A Song of Ice and Fire: The Master Course in Cynicism

[dps]

I haven't read the books yet, nor have I seen the TV show. People highly recommend the books to me, and I've been meaning to start reading them, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. That disclaimer out of the way, I'll say this: if the books are highly cynical, I don't see that as a flaw. I consider myself highly cynical, and I tend to see cynicism as a virtue. BUT--my view of cynicism isn't "Expect the worst out of people, and emulate that"; it's more, "you should expect the worst out of people, but that just makes it even more important that you should do your best".

[An Enemy Spy]

I haven't read the books yet, nor have I seen the TV show. People highly recommend the books to me, and I've been meaning to start reading them, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. That disclaimer out of the way, I'll say this: if the books are highly cynical, I don't see that as a flaw. I consider myself highly cynical, and I tend to see cynicism as a virtue. BUT--my view of cynicism isn't "Expect the worst out of people, and emulate that"; it's more, "you should expect the worst out of people, but that just makes it even more important that you should do your best".

Provided you aren't turned off by gruesome subject matter, I don't think you'll have a problem with any cynicism there is in the books. George's tone is more "being good is hard" than "being good is stupid".

[factotum]

George's tone is more "being good is hard" than "being good is stupid".

True, dat. Even more so when you consider that most of the characters who are out-and-out nasty types (Tywin Lannister, Cersei, plus a whole raft of more minor players) either come to sticky ends or end up with their oh-so-clever plans blowing up in their face.

[Aedilred]

I haven't read the books yet, nor have I seen the TV show. People highly recommend the books to me, and I've been meaning to start reading them, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. That disclaimer out of the way, I'll say this: if the books are highly cynical, I don't see that as a flaw. I consider myself highly cynical, and I tend to see cynicism as a virtue. BUT--my view of cynicism isn't "Expect the worst out of people, and emulate that"; it's more, "you should expect the worst out of people, but that just makes it even more important that you should do your best".

I think the majority opinion in this thread so far is that Doma's analysis is wanting. I can't quite put my finger on why it is so, but I think it's some combination of:

• Having somehow formed a certain impression of the books which is affecting her perspective, and causing her to overlook, ignore or elide details or elements of the story which could contradict it;
• Thinking the story should go to a certain place or have a certain moral if it is to be worthwhile, and being disappointed that it doesn't seem to be going there;
• Passing judgment on the overall message of the series before it's finished (and indeed before finishing the available books), and basing her assessment ofthe whole on her own projections of what will occur in the last two and a half books, assuming that things will continue on their current path.

That last point may seem like a cheap way to deflect any criticism, but I think it's important. In classic story structure the moral or message of the story - if there is one - is only fully apparent once the story is concluded. Morality tales don't dispense their moral until after the story is finished. We talk about "story arcs" because they are to some extent arcs; there is generally a rise in conflict throughout the early and middle portions of the story, conflicts which are then resolved in the final act. It seems at times that Doma is instead plotting the story on a graph from its start to where it is, which is roughly where one would expect there to be "peak conflict" given the projected length of the novels, and assuming the line will continue on its current course and result in apocalypse rather than, as is more likely, curving back towards a more satisfactory conclusion. She's said indeed (iirc) that she's not going to bother finishing the series unless there's sufficient evidence by the end of Book 5 that "good will triumph" in the end, which to my mind is not entirely unlike walking out of a film two thirds of the way through because the bad guys are obviously going to win.

I would agree there is an element of cynicism in the books, but not a damning one even if you consider cynicism to be inherently bad. And in that respect it pales in comparison to some other works.

[Murk]

I think the majority opinion in this thread so far is that Doma's analysis is wanting. I can't quite put my finger on why it is so, but I think it's some combination of:

• Having somehow formed a certain impression of the books which is affecting her perspective, and causing her to overlook, ignore or elide details or elements of the story which could contradict it;
• Thinking the story should go to a certain place or have a certain moral if it is to be worthwhile, and being disappointed that it doesn't seem to be going there;
• Passing judgment on the overall message of the series before it's finished (and indeed before finishing the available books), and basing her assessment ofthe whole on her own projections of what will occur in the last two and a half books, assuming that things will continue on their current path.

