IS George RR martian ghost writing here? (Game of Thrones spoiler inside)

[Giggling Ghast]

I just wanna toss in my two cents here that Conan is rarely concerned with doing the right thing. The man spent a good portion of his life as a thief and a pirate. He frequently prospers (ie. gets phat loot and lives high off the hog for a while) and frequently loses (ie. ends up worse than when he started).

[IronFist]

I just wanna toss in my two cents here that Conan is rarely concerned with doing the right thing.

As a matter of fact, neither is James Bond (not even in the movies).

About aSoIaF, I disagree with anyone that thinks it's just dark and bleak. Westeros can obviously be a better place - we see Westeros as a better place in Dunk & Egg. Dunk is your standard valiant knight. The point of aSoIaF is that all the politics, all the war and everything that divides us should not matter because there is a greater evil and we should all be in this together. Who is king and who isn't is not the point of aSoIaF. It never was. It's about who is going to stand against darkness.

Really, everyone should read Dunk & Egg to see Fireball's son writing "HERO" and "JUSTICE" all over their faces in the second book. Only after reading Dunk & Egg do you realize how Brienne's arc in A Feast For Crows is basically her trying to be Dunk in a world that's gone too gray.

[Taelas]

With a few obvious postmodern exceptions like OOTS itself, characters do not know they live in a world where they cannot lose. Within the context of their own lives, every heroic act they take may result in their death. Therefore, whatever meta-awareness you possess that you seemingly cannot suspend for the duration of the story, that's your problem, not the author's. Ian Fleming shouldn't be required to write an equal number of stories where James Bond get horribly murdered just so you accept the premise that he's in danger in the rest. Use your frickin' imagination.

Of course it's the reader's problem if they can't suspend their disbelief. I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.

But knowing that the hero is going to win because he is the hero can get tiresome. It is refreshing to encounter stories where that premise is broken.

[Porthos]

It is refreshing to encounter stories where that premise is broken.

OTOH, the pendulum can swing too far the other way. One of the criticisms of the so-called Nineties Anti-Hero (or whatever label you want to throw on the time period/genre) was so many people copying the successful edgy gritty 'realistic' iconic characters of the late 80s/early 90s without realizing what made them fresh.

If everyone is a moody, surly, trenchcoat wearing Bad Boy/Girl who doesn't take guff from no one while tryin' to make it in this bad bad world, it can be just as tiring.

Frankly the idea that idealistic stories where we 'know' the hero is going to win (and be heroic while doing so) haven't been the norm for sometime IMO.

Personally I think the overabundance of the stories you're talking about is the reason why the backlash to the surly anti-heroes came about.

And if the pendulum swings back to far once again? Well, the cycle repeats.

[SN137]

This is a fairly ridiculous argument.

Isn't it his opinion and tastes though ? He was just saying "The thing I like about George RR Martin and "gritty realism" is the lack of foregone conclusions" , and then compared it to James bond so you could see a counterexample where there were a few foregone conclusions . "The thing I like" is usually what someone says when expressing their tastes , isn't it ? I don't see how tastes can be ridiculous ....

You can't blame characters inside the narrative for conventions that are dictated wholly outside it.

He didn't , he said he liked when the convention of main characters being invincible was subverted . No judgement of the characters themselves was implied as far as I could see .

whatever meta-awareness you possess that you seemingly cannot suspend

Hey we can't help it, it's a serious problem!

that's your problem, not the author's.

Indeed it is (except to the extent that less people buy their books, although Ian Flemming's writing style certainly hasn't seen him too badly), he must rectify it by searching for different authors he does like(which he did). Except I don't think he said every author should write how he/she (it?) likes , or even insulted them (which is fairly amazing to me, have you read some of the comments about Stephenie Meyer ?)

Ian Fleming shouldn't be required to write an equal number of stories where James Bond get horribly murdered just so you accept the premise that he's in danger in the rest.

Now I definitely didn't see him saying anything like that in his post .

