Excerpt from DANCE WITH DRAGONS in "Spectra Pulse".
Wolfspawn
freebies. One was the premiere issue of a magazine called "Spectra
Pulse", published by the Bantam Dell publishing group. It includes and
"exclusive excerpt" from DANCE WITH DRAGONS.
It begins with this ... "The rat squealed as he bit into it, squirming
wildly in his hands. The belly was the softest part. He tore at the
sweet meat, the warm blood running over his lips. It was so good that
it brought tears to his eyes. His belly rumbled and he swallowed. By
the third bite the rat had ceased to struggle, and he was feeling
almost content".
Now, this person is supposed to be starving in his cell. As we read,
it's revealed that he has caught and eaten rats before. We find out
that he feels great shame at this, but that the rats have bitten him,
and he had to bite them back. So WHY IN GOD'S NAME doesn't he KILL the
rat before he EATS IT ? He's even biting into the rat's belly, making
it easier for the rat to bite him in the face. It's basic animal
instinct, kill things you eat, before you eat them. Why does Martin
insist on this retardery? Because he's going for the grotesque,
realism be damned. COOL, HE'S EATING A LIVE SQUEALING RAT BY BITING
IT'S STOMACH!. Nothing else matters to Martin. The gross moment is
All, and every other consideration is secondary.
A paragraph later ... " .. his belly was swollen and hollow, and ached
so much that he found himself remembering Lady Hornwood. After their
wedding, Lord Ramsay had locked her away in a tower and starve her to
death. In the end she had eaten her own fingers."
Again, the gross out is the point, and the ridiculousness of an aching
belly making you think about someone eating their fingers is ignored,
in his haste to get to the gross out. If I had an aching belly I'd be
thinking about roast chicken, not some horror.
His rat-eating is interrupted by two small evil boys who sneer at the
rat-eating wretch in his cell. He reveals to them that his name is
Reek, and the boys are named Big Walder and Little Walder, two
squires. Reek is afraid to try and overpower the boys and run, because
he's afraid it's a trap, and he'll have more fingers chopped off as
punishment.
He is brought to Lord Ramsay, of Castle Dreadfort (give me a break).
Lord Ramsay is dressed in blakc and PINK. (you see, pink is a girlish
color, and all Martin's villains have some evil streak of femininitiy
to them). Ramsay reminds his cronies that he has tortured Reek by
skinning bits of him, and we get a flashback to Reek having to bite
off one of his skinned fingers to relieve the pain after Ramsay had
skinned the finger. Ramsay had punished him for biting off his own
finger by cutting off a toe.
Ramsay reveals his villainy to Reek by declaring that his father is
bringing him Arya, who Ramsay remembers as a small girl, to marry.
Reek is to help him bring home his "virgin bride".
Yeah, well, I saw this coming from the first thrid of "Game of
Thrones" (which I never bothered to finish), and from a random
sampling from "Clash of Kings, where Arya was in danger of being raped
by a troop of soldiers, if they ever saw through her boy-disguise.
Arya yet again gets to be manaced a perverts! Yay! How old is she by
this point? Reek thinks "She is only a girl" so I assume she is still
less old than 13 year old Daenerys, who Martin blissfully lingered on
the seduction and sexual abuse of in the first volume.
Congratulations, Martin fans. If you like this sort of thing, it looks
like you are going to get it.
Ilya the Recusant
He wants to rape it.
Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
http://ohilya.livejournal.com/
Will in New Haven
> In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, Wolfspawn
>
> <cr...@bfn.org> wrote:
>
> >So WHY IN GOD'S NAME doesn't he KILL the rat before he EATS IT ?
>
> He wants to rape it.
Even Wolfspawn can be right. This scene, if it is actually in the
book, is too stupid for words. As, of course, is Wolfspawn. Nice job,
Wolfie, assuming your prior name to revisit Martin. How's Spatterlight
doing.
–
Will in New Haven
“I have seen the David, seen the Mona Lisa too
And I have heard Doc Watson play Columbus Stockade Blues"
Guy Clark - "Dublin Blues”
Gene Ward Smith
@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
> Congratulations, Martin fans. If you like this sort of thing, it looks
> like you are going to get it.
Can fiction series jump the shark?
Mike Schilling
> I visited ComiCon in NY on it's last day, and picked up a few
> freebies. One was the premiere issue of a magazine called "Spectra
> Pulse", published by the Bantam Dell publishing group. It includes
> and
> "exclusive excerpt" from DANCE WITH DRAGONS.
Are you sure this is actual GRRM, and not some demented fanfic? For
one thing, at the end of AFfC, Arya is not under Bolton's control; in
fact, she's not in Westeros at all. (Though Ramsay could be referring
to the fake Arya, who's probably Jeyne Poole.)
Wolfspawn
wrote:
http://www.randomhouse.com/bantamdell/spectra.html
Scroll down to "News and Events" and they have a picture of the
magazine's front cover, and the presence of the excerpt in it.
"Reek" the starving rat-eater, was apparently a Stark ward, whatever
that means. Ramsay (The Bastard of Bolton) says "Reek has been with me
since I was a boy. My lord father gave him to me, as a token of his
love."
Wolfspawn
I don't see this as "jumping the shark". Wasnt' there a good deal of
this sort of nonsense in the first volume?
Wolfspawn
So maybe Arya will NOT get threatened with underage rape by a
pervert?
Some other girl will instead? Well, thank heaven for small mercies.
Gene Ward Smith
@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> I don't see this as "jumping the shark". Wasnt' there a good deal of
> this sort of nonsense in the first volume?
More than I liked, so I quit the series. But this seems way worse. And note
even Bilik isn't saying that Martin is God and if you prefer anyone else you
must be an illiterate boob these days.
Mike Schilling
> On Apr 26, 12:54 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Wolfspawn wrote:
>>> I visited ComiCon in NY on it's last day, and picked up a few
>>> freebies. One was the premiere issue of a magazine called "Spectra
>>> Pulse", published by the Bantam Dell publishing group. It includes
>>> and
>>> "exclusive excerpt" from DANCE WITH DRAGONS.
>>
>> Are you sure this is actual GRRM, and not some demented fanfic?
>> For
>> one thing, at the end of AFfC, Arya is not under Bolton's control;
>> in
>> fact, she's not in Westeros at all. (Though Ramsay could be
>> referring to the fake Arya, who's probably Jeyne Poole.)
>
> http://www.randomhouse.com/bantamdell/spectra.html
>
> Scroll down to "News and Events" and they have a picture of the
> magazine's front cover, and the presence of the excerpt in it.
So they do. I agree, it's pretty awful.
>
> "Reek" the starving rat-eater, was apparently a Stark ward, whatever
> that means. Ramsay (The Bastard of Bolton) says "Reek has been with
> me
> since I was a boy. My lord father gave him to me, as a token of his
> love."
IIRC, we've never seen the real Reek before. Ramsay pretended to be
Reek in ACoK, as a way of getting close to and eventually overthrowing
Theon as lord of Winterfell.
Will in New Haven
Nothing in the earlier books made me stop reading them but I never
thought Martin was some kind of god either. There have always been
other writers I preferred. However, he may have jumped the shark with
this one. If losing more than a few readers constitutes jumping the
shark.
Wolfspawn, however, is an illiterate boob, right about this or not.
--
Will in New Haven
David T. Bilek
I never said Martin was God, I just said that the first three books
were the best epic fantasy since Tolkien. Which, at the time they
were published, they clearly were.
Plus I can spell "Gene Ward Smith".
-David
Gene Ward Smith
news:e0gf14d7qjmtptnkg...@4ax.com:
> I never said Martin was God, I just said that the first three books
* were the best epic fantasy since Tolkien.
A feat which you accomplished by insulting people who preferred something
else.
* Which, at the time they
> were published, they clearly were.
If you leave the Chalion series, the Fortress series, the first Thomas
Covenant trilogy, The Riddlemaster of Hed, Kirith Kirin, and Earthsea off
the list.
> Plus I can spell "Gene Ward Smith".
Extra points for that! But what is a gene ward smith?
David T. Bilek
>David T. Bilek <david...@att.net> wrote in
>news:e0gf14d7qjmtptnkg...@4ax.com:
>
>> I never said Martin was God, I just said that the first three books
>* were the best epic fantasy since Tolkien.
>
>A feat which you accomplished by insulting people who preferred something
>else.
And yet you were the only person who seems to have been insulted.
>
>* Which, at the time they
>> were published, they clearly were.
>
>If you leave the Chalion series, the Fortress series, the first Thomas
>Covenant trilogy, The Riddlemaster of Hed, Kirith Kirin, and Earthsea off
>the list.
>
I take it you gave Bujold a time machine and had her go back in time
and write the Chalion books before Martin wrote A GAME OF THRONES. Or
the next two books.
The Fortress series was decent but not stunningly good.
The first Covenant series is great if you like your fantasy full of
clenching. And this is a strange criticism of my views given that
I've been one of the few people on RASFW that has consistently
defended the first Covenant trilogy.
McKillip is a brilliant writer but I don't really see her in the same
category as Martin; ICE AND FIRE is a more traditional epic fantasy
framework. Less lyrical and such. Ditto Earthsea.
Plus, TEHANU has retroactively damaged Earthsea in the same way that
Martin may or may not be about to damage ICE AND FIRE. A FEAST FOR
CROWS was an ominous portent in this regard.
I haven't read Jim Grimsley, so you've got me there. I do note that
his books are an order of magnitude less well known than the others
you list. Not an indication of quality, but certainly they didn't
make any sort of splash.
>> Plus I can spell "Gene Ward Smith".
>
>Extra points for that! But what is a gene ward smith?
About a hundred fifty pounds.
No wait, wrong punchline.
-David
Gene Ward Smith
> >A feat which you accomplished by insulting people who preferred something
> >else.
