Amph ASOIAF: "A Clash of Kings" Chapter-by-Chapter: Chapter Thirty-Two: Sansa

For the record, the series gets around this by actually making almost everyone older, from Ned right down through his children, not to mention Danerys. In the series Robb and Jon are more about 19/20 if not a little older. Ned is a man somewhere in his late forties if not in his fifties. Danerys makes a huge jump -- in the books she turns 13 in the early chapters, but she seems in her mid 20s on the show.

Arya in the series is older than nine. They don't explicitly state her age, but the actress was 12-13 at the time of filming, so that's a little closer to Nevermind's assessments.

 

I think Dany's more around 18-19 in the show, as it were. That fits her a bit better - maybe just sixteen at the start?

Unrelated: Roy Dotrice is unable to settle on a single pronunciation of Targaryen in the audiobooks. Examples include "Tregaryen," "Tragaryen," "Targaryen" (which is right, but only appears occasionally), and "Tagaryen." This cannot all be chalked up to his accent.

And while I'm on the topic of the audiobooks, Dotrice forgets what accents he used for each character between books. I know he took a short break for AFFC, but come ADWD Dany suddenly sounds exactly like the Lannisters (who all sound alike, but only after they become POV characters). Also Eddard gets an accent in some of Jon's flashbacks that he didn't have in AGOT. It's weird and frustrating.

 

I think Dany's more around 18-19 in the show, as it were. That fits her a bit better - maybe just sixteen at the start?

In the show? No, I felt that she seemed much older than 16.

 

The television series takes place 17 years after Robert takes the thrown. You do the math.

 

Emelia Clarke don't look like no 16 year old I'VE ever seen, that's all I'm saying.

 

That twelve-year-old was the son of the king (at least officially). People obeyed him when he spoke. You've got to stop thinking in terms of how children are today, and instead focus on how they are portrayed in the context of the series.

 

lit·er·a·ture /'l?t?r?t??r, -?t???r, 'l?tr?-/ Show Spelled[lit-er-uh-cher, -choor, li-truh-] Show IPA
noun
1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4. the profession of a writer or author.
5. literary work or production.


and



lit·er·ar·y (lt-rr)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with literature: literary criticism.
2. Of or relating to writers or the profession of literature: literary circles.
3. Versed in or fond of literature or learning.
4.
a. Appropriate to literature rather than everyday speech or writing.

b. Bookish; pedantic.

Maybe you and NM would like to explain what laughable and funny mean in the context of this conversation because I cant see where your making the point that this particular work of literature isnt literature. I think Joyce would have a lot of positive to say about ASoIaF.

Yes I would put Martin ahead of Tolkien. Its more thought provoking to me and its more honest about a paternal world and how family, war, politics and spirituality are sustained within it. I think even the ecological arguments are handled better by Martin. MArtin , it seems as of right now , is angling towards an archaic revival whereas Tolkien turns his back on that> Lastly, the way Martin addresses gender blows Tolkien out of the water. I love Tolkien, and The Silmarillion and LotR are obviously the main influence on George R.R. Martin. Even if I never read Tolkien I would know thats true because Martin claims that. And I hear what your saying about the prose of a Tolkien or a Joyce compared to Martin but to me thats a bit ridiculous to even go there.

And by psychedelic I mean under the influence of psychedelics, and I wasnt making the point that that makes something literary but rather that is the literature I love. Sorry for the confusion .

I believe everything in the literary (oh, sorry ) world is derived and contrived so if thats the main argument you have to throw up about ASoIaF, you win.

 

Martin vs. Tolkien can depend on what you're talking about.

Tolkien, as a world-builder, was quite simply the best there was, or near-to. It is not just the world he built, but the level of detail he went into. This is a man who worked out not only his languages, but the cause and effect of his characters and their logistics down to the DAY. Where was Ringwraith #5 on March 2nd? That sort of thing.

However, he had little eye for prose. Martin is overly flowery, but he does have sequences that can ring pretty good, which Tolkien did not have. Martin is also more daring and presents many characters as neither totally good or evil, while Tolkien only had Gollum, Grima Wormtongue and Boromir. Most of the rest were either one side or the other.

Comparing Martin against Joyce is a bit pointless. You're never going to top Joyce, but it should be noted that Joyce himself didn't exactly lend himself to easy reading. His experiments with the written language were phoenominal... but if you have now written something that's no fun for anyone to read, Martin wins by default now, doesn't he? Writing the greatest novels of the century doesn't count for much if nobody wants to read it. At what point does the sophistication of art begin to interfere with its enjoyment? Shakespeare was capable of many complex passages, but still able to keep an audience.

