weak, and we don't know Myrcella well enough to care about her.

nobody really cares about the rights to thrones. it's all part of the game. so long as everyone thought they had the right that's all that mattered to cersei.. and i'm sure anyone else if they were put in her position. also, tommen does not seem weak he seems rather normal for a six year old. not every child can be bran the brave.

All that proves is that Tyrion is just as morally reprehensible as the rest of them.

just as we all are.

Yes, but not to the degree in which Martin writes it. It's like he's playing character flaw/misfortune bingo and is trying for a blackout.

not true. read about the thirty year war. there are horrors there that are unimaginable. the fact that this is set at a time of particular political instability and that all of these characters hold prominent positions and are so widespread across the continent it doesn't surprise me that these atrocities appear in the book so often.

[Kimarhi Ronso]

I've read the first three books through twice (and have skimmed them over half dozen more times), and the fourth once.

I'll be extremely freaking pissed off if the Hound and the Onion Knight are dead for serious and if Ser Jorah doesn't make a reappearance. I don't know why, but Ser Jorah is one of my favorite characters.

I think its setting up for Jon, Bran, and Dany to be the three dragon riders the book only hints at, and that everybody else's actions are setting up the final battle, or are allowing them to become the hero characters.

Its an interesting series because even if you don't agree with Jaime and the like characters, you end up feeling sorry for them as the story progresses.

If you look at the stories you can kinda see him setting up his ever afters. I see Jaime and Brienne together (Brienne I think mentions arya before she dies and is spared by Caetlyn), Jon and Dany setting up an alliance, and bran using his warg powers to control the dragons. Still not sure what the hell to think about Arya and Dany, but hey, there are still three more books left.

[Firetalon]

Originally Posted by Socratis

you are blaming a child for being irrational; that's the crutch of this argument, yes?

Was it an argument? I thought you were asking why I thought she was retarded.

I'm not blaming a child for being irrational. I'm saying she is retarded because she is irrational, and makes bad decisions that result in the deaths of the people she holds dear. All 11 year olds are irrational and retarded, but not all of them manage to get their parents killed.

i dont see how refusing to go visit her sister could be a "mistake" or come from a "retarded decision." eddard only asked her to because her sister's husband died. there was no danger yet, so deciding to stay was not out of fault of her own. it is like condemning a man for walking across the street only to get hit by the delorean, back from 1955.

Cat's decisions, for the most part = doom for the Stark family. Whether or not they are reasoned, or wonderful, or epiphanies from the gods, or something she read in a fortune cookie, her decisions have led to destruction of her family.

Her decision, if she had decided to leave, might have saved them all. Instead, she chose to stay, and to convince Ned to accept the "honor".

catelyn did not care about the honor. her first argument (before the investigation of jon arryn's death came up) was that if ned refused it could spark suspicion in robert's eyes. unlikely, maybe, but again not a bad decision at the time from any perspective (irrational argument, perhaps, but we are arguing actions not irrationality..). also, what woman wouldnt want their daughter to become queen in the medieval ages? especially over an entire continent the size of south america?

She damn well did want the honor.

"Robert came all this way to see you, to being you these great honors, you cannot throw them back in his face."

"Honors?" Ned laughed bitterly.

"In his eyes, yes," she said.

"And in yours?"

"And in mine," she blazed, angry now. Why couldn't he see? "He offers his own son in marriage to our daughter, what else would you call that? Sansa might someday be queen. Her sons could rule from the Wall to the mountains of Dorne. What is so wrong with that?"

"Gods, Catelyn, Sansa is only eleven," Ned said. "And Joffrey... Joffrey is..."

She finished for him. "...crown prince, and heir to the Iron Throne."...

Catelyn would have married her daughter off to a cruel sadistic petulant brat. Why? Because of the honor of having Sansa be queen. Joffrey's known cruelty and sociopathic disregard for other people was not lost on Ned, but mommy dearest still wanted her darling daughter to marry him.

she didnt like wolves. ok, so she didnt want to give her five children (all under the age of fifteen) dangerous wolves as pets. i dont see the problem with that decision, personally.