>
> And yet you were the only person who seems to have been insulted.
Many more were unconvinced by your claims, however. And I have to say,
it would be amusing to see if you could get Dororthy to agree that
since the books are filled with tough, macho stuff like rape, incest,
murder, mass slaughter, pedophilia, and people who eat their own
fingers, the readership is therefore a tough, macho readership who by
definition are therefore superior to most.
But Martin can still redeem this thing. What he needs are Daleks. They
should show up, take a look around at this ghastly mess, and say the
words we long to hear: "DESTROY! DESTROY!".
Nobody in particular
<news:70f055ed-135a-46ab...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>...
When did Robot from Lost in Space become a Dalek?
Kurt Busiek
Please. EX-TERMI-NATE!
I've never watched DOCTOR WHO, and even I know that...
kdb
Kurt Busiek
>> Plus I can spell "Gene Ward Smith".
>
> Extra points for that! But what is a gene ward smith?
Someone who builds devices that protect genetic material from outside
tampering?
kdb
Gene
kurt@busiekcomics:
>> Extra points for that! But what is a gene ward smith?
>
> Someone who builds devices that protect genetic material from outside
> tampering?
That's been my theory.
Wayne Throop
: Extra points for that! But what is a gene ward smith?
Um. A gene-ward smith would be somebody who makes chastity belts, right?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
DouhetSukd
> Congratulations, Martin fans. If you like this sort of thing, it looks
> like you are going to get it.
Wow, been watching Ratatouille much with your kids lately? Frankly,
what's the big fuss?
Would I do what Reek does? No, I wouldn't, just like I wouldn't do
many of the acts committed by the various characters in the series. I
would kill the rat humanely. But my guess is this a set-up to show
Reek to be a "bad guy".
Could GRRM have been more tasteful in his description? Undoubtedly.
Feast had a few needlessly pornographic sequences and I hope that GRRM
isn't going to spice Dance up with more sex, and, yes, more gore, than
needed.
But does that mean the whole series sucks? You think so, I don't.
Fire and Ice was always about showing the gritty and inhumane
experience of a fantasy series set in a violent, bloody world where
even the "good" guys do not always behave nicely. And it has had many
scenes describing the nature of violence in that world. Is the series
for everyone? Certainly not.
To put it differently - it is OK to stop at describing Sauron as a
very bad guy. But maybe some of us want to hear _why_ he is a "bad
guy". And that probably isn't because he gently releases rats in the
countryside when he catches them in his larder.
I've enjoyed reading Banks and Bret Easton Ellis in 'American
Psycho'. Ellis is much, much, worse than GRRM. However American
Psycho has a interesting plot and good points to make so I accept its
gore, even if I don't really like it. I would however think twice
before recommending it to someone, just because of its nature.
On the other hand, one gratuitously gory author that comes to mind is
Poppy Z. Brite, who does vampires. I won't touch those, because they
seem to be mostly just about shock value. YMMV.
I do hope that GRRM stays away from that and I hope your excerpt isn't
representative of the whole book. FWIW, GRRM, the man, seems to be
very much of a anti-war pacifist.
But I don't expect, or want, Fire and Ice to be all about elves,
unicorns and fairies happily sharing candy by the fireplace. Nor do I
need you to lecture me on my reading habits.
Wolfspawn
> On Apr 26, 8:02 am, Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.org> wrote:
>
> > Congratulations, Martin fans. If you like this sort of thing, it looks
> > like you are going to get it.
>
> Wow, been watching Ratatouille much with your kids lately? Frankly,
> what's the big fuss?
No big deal about the rat ... well, except for the gratuitous torture
of it.
> Would I do what Reek does? No, I wouldn't, just like I wouldn't do
> many of the acts committed by the various characters in the series. I
> would kill the rat humanely. But my guess is this a set-up to show
> Reek to be a "bad guy".
It's not about him killing it HUMANELY, but killing it in a way that
will prevent it from biting his face. A few paragraphs later he
justifies his rat-eating to the little boys by saying that he's been
bitten by rats in the past. Even a crazed starving person has the
instinct to kill things that have bitten him before, before trying to
eat them. I said this in my original post already.
> Could GRRM have been more tasteful in his description? Undoubtedly.
> Feast had a few needlessly pornographic sequences and I hope that GRRM
> isn't going to spice Dance up with more sex, and, yes, more gore, than
> needed.
You HOPE, but do you realistically expect he won't?
> But does that mean the whole series sucks? You think so, I don't.
> Fire and Ice was always about showing the gritty and inhumane
> experience of a fantasy series set in a violent, bloody world where
> even the "good" guys do not always behave nicely. And it has had many
> scenes describing the nature of violence in that world. Is the series
> for everyone? Certainly not.
But people who get off on the "gritty" the "inhumane", the violence
and bloodiness, the a-morality of everyone, even the "nice" guys, will
love it.
> To put it differently - it is OK to stop at describing Sauron as a
> very bad guy. But maybe some of us want to hear _why_ he is a "bad
> guy". And that probably isn't because he gently releases rats in the
> countryside when he catches them in his larder.
Sure. And some of us are nicer than you are. And the world would be a
better place if there were more of us and less of you.
> I've enjoyed reading Banks and Bret Easton Ellis in 'American
> Psycho'. Ellis is much, much, worse than GRRM. However American
> Psycho has a interesting plot and good points to make so I accept its
> gore, even if I don't really like it. I would however think twice
> before recommending it to someone, just because of its nature.
>
> On the other hand, one gratuitously gory author that comes to mind is
> Poppy Z. Brite, who does vampires. I won't touch those, because they
> seem to be mostly just about shock value. YMMV.
So there are other authors like that. Why is GRRM different?
> I do hope that GRRM stays away from that and I hope your excerpt isn't
> representative of the whole book. FWIW, GRRM, the man, seems to be
> very much of a anti-war pacifist.
Well. He has a conscience about his indulgence in violence and gore.
He does present fig-leaf "nice" characters who sniffingly disapprove
of all the whoring and bloodshed. But where is his true focus? Where
does he expend effort to detail? Tolkien spent a lot of "boring" time
describing the pleasant side(s) of Middle Earth, because he was
interested in Goodness, and Evil was described by it's Lack of
Goodness. Martin's gleeful emphasis on Evil indicates what? To me it
indicates an unhealthy pleasure in Evil.
> But I don't expect, or want, Fire and Ice to be all about elves,
> unicorns and fairies happily sharing candy by the fireplace. Nor do I
> need you to lecture me on my reading habits.
Too Bad.
Gene
41d793...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> But people who get off on the "gritty" the "inhumane", the violence
> and bloodiness, the a-morality of everyone, even the "nice" guys, will
> love it.
And they'll claim it's "realistic".
Christopher Adams
>
> Martin's gleeful emphasis on Evil indicates what? To me it
> indicates an unhealthy pleasure in Evil.
Because you're a dumb cunt.
--
Christopher Adams
Sydney, Australia
For theirs is the power and this is their kingdom
As sure as the sun does burn
So enter this path, but heed these four words:
You shall never return
Gene
news:1dtSj.6805$ko5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> Wolfspawn wrote:
>>
>> Martin's gleeful emphasis on Evil indicates what? To me it
>> indicates an unhealthy pleasure in Evil.
>
> Because you're a dumb cunt.
That's what I admire about Ive&Fire fandom-it's so damned highbrow.
Christopher Adams
> Christopher Adams wrote:
>
>> Wolfspawn wrote:
>>>
>>> Martin's gleeful emphasis on Evil indicates what? To me it
>>> indicates an unhealthy pleasure in Evil.
>>
>> Because you're a dumb cunt.
>
> That's what I admire about Ive&Fire fandom-it's so damned highbrow.
Are you denying that Wolfspawn is a dumb cunt? Seriously?
You know, Martin's not Shakespeare - but Shakespeare wrote a pretty bloody,
awful sequence of events in Titus Andronicus, and it doesn't mean it's
anything other than a great work.
Likewise Ellis's American Psycho, or for a more prosaic example with less
blood, The Rules of Attraction.
Choosing to write about the awful side of life doesn't mean you delight in
it. Preferring to read stories without protagonists who find it trivial to
do the right thing - very much unlike most fluffy Team Good versus Team Evil
fantasy, in other words - doesn't mean that you take pleasure in evil. Maybe
it just means you prefer more human stories about how it's actually quite
difficult to do good, much less be good. Those stories don't work if most
characters *don't* fail at the task, so you get a lot of flawed or evil
people in those stories. It's necessary stuff.
Gene
0uSj.6821$ko5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> Maybe
> it just means you prefer more human stories about how it's actually quite
> difficult to do good, much less be good. Those stories don't work if most
> characters *don't* fail at the task, so you get a lot of flawed or evil
> people in those stories. It's necessary stuff.
I don't think that's what Martin is doing. That's praising Frida Kahlo or
Francis Bacon for their realism.
Christopher Adams
> Gene wrote:
>>
>> I don't think that's what Martin is doing.
>
> part of what he's doing.
And it started with Ned Stark. Part of "it's hard to do the right thing" is
"because sometimes you lose."
Christopher Adams
>
> I don't think that's what Martin is doing.
I think Jaime Lannister's story indicates that it is *absolutely* part of
what he's doing.
--
Mike Schilling
"Christopher Adams" <mhacdeinva...@yahoo.invalid> wrote in message
news:htuSj.6832$ko5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> And it started with Ned Stark. Part of "it's hard to do the right thing"
> is "because sometimes you lose."
Especially when you have no clue what's really going on. The one hopeful
thing in ASoIaF is that evil is often dumber still.
DouhetSukd
> > To put it differently - it is OK to stop at describing Sauron as a
> > very bad guy. But maybe some of us want to hear _why_ he is a "bad
> > guy". And that probably isn't because he gently releases rats in the
> > countryside when he catches them in his larder.