Martin is no Shakespeare. He would WANT to be a Shakespeare, or a Tolkien. But all things considered, I doubt he'd want to be a James Joyce.

 

Martin can write adequate prose, but when he tries for literary effects, his tin ear and lack of a self-editor trips him up. AGOT isn't literature, or even close to it. I never expected it would be--fantasy is very seldom art, though it can be craft--readable and highly entertaining. You don't need to be an artist as long as you're a craftsman, especially in this genre. He fails there, too, through lack of discipline, mostly. There is a decent book in there somewhere, but it's buried under a load of world-building stuff.

 

I did not intend to bring Joyce in as direct comparison to Martin, as that would obviously be a very strange and awkward comparison to make. His was simply a name that jumped into my brain, and that I will admit was a poor choice.

If you're going to quote definitions at me, then I'll gladly use them. Martin's works don't fall under any of those definitions. Where are the universal interests conveyed via expression and form? In the addressing of gender that blows Tolkien out of the water? Obviously any work that addresses gender is going to blow Tolkien's works out of the water; Galadriel is the only true female character in LotR, so your point of reference is flawed to begin with. I won't discuss the gender issue beyond saying that women in ASOIAF are not much more than archetypes and stereotypes. Cersei flat out wants to be a man so she can be Tywin's true son. Brienne is more comfortable in the "realm" of men as a warrior. Catelyn and Sansa want to raise families and keep them safe. Arya's a tomboy.

So I suppose you could say Martin addresses it better than Tolkien, but the comparison is about as apt as comparing Joyce to Tolkien.

My argument isn't that ASOIAF is derivative or contrived, but that it's not a piece of quality literature.

 

If you're going to quote definitions at me, then I'll gladly use them. Martin's works don't fall under any of those definitions


Why not? Bob Salvatore and Ed Greenwoods pulp fall under those definitions which are again - writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, NOVELS, history, biography, and essays.

Where are the universal interests conveyed via expression and form?


Power, family, ecology, gender, politics and love are constantly reviewed by Martin through his story. Expression and form as I understand it is that he is a writer (of words if that makes you feel better lol )of science fiction/fantasy but heres another definition to clarify (or confuse lol) -(noun) - Form is an element of art. At its most basic, a form is a three-dimensional geometrical figure (i.e.: sphere, cube, cylinder, cone, etc.), as opposed to a shape, which is two-dimensional, or flat.

In a broader sense, form, in art, means the whole of a piece's visible elements and the way those elements are united. In this context, form allows us, as viewers, to mentally capture the work and understand it.

So I suppose you could say Martin addresses it better than Tolkien, but the comparison is about as apt as comparing Joyce to Tolkien.


Thats what I was trying to point out and your right its a bad comparison.

My argument isn't that ASOIAF is derivative or contrived, but that it's not a piece of quality literature

I thought your were trying to say it wasnt even literature at all, so im sorry if i misunderstood you and I respect your opinion even though I completely disagree with it. Everything is debatable. I have an easier time accepting Tolkien as better writer the Martin per say then I do accepting LotR as a better story then ASoIaF.

Comparing Martin against Joyce is a bit pointless. You're never going to top Joyce, but it should be noted that Joyce himself didn't exactly lend himself to easy reading. His experiments with the written language were phoenominal... but if you have now written something that's no fun for anyone to read, Martin wins by default now, doesn't he? Writing the greatest novels of the century doesn't count for much if nobody wants to read it. At what point does the sophistication of art begin to interfere with its enjoyment? Shakespeare was capable of many complex passages, but still able to keep an audience.

Thats very well put. As a hippie I find myself bringing Joyce into every conversation because I love him so much. I'll never disagree that Joyce cant be topped because I personally believe that myself lol

 

My argument isn't that ASOIAF is derivative or contrived, but that it's not a piece of quality literature.

I would agree. Actually I would also say that ASOIAF is derivative as well, but not necessarily contrived.

Again though, I think it works well in terms of the series. The people who are behind that series know instinctively what to strip out and what to keep for primary effect. If they were merely fans they would have kept some of this over-done language. But if they were just out for the cash, they would have tried to find a way to not execute Ned. They also know what characters were best to age, and by how much.

I think of it like I think of the development of comic book superheroes: the first attempt at the story can be lackluster, like comics of the 40s and 50s. But then take the same template story and give it over to some other people, and those people have their own ideas, and so forth.

I like Martin's story, its skeleton and what he is trying to present in his conflicts. I like that Ned got executed. I like that Khal Drogo is killed by anything but a glorious death on the battlefield -- a very nice WWI mentality to have. However I think the series proves that, like many people, he's not the best person to tell his own story.