The wolves had never harmed the children. In fact, they gave them strength. But even if they were only dogs, she did not care whether her precious offspring's pets gave them strength. She was scared of them, and so decided to keep them away because of her own fear. It's only when Rob disobeyed her that Bran got better.

her husband was imprisoned, her daughters hostage; robert, the king, was dead and the enemy that had done it all was now invading her birthplace. yes, i should hope that she should want her son to ride south.

And it lead to her son dying, Winterfell being taken (since not many people were there defending it), and her husband STILL died. She advised her brother to marry a Frey and they all went to the red wedding and got killed.

she did think she could trade jaime for sansa (and arya), and she was right. if she so chose she could have and the offer would have been gladly accepted. catelyn might not have been thinking politically here, but then what good mother would choose politics over her two daughters' lives?

She was thinking politically earlier. She turns that thing on and off at the most inconvenient times.

But let's look at that whole Jaime thing. He was captured, and what happened then? She sent him off, and got diddly-squat in return. No Sansa, no bargaining chip, nothing. Her decisions cost them a huge bargaining piece. Whether or not her motives were pure as the driven snow, her decisions set them back drastically. Her actions hurt her side.

robb visiting the freys almost won him the war. he scored a large command of invaluable troops which allowed him to capture jaime, defeat the besieging army at riverrun, and continue the campaign south and west. it would have worked, too, had robb not violated the terms of the alliance. this is was a good decision by catelyn.

If Rob hadn't listened to Catelyn to begin with, he would never have been able to go south, and/or DIE.

another "good decision" was when she told her brother to listen to robb and let tywin's armies ford the river. he didn't listen and instead scored some easy victories at the cost of the campaign

Doesn't count. It was Robb's idea. If her brother had listened to ROBB, he might have won.

robb, his generals, and catelyn died because robb did not listen to catelyn.

When did he not listen to Catelyn? He sucked up his pride and went back to the Freys. We all know how that turned out.

you also forget renly died when he refused to consider atelyn's request that he bow to his brother and surrender his armies.

That's because Catelyn is an idiot when it comes to dealing with people. It was a dumb idea to think that someone who believes he is a king will have any interest in bowing to someone else.

not true. though the thought of incest with a family member almost physically makes me sick, i would never condemn another's relationship between siblings (father-daughter, mother-son involves too much authority), especially twins. if it is what they want then it doesn't matter to me. i doubt i'm alone. also, how is it excusable? everyone in the book seems to think the idea is sickening, except the lovers.. and well, incest exists in the real world.. and i'm sure the people involved in such relationships "excuse it" as you say.

I don't know how it's excusable. You tell me. You're the one who seems to say it's ok if they really, really love each other. I'm saying his actions are NOT excusable, and I don't just mean the incest.

unrealistic demands. cersei suffers some flaws, but her devotion to the wellbeing of her children is not one of them. you don't seem to understand the bond mothers have with their children.

Huh? What demands are you referring to? Are you reading some different post?

I understand just fine that some mothers have a bond with their kids. But I do not believe Cersei has a bond with her children. If she did have any attachment to them, it is a very superficial one. She cared for Joffrey because he was the closest way to power. She proved time and time again that her first love was power. She slept with anyone she could for power. She liked Jaime because he was male, and in her mind, only men could have power. When she was having her lesbian affair with Lady Merriweather, she did it because she liked the power. She did not want to be married again because she wanted power. On and on and on...

nobody really cares about the rights to thrones.

Her children were unfit to rule. Joffrey would run the Seven Kingdoms into the ground for the sake of his own pleasure. Tommen is a 6 year old. There is no way you can tell me a 6 year old is able to make decisions that can benefit his society as a whole. Myrcella wouldn't be able to sit on the throne. They had no claim to the throne, and they would have brought the kingdoms to ruin. And yet Cersei insisted on trying to put them on the throne, even if they were the illegitimate offspring of an incestuous affair. The fact that she didn't care about whether they were right for it means she was dedicating to keeping and holding power, regardless of whether it would hurt her society.

tommen does not seem weak he seems rather normal for a six year old. not every child can be bran the brave.

A 6 year old is not a king. He is unable to rule. He still plays with kitties. Of course he is weak.

just as we all are.