>
> Sure. And some of us are nicer than you are. And the world would be a
> better place if there were more of us and less of you.
>
OK, I'll bite.
The first gory amputation I ever saw in a WW2 movie was 'Soldier of
Orange', by Paul Verhoeven (79). At some point, you see a column of
refugees. Then a Stuka dives, and you end up with a young guy bawling
in closeup because his leg is now 50 feet away. I was shocked by the
gratuitousness of it. But I will also remember Soldier of Orange as a
movie which stayed away from glorifying war and simplifying it into
good vs. evil.
Now compare that to earlier WW2 movies, where the manly heroes with
jutting chins won. Oh, sure, there would be deaths, but there would
be little _gore_. That's because WW2 was usually presented as a
struggle, of good vs. stylized evil. Even Cross of Iron (76), a
pretty gritty movie, mostly shrunk from gore. Most of those movies
never showed you the amputee who would have to live the rest of his
life that way.
Nowadays, after Saving Private Ryan, many war movies instead choose to
show you that, yes, war is hell. And that, no, we should never
casually think of it like a great adventure. I think it is a much
healthier attitude to decision making, either as a commander in chief,
or as voters. War should be a last recourse because it is so
fundamentally hurtful to humans. OK, sometimes you do have to go to
war, but it shouldn't be without a good reason.
So, I fundamentally disagree with you that realistic descriptions of
violence necessarily mean a glorification of violence. Family-
friendly, squeaky clean, descriptions of warfare hide its pernicious
nature. And, FWIW, I'm no pacifist, but I am not exactly thrilled
with all our current low level wars and I do kinda wish we had reached
the end of history.
Gee, I woulda thought a 'Wolfspawn' to be a bit more bloodthirsty ;-)
David T. Bilek
But Ned didn't lose because he was good, he lost because he was
preoccupied and made stupid mistakes.
-David
Konrad Gaertner
The bad guys told him straight out that his perfect reputation for
honesty was the whole reason why they wanted him to lie. His
mistake was to comprise his principles to directly benefit people
he knew were evil, which seemed to me to be very out of character.
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
David T. Bilek
<kgae...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>"David T. Bilek" wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 19:05:54 -0700, "Mike Schilling"
>> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >"Christopher Adams" <mhacdeinva...@yahoo.invalid> wrote in message
>> >news:htuSj.6832$ko5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >
>> >> And it started with Ned Stark. Part of "it's hard to do the right thing"
>> >> is "because sometimes you lose."
>> >
>> >Especially when you have no clue what's really going on. The one hopeful
>> >thing in ASoIaF is that evil is often dumber still.
>>
>> But Ned didn't lose because he was good, he lost because he was
>> preoccupied and made stupid mistakes.
>
>The bad guys told him straight out that his perfect reputation for
>honesty was the whole reason why they wanted him to lie. His
>mistake was to comprise his principles to directly benefit people
>he knew were evil, which seemed to me to be very out of character.
I dunno; He was out of his depth. I can see him doing what he did
for the good of the kingdom. He was one of the few nobles shown to
actually care about the welfare of the people in his charge.
He made a lot of mistakes but what killed him was trusting
Littlefinger to buy off the city guard. What kind of idiot would do
that? He should have made the goddamn time to do it himself.
-David
vecki
Wolfspawn wrote:
> I visited ComiCon in NY on it's last day, and picked up a few
> freebies. One was the premiere issue of a magazine called "Spectra
> Pulse", published by the Bantam Dell publishing group. It includes and
> "exclusive excerpt" from DANCE WITH DRAGONS.
>
*snip a whole bunch of Wolfspawn patronisation and blatantly obvious
anti-ASoIaF bias*
Interestingly, there's no hint or mention of this 'excerpt' on GRRM's
website. Normally the slightest bit of publicity about a book and
it's up on the website, pronto. I would have thought an 'exclusive'
excerpt would at least rate a mention.
Nice of you to drop by though, Wolfspawn. I would have thought that
if you hate this series so much, you'd have just skipped the 'excerpt'
rather than read it in depth then run back here to tell us all about
it.
Sucker for punishment much?
~*~
vecki, relurking
Mike Schilling
As I said "no clue what's really going on". Also, he was too rigid,
with a belief in absolute right-and-wrong that served him badly.
Wolfspawn
> Wolfspawn wrote:
> > I visited ComiCon in NY on it's last day, and picked up a few
> > freebies. One was the premiere issue of a magazine called "Spectra
> > Pulse", published by the Bantam Dell publishing group. It includes and
> > "exclusive excerpt" from DANCE WITH DRAGONS.
>
> *snip a whole bunch of Wolfspawn patronisation and blatantly obvious
> anti-ASoIaF bias*
>
> Interestingly, there's no hint or mention of this 'excerpt' on GRRM's
> website. Normally the slightest bit of publicity about a book and
> it's up on the website, pronto. I would have thought an 'exclusive'
> excerpt would at least rate a mention.
http://www.randomhouse.com/bantamdell/spectra.html
Scroll down to the picture of the "Spectra Pulse" magazine. It's an
exclusive freebie being given away at different conventions.
> Nice of you to drop by though, Wolfspawn. I would have thought that
> if you hate this series so much, you'd have just skipped the 'excerpt'
> rather than read it in depth then run back here to tell us all about
> it.
Didn't really read it "in depth" or I'd have caught the bit about Reek
actually being someone else.
vecki
> On May 1, 11:41 pm, vecki <vecst...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wolfspawn wrote:
> > > I visited ComiCon in NY on it's last day, and picked up a few
> > > freebies. One was the premiere issue of a magazine called "Spectra
> > > Pulse", published by the Bantam Dell publishing group. It includes and
> > > "exclusive excerpt" from DANCE WITH DRAGONS.
>
> > *snip a whole bunch of Wolfspawn patronisation and blatantly obvious
> > anti-ASoIaF bias*
>
> > Interestingly, there's no hint or mention of this 'excerpt' on GRRM's
> > website. Normally the slightest bit of publicity about a book and
> > it's up on the website, pronto. I would have thought an 'exclusive'
> > excerpt would at least rate a mention.
>
> http://www.randomhouse.com/bantamdell/spectra.html
>
> Scroll down to the picture of the "Spectra Pulse" magazine. It's an
> exclusive freebie being given away at different conventions.
>
Yeah, I had a look at that, still, no reference on GRRM's website (you
know, www.georgerrmartin.com ) = odd.
~*~
vecki
Wolfspawn
<mhacdeinvalidbhan...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Gene wrote:
> > Christopher Adams wrote:
>
> >> Wolfspawn wrote:
>
> >>> Martin's gleeful emphasis on Evil indicates what? To me it
> >>> indicates an unhealthy pleasure in Evil.
>
> >> Because you're a dumb cunt.
>
> > That's what I admire about Ive&Fire fandom-it's so damned highbrow.
>
> Are you denying that Wolfspawn is a dumb cunt? Seriously?
>
> You know, Martin's not Shakespeare - but Shakespeare wrote a pretty bloody,
> awful sequence of events in Titus Andronicus, and it doesn't mean it's
> anything other than a great work.
I'm fortunate enough to have read Titus Andronicus, and it is a great
work. However, what I remember from it is not the bloody awful
sequences, but the psychological study of Titus that explains those
events. That's what made it great. Where is Martin's interest in the
psychology of his characters? Can you honestly claim he has ANY?
> Choosing to write about the awful side of life doesn't mean you delight in
> it.
It does if there is no contrasting side of life that you DO delight
in. I suppose by that logic, what Martin delights in are descriptions
of whoring and meat eating.
> Preferring to read stories without protagonists who find it trivial to
> do the right thing - very much unlike most fluffy Team Good versus Team Evil
> fantasy, in other words - doesn't mean that you take pleasure in evil. Maybe
> it just means you prefer more human stories about how it's actually quite
> difficult to do good, much less be good. Those stories don't work if most
> characters *don't* fail at the task, so you get a lot of flawed or evil
> people in those stories. It's necessary stuff.
Who do you think is the character Martin has set up as THE character
who will succeed in doing right successfully?
Wolfspawn
Wolfspawn
> Nowadays, after Saving Private Ryan, many war movies instead choose to
> show you that, yes, war is hell. And that, no, we should never
> casually think of it like a great adventure. I think it is a much
> healthier attitude to decision making, either as a commander in chief,
> or as voters. War should be a last recourse because it is so
> fundamentally hurtful to humans. OK, sometimes you do have to go to
> war, but it shouldn't be without a good reason.
I honestly don't think Saving Private Ryan and many other modern
"realistic" movies are avoiding the "war as a great adventure"
depiction out of concern for real soldiers, and the need to avoid war
except as a last resort. I think the latest trend has been, since no
one believes those sanitized Adventure war movies anymore, that they
try to own up to the horrors of war while simultaneously insisting
that war is glorious in spite of the suffering it entails. Saving
Private Ryan seemed to be one of those. It insisted emphatically on a
"Good Reason" and strongly suggested Divine approval.
> So, I fundamentally disagree with you that realistic descriptions of
> violence necessarily mean a glorification of violence. Family-
> friendly, squeaky clean, descriptions of warfare hide its pernicious
> nature. And, FWIW, I'm no pacifist, but I am not exactly thrilled
> with all our current low level wars and I do kinda wish we had reached
> the end of history.
Yes, but you do realize that there is a subsection of entertainment
(mostly in the Horror genre, especially in Film) that provides gore
and gross-outs as a kind of goofy entertainment. The extremes of the
gore and horror provide the audience with a kind of high at being able
to face the horror and survive it (safely from their theater or couch
seats, of course). Many of these horror films are notably slight in
their characterization of the victims, otherwise it would indeed be
too much for many to take.
