Who do you root for? (aSoIaF thread)

[Nikolai]

I'm quite sure all that happened before third book?

[Elok]

The thing is, the Starks are apparently doomed now, as a consequence of three inexplicably terrible decisions in a row:

Spoiler:

1. Sending Theon to negotiate with his dad the King of the Pirates. As Theon is essentially Joffrey, only bigger, this was sublimely idiotic. Even in the unlikely event that he kept faith, he'd never be clever enough to negotiate an agreement with the guy whose family motto is a variant on WE WILL TAKE YOUR STUFF. Okay, Robb is young, and apparently never noticed that his foster-brother is vicious and stupid. Fine.
2. Jaime. This'n doesn't even make bad sense. "I will release a supremely valuable and almost universally loathed hostage and put him in the hands of one extremely strong woman and his idiot cousin. They will then drag him across thousands of miles of open country, most of it ravaged by an ongoing guerrilla war, and deliver him to his family, who will honorably trade back their two hostages (one of whom they may not have) instead of killing the woman and keeping their own hostages to gain double leverage." This is simply insane.
3. Robb's marriage. Most understandable of the three, the kid's sixteen. And I just got past Edmure's engagement, so apparently Frey's honor ain't so prickly after all, but coming after the other two it just feels like GRRM hates his good characters.

Then there's Theon's decision to disobey orders and strike into the heart of Stark country to do something useless. As we've established, he's stupid and petulant, so that's okay. The thing with the slavers was just a weird ruse to give Danaerys an instant army.

But putting it all together, the substantial majority of recent events have been due to astonishingly poor judgment one way or the other. Is this going to be a running theme?

[Sava]

"Starks"... So is this about the Avengers?

[FlameFlash]

"Starks"... So is this about the Avengers?

I approve of this message.

Pepper keeps trying a hostile takeover... Hawkeye gets his mind taken over... again... you know, the usual.

[Sava]

all these avengers movies feel like they are the same movie

and kinda boring at times

[FlameFlash]

all these avengers movies feel like they are the same movie

and kinda boring at times

Blasphemy!

[Lorizael]

"Starks"... So is this about the Avengers?

Yes, we're talking about the wacky adventures of British spies John Steed and Emma Peel.

[Sava]

Blasphemy!

too much cgi

[N35t0r]

Lots of bad/dumb jokes, visual effects (lol, all those games you play? ALL CGI ) and some quality cleavage. Avengers

[Sava]

if the movies were a game, they might be better

but i suspect there would be a lot of QTE's and unskippable cutscenes

[Elok]

Well, I finished the whole saga (thus far) yesterday. It's surprisingly addictive, I grant you. But it seems to me that almost all the named characters are variants on nine or ten broad character types: zealot, fratboy/henchman, machiavellian, antihero, psychopath, passive victim, wise sensei, inept villain, dutiful stoic, and masochistic hero. It's not just general behavior patterns, there's a sort of karma at work where characters of the same type predictably suffer the same consequences. Characters who switch personality types as a kind of growth switch destinies as well. Theon switched from Inept Villain to Passive Victim, and his fortunes started to improve (IV is just above MH at the bottom of the ****ty life totem pole). Tyrion gave up on being a Masochistic Hero, and is now a reasonably comfortable Antihero. Daenerys went PV to MH after her IV brother died, and the last book hints she'll be transitioning to AH now. Her luck should improve accordingly. Jaime's really committed to the MH route at present, so I expect further mutilation or death in his future.

EDIT: In all fairness, I should note that most speculative fiction leans heavily on types, some much more heavily than this. It's surprisingly compelling reading, in spite of the types. But this is not "more morally complex" than Tolkien. It's merely morally idiosyncratic.

[Guynemer]

Most genres and authors stop around 2 or 3 tropes; if GRRM is up to 10, he's doing well.

As for not being more morally complex than Tolkien, I strongly disagree, though that's more due to Tolkien being extremely binary than GRRM being significantly complex.

[Elok]

Strictly speaking, he's got six. Psychopath, Fratboy, Zealot and Wise Sensei aren't well-rounded enough to qualify as real characters with meaningful moral agency. Most of them are bit parts. The others just leap places up and down on a totem pole of attitudes and corresponding fates:

Machiavellian: Generally in control and rewarded for villainy, will die quick and easy if at all.
Antihero: Morally somewhat neutral, has adversities but does OK.
Dutiful Stoic: Unimaginative and persistent, gets pummeled remorselessly but just doesn't die.
Passive Victim: Like dutiful stoic, but doesn't get the satisfaction of agency. Defenseless and thus rape/torture fodder.
Inept Villain: Punished for stupidity, not villainy; always has plenty of warnings which s/he doesn't heed.
Masochistic Hero: Mercilessly and ingeniously punished for arrogantly trying to improve society.

I would argue that this reflects a worldview at least as binary as Tolkien's, only nihilistic. The most cynical characters come out on top, while others suffer, usually in elaborate ways, for either being stupid or failing to recognize the brutality and meaninglessness of their world.

What would you give as an example of a significantly complex book?

[Bereta_Eder]

Goethe's faust is complicated. At least that's what I thought when I tried reading it. But I was rather young at that time.
Still it made no sense to me at all. I knew it was good, I just couldn't grasp it.
(in justapostixion to other books that I also quit but simply for being boring and contrived)

edit: but then again complex means one thing and complicated another

[Jon Miller]

War and Peace was complicated. As was Absalom, Absalom!
In Genre, "The book of the New Sun" is complicated.

I would put all three above anything Martin wrote and I would generally put Martin (his novella/short stroies's are best) above Pratchett (Small Gods was best).

JM