Maybe you enjoy seeing other people as obstacles to your achievement, using other people for personal gratification, lying, lording over others, and backstabbing, but some of us try to live our lives with some degree of ethicality.

not true. read about the thirty year war. there are horrors there that are unimaginable. the fact that this is set at a time of particular political instability and that all of these characters hold prominent positions and are so widespread across the continent it doesn't surprise me that these atrocities appear in the book so often.

An average person who is not living in a war zone is not going to have all the flaws that happen to these people. An average person who is not living in a war zone is not going to have all the misfortunes that happen to these people. Tyrion was born short, and had his father take his first wife and turn her into a whore. Jaime, in his short life, killed a king. Cersei turns incest into a game for the whole family. Sansa managed to get her father killed, her sister exiled, her septa beheaded, and a random knight drowned all through her "average girl" stupidity. Noticing a pattern? They are all pinnacles of bad decisions and misfortune. It does not happen to average people. But yet it is happening to ALL these people. Every single one of them has an extensive shopping list of misfortune and character flaws. I'm not saying that these things never happen. However, having ALL these things happen to ALL these people is rather over the top.

[Firetalon]

Originally Posted by Kimarhi Ronso

If you look at the stories you can kinda see him setting up his ever afters. I see Jaime and Brienne together (Brienne I think mentions arya before she dies and is spared by Caetlyn), Jon and Dany setting up an alliance, and bran using his warg powers to control the dragons. Still not sure what the hell to think about Arya and Dany, but hey, there are still three more books left.

I think Brienne mentioned Stannis. Wasn't she supposed to kill him, or am I thinking about someone else?

[Socratis]

Originally Posted by Firetalon

Was it an argument? I thought you were asking why I thought she was retarded.

not in the sense that we were arguing, no.

She damn well did want the honor.

for her daughter not for herself. i went over this. it is like a mother wishing to marry her daughter to a rich man. it is how it is. you argue against the times, not the character.

Cat's decisions, for the most part = doom for the Stark family. Whether or not they are reasoned, or wonderful, or epiphanies from the gods, or something she read in a fortune cookie, her decisions have led to destruction of her family.

Her decision, if she had decided to leave, might have saved them all. Instead, she chose to stay, and to convince Ned to accept the "honor".

Catelyn would have married her daughter off to a cruel sadistic petulant brat. Why? Because of the honor of having Sansa be queen. Joffrey's known cruelty and sociopathic disregard for other people was not lost on Ned, but mommy dearest still wanted her darling daughter to marry him.

The wolves had never harmed the children. In fact, they gave them strength. But even if they were only dogs, she did not care whether her precious offspring's pets gave them strength. She was scared of them, and so decided to keep them away because of her own fear. It's only when Rob disobeyed her that Bran got better.

And it lead to her son dying, Winterfell being taken (since not many people were there defending it), and her husband STILL died. She advised her brother to marry a Frey and they all went to the red wedding and got killed.

But let's look at that whole Jaime thing. He was captured, and what happened then? She sent him off, and got diddly-squat in return. No Sansa, no bargaining chip, nothing. Her decisions cost them a huge bargaining piece. Whether or not her motives were pure as the driven snow, her decisions set them back drastically. Her actions hurt her side.

If Rob hadn't listened to Catelyn to begin with, he would never have been able to go south, and/or DIE.

Doesn't count. It was Robb's idea. If her brother had listened to ROBB, he might have won.

When did he not listen to Catelyn? He sucked up his pride and went back to the Freys. We all know how that turned out.

That's because Catelyn is an idiot when it comes to dealing with people. It was a dumb idea to think that someone who believes he is a king will have any interest in bowing to someone else.

i cant answer these because you have reverted to your old argument that relied on hindsight and have not take into consideration the situation at the time. a lot of catelyn stark's actions seemed sound and were argued logically; she did do some irrational stuff (namely tyrion), but you cannot flaw her for her actions if they were well reasoned and were in the best interest of those involved. besides, it is silly to say that she caused her family's death. robb, robert baratheon, walter frey, the lannisters, eddard, joffrey, jaime for birthing joffrey, and so on, they all contributed equally.

so, i am afraid i cannot and will not continue discussions that rely on hindsight to judge someone's character or actions. it is stupid, to be blunt.