> Gee, I woulda thought a 'Wolfspawn' to be a bit more bloodthirsty ;-)
Yeah, I'm not very ... as far as descriptions in literature go.
vecki
Wolfspawn wrote:
Ooh. *backpeddle backpeddle*
That'll teach me to trust the 'New Material in' section of his
website.
*waves fist in the general direction of GRRM*
I'd still rather read the excerpt myself than a review of said excerpt
before I pass judgement.
~*~
vecki
David T. Bilek
>On May 1, 9:22 pm, "Christopher Adams"
><mhacdeinvalidbhan...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> You know, Martin's not Shakespeare - but Shakespeare wrote a pretty bloody,
>> awful sequence of events in Titus Andronicus, and it doesn't mean it's
>> anything other than a great work.
>
>I'm fortunate enough to have read Titus Andronicus, and it is a great
>work. However, what I remember from it is not the bloody awful
>sequences, but the psychological study of Titus that explains those
>events. That's what made it great. Where is Martin's interest in the
>psychology of his characters? Can you honestly claim he has ANY?
Shirley you must be joking. People may well dislike ICE AND FIRE for
perfectly valid reasons (SEE? GENE?) but the claim that Martin
doesn't have an interest in the psychology of his characters is just
plain factually wrong. Particularly when it comes to the Lannister
boys. Jaime and Tyrion's psychology and actions as a result of those
motivations are the driving force for much of the action in the Seven
Kingdoms. Did you also somehow miss Sandor Clegane entirely? It's
true that the Starks are, probably, the least psychologically
interesting characters but that's because they're (for the most part)
the least damaged. And normal is relatively boring.
I know you skip over everything but the violent parts and all, but
your reading is extremely superficial if you don't see that Martin is
deeply concerned with the psychology of his characters.
>
>> Preferring to read stories without protagonists who find it trivial to
>> do the right thing - very much unlike most fluffy Team Good versus Team Evil
>> fantasy, in other words - doesn't mean that you take pleasure in evil. Maybe
>> it just means you prefer more human stories about how it's actually quite
>> difficult to do good, much less be good. Those stories don't work if most
>> characters *don't* fail at the task, so you get a lot of flawed or evil
>> people in those stories. It's necessary stuff.
>
>Who do you think is the character Martin has set up as THE character
>who will succeed in doing right successfully?
Why should there be only one? Martin has shown characters being right
successfully and being wrong successfully. It doesn't appear that
"right" or "wrong" are what leads to success in Martin's world;
strangely enough it seems like competence is what succeeds.
Ned was right and successful when he acted competently. When he
screwed up, he lost. Cersei was wrong and unsuccessful because she
was incompetent. Tyrion and Jaime tend to be successful whether they
are right or wrong (and they've been both) because of their
competence. Ditto Danaerys.
-David
Wolfspawn
> On Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.org> wrote:
> >On May 1, 9:22 pm, "Christopher Adams"
> ><mhacdeinvalidbhan...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> You know, Martin's not Shakespeare - but Shakespeare wrote a pretty bloody,
> >> awful sequence of events in Titus Andronicus, and it doesn't mean it's
> >> anything other than a great work.
>
> >I'm fortunate enough to have read Titus Andronicus, and it is a great
> >work. However, what I remember from it is not the bloody awful
> >sequences, but the psychological study of Titus that explains those
> >events. That's what made it great. Where is Martin's interest in the
> >psychology of his characters? Can you honestly claim he has ANY?
>
> Shirley you must be joking. People may well dislike ICE AND FIRE for
> perfectly valid reasons (SEE? GENE?) but the claim that Martin
> doesn't have an interest in the psychology of his characters is just
> plain factually wrong. Particularly when it comes to the Lannister
> boys. Jaime and Tyrion's psychology and actions as a result of those
> motivations are the driving force for much of the action in the Seven
> Kingdoms. Did you also somehow miss Sandor Clegane entirely? It's
> true that the Starks are, probably, the least psychologically
> interesting characters but that's because they're (for the most part)
> the least damaged. And normal is relatively boring.
Yes, I remember Sandor's "psychology" was expained by the fact that
his older brother had (for no supplied psychological reason) burnt his
face a child. But that's not an exploration of psychology any more
than the Joker falling into a vat of chemicals is an explanation for
his. It's shorthand. It's cheap. It's Easy. As for Jaime and
Tyrion ... Tyrion's psychology is that he's Martin's alter ego, it's
easy for Martin to sympathize with him because Martin has actually
SAID that Tyrion IS him. A fat, unattractive geek who like to read and
eat greasy meat, but who (in his fantasy?) still gets plenty of sex.
It's not deep to stick yourself in a novel, living out your fantasy of
being supercompetent and well laid.
> >Who do you think is the character Martin has set up as THE character
> >who will succeed in doing right successfully?
>
> Why should there be only one? Martin has shown characters being right
> successfully and being wrong successfully. It doesn't appear that
> "right" or "wrong" are what leads to success in Martin's world;
> strangely enough it seems like competence is what succeeds.
This isn't really a psychological trait, however. "Competence" is a
really easy thing to write into a novel. "Tyrion swung his axe and
imbedded it deep into the red-shirt's skull". See how easy it is?
Competence as a character trait is simply arranging events so that
they go the character's way. Incompetence likewise... you just have
the character do incredibly stupid things and fail. No special insight
into the character is needed.
Mike Schilling
>> Yes, I remember Sandor's "psychology" was expained by the fact that
> his older brother had (for no supplied psychological reason)
Other than being a bully and a sadist.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
In a society that is almost _designed_ absent someone in the household
who could prevent it, to create sadistic bullies out of big, althletic
young noblemen.
–
Will in New Haven
“I have seen the David, seen the Mona Lisa too
And I have heard Doc Watson play Columbus Stockade Blues"
Guy Clark - "Dublin Blues”
David T. Bilek
I note you completely ignore Jaime, who is probably the most
interesting character in the series. But that doesn't matter; you
said that Martin had no interest in the psychology of his characters.
I showed that he does, so you responded by saying his treatment of
that psychology is superficial.
So, which is it? Are you criticizing him for not caring or for not
being good enough to pull it off? Frankly, I think you're just
throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks.
-David
DouhetSukd
>
> Yes, I remember Sandor's "psychology" was expained by the fact that
> his older brother had (for no supplied psychological reason) burnt his
> face a child. But that's not an exploration of psychology any more
> than the Joker falling into a vat of chemicals is an explanation for
> his. It's shorthand. It's cheap. It's Easy.
---blah, blah, blah, snipped out---
On Apr 26, 8:02 am, that very same Wolfspawn, in the post that started
it all, <cr...@bfn.org> wrote:
> Yeah, well, I saw this coming from the first thrid of "Game of
> Thrones" (which I never bothered to finish), and from a random
> sampling from "Clash of Kings,
Yeah, well, it's one thing to quote a passage out of context and
contend that it is the grossest thing ever. You are entitled to your
own opinion.
It is another entirely to make deep arguments about the psychology of
characters in books that you have, by your own admission, never read.
Sounds to me like you are speaking out of your nether orifice.
Wolfspawn
From what you are telling me, there is only one character who is
"deep", and that's Jaime Lannister. I find that hard to believe based
on my introduction to him, as a sister-boinker and child killer. His
"depth", as far as I could determine at that early stage, was because
he looked with disgust at his sister, before he complied with her
demand that he push little Bran out a window. And he's supposedly
"competent", which means little to me, since competence in a book like
this likely means mere power-fantasy, likely to do with his being a
"badass" of some kind.
Wolfspawn
> On May 2, 1:08 pm, Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes, I remember Sandor's "psychology" was expained by the fact that
> > his older brother had (for no supplied psychological reason) burnt his
> > face a child. But that's not an exploration of psychology any more
> > than the Joker falling into a vat of chemicals is an explanation for
> > his. It's shorthand. It's cheap. It's Easy.
>
> ---blah, blah, blah, snipped out---
>
> On Apr 26, 8:02 am, that very same Wolfspawn, in the post that started
>
> it all, <cr...@bfn.org> wrote:
> > Yeah, well, I saw this coming from the first thrid of "Game of
> > Thrones" (which I never bothered to finish), and from a random
> > sampling from "Clash of Kings,
>
> Yeah, well, it's one thing to quote a passage out of context and
> contend that it is the grossest thing ever. You are entitled to your
> own opinion.
I didn't say it was the "grossest thing ever", but that it was
gratuitously and childishly gross. And stupid.
> It is another entirely to make deep arguments about the psychology of
> characters in books that you have, by your own admission, never read.
> Sounds to me like you are speaking out of your nether orifice.
You don't need to eat all of the egg to know that it has gone bad. You
could supply my deficiency with a description of Jaime's depth. If
he's a deep as Tyrion, the competent whore lover and skull splitter,
I'll probably be very suspicious of that kind of "depth".
David T. Bilek
>
>From what you are telling me, there is only one character who is
>"deep", and that's Jaime Lannister. I find that hard to believe based
>on my introduction to him, as a sister-boinker and child killer. His
>"depth", as far as I could determine at that early stage, was because
>he looked with disgust at his sister, before he complied with her
>demand that he push little Bran out a window. And he's supposedly
>"competent", which means little to me, since competence in a book like
>this likely means mere power-fantasy, likely to do with his being a
>"badass" of some kind.
I didn't say "only". But, in any case, you may find it as hard to
believe as you wish. If you have only read the first book you don't
really have a basis for your belief as Jaime is not a viewpoint
character.
Like I said before, there are valid criticisms to be made of this
series, particularly after the latest volume. But you don't make
them. You just fling poo at the books and hope some of the slime
sticks.
