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

Quite a bit of lampshading in this chapter...Rob says (accurately) how Renly's claim makes no sense, and indeed, interfering with general primogeniture is probably not a good idea.

In the Wars of the Roses, there was some of this, but they were careful to have a reason for it, albeit fraudulent ones. Example: the Lancasters alleged that their ancestor, Edmund (younger son of Henry III) was actually the elder son, but didn't become king because he was a hunchback, thus they should prevail over the descendants of Edward I (Henry III's actual elder son). Not true, but the credulous might believe it.

One of Edward's brothers (there is a disagreement over whether it was George of Clarence--the second brother--or Richard III --the youngest--alleged that their mother had had an affair with a bowman or man of arms; the result was Edward IV. This supposed affair meant that George (or Richard) was really King of England. Also a canard. It was probably Clarence; it sounds like him.

 

As I have written about quite extensively in other threads, I too saw no reasonable evidence that Renly was supposed to be gay.

 

Well, there's also this line of Loras', referring to Renly:

"When the sun has set, no candle can replace it."

Like I said, it's obvious if you look for it.

 

I think some of you are in wishful thinking. Not every close male bond has to be gay.

 

THANK YOU

Especially given that, prior to modern times, extremely close male friendships were the rule, and never viewed sexually. In fact, it was argued that this sort of love was superior to romantic love for this reason.

 

Except Martin has said that they are, in fact, gay, making any sort of argument about it rather pointless until some moron comes in screaming death of the author and then we get into a nasty 50 post back and forth about the artistic validity of that particular interpretational lens until Nevermind posts his synopsis of the next chapter and then we descend back into petty matches of "NUH UH/YUH HUH" about whether or not the books are good or bad and whether or not that affects one's ability to enjoy them, then we drift back onto the topic of their sexuality and then wash and rinse.

If I didn't know better I'd swear this thread was written by Samuel Beckett.

 

If that was the case, why is their relationship portrayed as closer than normal, and constantly mocked by other characters? Nobody's making homosexual references to Ned and Robert.

 

Martin has said they're gay. Ergo, they're gay.

 

Chapter Sixty-Nine: Daenerys

Summary: Dany Does Dragons

Some Thoughts: As usual, the suspicion that this is parody crosses my mind

For ye Fanboys: Dragon resurrection

For ye Fangirls: Burning your enemy to a crisp



Fantasy Tropes: Viking Funeral

Bad dialogue: ?Bring my eggs.?

Purple Prose: ?...and sending up long tongues of flame to lick at the belly of the night? ?The heat beat at the air with great red wings? etc. etc.

It's So Good I have to repeat it: If I look back I am lost. I am the blood of the dragon. (If we get through a Dany chapter without this phrase, I will write it on the wall to commemorate the occasion.)

Unfortunate Mental Image Dept: ?The cream-and-gold down between his legs.?

What we learn: Dragon eggs respond to frying.

What I liked: Dany gives MMD a taste of her own medicine, which makes sense to me. I may be sympathetic to MMD?s viewpoint, but hey, in the circumstances, what does she expect?

What I didn?t (in particular): This chapter is terribly over-written, in Martin?s peculiar plonking style.

Criminal Record: 4 murders, 2 executions, twincest, 2 treasons, attempted murder of a child, child endangerment by proxy, pimping, pedophilia, indecent exposure, 12 knifing deaths at a wedding reception; 3 child murders, one wolf kill, two wolf attacks, one wolf execution, one wolf attack on a dwarf, nine battle deaths, conspiracy to commit murder, four sword melees with numerous deaths, one wolf attack on a maester, 5 outlaws killed, 1 knight killed in combat, one goat theft, one gang rape, 2 pillages, 2 lese majeste, 2 regicides, one zomicide, one assassination attempt, one lynching, numerous rapes, 3 battle melees, 1 aborted desertion, two rebellions, desecration of a corpse, burning a healer.


POVs to date: 8

Daenerys' character arc to date: tit-twist by bro/deflowered by Conan the Barbarian/Weans Conan from doggie-style/Sleeps with a dragon?s egg/Eats horse?s heart and watches brother tortured to death as a chaser/Drags chained naked guy behind her horse and fries some dragon eggs/Engages a midwife from a pillaged village/Is stoned/Smothers spouse when he won?t have sex with her/Fries dragon?s eggs on his corpse/

Rating: 2.5/5

So endeth the first book.