She was thinking politically earlier. She turns that thing on and off at the most inconvenient times.

yes. after bran, however, her actions changed to do what was best to protect her family.

I don't know how it's excusable. You tell me. You're the one who seems to say it's ok if they really, really love each other. I'm saying his actions are NOT excusable, and I don't just mean the incest.

oh, i agree. the attempted murder on bran and his attack on eddard's men were both completely inexcusable, especially the latter. now, however, he seems to be trying to change.

Huh? What demands are you referring to? Are you reading some different post?

I understand just fine that some mothers have a bond with their kids. But I do not believe Cersei has a bond with her children. If she did have any attachment to them, it is a very superficial one. She cared for Joffrey because he was the closest way to power. She proved time and time again that her first love was power. She slept with anyone she could for power. She liked Jaime because he was male, and in her mind, only men could have power. When she was having her lesbian affair with Lady Merriweather, she did it because she liked the power. She did not want to be married again because she wanted power. On and on and on...

sorry if the plural threw you off, i meant your demand that she murder her son.

though i have not yet read a feast for crows (lesbian affair? wtf, fucking martin and his sex-crazed self), nothing to me has suggested that she does not care for her children. she seemed quite visibly upset when joffrey died, after all. she might like power, but that doesnt mean she rejects her children.

Her children were unfit to rule. Joffrey would run the Seven Kingdoms into the ground for the sake of his own pleasure. Tommen is a 6 year old. There is no way you can tell me a 6 year old is able to make decisions that can benefit his society as a whole. Myrcella wouldn't be able to sit on the throne. They had no claim to the throne, and they would have brought the kingdoms to ruin. And yet Cersei insisted on trying to put them on the throne, even if they were the illegitimate offspring of an incestuous affair. The fact that she didn't care about whether they were right for it means she was dedicating to keeping and holding power, regardless of whether it would hurt her society.

children never rule kingdoms; regents do until the children grow older. the council's weakened by the loss of littlefinger, but i'm sure it can advise the regent on how to run the kingdom at least better than robert and aerys (not that that's hard).

of course she insisted, and why would she care about the society? this is not the age of enlightened kings. the date is likely somewhere around our historical 1300. kings cared about their house and family, none else.

Maybe you enjoy seeing other people as obstacles to your achievement, using other people for personal gratification, lying, lording over others, and backstabbing, but some of us try to live our lives with some degree of ethicality.

i meant that most people are not eddard starks, not that most people are tyrion lannisters. sorry for the confusion.

An average person who is not living in a war zone is not going to have all the flaws that happen to these people. An average person who is not living in a war zone is not going to have all the misfortunes that happen to these people. Tyrion was born short, and had his father take his first wife and turn her into a whore. Jaime, in his short life, killed a king. Cersei turns incest into a game for the whole family. Sansa managed to get her father killed, her sister exiled, her septa beheaded, and a random knight drowned all through her "average girl" stupidity. Noticing a pattern? They are all pinnacles of bad decisions and misfortune. It does not happen to average people. But yet it is happening to ALL these people. Every single one of them has an extensive shopping list of misfortune and character flaws. I'm not saying that these things never happen. However, having ALL these things happen to ALL these people is rather over the top.

simple. these are not average people. they are, as i said in the previous post, people in high positions of power, people with great influence, or people with good connections. of course they see and influence the world around them more than the average person. it might be unlikely (perhaps even very) that these situations all happen to these characters, but i do not think it's unrealistic given the setting.

[Kimarhi Ronso]

Originally Posted by Firetalon

I think Brienne mentioned Stannis. Wasn't she supposed to kill him, or am I thinking about someone else?

I can't remember exactly, but I remember Brienne finding out that Arya was still alive. Caetlyn I think is under the impression that ALL her family is dead or captured.

Of course, I haven't read that book in over a year (maybe two) so I may be misremembering things.

[Firetalon]

Originally Posted by Socratis

for her daughter not for herself. i went over this. it is like a mother wishing to marry her daughter to a rich man. it is how it is. you argue against the times, not the character.