-David
Wolfspawn
Well, I have no choice but accept that Jaime is the most interesting
character, but I am doubtful, and the fact that he is NOT a viewpoint
characters adds a bit to my doubt. His being "interesting" may be due
in fact to the relative lack of detail to the character, and the
mystery may lend, in the reader's imagination, a more complex
individual than Martin has in mind. MAY. I point to my experience
with the first book's hints of an ancient history, of titanic
struggles of the past, but whenever we've been given a closeup on any
of the workings of that world, it's inevitably petty, shallow, brutal,
stupid. A non-viewpoint character who is spared much detailed scrutiny
might avoid the side effects of a shallow characterization ... for a
time.
I welcome any comments you may supply that make Jaime seem more
complex. Has he been seen rescuing people his sister has condemned to
death? Inexplicably sparing people who should be his mortal enemies?
Showing affection for the incestuous children he has spawned? Is he
developing a drinking-whoring-meateating buddy relationship with
Tyrion? I know you've said you are intrigued by Jaime before, but I
never got a sense of what it was that made him so, other than his
competence.
David T. Bilek
>On May 3, 2:29 pm, David T. Bilek <davidbi...@att.net> wrote:
>> Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.org> wrote:
>>
>> >From what you are telling me, there is only one character who is
>> >"deep", and that's Jaime Lannister. I find that hard to believe based
>> >on my introduction to him, as a sister-boinker and child killer. His
>> >"depth", as far as I could determine at that early stage, was because
>> >he looked with disgust at his sister, before he complied with her
>> >demand that he push little Bran out a window. And he's supposedly
>> >"competent", which means little to me, since competence in a book like
>> >this likely means mere power-fantasy, likely to do with his being a
>> >"badass" of some kind.
>>
>> I didn't say "only". But, in any case, you may find it as hard to
>> believe as you wish. If you have only read the first book you don't
>> really have a basis for your belief as Jaime is not a viewpoint
>> character.
>>
>> Like I said before, there are valid criticisms to be made of this
>> series, particularly after the latest volume. But you don't make
>> them. You just fling poo at the books and hope some of the slime
>> sticks.
>
>
>character, but I am doubtful, and the fact that he is NOT a viewpoint
>characters adds a bit to my doubt.
He isn't a viewpoint character... in the first book. Which is all I
assume you have read. Jaime becomes one of the viewpoint characters
later on.
>His being "interesting" may be due
>in fact to the relative lack of detail to the character, and the
>mystery may lend, in the reader's imagination, a more complex
>individual than Martin has in mind. MAY. I point to my experience
>with the first book's hints of an ancient history, of titanic
>struggles of the past, but whenever we've been given a closeup on any
>of the workings of that world, it's inevitably petty, shallow, brutal,
>stupid. A non-viewpoint character who is spared much detailed scrutiny
>might avoid the side effects of a shallow characterization ... for a
>time.
See above.
> I welcome any comments you may supply that make Jaime seem more
>complex. Has he been seen rescuing people his sister has condemned to
>death? Inexplicably sparing people who should be his mortal enemies?
>Showing affection for the incestuous children he has spawned? Is he
>developing a drinking-whoring-meateating buddy relationship with
>Tyrion? I know you've said you are intrigued by Jaime before, but I
>never got a sense of what it was that made him so, other than his
>competence.
I don't believe I've ever said I was "intrigued" by Jaime, much less
said it before. I said he's one of the most psychologically complex
characters in the series.
But I'd have to re-read the series to answer the question properly;
it's been seven or eight years since I read most of them.
To give one example of Jaime's growth; much of his self-worth has
obviously been tied up in being one of the greatest swordsmen alive.
He knows he's one messed up guy in a lot of ways but he could always
cling to being one of the baddest mothefuckers around.
Except that when he's captured by the Starks, Catelyn arbitrarily
orders his sword-hand cut off in retaliation for blah blah blah
whatever and kicks him to the curb. (uh, she might actually have cut
it off herself now that I think about it). Now he can't even hold a
sword properly much less fight; his attempts to learn to fight
left-handed are, shall we say, less than successful. So his entire
sense of self-worth is shattered in an instand and he's forced to
confront a lot of his own screwed-upness. This process takes most of
a book.
It doesn't hurt that he appears to develop the beginnings of an actual
conscience and that we see the backstory on things like the sack of
King's Landing during Robert's rebellion, which previously we'd only
seen from Stark/Baratheon viewpoints. Those viewpoints cast it in
rather more negative light than they warranted. But like I said I'd
have to reread the series in order to answer properly.
But no, there isn't much there to justify the whole throwing Bran from
the tower thing. He doesn't try to justify it, even to himself; as
far as I can recall that's the one thing Jaime has done that has no
mitigation. He did it because the alternative was likely the
downfall of his House , his family, and the Kingdom. He doesn't
pretend it was anything but what it was.
-David
Ilya the Recusant
Adams" <mhacdeinva...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>Wolfspawn wrote:
>>
>> Martin's gleeful emphasis on Evil indicates what? To me it
>> indicates an unhealthy pleasure in Evil.
>
>Because you're a dumb cunt.
You I <3, Chris.
Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
http://ohilya.livejournal.com/
Ilya the Recusant
<cr...@bfn.org> wrote:
>On May 1, 9:22 pm, "Christopher Adams"
><mhacdeinvalidbhan...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>> Gene wrote:
>> > Christopher Adams wrote:
>>
>> >> Wolfspawn wrote:
>>
>> >>> Martin's gleeful emphasis on Evil indicates what? To me it
>> >>> indicates an unhealthy pleasure in Evil.
>>
>> >> Because you're a dumb cunt.
>>
>> > That's what I admire about Ive&Fire fandom-it's so damned highbrow.
>>
>> Are you denying that Wolfspawn is a dumb cunt? Seriously?
>>
>> You know, Martin's not Shakespeare - but Shakespeare wrote a pretty bloody,
>> awful sequence of events in Titus Andronicus, and it doesn't mean it's
>> anything other than a great work.
>
>I'm fortunate enough to have read Titus Andronicus, and it is a great
>work. However, what I remember from it is not the bloody awful
>sequences, but the psychological study of Titus that explains those
>events. That's what made it great. Where is Martin's interest in the
>psychology of his characters? Can you honestly claim he has ANY?
What in the Holy Fuckmonkey of Jesus Bloody Bollocksed H Christ are
you even doing here if you're turned off by the characters, their
behaviour, the gory descriptions, the horrific violence and as it
would seem, the series as a whole. Whinging for whinging's sake is
lame. Lame and boring. You should go read some David Eddings. He's
waiting for you.
Ilya the Recusant
>character, but I am doubtful, and the fact that he is NOT a viewpoint
>characters adds a bit to my doubt.
Well that proves you don't haven't read the entire series. Wolfspawn,
without having read the entire series your arguments do not work,
because you lack the proper context, the kind which can be gained by
sitting down and reading Book 1, 2, 3 and 4. Don't you think it's time
better spent to argue when you've the proper context, rather than only
a small portion of it?
Ilya the Recusant
Your analogy is flawed due to the fact that it does not hold up
against the actual facts that one can deduce from having simply read
the series. Seriously Wolfspawn, take a week off and go and plow
through the rest of the series and then come back and talk to us.
Michelle J. Haines
>
> Except that when he's captured by the Starks, Catelyn arbitrarily
> orders his sword-hand cut off in retaliation for blah blah blah
> whatever and kicks him to the curb. (uh, she might actually have cut
> it off herself now that I think about it).
Er, no.
Yes, his sword hand was cut off. But not by Catelyn or because of her.
The Brave Companions did it.
Michelle
Flutist
Will in New Haven
He's trying to save us from ourselves. Or maybe he's just trying to
show his superior sensitvitude. Or he's trying to keep innocent people
from reading, or starting to read, the series.
Or maybe he's just a dumb cunt.
David T. Bilek
You are correct, sir. I told him I had to go back to re-read the
series.
I was remembering that his sword-hand was cut-off and also remembering
the scence where we see Catelyn approaching a chained Jaime with a
sword in her hands.
Turns out she just cuts his chains off, now that you jog my memory.
I wasn't a big admirer of that scence; Martin is a better writer than
that. Cheap cliffhanger antics.
-David
Thomas Lindgren
I dunno. It's getting to be like listening to your uncle the marine
telling rousing war stories, and after a while realizing he's
lingering all too fondly over the very nasty stuff. And that he won't
shut up. So now you have to choose: be patient and see if there is
more good parts after the sicko stuff, or excuse yourself and go do
something else.
A-anyway, perhaps the next, post-meltdown, non-outtakes-only installment
will be better than that wretched last effort some years ago. But
frankly, it's hard to muster much enthusiasm for another four volumes
after _that_.
"War is hell, man. War is hell. ARE YOU LISTENING?"
Yeah. GAME OF THRONES was an excellent piece of work, but ... maybe I
should just wait for the reviews for the next one.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
Christopher Adams
>
> I'm fortunate enough to have read Titus Andronicus, and it is a great
> work. However, what I remember from it is not the bloody awful
> sequences, but the psychological study of Titus that explains those
> events. That's what made it great. Where is Martin's interest in the
> psychology of his characters? Can you honestly claim he has ANY?
Abso-fucking-lutely, you dumb cunt.
Both Tyrion and Jaime Lannister's chapters are pretty much *about* the
reason why they act the way they do. Tyrion's adolescent love (no matter how
old he was when it happened, it was an adolescent experience) and his
father's punishing him for it; Jaime's relationship with Cersei and his
realisation (drawn out over the course of the several novels in which he's a
viewpoint figure) that it's made them both monstrous.
That's just one example. All of the Stark children - Bran, Arya, Sansa, and
Jon Snow - have their way of thinking drawn out and laid bare for us, and
the reasons for their being so likewise explicated. The same with Daenerys;
her early chapters are *all about* her abusive relationship with her
brother, the chance for escape her marriage offers her, and how the hell she
deals with losing her husband too.
But, of course, all a dumb cunt like you sees is "Oh my God, she's thirteen
when she gets married!"