Use your frickin' imagination.

Is there some list of rules to what you're meant to do in private leisure activities ?

[T-O-E]

Maybe Shakespeare (who killed off a lot of characters in his tragedies) got reincarnated as Rich Burlew who got hired to ghostwrite for George R. R. Martin?

It's more plausible for it to be Edward de Vere. If he can write The Tempest while also 10 years dead, this shouldn't be a problem.

Personally I think the overabundance of the stories you're talking about is the reason why the backlash to the surly anti-heroes came about.

And if the pendulum swings back to far once again? Well, the cycle repeats.

The good vs evil stories seem to be a subversion of more morally ambiguous ones, going from our oldest extant literature. I am constantly surprised at how some ASOIAF readers have fundamentally misread the books. What GRRM does is really nothing new, he just presents it in a different way. The idea that ASOIAF is a deconstruction of fantasy is illusory and clearly untrue. He uses an utterly ridiculous amount of prophecies starting with book 2, for example.

I've actually read someone seriously suggest that ASOIAF's grey morality (it's not, you might as well say Skeletor is morally ambiguous or that Sauron is a grey character*) is something new, which baffled me. This was in Homer and was done so much better since every character --even Polyphemus and Antinoos, even the gods-- is morally ambiguous . It's occurred to me that people aren't really reading the books so much as what they want the books to be.

*People like to forget about the Bloody Mummers when they say things like this.

[IronFist]

The idea that ASOIAF is a deconstruction of fantasy is illusory and clearly untrue.

So much this.

It's occurred to me that people aren't really reading the books so much as what they want the books to be.

Could be, but I believe it's mostly about not reading much other than these specific books.

[The Giant]

Isn't it his opinion and tastes though ? He was just saying "The thing I like about George RR Martin and "gritty realism" is the lack of foregone conclusions" , and then compared it to James bond so you could see a counterexample where there were a few foregone conclusions . "The thing I like" is usually what someone says when expressing their tastes , isn't it ? I don't see how tastes can be ridiculous ....

He didn't , he said he liked when the convention of main characters being invincible was subverted . No judgement of the characters themselves was implied as far as I could see .

He specifically said that they weren't heroes. Not that he didn't like that sort of hero, but instead that they were objectively not heroes. That is a judgment on the characters. If you present your opinion and tastes as if they were fact, you open it up to being challenged. I contend that James Bond and Superman are heroes—practically by definition in Superman's case—whether or not he cares for their stories.

There is a qualitative difference between saying, "I like red peppers, I don't like green peppers," and saying, "I like red peppers, green peppers are not food." The former is inarguable, the latter? Not so much.

[Sunken Valley]

The point of James Bond and Superman is not if they will get out of this. It is How Will They Get Out of This? This is the point of any plot with external conflict. No one thinks Tarquin will kill all the order. The tension is wondering how they can get out

[The Pilgrim]

If James Bond gets in a firefight with a dozen Russian soldiers, James is going to win. You know he's going to, the conventions of the genre demand it. It's a con. The author is claiming "Uh oh, get excited! Bond is in danger!" but he's not and we know he's not. The whole scene is an insult to my intelligence.

Bond isn't a hero, he isn't facing risk and danger to help others. He lives in a world where there isn't any risk, so does Conan, so does Aragorn, so does Superman. They live in worlds were doing the right thing, doing the safe thing, doing the thing that will make you prosper, are all guaranteed to be identical by the moralizing rules of the genre. There's nothing particularly heroic about doing the right thing in Hollywood, everything will turn out fine for you.

The problem with James Bond is not the genre, it is that he is as ridiculosly bad written as renaissance chivalric books. The problem is not that he succeeds, it's that the way he "succeeds" is unvelieable, boring and predictable.

I mean, I've yet to see a James Bond movie or book that doesn't kills my suspension of disbelief in the first five minutes.

[FlawedParadigm]

Man, Rich, somehow I thought you slept less than I do. Or maybe you do. I get 20-25 hours a week. Average, anyhow. Looks like I'll be lucky if I make it to 16 this week.