You went over this? Really? I was thrown off by this:

Originally Posted by Socratis

catelyn did not care about the honor.

Sure she did. She might have wanted the honor for her kid, but she wanted the honor. She came right out and said it.

i cant answer these because you have reverted to your old argument that relied on hindsight and have not take into consideration the situation at the time. a lot of catelyn stark's actions seemed sound and were argued logically;

I didn't revert to anything. My argument (in the sense of "this is my proposition") has always been that listening to her leads to failure:

Originally Posted by Firetalon

Catelyn, on the other hand, can't stop screwing things up. Even when she dies she can't even stop screwing things up. Anyone who has ever listened to her has ended up dying or being crapped on by the entire world. It's ridiculous.

Is there an incident you can quote that proves listening to Catelyn leads to something positive?

so, i am afraid i cannot and will not continue discussions that rely on hindsight to judge someone's character or actions. it is stupid, to be blunt.

We cannot judge a person's actions on what they've done? What are we supposed to do? Look into the future to see what they're going to do?

But yes, if you have difficulty following basic ideas or forming coherent thoughts, it is perhaps for the best that you do not continue discussions.

yes. after bran, however, her actions changed to do what was best to protect her family.

Her motivations are not important to me. The only thing I was saying is this:

Originally Posted by Firetalon

Catelyn, on the other hand, can't stop screwing things up. Even when she dies she can't even stop screwing things up. Anyone who has ever listened to her has ended up dying or being crapped on by the entire world. It's ridiculous.

I don't know whether Martin intended to make her the harbinger of doom, but she certainly ended up that way. Her intentions were undoubtedly good, but she has the Midas touch of Crap.

[quote]oh, i agree. the attempted murder on bran and his attack on eddard's men were both completely inexcusable, especially the latter. now, however, he seems to be trying to change.

I like the direction he's going. He seems more human when he doubts his actions.

sorry if the plural threw you off, i meant your demand that she murder her son.

I didn't demand anything from her. That was hyperbole. She is not a good person, she is not going to sacrifice her means to power, and I don't expect her to do anything but die in some horribly contrived manner.

though i have not yet read a feast for crows (lesbian affair? wtf, fucking martin and his sex-crazed self), nothing to me has suggested that she does not care for her children. she seemed quite visibly upset when joffrey died, after all. she might like power, but that doesnt mean she rejects her children.

She has a lesbian scene, yes.

Anyway, I never said she rejects her children. I just said:

Originally Posted by Firetalon

Cersei's motivations were only to herself. She didn't raise her kids. She just wanted to be in charge of something, and the only way she could do that is through her kids.

Of course she wouldn't reject her children. She needs them. And of course she was visibly upset because Joffrey died. He was king, and now he's not. She would have to groom another child to be her little puppet. See: Tommen. Cersei was upset that Myrcella got shipped off somewhere because she can't use Myrcella as a puppet either.

children never rule kingdoms; regents do until the children grow older.

Ding ding ding! And Cersei wanted to be regent. Surprise!

why would she care about the society? this is not the age of enlightened kings. the date is likely somewhere around our historical 1300. kings cared about their house and family, none else.

Because she lives in that society, and if she were concerned about anything but herself she would see that keeping the people in poverty makes them more likely to revolt against her rule?

It's not just a status symbol, nor did other people believe it was just a status symbol. Hell, even Tyrion as the Hand knew it wasn't just a status symbol. It's why he had the "king" show up, then go safely back behind a wall. If Joffrey didn't show up, the people might have believed the fight was hopeless. The king gives people courage, hope, belief in stability, etc. blah blah whatever. Other people "get" the idea. Cersei is just blinded by her own self-interest.

simple. these are not average people. they are, as i said in the previous post, people in high positions of power, people with great influence, or people with good connections. of course they see and influence the world around them more than the average person. it might be unlikely (perhaps even very) that these situations all happen to these characters, but i do not think it's unrealistic given the setting.