At the end of the book we get clan summaries:

HOUSE BARATHEON: The sigil is supposedly a stag, but really looks like a reindeer; a perky one, sort of the Rudolph the Red-Nosed variety. The motto "Ours is the Fury" is pretty gnomic. The Department of Silly Names gets a work out: Shireen especially sounds like a fifties pop star.

HOUSE STARK: The sigil is a large, fat wolf. The motto "Winter is Coming" reminds me of George Carlin's weather report ("The forecast for tonight: "Dark")

HOUSE LANNISTER: The sigil looks more like a griffin than a lion. "Hear Me Roar!" reminds me of bad feminist anthems.

HOUSE ARRYN: The sigil is a bird with ape-like wings, way out of proportion to the body-- with a crescent moon on its chest. "As High As Honour" is a bit vague.

HOUSE TULLY: The sigil is an open-mouthed, odd-looking fish. "Family, Duty, Honour" will put the troops to sleep.

HOUSE TYRELL: The sigil is a Tudor-like Rose. The motto is "Growing Strong" which sounds like a self-help manual.

HOUSE GREYJOY: The sigil is a stylized kraken, the only one I liked. The motto, OTOH, is "We Do Not Sow" which is pretty stupid. Yes, *advertise* that you are pirates.

HOUSE MARTELL: The sigil is a Sun face--it looks a little stoned--pierced by a spear. Motto: Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken. Unimpressive.

HOUSE TARGARYEN: The sigil is a three-headed, one-winged dragon. The three heads look like they are having a chatty kaffeeklatsch. The motto is "Fire and Blood". Obviously proponents of good government.

Tomorrow: How good is the book?

 

I thought "We Do Not Sow" to be an all right motto, although I had to watch an interview with Martin to get it completely. The GreyJoys are supposed to be a reference to Viking Culture (I'm guessing the Starks are.. the Scots?). The notion of them not sowing in their motto is the implication of "YOU Sow, and we then take what you Sow. But us? We don't need that hippie ****, 'cuz we're taking it from you."

However, their name is the silliest of the Houses.

 

True.

This is what the website TV Tropes says about the locales:

"Fantasy Counterpart Culture: The Dothraki are based on the Mongols, Alans, Huns, Thracians and Amerindians. The Free Cities are loosely based on the medieval Italian city-states and some elements of Ancient Greek culture, with Braavos being a City Of Canals like Venice. The regions of Westeros are the North (Scotland, especially beyond the Wall), the Iron Islands (Scandinavia), the Riverlands (North France/Brittany), the Vale (Alps), the Westerlands (England), the Stormlands (North Spain), the Reach (South France/Provence), and Dorne (Moorish Spain). The continent as a whole has many similarities to Britain, including waves of conquering cultures, and a wall up in the cold north to keep out barbarians. Meanwhile, the southern continent Sothoryos (which thus far has played an extremely minor role in the series) is roughly analogous to Africa during this time period."

I don't know whether this is the Word of God (ie. from the author) or not; some of these are pretty obvious, such as the North=Scotland and Yorkshire, and some are not (Dorne and the Stormlands)

 

One of the things I noticed was that the Stormlands look very similar to a mirror image of Wales.

 

Thread title change, eh? Can we expect a similarly hilarious chapter-by-chapter of Clash of Kings, then?

 

The thing about all those mottos is that, with the exception of the Starks, they're all about intimidation and bragging. That's why I didn't mind the GreyJoy motto so much -- hey, at least they're honest. Plus I think it's sort of alluded to in the books that the GreyJoys are a bit dim in the overall strategy department. Nothing says "DOH!" like waiting several years AFTER the Targaryen King is overthrown, and THEN rebelling. They might have considered doing that while the whole civil war thing was going on.

The GreyJoys are, more or less, in the North. Every single House around them, including the Lannisters, are part of the 'rebel alliance'. The closest house that fought against Robert is the Tyrells, way to the South. Not the brightest of moves by the GreyJoys to rebel. Makes sense then that they'd be dumb enough to go that extra bragging mile.

 

I guess so.

Martin is often referred to as "the American Tolkien". Didn't think this was accurate, though there is a famous and successful author he *does* resemble.

 

You know, I don't know the original source of that quotation, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I tend to think it was just some soundbite for the back of a book which has taken on a life of its own and is endlessly requoted in reviews and blurbs without much thought.

I don't think they're really similar at all.

I'm trying to think of an author you hate that you are trying to compare him to. Robert Jordan? George Lucas? Kevin Smith?