GRRM's books have their heroes, Brienne or the Kingbreaker probably being the most obvious. There are also character who intend to be heroes, but haven't the means or morality, or characters who have the means and morality but not the desire. That's one of the things I like about the story; people are as varied and interesting as they are in our world. The verisimilitude is incredible.

Actually, looking with a critical eye, there's a wide spectrum of heroes (so long as we're judging them by intent rather than strict effectiveness); anti-villains, heroic cowards, cowardly "heroes", heroes raised from the dirt, former heroes brought low, false heroes, and probably some others I've left out. Again, there's a lot of that in the Order too, although I think you explore more about what makes heroes into heroes and why characters choose to try being heroic, whereas George writes more about internal struggles they face, which was something you noted admiring in some Superman stories.

Although in comparing the two works, I suddenly wonder what politics are like outside of the Empire of Blood. We had some ideas of what it was like in what used to be Azure City, but other than those two locales, unless I missed something, we really don't know about any politics in any other human nation or any of the four "allies" Hinjo tried to muster or anything of that sort. Of course I understand the reason we don't know this is because it's not ultimately important to the story you're telling, but it might be an interesting thing for book commentary or to speak about at a convention. Not super detailed or anything, just an idea of how many human/elven/dwarven nations there are, their attitudes towards each other, any major wars or other events that defined why the Stickverse is as it is.

(Granted, I'm greedy. I'd be willing to learn probably about as much about the Stickverse as you'd be willing to tell. I wouldn't be disappointed in seeing other stories set here once the Order's story is over.)

[The Giant]

The point of James Bond and Superman is not if they will get out of this. It is How Will They Get Out of This? This is the point of any plot with external conflict. No one thinks Tarquin will kill all the order. The tension is wondering how they can get out

Yes, exactly.

It's the difference between watching a stage magician doing a trick and watching a daredevil do a motorcycle jump. James Bond is the magician; you know upfront that there is zero chance of that woman really getting sawed in half and her organs spilling onto the stage, but you watch because you want to see how it works and if you can figure it out. Conversely, it sounds like some would categorize ASOIAF as the daredevil; there is a very real chance that he's taking a header into that canyon, breaking his neck, and never walking again. Or not; there's no way to tell until it happens. If that knowledge makes the daredevil's act more exciting for you, then cool. Good for you. But it doesn't make the magician's show not entertainment just because the ultimate outcome is known by everyone in the room before it begins.

[FlawedParadigm]

Hm. My scorecard for James Bond was always a combination of "what neat gadgets will be involved", "what use other than their intended one will he find for them", and "who will suffer so that James can succeed and how will he feel about that?" Which I suppose if I change "gadgets" for "powers" would provide impetus for reading Superman more often, but then I skip about half the Bond films too. It's always fascinating how many different reasons people can find to read the exact same material, or how many different ways the can interpret the same words.

[The Giant]

Although in comparing the two works, I suddenly wonder what politics are like outside of the Empire of Blood. We had some ideas of what it was like in what used to be Azure City, but other than those two locales, unless I missed something, we really don't know about any politics in any other human nation or any of the four "allies" Hinjo tried to muster or anything of that sort. Of course I understand the reason we don't know this is because it's not ultimately important to the story you're telling, but it might be an interesting thing for book commentary or to speak about at a convention. Not super detailed or anything, just an idea of how many human/elven/dwarven nations there are, their attitudes towards each other, any major wars or other events that defined why the Stickverse is as it is.

In order to write that, I'd have to decide it all first, and I have little or no interest in it. Not that I couldn't find it in my heart to write a story with detailed politics, but that OOTS is so clearly not that story that I can't imagine hammering the square peg into that particular round hole.

The world of OOTS is ultimately a paper-thin Anyworld, except for those specific things that influence the plot directly like the creation story or Tarquin's scheme. There's a reason why most of the place names in the comic are things like "Wooden Forest" and "Barren Desert," and it's to intentionally de-emphasize the specifics of the world.