--
Christopher Adams
Sydney, Australia
For theirs is the power and this is their kingdom
As sure as the sun does burn
So enter this path, but heed these four words:
You shall never return
Mike Schilling
> I was remembering that his sword-hand was cut-off and also
> remembering
> the scence where we see Catelyn approaching a chained Jaime with a
> sword in her hands.
>
> Turns out she just cuts his chains off, now that you jog my memory.
>
> I wasn't a big admirer of that scence; Martin is a better writer
> than
> that. Cheap cliffhanger antics.
It's not the only example. There's the scene that ends with the Night
Watch guy's sword coming at Arya (it cuts off her hair.) I think
there are others, too, but no examples come to mind.
Wolfspawn
> >I'm fortunate enough to have read Titus Andronicus, and it is a great
> >work. However, what I remember from it is not the bloody awful
> >sequences, but the psychological study of Titus that explains those
> >events. That's what made it great. Where is Martin's interest in the
> >psychology of his characters? Can you honestly claim he has ANY?
>
> What in the Holy Fuckmonkey of Jesus Bloody Bollocksed H Christ are
> you even doing here if you're turned off by the characters, their
> behaviour, the gory descriptions, the horrific violence and as it
> would seem, the series as a whole. Whinging for whinging's sake is
> lame. Lame and boring. You should go read some David Eddings. He's
> waiting for you.
Are you partaking of that good Russian Vodka, Ilya? You sound a little
cranky.
Gene
b2b0-ae4...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> Are you partaking of that good Russian Vodka, Ilya? You
sound a little
> cranky.
He's shaken, not stirred. This is because, as some GRRM fans
like to boast, he is a Real Man, tough enough to read Martin
and survive. Not the kind of pantywaist who reads Eddings or
Lackey. But what I want to see are signs that characters like
Ilya are tough enough to read Kratman. Read, and not barf.
Are they man enough?
Wolfspawn
<mhacdeinvalidbhan...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Both Tyrion and Jaime Lannister's chapters are pretty much *about* the
> reason why they act the way they do. Tyrion's adolescent love (no matter how
> old he was when it happened, it was an adolescent experience) and his
> father's punishing him for it; Jaime's relationship with Cersei and his
> realisation (drawn out over the course of the several novels in which he's a
> viewpoint figure) that it's made them both monstrous.
But isn't is a bit more her fault than his, yes?
> That's just one example. All of the Stark children - Bran, Arya, Sansa, and
> Jon Snow - have their way of thinking drawn out and laid bare for us, and
> the reasons for their being so likewise explicated. The same with Daenerys;
> her early chapters are *all about* her abusive relationship with her
> brother, the chance for escape her marriage offers her, and how the hell she
> deals with losing her husband too.
You really saw her marriage as an "escape" for her? In spite of the
fact that she "escapes" into a world where it's the cultural norm for
tribal chiefs to share their wives with their buddies, and only her
husband's whim prevents her from being similarly shared? And the
potential for her being "shared" is rubbed home to us (and her) by the
rape of her maids by her husband's buddies? You see that as Martin
being concerned for Daenerys (sp?) and her emancipation. I see the
focus being on her being seduced, threatened with rape, enduring sex
in conditions painful to her. That's what Martin focuses on, so I
can't assume the kind hearted intentions towards Daenerys that you do.
> But, of course, all a dumb cunt like you sees is "Oh my God, she's thirteen
> when she gets married!"
Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. How gleefully Martin
described the whole thing.
Wolfspawn
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 08:03:45 -0600, "Michelle J. Haines"
>
> >David T. Bilek wrote:
>
> >> Except that when he's captured by the Starks, Catelyn arbitrarily
> >> orders his sword-hand cut off in retaliation for blah blah blah
> >> whatever and kicks him to the curb. (uh, she might actually have cut
> >> it off herself now that I think about it).
>
> >Er, no.
>
> >Yes, his sword hand was cut off. But not by Catelyn or because of her.
>
> >The Brave Companions did it.
>
> You are correct, sir. I told him I had to go back to re-read the
> series.
>
> I was remembering that his sword-hand was cut-off and also remembering
> the scence where we see Catelyn approaching a chained Jaime with a
> sword in her hands.
>
> Turns out she just cuts his chains off, now that you jog my memory.
>
> that. Cheap cliffhanger antics.
He may be CAPABLE of better writing, but is he actually INTERESTED in
it?
Michelle J. Haines
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 08:03:45 -0600, "Michelle J. Haines"
> <mha...@nanc.com> wrote:
>
:O
Michelle
Flutist
Ilya the Recusant
If you can read John Ringo, you can read anything.
Ilya the Recusant
<cr...@bfn.org> wrote:
>> But, of course, all a dumb cunt like you sees is "Oh my God, she's thirteen
>> when she gets married!"
>
>Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. How gleefully Martin
>described the whole thing.
So you know what Martin was thinking and feeling as he wrote it? How
can you assume authorial intent if we all know that readers bring
their own interpretation to the reading process? You're the only one
here that's really bothered by the story, which makes it clear that
there are other ways to approach the story. Thus, if reading is an
interpretive process, how can you know that your opinion is more valid
than mine? What gives you the right to make that presumption?
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.org>,
and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>> Choosing to write about the awful side of life doesn't mean you delight in
>> it.
>
>It does if there is no contrasting side of life that you DO delight
>in. I suppose by that logic, what Martin delights in are descriptions
>of whoring and meat eating.
*amused*
I remember a couple of years back, we had a big indignant argument
because I made a remark about Jaime being a "sister-fucking murderer"
and people bitched at me for putting the two things in an insult
together and therefore making them seem to be equal evils.
And only now, with "whoring and meat eating", do I see what they
meant.
C&J
nObRandall: Listerfiend is her mouth-troll, right?
--
Beware of Trojans, they're complete smegheads.
- 13 & 13b of 12, the CMM Collective.
- www.afrj-monkeyhouse.org
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called David T. Bilek
<david...@att.net>, and they made us all feel better by saying the
following stuff:
>>Who do you think is the character Martin has set up as THE character
>>who will succeed in doing right successfully?
>
>Why should there be only one? Martin has shown characters being right
>successfully and being wrong successfully. It doesn't appear that
>"right" or "wrong" are what leads to success in Martin's world;
>strangely enough it seems like competence is what succeeds.
Unless you're Tyrion, in which case it's competence and a buttload of
luck.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.org>,
and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>> Why should there be only one? Martin has shown characters being right
>> successfully and being wrong successfully. It doesn't appear that
>> "right" or "wrong" are what leads to success in Martin's world;
>> strangely enough it seems like competence is what succeeds.
>
>This isn't really a psychological trait, however. "Competence" is a
>really easy thing to write into a novel. "Tyrion swung his axe and
>imbedded it deep into the red-shirt's skull". See how easy it is?
I'm not seeing how this sort of character trait is any easier to write
than, say, a personality quirk or a particular behavioural neurosis or
complexity in a character. It can all just be made up.
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.org>,
and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>Well, I have no choice but accept that Jaime is the most interesting
>character, but I am doubtful, and the fact that he is NOT a viewpoint
>characters
Yes he is.
You lose the conversation.
Chucky & Janica
was this guy, or something, called Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org>, and they
made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>sound a little
>> cranky.
>
>He's shaken, not stirred. This is because, as some GRRM fans
>like to boast, he is a Real Man, tough enough to read Martin
>and survive. Not the kind of pantywaist who reads Eddings or
>Lackey. But what I want to see are signs that characters like
>Ilya are tough enough to read Kratman. Read, and not barf.
>Are they man enough?
Futurama flashback.
"Are you man enough to be a Globetrotter? ARE you?"
"In time..."
"ARE you?"
"No."
Default User
> Once upon a time - for example, Mon, 05 May 2008 05:39:26 GMT - there
> was this guy, or something, called Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org>, and they
> made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>
> > sound a little
> >> cranky.
> >
> > He's shaken, not stirred. This is because, as some GRRM fans
> > like to boast, he is a Real Man, tough enough to read Martin
> > and survive. Not the kind of pantywaist who reads Eddings or
> > Lackey. But what I want to see are signs that characters like
> > Ilya are tough enough to read Kratman. Read, and not barf.
> > Are they man enough?
>
> Futurama flashback.
>
> "Are you man enough to be a Globetrotter? ARE you?"
> "In time..."
> "ARE you?"
> "No."
"Who dares laugh at the Jesters of Dunk?"
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Will in New Haven
> In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space, Wolfspawn
>
> <cr...@bfn.org> wrote:
> >> But, of course, all a dumb cunt like you sees is "Oh my God, she's thirteen
> >> when she gets married!"
>
> >Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. How gleefully Martin
> >described the whole thing.
>
> So you know what Martin was thinking and feeling as he wrote it? How
> can you assume authorial intent if we all know that readers bring
> their own interpretation to the reading process? You're the only one
> here that's really bothered by the story, which makes it clear that
> there are other ways to approach the story. Thus, if reading is an
> interpretive process, how can you know that your opinion is more valid
> than mine? What gives you the right to make that presumption?
And why is he making such a fuss about a book he won't be reading?
And, frankly, about a book that will NEVER COME OUT.
Never, I tell you.
--
Will in New Haven
Gene
news:33cfb1ec-06d4-4870-a897-95c66a27fc43
@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
> And why is he making such a fuss about a book he won't be
reading?
> And, frankly, about a book that will NEVER COME OUT.
>
> Never, I tell you.
Martin didn't eat his own fingers, I hope?
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
His dwarf son shot him while he was taking a shit. Or a direwolf ate
him.
He has a scene or a bit of description in the next book that pisses me
off more than the rat-eating scene does WolfSpawn, given that I
generally like these books.