 

I don't hate the author in question. Martin is nearly his exact contemporary.

 

Why do you always have to be so cryptic in your analysis? Why can't you just say which author you're referring to?

 

He and Jordan could be brothers. I dont know about the writing styles being very comparable. He does world create more like Lucas then Tolkien or even Jordan for that matter which is striking because the mediums are different.

 

Never read Jordan; the writer I was referring to was Stephen King. Martin started in the horror genre, too. He's not as good a writer as King; especially in characterization. And he doesn't have the same vitality. But the style is quite similar, I think; so is the fertility of invention and the inability to self-edit.

 

Agreed on King. There is a similarity. I meant that Jordan and Martin actually look like each other lol

 

Certain things about this book work, and certain things don't work. Chief among the latter are the POVs.

There are eight; four male and four female.

The males are:

Eddard Stark
His illegitimate son, Jon Snow
His second legitimate son, Brandon Stark II
Tyrion Lannister

The females are:

Catelyn Stark, Eddard's wife
Her elder daughter, Sansa Stark
Her younger daughter, Arya Stark
Daenerys Targaryen

So the Starks are heavily represented, three each. Only three of the eight are adults, which I think was a mistake; there are two technical adolescents (Jon and Daenerys); and three children. I said technical because Jon is supposedly 14 but written as 18. Daenerys is supposedly thirteen, and written as God knows what.

The POV which works best IMO is Jon; it is also the simplest and most conventional. The author obviously identifies with outcasts and cripples. Three of the four male POVs qualify, as do all of the Black Watch. In the Jon chapters there are rare examples of altruism, good nature and sacrifice.

The Eddard POV works well enough at first, and is enlivened by one of the rare subsidiary characters that come alive, namely Robert Baratheon. Both these characters are based on real people--Eddard (I think) on Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York (father of Edward IV and Richard III), and Robert on Edward IV. Eddard is a humourless man, tortured by guilt and anxiety to do right; Robert is a sybarite, a man that grew bored with kingship as soon as he achieved it (he'd rather eat and hunt than work, so Martin does rather sympathize) and tortured by a creepy, ambitious wife. Unfortunately, as the Eddard POV progresses, it falls victim to the PLOT. The PLOT has a life of its own, unrelated to logic, character, or likelihood. This is the area where AGOT is sloppily written. It wouldn't take too much to make Eddard's actions more psychologically convincing, but Martin doesn't bother. He's too interested in the Awesome Scene he has planned (the literary equivalent of a set-piece action scene in the PT), and can't wait to get there. By the time Eddard gets chopped, he has behaved with such utter stupidity that I thought he had lost all conviction, and I stopped caring.

Tyrion is, I suspect, the author's voice. Like Eddard and Robert, he has a model, in this case a fictional one, namely Miles Vorkosigan in Bujold's Vorkosigan Saga. Martin has certainly read this (there is a shout-out in ADWD, which I have skimmed) and it apparently enraged him so much that he spends a good portion of his time deconstructing its tropes. Miles is the main one, but some of the Houses in ASOIAF (most notably Bolton) seemed based upon the crime syndicate Houses of the capitalism-gone-hog-wild rogue planet Jackson's Whole (and Ramsay Bolton resembles a deconstructed Mark Vorkosigan). Robert Graves' "I, Claudius" also gets a work out. I don't mean this as criticism--all fantasy is derivative. But I have to say while his treatment of Tyrion's predicament is a good more realistic than Bujold's, Martin lacks the ability to endow Tyrion with much charm, which Miles does have. Several characters comment upon Tyrion?s intelligence, but so far he just talks a lot?a demand of the PLOT--and seems as a result to have a lot of enemies, including his father and a cast of thousands. There is always the possibility, of course, that Martin doesn?t mean him to be charming, but rather I suspect he does. (Genre fiction generally requires at least charisma). Here?s hoping things improve, but ADWD doesn?t suggest it. Besides Tyrion?s Daddy fixation?he mentions Tywin what seems to be five times per page--it has him telling just about every stranger he meets that he is a patricide. This seems indiscreet, to say the least of it.

Though I skimmed ADWD, I took a suggestion from the ?net, and read the Tyrion chapters in sequence, which I have to say, despite the problems, was far more entertaining than reading them in rotation. The reason is that five of the eight range from boring (Brandon II) to ridiculous (Daenerys). When you are oblige

 

All everything is derivative.