There are many scenes from the series that aren't in the books, and frankly a lot of them are some of the best in the series. Take the scene between Robert and Cersei talking by themselves, for instance. Their characters really come alive there as something else besides a besodden drunk and a vengeful shrew.

 

Martin himself thinks all the kids are far too young and has regretted making them the ages they are. It's part of the reason he wanted to introduce a five year gap partway through the series (following Storm of Swords) to age them up.

 

Isn't that why Daenerys is still putzing about in the East? She has to until the kids get older...

 

No they didn't. They obeyed the regent, whomever that happened to be. Edward III was fourteen when he (nominally) became King of England. He had no power whatsoever; that rested with his mother and her lover, Roger Mortimer. He led a successful coup d'etat against Mortimer three years later.

 

This isn't medieval England. Joffrey isn't Edward III. Stop making inane comparisons and analyze things in the context of the story.

Yes they did. The assassin obeyed Joffrey, so this utterly disproves your point.

 

I imagine so, yes- though that wouldn't be alleviated by making her start out older and is easily curable by changing their growth rate. However he couldn't come up with a plausible reason for the ice zombies to wait 5 years when they were already on the march, or for events in the Iron Islands to take that long to resolve, etc.

Edit: I think the assassin obeyed an extremely valuable dragonbone dagger. And possibly a fat bag of gold.

When it comes to the execution- Cersei may be regent but she doesn't have her own armies, alliances or power like Mortimer did. All of the power Cersei has derives from Joffrey. She's not going to directly stop him, because that jeopardises her own position (not the least because he's crazy and could turn on her anyway). If Tywin was there, a closer analogue to a powerful regent, with his own army and a huge amount of personal currency, the execution would never have happened.

 

Nice try, but Edward III's actual regent was his mother, Isabella of France. People who allow snot-nosed kids a say in politics because they are 'royal' are neither realistic nor believable. Doesn't happen in real life, for obvious reasons.

 

It is realistic and believable in this series. You are making the mistake of thinking things work the same way in ASOIAF as they do in the real world (whether current or historical). They don't.

 

An ironic point to make, considering the realism is usually touted as the selling point.

 

I don't find it unbelievable that a working-class man would obey a 12 year old king, especially when half the city is watching.

 

realism within itself, and making it relatable in many ways to the real world, but it obviously has a helluva lot of things that don't fit in with "realism" in that sense. the ice zombies for instance, or the other magic and dragons, and swords that never get dull, etc. so... realism is a bit of a misnomer to use there ramza.

 

A story doesn't wholly have to be rooted in 'realism' to be relatable. To me, one of the crucial elements that a good story offers is hope and there doesn't seem to be much of it in the world today. Plus, stories often help the writer and the reader to dream and aspire to overcome difficulties/adversities.

As others have said, even if there are perceived nominal similarities between a piece of fiction and a historical event, it doesn't mean a writer is ripping of history or lacking imagination.

After reading NM's very unhelpful tear downs of each chap, the author, and the characters I'm almost tempted to read Book I of this series myself but I won't on moral grounds. I'm with the others that are confounded *why* NM blithely uses this forum and thread to blithely degrade a man's creative endeavors, why he insists on making assumptions he's unwilling/unable to prove, and why he ignores everyone but those that agree with him. **Puzzled*

*Goes back to lurking*

 

"Realism" is touted because Martin deconstructs some standard fantasy tropes and includes some graphic if unsexy sex (the only time his writing gets actually sensual is when he's doing food or clothing). But if obedience to a king no matter what he said or did or how old he was was actually a feature of Westerosi life, then Aerys the Mad would still be King. And it doesn't matter that the executioner was working class--he'd be more concerned about what Cersei, Varys and the like would do to him than he would Joffrey.

The reason I dislike this scene is not that Joffery has Eddard executed, but that the scene is there because it's supposedly cool, and not because it makes sense, is in character, or serves the plot in any meaningful way. It's the Awesome Scene Syndrome again, or Viserys' crowning revisited. In other words, the characters behave in stupid ways so this scene can be written. This is why this series is not art, and doesn't even get to craft. It's the dire hand of modern Hollywood showing, and why recent action films are so deadly awful. As a review of "Cowboys and Aliens" put it, when comparing the movie to John Ford's westerns: Ford was exploring the mythos of the West, and "Cowboys and Aliens" was interested in using the scenery for photographing cool explosions.

 

And yet you're the only one who has a problem with the way Eddard is executed. The only one. That proves the fault is with your interpretation of the scene, not with the scene itself or how it is written.

I am still waiting on a specific quote of an "inverted subordinate clause." I've asked you half a dozen times already. Why haven't you shown a specific quote yet?