Sure, these people are not average. Yes, they influence events and they're not "just like us". It IS a fantasy setting after all. But I still find it remarkable that ALL these things happen to these people in the books. I don't think Sarkozy or Harper ended up falling from a tower because they caught someone having sex with someone else. I'm fairly confident that Putin or Medvedev never got in a duel over some girl and had a finger cut off. And I'm quite positive Queen Elizabeth never got her nipples twisted by her crazed brother or had any chance of being married off to the leader of some horsemen. They're influential people that aren't "just like us".

To me, it's not that these events happen. It's the degree of frequency to which they happen to the same people. Martin is being sadistic to these characters. The only sure thing about all of this is that the characters you like are going to die.:I

[Firetalon]

Originally Posted by Kimarhi Ronso

I can't remember exactly, but I remember Brienne finding out that Arya was still alive. Caetlyn I think is under the impression that ALL her family is dead or captured.

Of course, I haven't read that book in over a year (maybe two) so I may be misremembering things.

Hm, it could be she said Arya. It's all speculation at this point anyway. I just thought Brienne swore to Cat that she would kill someone. It was one of the conditions of her release, and that Cat could not interfere with anything that got in the way of her task. I forget what person she was going to kill though.

[Firetalon]

Originally Posted by Kimarhi Ronso

I think its setting up for Jon, Bran, and Dany to be the three dragon riders the book only hints at, and that everybody else's actions are setting up the final battle, or are allowing them to become the hero characters.

I think Jon's a pretty good bet. I think he's Lyanna's and Rhaegar's kid.

As for the 3rd rider? I have no clue. Bran might be good? But I'm hoping that Tyrion gets a dragon just because he's been crapped on so much.

[Kimarhi Ronso]

She was suppossed to swear to kill Jaime but Brienne told her she didn't/wouldn't.

[Socratis]

Originally Posted by Firetalon

Because she lives in that society, and if she were concerned about anything but herself she would see that keeping the people in poverty makes them more likely to revolt against her rule?

oh, she cares for herself and her family just as nearly every other king and ruler both in the series and out. in fact this is one of the major themes of the books as expressed by jorah:

"The common people pray for rain, healthy children, and a summer that never ends. It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace. They never are."

keeping the people in poverty was what serfdom did. do you know much about the history of russia pre-ww1 (honest question)? that's only the most popular example. there are a hundred thousand others stretching across entire continents.

It's not just a status symbol, nor did other people believe it was just a status symbol. Hell, even Tyrion as the Hand knew it wasn't just a status symbol. It's why he had the "king" show up, then go safely back behind a wall. If Joffrey didn't show up, the people might have believed the fight was hopeless. The king gives people courage, hope, belief in stability, etc. blah blah whatever. Other people "get" the idea. Cersei is just blinded by her own self-interest.

the idea of a king does that, yes, it gives people hope in their government. that is why absolute monarchies lasted for as long as they did. the people were ignorant. cersei might be more ruthless than the norm (of kings/rulers), but that does not mean that the alternative was much better. look at robert baratheon, or king aerys, or stannis, renly, tywin, mace, lisa, robb.. aside from eddard there have been no good rulers. he was the exception.

Sure, these people are not average. Yes, they influence events and they're not "just like us". It IS a fantasy setting after all. But I still find it remarkable that ALL these things happen to these people in the books. I don't think Sarkozy or Harper ended up falling from a tower because they caught someone having sex with someone else. I'm fairly confident that Putin or Medvedev never got in a duel over some girl and had a finger cut off. And I'm quite positive Queen Elizabeth never got her nipples twisted by her crazed brother or had any chance of being married off to the leader of some horsemen. They're influential people that aren't "just like us".

sarkozy - born 1955
haper - born 1959
putin - born 1952
medvedev born - 1965
queen elizabeth - 1926

why did you list these people as examples? that's just bad analogy.

i will give you examples

caligula - "revived the treason trials of his predecessor, tiberius, opened a brothel in the palace, raped whomever he wished, reported on the woman's performance to her husband, committed incest, killed for greed, and thought he should be treated as a god."

he allegedly prostituted his sisters out to other men, and had sex with all three. he once named a horse his consular.