[FlawedParadigm]

Fair enough. Like I said, I realise that they're details that don't matter to this story, but might become interesting if any other stories were set in the same world. Actually it says something that you can establish so very little about the world the heroes are trying to save and still make us hope they succeed based almost entirely on how badly they want to succeed, even if we don't necessarily understand the specifics of what they're saving.

[SN137]

He specifically said that they weren't heroes. Not that he didn't like that sort of hero, but instead that they were objectively not heroes. That is a judgment on the characters.

Unless they think that heroes are in mortal danger rather then just thinking it . In which case the statement is 100% correct as far as I can see. Now if you use a different definition he is wrong , but that is a semantic argument , and even his definition being wrong wouldn't change the substance of his argument . (I'm fairly certain websters hasn't tested this specific topic , so I'm not sure how one of you would come out right either way)
I'm still not seeing the judgement on story characters per se ? More just that they use a different definition of the word, which is not obviously a wrong definition any more then yours is a wrong definition ?
Out of curiosity where would you place Don Quixote or someone who did something heroic during a dream under your definition ?

[Chuikov]

Fair enough. Like I said, I realise that they're details that don't matter to this story, but might become interesting if any other stories were set in the same world. Actually it says something that you can establish so very little about the world the heroes are trying to save and still make us hope they succeed based almost entirely on how badly they want to succeed, even if we don't necessarily understand the specifics of what they're saving.

OotS and SoIaF are radically different stories. War, politics and the ongoing chess match for power between the great families of Westeros are the meat and drink of GRRM's series, even if the looming threat of the Others serves as a perpetual reminder of how ultimately meaningless and self-destructive such internal bickering is, and he's done a ridiculously good job at making it all seem as if it has the history and complexity of a real society. The detail borders on the Tolkienesque, though since GRRM isn't an Oxford-trained linguist the language creation aspect was fobbed off on a genuine linguist and then only for the sake of the TV show.

That kind of complexity doesn't really fit OotS, though. Its intent from the start was parody and humor with a big helping of drama being added over the course of time until we reach the present, when we're expected to both be engrossed by the story and to laugh at the jokes. A detailed look at the internal politics of the Empire of Blood would feel really, really weird in a world which has played virtually all of its locations for humor.

It's like Breaking Bad and Mad Men are both great shows but I don't ever want to see Don Draper lose all his money, get lung cancer and start a meth lab to provide for his family.

[FlawedParadigm]

Right, and that's why I said I didn't desire or expect any kind of deep investigation because they're different stories and genres even, it would just be nice to know a few small things, like if this world has generally been peaceful or warring, how big a threat monsters are to daily living, or for example if villains of Xykon's calibre are rare because the circumstances for them to exist only rarely come up, or because many governments actively suppress Sorcerers/Necromancers or another reason. Stuff philosophers and historians might debate.

I mean I appreciate that the heroes want to save the world, but consider we've seen Azure City (overrun, occupied, possibly not even worth the saving between the amount of effort involved and the fact that goblinoid races probably do deserve a fair shake in the world), the EoB which is probably not a place many people live by choice, Greysky, which is a miserable hole, and Cliffport which we don't know much of politically other than they recognised the sovereign nation of Gobbotopia (and if I recall, supported their right to trade slaves, which probably sets them at least slightly cynical side as well.)

TL;DR - From what we know, we seem to be running out of places worth the saving. Sandsedge is seriously the most pleasant place we've been.

[Kish]

Unless they think that heroes are in mortal danger rather then just thinking it . In which case the statement is 100% correct as far as I can see.

That's approximately as valid as, "Maybe s/he meant that heroes have to be elves." If s/he or you thinks the only characters who can be heroes are ones whom the author has decided to kill off, or to flip a coin to decide whether to kill off, then s/he/you are simply wrong. "Words don't actually mean anything" is neither clever, nor original, nor funny.