He talks about wolves "in hills full of game" that are eating
livestock and men all the fucking time, not his exact words. As I
asked Joel Rosenberg once, do fantasy authors take an OATH to know
nothing about real-world wolves?
I think he said "no but it helps."
David T. Bilek
I'm afraid to say I'm leading to this view myself; the story has spun
out of control and Martin has no idea how to get it back together.
My personal view is that if he finishes DANCE this Summer there is a
chance of pulling through; if it stretches towards Christmas, things
are bad. If we go into next year and he still hasn't finished, it's
over. There may still come a point where something gets published
under the name A DANCE WITH DRAGONS but it won't be a shadow on the
book he would hav written 5 years ago.
-David
Mike Schilling
> He talks about wolves "in hills full of game" that are eating
> livestock and men all the fucking time, not his exact words. As I
> asked Joel Rosenberg once, do fantasy authors take an OATH to know
> nothing about real-world wolves?
Your point, I presume, is that the wolves wouldn't take the risk of messing
with humans when there's safer food.
I live next to a hill that's full enough of deer that when driving at night
you have to be constantly watching for the ones that have come down to eat
people's gardens, but the common wisdom is that the coyotes still find it
worthwhile to prey on small neighborhood dogs. Admittedly, my shih tzu is
unscathed, and this may be the pet-owner version of ubiquitous child
kidnappers. Still, GRRM isn't alone.
Ilya the Recusant
Hee hee. So you keep telling us.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
Comparing grown whitetails to small dogs with POSSIBLE human backup
does not lead to a clear winner in a coyote's point of view. Coyotes
hunt alone or in small groups, usually in small groups. Wolves hunt in
larger family groups, they have no trouble taking whitetails, although
elk seem the ideal game animal for them. That is the North American
version of the red deer, not the moose. For that matter, they can take
moose and even bison.
Wolves have a record of killling humans where the countryside is full
of unarmed humans. There are traditions of frequent wolf attacks in
France and Russia. They still kill humans in India. They have no
history of killing humans in North America. The Native Americans may
have lived closely with nature but they did not tolerate nature
carrying off the kids.
Rebecca Rice
Rebecca
DouhetSukd
> Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. How gleefully Martin
> described the whole thing.
Wolfspawn, not only do you talk big about books you haven't read, but
you also seem clueless about history.
Marriage at 13 wasn't necessarily exceptional in the Middle Ages.
That might have something to do with moral expectations and, mostly,
life expectancy. See, according to Wikipedia, life expectancy
medieval Britain was around 20-30 (seems low, but...). If you only
expect women to live to say, 30, then you wouldn't want to delay their
wedding till they were 18. Basic common sense - they wouldn't live
long enough to raise their children to childbearing age.
But since you probably are too thick to follow, here's a little
runaround from King Louis XI of France's (early 15th c.) entries in
Wikipedia and that of the kings preceding him.
Louis XI - marries at 13, to Margaret of Scotland, 12
Charles VII - marries at 19, to Marie of Anjou, 18
Charles VI - marries at 17, to Isabeau, age 14
Charles V - marries at 12 to Jeanne, also 12.
I think you could probably pick any European country before the 16th
century and find similar patterns of very young marriages amongst the
nobility.
So, my guess is that GRRM is spot on with his story, whether or not
you like it or not. His scenario starts out with Danaerys in a bad
starting position, being put into a forced marriage at a young age.
13 was way more common than now (quick, someone get Warren Jeffs a
time machine). Having Daenerys getting married at, say 17, would make
zero historical sense as "being married too young", because it would
be well within the norm.
Now if you figure that the low life expectancy only applied to the
average person since the nobility had access to 'doctors', then you
are probably also somewhat credulous about the competence of medieval
European physicians and I think I should be telling you about an
undervalued stock that will make you a killing.
Will in New Haven
Disarmed peasants can't do much about it. The nobility in France and
Russia organized massive wolf hunts every once in awhile and that
helped keep the wolf population down.The British during the Raj and
the nobility before them probably did the same. Ironically, the wolves
in at least part of India have never learned Kipling's lesson: "And
seven times never kill man."
It didn't do too much to teach the wolves to leave those other
people, the ones without big dogs, horses and weapons, alone. So,
yeah, they tolerated it.
--
Will in New Haven
That big brown horse was just too fast. You did
Your best. Now rest. The starter won't be calling you
For quite awhile. John Henry comes to welcome you
Home. Sweet grass, warm breezes. Enjoy.
Mike Schilling
>
> Wolves have a record of killling humans where the countryside is
> full
> of unarmed humans. There are traditions of frequent wolf attacks in
> France and Russia. They still kill humans in India. They have no
> history of killing humans in North America. The Native Americans may
> have lived closely with nature but they did not tolerate nature
> carrying off the kids.
So, presuming the wolves are attacking farmers and herders who are not
protected by knights, that simply makes Westeros parallel to the Old
World instead of the New.
John F. Eldredge
One problem with many such life expectancy figures is that the average is
being pulled way down by the large number of children who died as babies
or toddlers. If you looked only at the people who lived past age three,
you might well find the average life expectancy to be considerably
higher. After all, Psalm 90 verse 10 states "As for the days of our
life, they contain seventy years, Or if due to strength, eighty years,
Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow; For soon it is gone and we fly
away." [New American Standard Bible], suggesting that seventy years was
not an uncommon age in Israel in the psalmist's day.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
ilya...@gmail.com
Mortality, Judgement and Remembrance':
'Expectation of life fell short of the psalmist's three score years
and ten. Medieval records provide little reliable information, and men
were often uncertain of the year of their own birth. When stated in
legal business or tax returns, ages were clearly only approximate.'
(Pg 9-10)
Ilya on Google
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> PGP key available fromhttp://pgp.mit.edu
Christopher Adams
>
> You really saw her marriage as an "escape" for her? In spite of the
> fact that she "escapes" into a world where it's the cultural norm for
> tribal chiefs to share their wives with their buddies, and only her
> husband's whim prevents her from being similarly shared? And the
> potential for her being "shared" is rubbed home to us (and her) by the
> rape of her maids by her husband's buddies? You see that as Martin
> being concerned for Daenerys (sp?) and her emancipation.
Didn't say a word about anything like that, you dumb cunt.
It's obvious that life with Drogo is better than life with Viserys, yes.
She's still terrified most of the time, and as soon as she comes to an
accomodation with her new life where she can be happy, it's taken away from
her because of something she did that she thought was benevolent.
I don't read any glee or prurient interest into Martin's description of
Daenerys' wedding or bedding. I do accept that her age isn't as much of a
problem in her world than it would be in ours, because that's how things
were done in history.
Besides, one thing that is true of me and might not be true of other readers
is that I don't read fantasy for escapism. I don't want to imagine myself
living in Martin's or any other writer's world. I don't have to approve of
the culture in which Daenerys grew up or the one into which she's marrying,
because I don't have anything invested in idealising either of them.
--
Christopher Adams
Sydney, Australia
For theirs is the power and this is their kingdom
As sure as the sun does burn
So enter this path, but heed these four words:
You shall never return
DouhetSukd
wrote:
>Ironically, the wolves
> in at least part of India have never learned Kipling's lesson: "And
> seven times never kill man."
Are there still wolves in India?
GRRM's ''7 times' was an amazingly creepy short story about the innate
stupidity of listening to people who claim to be channeling the Word
of God. We should send it to Sound of Strumpet and his brethren.
Here in wild ol' British Columbia, the bears, and very rare wolves,
have mostly listened to Kipling. But our cougars aren't quite as
evolved - I had a disturbing experience at the zoo where a cougar kept
staring _constantly_ at my 4 yrs old son. In any case, people who
live outside of Vancouver and other metro areas are usually as
cautious about cougars as they are blase about bears. Mind you, if
you do get attacked, a cougar is much easier dealt with than a bear.
Funnily enough, we also had a reporter who valiantly stood up against
urban coyote hysteria. 3 weeks after her article a mother yanked her
18 month old toddler's head out of a coyote jaws just in time. So the
poor reporter must have looked like quite a dunce.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
I didn't notice that Westerosi peasants had been disarmed by law.
Also, the incidence of armed men romping about the countryside is very
high right now. On the other hand, maybe the parallel to parts of the
Old World does hold up. Still, the "hills full of game" phrase makes
it seem doubtful. Russians, certainly, generally set mosts of their
stories of wolf attacks in very bad winters, when the game would be
scarce.
Will in New Haven
> On May 5, 7:37 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ironically, the wolves
> > in at least part of India have never learned Kipling's lesson: "And
> > seven times never kill man."
>
> Are there still wolves in India?
Yes, and they still kill peple. Depending on how much of a lumper/
spllitter you are, they are the same species as the wolves of North
America, which could be three species themselves if you let them. Damn
confusing, the canids.
>
> GRRM's ''7 times' was an amazingly creepy short story about the innate
> stupidity of listening to people who claim to be channeling the Word
> of God. We should send it to Sound of Strumpet and his brethren.
I know SoT can type but can he read?
>
> Here in wild ol' British Columbia, the bears, and very rare wolves,
> have mostly listened to Kipling. But our cougars aren't quite as
> evolved - I had a disturbing experience at the zoo where a cougar kept
> staring _constantly_ at my 4 yrs old son. In any case, people who
> live outside of Vancouver and other metro areas are usually as
> cautious about cougars as they are blase about bears. Mind you, if
> you do get attacked, a cougar is much easier dealt with than a bear.
Do you have many grizzlies or is mostly black bears? I would worry
more about a grizzly than a couger, at leas that was what the people
said in Wyoming when I was there. And there is a much greater chance
to survive a couger attack, although easier does not mean easy.
>
> Funnily enough, we also had a reporter who valiantly stood up against
> urban coyote hysteria. 3 weeks after her article a mother yanked her
> 18 month old toddler's head out of a coyote jaws just in time. So the
> poor reporter must have looked like quite a dunce.
Hysteria is still hysteria, even if sometimes it is aimed in the right
direction. I have seen frequent coyote tracks and other sign around
our condo complex and the tracks of one bobcat. People still keep
indoor/outdoor housecats and they have taken very few casualties over
the two years I have lived there. I can understand that the large
number of trees would make it safe for the cats, vis a vis the
coyotes, but the bobcat must not like to eat his little relatives. The
only animal attack on humans in many years was when our Lab pushed two
kids into a pond. He was quite proud of himself.
Mike Schilling
> On May 5, 11:12 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Will in New Haven wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Wolves have a record of killling humans where the countryside is
>>> full
>>> of unarmed humans. There are traditions of frequent wolf attacks
>>> in
>>> France and Russia. They still kill humans in India. They have no
>>> history of killing humans in North America. The Native Americans
>>> may
>>> have lived closely with nature but they did not tolerate nature
>>> carrying off the kids.
>>
>> So, presuming the wolves are attacking farmers and herders who are
>> not protected by knights, that simply makes Westeros parallel to
>> the
>> Old World instead of the New.
>
> I didn't notice that Westerosi peasants had been disarmed by law.
More by economics. In "The Hedge Knight", Dunk has to pretty much
bankrupt himself to buy his weapons..
> Also, the incidence of armed men romping about the countryside is
> very
> high right now.
Thought they have better (OK, worse) things to do than to protect a
farmer from wolves.
Chuk Goodin
wrote:
>
>Funnily enough, we also had a reporter who valiantly stood up against
>urban coyote hysteria. 3 weeks after her article a mother yanked her
>18 month old toddler's head out of a coyote jaws just in time. So the
>poor reporter must have looked like quite a dunce.
I blame the parents. I live in BC, and we never let toddlers (or any kid
young enough to get eaten by wildlife) out of our sight outside by
themselves.
--
chuk
Wayne Throop
:: urban coyote hysteria. 3 weeks after her article a mother yanked her
:: 18 month old toddler's head out of a coyote jaws just in time. So
:: the poor reporter must have looked like quite a dunce.
: cgo...@sfu.ca (Chuk Goodin)
: I blame the parents. I live in BC, and we never let toddlers (or any
: kid young enough to get eaten by wildlife) out of our sight outside by
: themselves.
I rather imagine she *was* in sight, or she wouldn't have gotten there
"just in time". In the news around here last year, there was a case of
a man walking one of some small breed of dog, on a leash, who had the
dog snapped up by a coyote approaching from behind him, and carried out
of sight before he could react at all.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Wolfspawn
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 12:20:14 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
>
> >And why is he making such a fuss about a book he won't be reading?
> >And, frankly, about a book that will NEVER COME OUT.
>
> >Never, I tell you.
>
> I'm afraid to say I'm leading to this view myself; the story has spun
> out of control and Martin has no idea how to get it back together.
I'd like to float a proposition to you. You say that the story has
spun out of control. What might cause a story to spin out of control?
Could it perhaps be because the author was NOT invested in the plot
itself, not truly paying attention to the details, not really working
things out, and this was BECAUSE his attention, his interest, was
elsewhere? And the elements he was focusing on kept introducing new
wrinkles to the plot that caused it to spin out of control? The
elements I am positing are the gratuitous gross-out violence and
gratuitous sex, which are being shoehorned into the tale even though
they have real consequences to the plotting that need to be dealt
with. BTW, was the mystery of who was behind the attempted
assassination of Bran ever resolved?
> My personal view is that if he finishes DANCE this Summer there is a
> chance of pulling through; if it stretches towards Christmas, things
> are bad. If we go into next year and he still hasn't finished, it's
> over. There may still come a point where something gets published
> under the name A DANCE WITH DRAGONS but it won't be a shadow on the
> book he would hav written 5 years ago.
I don't think this "out of control" story ever had a chance of going
anywhere BUT out of control, since the author had very little interest
in any long-term arc, but only in the little "gems" of porn and horror
imbedded.
Wolfspawn
> On May 4, 10:41 pm, Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.org> wrote:
>
> > Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. How gleefully Martin
> > described the whole thing.
>
> Wolfspawn, not only do you talk big about books you haven't read, but
> you also seem clueless about history.
Deja Vu. I've had this conversastion before, so forgive me if I'm
short with you. This isn't a history book, it's a fantasy novel, and
if there's any "history" in it, it's hand-picked from a lot of
"historical detail" out of a plethora of alternate historical detail.
By a MODERN author, and we hold him to modern standards.
> Marriage at 13 wasn't necessarily exceptional in the Middle Ages.
> That might have something to do with moral expectations and, mostly,
> life expectancy. See, according to Wikipedia, life expectancy
> medieval Britain was around 20-30 (seems low, but...). If you only
> expect women to live to say, 30, then you wouldn't want to delay their
> wedding till they were 18. Basic common sense - they wouldn't live
> long enough to raise their children to childbearing age.
>
> But since you probably are too thick to follow, here's a little
> runaround from King Louis XI of France's (early 15th c.) entries in
> Wikipedia and that of the kings preceding him.
>
> Louis XI - marries at 13, to Margaret of Scotland, 12
An adolescent married to an adolescent. Do you have the "historical
detail" of their wedding night, and whether his finger got inserted
into her vagina, as in Martin's version? And he made the male a full
grown adult. Martin exerted quite a lot of effort to manipulate the
reader into being HAPPY that a 13 year old girl was being fucked by a
grown man, and enjoying it, by graphically describing more violent
alternatives. What a boon to 13 year old girls everywhere!
> Charles VII - marries at 19, to Marie of Anjou, 18
What's your point? That seems a reasonable age to marry, and the
couple is of equivalent ages.
> Charles VI - marries at 17, to Isabeau, age 14
That's not so great for Isabeau. Or do you disagree? There's plenty of
medical evidence that it's dangerous for women to risk child-bearing
before their bodies fully develop, 18 being the ideal minimum for
successful childbearing.
> Charles V - marries at 12 to Jeanne, also 12.
And they were fucking like bunnies the night of their marriage? I
suspect a lot of these marriages remained celibate for a while after
the politically arranged Marriage Ceremony had been made.
> I think you could probably pick any European country before the 16th
> century and find similar patterns of very young marriages amongst the
> nobility.
Which were "marriages" in name only, as is likely when a 12 year old
is married to another 12 year old.
> So, my guess is that GRRM is spot on with his story, whether or not
> you like it or not. His scenario starts out with Danaerys in a bad
> starting position, being put into a forced marriage at a young age.
> 13 was way more common than now (quick, someone get Warren Jeffs a
> time machine). Having Daenerys getting married at, say 17, would make
> zero historical sense as "being married too young", because it would
> be well within the norm.
It doesn't matter whether it was "more" common or not. Martin chose to
make it the very first example of a marriage in his series. It's not
about Historical Accuracy, because no one put a gun to Martin's head
and said "You MUST describe in lascivious detail the seduction of a
thirteen year old. History demands it." Martin chose to do it for HIS
reasons, not for History's reasons.
> Now if you figure that the low life expectancy only applied to the
> average person since the nobility had access to 'doctors', then you
> are probably also somewhat credulous about the competence of medieval
> European physicians and I think I should be telling you about an
> undervalued stock that will make you a killing.
It has nothing to do with how long people lived. A 13 year old is
still a thirteen year old, barely over being a kid. How old did Martin
say Khal Drogo was? The point is the disparity in age, and the
lingering over the discomfiture of a pre-legal, by modern standards,
girl. Martin is a modern author, writing for modern audiences. What
was his purpose? To desensitize modern audiences to the idea of having
sex with a 13 year old? Why do that? You do agree that it's GOOD that
we don't
sanction adults fucking 13 year olds in modern times, right? Why
sanction the depiction of it FOR ENTERTAINMENT in a MODERN novel?
Wolfspawn
<mhacdeinvalidbhan...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Wolfspawn wrote:
>
> > You really saw her marriage as an "escape" for her? In spite of the
> > fact that she "escapes" into a world where it's the cultural norm for
> > tribal chiefs to share their wives with their buddies, and only her
> > husband's whim prevents her from being similarly shared? And the
> > potential for her being "shared" is rubbed home to us (and her) by the
> > rape of her maids by her husband's buddies? You see that as Martin
> > being concerned for Daenerys (sp?) and her emancipation.
> I don't read any glee or prurient interest into Martin's description of
> Daenerys' wedding or bedding. I do accept that her age isn't as much of a
> problem in her world than it would be in ours, because that's how things
> were done in history.
See my reply to the other guy in this thread who thinks Martin's
purpose is a pure and academic display of historical accuracy.
> Besides, one thing that is true of me and might not be true of other readers
> is that I don't read fantasy for escapism. I don't want to imagine myself
> living in Martin's or any other writer's world. I don't have to approve of
> the culture in which Daenerys grew up or the one into which she's marrying,
> because I don't have anything invested in idealising either of them.
You read it to get a sense of what it was really like in actual
history? That's such a blatant display of self-deception. The fact is
that History is full of alternate examples. Martin picked and chose
what "history" he would focus on. You like MARTIN'S choice of
"historical detail". Why? Only you can answer, if you wish to be
honest with yourself.
Wolfspawn
> You read it to get a sense of what it was really like in actual
> history? That's such a blatant display of self-deception. The fact is
> that History is full of alternate examples. Martin picked and chose
> what "history" he would focus on. You like MARTIN'S choice of
> "historical detail". Why? Only you can answer, if you wish to be
> honest with yourself.
Actually, I take that back. You honestly seem to think that you are
reading a novel describing a wierd alternate universe that is
interesting for it's differences. I'm just trying to remind you that
you are reading FICTION, and that it's effects on your perceptions of
what is Normal in today's world may not be affected for the better.