And just about all fiction is genre fiction. Or did you have a particular genre in mind?

 

Both Stark daughters are cliches?the prissy, conventional beauty and the tomboy, and both are pitched much too young, but Catelyn is the worst of the lot. The PLOT compels her to behave a lot like it did Eddard ?that is, with utter stupidity?and it?s not enlivening.





I really disagree with the daughters being cliche as well as the notion that there is some kind of omnipotent fantasy plot formula thats being applied here. Martin isnt Bob Salvatore ( who developed into a fairly decent writer using the D & D format anyways). More likely that we live in an information age and its obvious to everyone (not just you) how derived writing - as well as painting, sculpture, music, and every other artistic expression really is. Heres a news flash maybe lol - real life is derived too. Novelty is almost completely and totally in the realm of computer technology and its artificial intelligence and Martins story to me is most heartfelt in its characters and their interactions with each other. I think the plot is complex too but the characters make it a wonderful read for me.

 

Indeed. In fact, I think read somewhere that there are 29 basic plots. In total.

It?s the Fantasy/Horror genre, actually.

Moving on with the summary:

In style, Martin employs three basic types: plodding, plonking, and over-writing. The plodding gets you there sans frills; the over-writing is nothing *but* frills; and the plonking takes you out of the plodding, and breaks the fantasy.

This guy *has* an editor; what he needs (and doesn't have) is a self-editor. He also somewhat lacks an ear--by which I mean he can't seem to tell when the plonking occurs. AGOT needs about two more edits, especially the Brandon II and Daenerys chapters.

When I first read the book, I thought that the plot was the strong point, but I didn't really pick up how it distorts the characterization, especially Eddard and Catelyn, but also to a much lesser degree, Tyrion. It's really too bad that he didn't use the single narrator, because most of this problem can be traced to the rotating POVs.

Okay, on to Book Two: "A Clash of Kings"

Prologue:

Summary: We go to Dragonstone to meet the usual red-shirt, plus Shireen Baratheon, her acutely annoying Fool, Patchface, her father's stooge, Davos Seaworth, Stannis, Stannis? charmless wife and Stannis' nasty private witch.

Some Thoughts: Finally we meet Stannis, after hearing about him all through AGOT.

For ye Fanboys: The maester?s fate

Where Have I Seen This Before? Dept:: Shireen's possibly based on Edward of Middleham. The Valyrians = the Romans.
Melisande was the serpent/demon that the Plantagenets were supposedly descended from (according to contemporary legend; thus the appellation ?the Devil?s Brood?)

Fantasy Tropes: A Death in the Limelight and Bad Moon Rising

The Awesome Scene Syndrome Dept: Surprise, surprise, surprise: the strangler poison doesn?t work on demons.

Metaphors for Dummies: The red comet

Eggplant Prose: ?clang-a-dang bong-dong ring-a-ling clong clong clong? This is a direct quote.

Le Mot injuste: ?...nor that colour, that terrible colour, the colour of blood and flame and sunsets.? Blood and flame and *sunsets*? We take a sudden plunge into postcards. ?She was red, and terrible, and red.?

It's So Good I have to repeat it: bam sham clank clink ding-dong

The Department of Silly Names: Bryce the Orange, Salladhor Saan, Morosh the Myrman, Lord Sunglass (!)

Unfortunate Mental Image Dept: ?...a mantle patterned with crabs picked out with garnets.?

What I liked: I liked both Stannis and Davos as characters. Here?s the difference between Stannis and Eddard as characters: Stannis behaves stupidly, yes, but it?s psychologically believable, because there?s a reason he does it which has nothing to do with the PLOT. He does it because he?s a very smart, very able, very ambitious man without a scrap of charisma, and he rages over the unfairness of it. He?s the Emperor Tiberius in ?I, Claudius?; he?s Richard the Third (with his undeserving brother Renly as George, Duke of Clarence); he?s Richard Nixon to Renly?s JFK. There?s not an emollient bone in his body, and he will always do it the hard way. We have all met people like this; I even remember a Simpsons episode on the subject. I particularly liked Cresson thinking he can hear Stannis grinding his teeth ?half a castle away.? Exactly.

What I didn?t (in particular): Martin just can?t resist an Awesome Scene, so we get the elderly maester who decides to poison the Red Witch on what seems like the turn of a dime. Oh, please. This is particularly disappointing, because up to then, the maester was rather interesting.

Criminal Record: one poisoning;

POVs to date: 1

Rating: 4/5