[Unisus]

Unless they think that heroes are in mortal danger rather then just thinking it . In which case the statement is 100% correct as far as I can see. Now if you use a different definition he is wrong , but that is a semantic argument , and even his definition being wrong wouldn't change the substance of his argument . (I'm fairly certain websters hasn't tested this specific topic , so I'm not sure how one of you would come out right either way)
I'm still not seeing the judgement on story characters per se ? More just that they use a different definition of the word, which is not obviously a wrong definition any more then yours is a wrong definition ?
Out of curiosity where would you place Don Quixote or someone who did something heroic during a dream under your definition ?

So you say if someone risks his life to save someone else, he is a hero, but if he only thinks he risks his life while actually being not in mortal danger, he is not? Let's say i see someone aiming a gun at someone, and i decide to jump in and put the target out of the line of fire, thus risking to be shot myself, me being a hero is dependent on whether the gun is loaded or not? And there i always thought heroism is about defeating one's fears...

If i do something without knowing i'm in mortal danger, does that make me a hero then? Because, you know, i actually could have died.

[The Giant]

Unless they think that heroes are in mortal danger rather then just thinking it . In which case the statement is 100% correct as far as I can see. Now if you use a different definition he is wrong , but that is a semantic argument , and doesn't change the meaning of his argument . (I'm fairly certain websters hasn't tested this specific topic , so I'm not sure how one of you would come out right either way)
I'm still not seeing the judgement on story characters per se ? More just that they use a different definition of the word, which is not obviously a wrong definition any more then yours is a wrong definition ?

Words mean what they mean, and if someone didn't mean that, then they chose their word poorly. I just checked; there are no dictionary definitions of "hero" that James Bond or Superman do not objectively fit, except for the sandwich. I fully acknowledge that if the poster's intent was to say that James Bond is not a hoagie, then my response was uncalled for.

More to the point, I'm not going to quibble with you over what a third party may or may not have meant with the words they typed. If you want to engage me in a discussion, take a position and argue it. If you think James Bond isn't a hero because he appears in stories that are written a certain way, then say why. But stop telling me that, "So-and-so didn't mean this, so you shouldn't have said what you said!"

[FlawedParadigm]

And thus began the "What kind of sandwich is your favourite hero most like?" thread.

[cheesecake]

If you don't like Arya, you have no soul. :p

Arya makes me so angry. I read all the books, WAITING for her to get back to kill someone important. Its been awhile since I read the series. The boy king gets poisioned! I wanted Arya to stick needle in his eye. You finish reading the last book and she is off running around living in some really strange society thing killing people.

My favorite character turned out to be Jon snow.

We are never ever getting back together!

Now everyone is dead but Sansa, and she is a waste of space!

I wrote those books mostly out of my memory.

[T-O-E]

I wrote those books mostly out of my memory.

So you really are writing here? Are you actually a martian?

[SN137]

If you want to engage me in a discussion, take a position and argue it. If you think James Bond isn't a hero because he appears in stories that are written a certain way, then say why.

Oh ok .... James bond isn't a hero because he can't die . Heroism is defined (at least in one definition) by courage , which is bravery in the face of danger. If he's missing one of lifes greatest dangers ,(which is present in all real people and characters in dark and gritty fantasy series), it's cessation , he can hardly be as heroic as if he could die .
So James bond isn't a hero , or at least not a complete one .
Be if he isn't a hero he must clearly, at least partly , be a cheese and tomato sandwich.

so you shouldn't have said what you said!

Oh no I don't like telling people what to do , I was just trying to pick your brain , and was concerned that I couldn't read.

[factotum]

Oh ok .... James bond isn't a hero because he can't die .

That's simply not true. James Bond never *has* died, AFAIK, but that doesn't mean he can't within the rules of his world, merely that he doesn't die because the stories would be a darned sight shorter if he did! You're confusing the usual plot protection afforded a main character with actual immortality, which is something else entirely.