While I don't necessarily disagree with these points, I think it is important to note that all three of them go for those who disagree with Doma's analysis too.
The most fervent defenders of the series in this thread ("defenders" might be the wrong word, because I don't think Doma has ever stated that the series is bad for having a cynical message) also came with a pre-made impressions affecting their perspective; also think that since the books are worthwhile, they can not have certain messages; and are also (although maybe to a lesser extent) basing their judgement of the whole series on the books so far.

The two are not directly comparable, since one side is on the "defensive" so to say, but I think it is important to note that when you feel passionate about an unfinished series and want to do a thematic analysis, you are almost certain to run into one or more of these points, no matter which side you are on.

[dps]

I don't think Doma has ever stated that the series is bad for having a cynical message)

Perhaps not stated explicitly, but certainly very heavily implied, at the very least. Just from the Opening Post, we get lines such as:

"something deeply rotten"

"this guy is just screwing with us"

"so deeply wrong"

"The moral they quite explicitly bear is this: The world is awful. Be awful yourself, and at least it won't hurt so badly."

"hideous themes"

[An Enemy Spy]

"poisonous bricks"

And then there was the post where she listed the four reasons why anybody would like this series, one of which was reading it as porn(because nothing gets me hot and bothered like hundreds of pages of political intrigue) and one was because it "informs people's philosophy". No possibility that people might, I don't know, just enjoy it as a story. I sure am glad I have DomaDoma to tell me why I like these books. I was afraid I might be a thinking, reasoning adult for a moment there. But then I like these books, so I must be a slobbering neanderthal who hates the world and everyone in it.

[Murk]

I stand corrected, then. That does seem to imply a general dislike of the series.

Let me rephrase it to me personally: I agree that the themes and messages (if there are any) of the series are dominantly cynical, but I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. A book can have a message that I disagree with and still be a good book, or an enjoyable book, or at least an interesting book.

[DomaDoma]

In reference to your points: yes, I believe that the themes make the series bad. No, I don't necessarily need good to triumph - nothing wrong with a tragedy - but I do at least need the prospect that, if evil triumphs, it won't be presented as virtue's fault.

[lord_khaine]

And then there was the post where she listed the four reasons why anybody would like this series, one of which was reading it as porn(because nothing gets me hot and bothered like hundreds of pages of political intrigue) and one was because it "informs people's philosophy". No possibility that people might, I don't know, just enjoy it as a story. I sure am glad I have DomaDoma to tell me why I like these books. I was afraid I might be a thinking, reasoning adult for a moment there. But then I like these books, so I must be a slobbering neanderthal who hates the world and everyone in it.

Dont worry AES, we are not judging anyone on that subject!

I mean.. whatever floats your boat

[factotum]

but I do at least need the prospect that, if evil triumphs, it won't be presented as virtue's fault.

Two things there:

1) The series isn't finished yet. We don't know if whoever triumphs in the end will be considered good or evil by yourself.

2) There are plenty of examples even in the story we have so far of evil not triumphing. Just look at Tywin and Cersei, as I said elsewhere--if you consider either of them to have triumphed (considering their current position in the story) then you have a very odd definition of that.

[pendell]

In reference to your points: yes, I believe that the themes make the series bad. No, I don't necessarily need good to triumph - nothing wrong with a tragedy - but I do at least need the prospect that, if evil triumphs, it won't be presented as virtue's fault.

Virtuous people have lost to vicious ones before, but not because Lies are better than Truth or being nasty works better than being nice.

How could anyone make a plausible story like that? As I've argued elsewhere, the rules of virtue do not exist in and of themselves; they exist for a reason. That reason is virtue promotes the general welfare and a better life for everyone more efficiently than vice does.

For instance, consider honor. A battlefield unit where everyone trusts each other is far less likely to break and rout in panic than a group of backstabbers who can't trust each other.

Consider theft. Nothing breaks up unit cohesion more than having a thief in the midst. Again, it violates the bond of trust.


If vice wins out over virtue in this series, it won't because it's superior in an evolutionary sense. It'll win out because the "virtuous" people applied the wrong virtues. The virtues they really need right now are vigilance instead of complacency, wisdom instead of rashness, courage instead of cowardice, humility (to join with others and submit to a king) instead of Pride (wanting to be king yourself, even if you have to burn half the seven kingdoms to attain the Iron Throne), and above all, courage and fortitude to withstand the storm.

The first phrase that really stuck in my mind from the series was "Child of Summer".

That's what the seven kingdoms are. They are the children of peace and prosperity; they may have the softer, gentler virtues but surviving Winter requires more than that. To survive a winter you will need tougher, sterner virtue than you need in the gentle days of sunlight.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the people of the Seven Kingdoms will rise to the test. Virtue will triumph over Vice, yes, but it's because Virtue has metaphorically learned to wear a coat in the cold.

They will win -- but they're still going to pay a price for their earlier complacency and neglect of the Watch. And so this will not be a happily ever after fairy tale ending. It will be bittersweet -- they will have survived but much that was fair and green will be lost forever. Such is the way of war, the original Negative Sum Game .

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Aedilred]

I have to say, and this isn't specifically the fault of anyone in this thread, I'm getting thoroughly sick of the word "bittersweet" as applied to the ending of this series.

[pendell]

I have to say, and this isn't specifically the fault of anyone in this thread, I'm getting thoroughly sick of the word "bittersweet" as applied to the ending of this series.

Blame George R. R. Martin. That is his word to describe the intended ending .

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Aedilred]

I know. But that means it gets dredged up every time anyone talks about the theoretical endings and it's starting to grate on my nerves.

Especially since, as I think I mentioned earlier (or possibly in the other ASoIaF thread) it's a word that could be used to describe, I think, the ending of the vast majority of modern fantasy stories. It tells us nothing, and yet it gets wheeled out like it's something profound.

I don't blame GRRM - what kind of author would give away the ending to his story years in advance? I blame the fans for descending upon it like a swarm of ravenous coyotes and building a whole mythos around it.

[russdm]

I think "Bittersweet" is being used because I don't think GRRM is going to mention that it will probably end with a few characters surviving, and that given ASOIAF world, that the ending won't actually make the world end up being any different. That would be a departure to how things are currently.

Lord of the Rings ended "Bittersweet" with Frodo heading off to the undying lands and the elves leaving forever. Most fantasy stories end in a similar fashion.

I frankly expect for more of a WH40K type ending or a WoD one since it seems to fit better. Will any actual named characters be still alive? Who's survival will actually help restore whatever the world looks like?

[An Enemy Spy]

"Bittersweet" is as uninformative an answer GRRM could have possibly given on how the series will end. What major fantasy series doesn't have a bittersweet ending? None I can think of off the top of my head. Even if absolutely everything goes right for the heroes from here on in the series, the books would still have a bittersweet ending because of everything they've already suffered through.

Not that I blame him of course. Asking an author how his series will end is a stupid question because what author is going to give it away? You don't sell books by giving away the plot. You tease it, and then let the speculation machine go into overdrive.

[Dienekes]

"Bittersweet" is as uninformative an answer GRRM could have possibly given on how the series will end. What major fantasy series doesn't have a bittersweet ending? None I can think of off the top of my head. Even if absolutely everything goes right for the heroes from here on in the series, the books would still have a bittersweet ending because of everything they've already suffered through.

Not that I blame him of course. Asking an author how his series will end is a stupid question because what author is going to give it away? You don't sell books by giving away the plot. You tease it, and then let the speculation machine go into overdrive.

I can think of at least one fantasy story whose end is downright depressing with all the main characters either dead, insane, dying, or trapped in an endless cycle at the whims of an immortal tyrant.

But sure, I get where you're coming from and mostly agree.

[Velaryon]

I take "bittersweet" to mean simply that it won't be an "and they lived happily ever after" ending (which of course not, since there hasn't been anything resembling that level of happiness since Ned first heard that Robert was coming to Winterfell), but that it won't be an "everyone dies and the world ends" kind of ending either. That leaves a whole lot of middle ground in between.