elagabalus- "did not act in a manner befitting an emperor, stopping short of self-castration in his pursuit of alien religions. this transvestite emperor raped a vestal virgin and in his unsatiable sexuality, set up a brothel at the palace. he imprisoned and executed those who criticized him."

domitian- "was paranoid about conspiracies. he developed new tortures and harassed philosophers and jews. he had vestal virgins executed or buried alive on charges of immorality. after he impregnated his niece, he insisted she have an abortion and then, when she died as a result, he deified her. he executed officials who opposed his policies and confiscated their property."

joan of arc- grew up as a peasant, declared that god willed france's victory. marched to meet charles vii. met him and convinced him that god was on his side, leading him to march to reims and crown himself king (which would win the war). later rallied military generals and brought defeat on the british forces outside orleans. was caught, tried and burned on the stake. she was a sixteen year old girl in a time where women were considered little more than possessions.

then men like guy of lusignan, various mongol rulers (esp. timur), umm william the conquerer (influenced the series, actually), henry the eighth, etc.

To me, it's not that these events happen. It's the degree of frequency to which they happen to the same people. Martin is being sadistic to these characters. The only sure thing about all of this is that the characters you like are going to die.:I

ok. im just trying to explain that though they might be unlikely, it is still very possible that they could have happened given the setting.

i'm afraid i am going to have to also refuse to continue discussions based on ignorance of history and/or judging characters based on modern thinking. it's the equivalent of condemning the founding fathers for owning slaves and believing in racial superiority. ie: it's stupid and worthless. men are judged on their righteousness based on the era they lived in, not on the contemporary. you are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but they're still wrong.

[Firetalon]

Originally Posted by Socratis

oh, she cares for herself and her family just as nearly every other king and ruler both in the series and out.

"But other people do it!" does not mean she is NOT doing it. Other people doing similar things does not mean she is right for doing so. What are you trying to argue exactly? That she does NOT care only for herself? That she is right in caring only for herself?

the idea of a king does that, yes, it gives people hope in their government. that is why absolute monarchies lasted for as long as they did. the people were ignorant. cersei might be more ruthless than the norm (of kings/rulers), but that does not mean that the alternative was much better.

Tyrion was a capable Hand. Tywin was a capable ruler. Her uncle seemed like he knew what was going on. Margaery and her relatives seem to have some idea what's going on. And they, at least, have shown some kindness and basic human decency. By all accounts, Rhaegar was shaping up to be a pretty good king. Before Robert killed him, of course. Cersei, on the other hand, ignored the financial state of her kingdom, insulted allies, and ignored genuine threats.

Again, what are you trying to argue exactly? That because other people suck at ruling, Cersei should be a bad ruler?

why did you list these people as examples?

I used these examples because they are a) important people, b) influential people, c) "not like us", d) rulers of their respective societies, e) people you may recognize, or could easily research.

that's just bad analogy.

Just because you do not understand something doesn't make it bad. It just means you don't understand something.

ok. im just trying to explain that though they might be unlikely, it is still very possible that they could have happened given the setting.

Ding, ding, ding! They are unlikely! Even those people you mentioned did not have Martin's degree of misfortune happen to them. I do not understand where you got the idea that I was saying nothing could happen to people.

i'm afraid i am going to have to also refuse to continue discussions based on ignorance of history and/or judging characters based on modern thinking. it's the equivalent of condemning the founding fathers for owning slaves and believing in racial superiority. ie: it's stupid and worthless. men are judged on their righteousness based on the era they lived in, not on the contemporary. you are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but they're still wrong.

"I do not beat my spouses to death for pleasure, but it's ok if my neighbor else beats their spouse to death for pleasure." Moral relativist bullshit. Some things are wrong regardless of culture, timeframe, gender, era, location, whatever.

Feel free to refuse to continue discussion any time.

[Socratis]

Originally Posted by Firetalon

Feel free to refuse to continue discussion any time.

ok

[BorderCollie-san]

the problem is that there's such a long time between books that you have to read the whole lot each time a new one comes out in order to remember what was happening. I really don't have the time for that.

[Conner Macleod]

Or a simpler solution is buying/borrowing the audio books since you're crunched for time, either that or find the Cliff's Notes versions, would serve nice as a recap.