[Unisus]

Oh ok .... James bond isn't a hero because he can't die . Heroism is defined (at least in one definition) by courage , which is bravery in the face of danger. If he's missing one of lifes greatest dangers ,(which is present in all real people and characters in dark and gritty fantasy series), it's cessation , he can hardly be as heroic as if he could die .
So James bond isn't a hero , or at least not a complete one .

Once more for understanding: So you say courage is worth nothing, if you are not in mortal danger, even though you have no chance to know you are not in mortal danger but rather convinced you are? And the other way round you get to be the hero if you were in mortal danger without knowing it, even though it did not need the slightest bit of courage?

You are aware you actually contradict your own definition of heroism?

[SN137]

That's simply not true. James Bond never *has* died, AFAIK, but that doesn't mean he can't within the rules of his world, merely that he doesn't die because the stories would be a darned sight shorter if he did! You're confusing the usual plot protection afforded a main character with actual immortality, which is something else entirely.

A very logical and well reasoned argument . Bond may have a character shield , but he may in fact not be invincible. He could die in the next installment .... if Ian Flemming weren't dead .
Although I suppose hollywood could run out of fresh ideas eventually , if you're counting those guys . But yeah you're in essence correct .

Once more for understanding: So you say courage is worth nothing, if you are not in mortal danger, even though you have no chance to know you are not in mortal danger but rather convinced you are? And the other way round you get to be the hero if you were in mortal danger without knowing it, even though it did not need the slightest bit of courage?

In one definition courage is defined as the strength to persevere and face danger , not what you percieve is danger . No danger ='s no courage , no understanding of danger also ='s no courage .

You are aware you actually contradict your own definition of heroism?

No I did not . Also , not my definition but a dictionaries .

[pendell]

I think the thing to realize is that there have been a LOT of stories about these characters, and only some of them truly realize their potential. As SowZ said, you often have better luck with adaptations to other media, because they can distill the essence of the character and provide closure that comics aren't allowed to have (because DC needs them to continue forever). EDIT: Then again, the Green Lantern movie happened.

That said, while Final Crisis was better than that blurb makes it sound, it is not something I would pick as one of the best Darkseid stories. It's Grant Morrison, so, expect some weirdness.

Which is precisely why I stopped reading Marvel or DC but read your work and Manga like "Lone Wolf and Cub" or anime like "Gurrenn Lagann". Because the stories have a defined beginning, middle, and end, the characters are allowed to develop, get married, get killed ,face the consequences for their actions. The need to keep the characters alive in DC and Marvel means that essentially the Reset button is pushed at the end of every arc. It's the same reason I gave up on Beetle Bailey and Blondie but liked "For Better or for Worse."

I grant you that some really riveting stories and arcs can be told in the DC and Marvel universes, but I greatly prefer the manga format where every story is distinct. When the story ends, tell a new one. Don't keep the same characters in a kind of stasis that never changes , never allows them to be anything other than stock characters.

When I was a kid , I was a big fan of the GI Joe series. And what finally broke my interest in marvel was what happened to Cobra Commander. They took him on a long journey of self-discovery, back to his roots, back to his son, had him decide he'd had enough only to be shot down by one of his own men. It was poignant. It was bittersweet. It was appropriate.

Then , a couple of dozen issues later he comes back from the dead with his character reset back to zero and kills off pretty much everything and everyone who had occurred in the previous arc. I guess Marvel had run out of interesting things to say with the other characters, and Serpentor or Fred VII wasn't carrying his weight as the new main villain. So they had to bring back the original cobra commander. I dunno if it worked or not, because at that point I flatly lost interest.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Unisus]

In one definition courage is defined as mental strength to persevere and face danger , not what you percieve is danger . No danger ='s no courage , no understanding of danger also ='s no courage

Sorry, but that just does not make sense. If it's the "mental strength to persevere and face danger" then it has to do with what you perceive as danger, not with actually is danger. If someone does something heroic while only thinking there was danger he shows that he would do the same even if there was true danger. And that's courage.