Next Game of Thrones book The Winds of Winter won't be out until 2016

[DinoDoc]

So he envisioned more incest than he originally wrote?

[Elok]

I try not to discuss books I haven't read. It's the easy way to look like an idiot.

Well, FYVM, Mr. Late-to-the-party. But yes, there wasn't much point to my continually bringing up stupid hearsay, especially since I had no intention of ever finding out the truth of it all.

[Jon Miller]

He was possessed. Jeeze.

Elok answered you there.

I brought him up because you seemed to associate someone as 'evil' in GoT due to them doing evil actions. Even if they had a character arc where they changed/etc.

Maybe you should give some 'evil' characters in GoT which you like?

JM

[I AM MOBIUS]

Assuming of course that a majority of the DK/Refused weren't just refusing since they didn't want to appear to support them.

Yes, there is that, but that would be a higher figure than he was quoting and thus still proving that he can't read is own links

[I AM MOBIUS]

So basically:

Elok didn't care for reading GoT because of preconceptions

Preconceptions argued as false by everyone on poly

Elok still doesn't care for reading them.

[rah]

Maybe you should give some 'evil' characters in GoT which you like?

I like all three Lannister children.

Spoiler:

Tyrion who had mostly stopped being evil.
Jaime who is in the process.
Cersei who has a long way to go.

And that shows more the depth of GOT (character wise.)

Well, FYVM, Mr. Late-to-the-party. But yes, there wasn't much point to my continually bringing up stupid hearsay, especially since I had no intention of ever finding out the truth of it all.

Agreed, then stop posting in a thread about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You may want to spoiler that, rah (the part with the names)...

[Jon Miller]

I like all three Lannister children.

And that shows more the depth of GOT (character wise.)



Agreed, then stop posting in a thread about it.

I don't see a lot of difference between the characters you named and Denethor, Boromir, and Theoden.

JM
(and I most definitely do not like C*)

[rah]

You may want to spoiler that, rah (the part with the names)...

Sorry, I really didn't consider it necessary since it's so vague but in hindsight, you're probably right.

[rah]

I don't see a lot of difference between the characters you named and Denethor, Boromir, and Theoden.

JM
(and I most definitely do not like C*)

To each their own. I completely disagree.
I read the books a half a dozen times and even had a course in college on it. (easiest A ever)
But I haven't read them in over 30 years and have seen the the movies so many times since that it does blur my memory of what was actually in the books.
But I have read both and GOT's characters are much deeper in general.

With all that being said, I've read thousands and thousands of books, and LOTR is still one of my favorites. Well ahead of GOT.

[Cort Haus]

I have a hard time thinking of any one dimensional characters in Lord of the Rings, beyond Sauron/the Balrog/Orcs and similar. Even the elves (at least the ones that get characterization) are not one dimensional (Galadriel and Elrond very very obviously).

You saying 'they are a one dimensional, the bad behaviour is from the ring' shows a demonstrates a complete failure of critical reading.

Requiring purposeful blatant Evil (with a capital E) behavior to consider a character multidimensional is a very flat perspective of anything. I hope you don't carry it on to the rest of your lives.

JM

I'm not sure who was 'requiring Evil behavior to consider a character multidimensional'. On the contrary, people in real life sometimes show empathy, and sometimes self-interest. The latter can mean behaviour that ranges from mildly selfish all the way to evil. Take The Hound - a badass by any metric, but certainly multi-dimensional.

I don't see a lot of difference between the characters you named and Denethor, Boromir, and Theoden.

JM
(and I most definitely do not like C*)

I agree with you about Cersei, but I don't see any similarities between the three you mention and the Lanister boys.

[Cort Haus]

The ring is a metaphor.

Please go on, if you have the time.

[rah]

And we saw the fate of Denethor, Boromir and Théoden, they got killed off. Where very few "good" characters get killed off. We all know which author is the more equal opportunity killer of characters.

[Elok]

CH, the Ring is POWER. Brutal, unscrupulous power over people and the world, coupled with an insatiable thirst for more. That's its true purpose, somewhat vaguely described in the books--it gives a sufficiently determined person the ability to dominate others with his will, controlling their thoughts and actions. The invisibility thing is essentially a side-effect of how it works, by drawing the wearer partially into the same twilight dimension where the Nazgul "live." Possibly that's meant to be a kind of metaphor too, for the way ambition draws us out of the concrete and into our own fantasies, as when Boromir rants about his future as a big hero shortly before trying to take it.

People who are vulnerable to the Ring are people with an innately strong ambition. This does not, by itself, make them necessarily "evil." They fall when they lack the wisdom to avoid temptation. Gandalf, the most unambigiously good character in the story, is afraid to even touch the thing, because he too has a strong desire to change the world to fit his wishes. That this desire is totally good is irrelevant; the lesson is that power achieved by force inevitably becomes an end in itself. Likewise Galadriel and Faramir. Faramir differs from his brother in his superior judgment, not his innate moral decency. No good inclination is strong enough to resist it forever. And "bad" characters die b/c of the innately self-destructive tendencies of evil, as JRRT sees it. All this is rooted firmly in his Catholic beliefs.

Now, hobbits can resist it for a very long time. This is not because hobbits are morally better. On the contrary, they are gluttonous, bucolic know-nothings who generally serve as comic relief to majestic figures like Aragorn. Their strength comes from their having no significant ambition for the Ring to feed on. When it pulls at Gollum (in LOTR, after he has learned its true power), it tempts him with the prospect of eating fish three times a day. That's it. That's all the guy wants with world-ruling power, a lot of trout. It fails even worse with Samwise, trying to tempt him, for lack of anything better, with a reaaaallly big garden. Sam shrugs it off with little effort, since he reckons he'd rather have a garden dug with his own hands, and because the temptation doesn't touch him, he can think clearly enough to recognize that the Ring is trying to trick him. Frodo eventually gives in, at the very end when he's exhausted, hurt, and holding the Ring at its most potent, but even so, Frodo is an odd hobbit.

There's more to say, but crap, there went my lunch break.

[Main_Brain]

The Ring represents Anal Sex. LOTR is antigay Propaganda! Boom! :dropsMike: