| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 15 May 2013 : 03:15:31
Well it seems they had a guest author for most of the planning...
And everyone says they hate 4e becuase they lost everything the liked or loved in 3e.....
Well guess who the guest author was?
george rr martin
yep
Everything you were just starting to love...was killed by ...him..
none of this is true |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 22:47:35
The 15th century Realms did take quite some awesome strides towards making elements of the setting believable and a tad more dark. So some of the changes (especially the deity culling and clerics getting annointed with divine powers for life) can be attributed to the rising crowd of Martin fans before and during the announcement window of the 4th edition Realms that called for a more gritty tone, as a reflection of what modern fantasy was undergoing with gritty authors such as Martin, Abercrombie, Weeks and Lawrence.
The results for the realms as a setting are mixed, but I have a firm opinion that the realms fiction during this period has benefitted greatly. The last 4E novels I read have all been exceptional, and are heaps and bounds better than earlier realms fiction. The setting as painted by the novels did pick up some good points made by the 'gritty-fantasy' crowd.
The real deal breaker for the setting as a story telling device are the dangling plot threads that were left to rot on the evergrowing appletree of the realms, and cut short by the overeager harvesters' need for apples 'now'. The spellplagued tree still has potential to blossom into something beautiful, if the authors and designers look at the realms first, and 'trends' in fantasy second.
|
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 21:54:15
Whoa...I thought something was wrong with my web browser, what with all the seemingly textless posts. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 21:44:24
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
Had her throat cut and return as Zombie Mystra?
Worse.  Much worse.  |
| Venger |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 18:43:46
Had her throat cut and return as Zombie Mystra? |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 13:34:02
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And he would have killed-off the Chosen (and everyone else) the old fashioned way. 
I can only imagine what he would have done to Mystra... |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 11:41:03
And he would have killed-off the Chosen (and everyone else) the old fashioned way. |
| Marc |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 10:14:01
If Martin was in charge, we'd still have the 3rd edition. |
| Venger |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 18:06:40
I had a similar problem with 4E, except that it killed a number of pre-existing plot threads that I was waiting to see develop. The percolating conflict between Mulhorand and Thay? Gone. The newly risen Zhentil Keep? It was reduced to ruins again. The regency of Alusair Obarskyr? Somebody hit the fast forward button and now it's over. I wanted to see how all those things would develop but then it was all cut short.
To quote Daffy Duck, "what a revolting development this is." |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 11:33:20
Martin generally speaking doesn't bring up plot hooks and then leaving them hanging only for nothing to happen with them. He'll start a plot only for it to end and to have been absolutely pointless, or he'll drag it out way too long, but he generally speaking doesn't dangle a thread and then ignore it the whole time.
That was my big problem with 4e; and being the person who's argued most fervently in favor of 4e on these boards, I did have problems with it. The big ones were they introduced huge new elements or huge changes in the status quo and did nothing with them. Returned Abier? Nothing. Many-Arrows? Nothing. End of the Blood War? Nothing.
So much wasted potential. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 03:38:18
|
| Venger |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 03:28:23
Well, he's definitely going to have difficulty adjusting because, contrary to what some may have heard from Greg Focker, ain't nobody getting any milk out of my nipples. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 03:26:13
Curse you Venger! Had you continued to write in invisible ink the Sage would have never caught on to what we were doing! 
As punishment for revealing this, I'm sending Lysa's little Sweet Robin to you. He is your new ward, and you must raise him until adulthood.  |
| Venger |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 03:12:45
Crap, it's dah poh-lice. Leg it, boys! |
| The Sage |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 03:10:24
Fellow scribes, I'd just like to remind you all that this is a FORGOTTEN REALMS discussion board. Let's try and shift the conversation back to D&D/FR.
Thank you.  |
| Venger |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 02:40:28
SPOILER ALERT!!! TURN BACK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SPOILED!!!
Joffrey was most definitely Cersei's fault. They all realize in the third book that Joffrey is just mouthing Cersei's own philosophy. He didn't develop that philosophy from being a psychopath. He learned it from his mother, who admittedly admired Joffrey for taking Ned's head despite what others told him. There's no way Joffrey would've become anything like what he was without Cersei raising him up to be that way.
The deaths of Elia and her children, by the way, weren't the fault of Robert. It was Tywin who ordered the children killed. Robert just didn't censure him after the fact. Up until that point the Lannisters weren't even part of the rebellion, but were neutral, so Robert was in no position to give any of them any orders, and he certainly would've never given that order. Again, just look at Viserys and Daenerys. Their whole lives he ignores them and does nothing to hurt them, and he only sends assassins after Daenerys when he finds out she's got a 100,000 strong army of vicious killers at her back. And that's not killing a child. In Westeros she's a woman. Argue with that if you like, but the fact remains that she was in control of an army which would've inflicted untold destruction in Westeros had it crossed the Narrow Sea. Was it a good act? No. But neither was it an evil act. He didn't order her death out of maliciousness, but out of a desire to protect the Seven Kingdoms. And at the end of it all his last wish was to have the order rescinded.
Cersei, on the other hand, had babies and small children killed because she didn't like who their father was. And she's not evil?
quote:
I don't know a definition of 'good guy' or 'hero' that includes 'I support the killing of children.'
Err... and yet you're defending Cersei as not really being a bad guy, even though she's killed multiple children, and not because they're a threat to the peace and stability of the realm or anything, but because she was just pissed at her ex-husband for fathering bastards? Say wha-?!?
Let me reiterate a previous point. Effectiveness doesn't make you more or less evil. It has no bearing on the question of how evil you are. Though given what happened to Robert's bastards, the girl she threw down the well (because she knew about Maggy the Frog's prophecies and because she didn't like that she had a crush on Jaime), and what's-her-name who she gave over to Qyburn to an excruciating and horrific death, she's pretty effective enough, seeing as how they're all just as dead.
And yeah, I'm tired of putting spoiler tags around my posts. These gigantic posts with nothing but blank space are getting stupid. There be spoilers from here on out, so if you people don't want to get spoiled stay away!  |
| froglegg |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 00:55:56
I am loving Game of Thrones so far, but I can't get season 3 yet.
John |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 00:34:54
I don't think Joffrey was Cersei's doing. I think he was born a sociopath as a result of being a child of incest. He was clearly going down the path of the Mad King, who was said to be mad due to the Targaryen's incestuous bloodline. I think Joffrey was just supporting evidence for what happens to some children born of incest.
He certainly would have grown up a spoiled and over privileged brat. However, I don't think Cersei TURNED him into a sociopath. You could argue that she enabled him, which she most certainly did, but this was as a result of one of her numerous character flaws. That flaw being that she supposedly loved her children so much that she couldn't see them for what they are... or more specifically, for what Joffrey was.
If Cersei had it her way Joffrey would have been her puppet on the Throne, and would have let Ned take the black. Joffrey overruled her - she couldn't control him - and that's how Ned lost his head.
I'm not saying Robert's plan to kill Daenerys was unwise. She could have posed a serious threat. I'm saying that it was clearly an "evil" act. He wasn't just planning to kill her, but also her unborn child. This was meant to be a direct parallel between what happened with Elia and her children, which is what caused a major rift between Robert and Ned in the past.
Killing Elia and her children was also a necessary move. That didn't make it a "good" action. After all, you can't have rightful heirs potentially rising up against you. Even if they had no intention of doing so other nobles may have used them as vessels for their own ambitions against Robert. Killing them *WAS* necessary.
I think most people realize and recognize that, but they'll try and pin the guilt on the Mountain and to a lesser degree Tywin. 'Oh sure, killing them was necessary, but they didn't have to be killed like -THAT-!' When what was the alternative? To strap an infant and a little girl to the executioners block and have the headsman chop off their head? I mean really, let's be clear here - we're talking about killing children.
I don't know a definition of 'good guy' or 'hero' that includes 'I support the killing of children.' Of course, this is also why Ned is seen as the good guy. He clearly is the good guy, and this is also why he fails so horribly and ends up losing his head. It's hard to reach for power or play the game of thrones while maintaining a sense of morality - at least if you want to be good at it.
I'll have to give you the bit about Qyburn and his sick experiments, though.
I think Cersei is painted as a villain, and she is indeed a bad person. However, I just don't think she reaches the top five, maybe not even the top ten, villains of the series. She's not a good girl, someone you'd want to root for to succeed - you want her to fail. However, all of her failures are more-or-less at her own hand, so that makes it hard to see her as a serious contender for serious villain status. Deplorable? Yes. Nasty, wicked, and mean? Yes, yes, and yes. A serious villain? Not in the grand scheme of things, no.
She's an easy character to hate, and to a large degree she may even be deserving of it. However, to be a serious villain you need to be a serious threat to more than just yourself. Cersei is capable of hurting those close to her, that is true, but in the grand scheme of things her biggest enemy is herself. |
| Venger |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 23:47:35
The discussion wasn't about who caused the most damage, but who was the most evil. Or rather, if Cersei herself was evil. It's indisputable that Cersei has personally committed more evil acts than Lyssa, Craster, or Robert (Who didn't order the deaths of Elia or Rhaegar's children, and who only ordered Daenerys's death AFTER she had 100,000 Dothraki Screamers potentially in her control ready to invade Westeros. That's a hell of a gloss to just ignore that bit. If Robert were as bloodthirsty for Daenerys's life as you claim then he wouldn't have waited so long to send assassins after her). As for who's done the most damage, that in itself is debateable, given that Joffrey became what he was because of Cersei. Even her own family comes to realize that Joffrey's twisted worldview didn't come from nowhere, but that he learned it from Cersei, and that it's her own worldview. All of Lyssa's scheming with Littlefinger would've never done the damage it had done if Cersei hadn't turned Joffrey into the sociopath that he is. Had it not been for Cersei then Joffrey may've been more reasonable, allowed Ned to take the black, and the whole War of the Five Kings could've been averted.
quote:
Take Cersei Lannister as an example. Is she a villain? I don't think so.
The issue isn't about responsibility, though, but about whether she's a villain or not. You said she's not a villain, when she obviously not only is a villain, but is one of the most heinous ones at that (Just look at what she did to that poor woman who she turned over to Qyburn for his sick experiments). The degree of her competence doesn't change that a bit. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 23:37:22
Regarding Craster it's heavily implied that he gives his sons to the White Walkers as a sacrifice, and that this is how he has remained safe Beyond the Wall.
I'm not making the argument that Cersei is a paragon of virtue, a nice lady, or undeserving of her inevitable fate which has already been foretold by Maggy the Frog.
I'm saying in the grand scheme of things Cersei is a small fish who thinks she is a big fish. I think most people who see her as a major villain are heavily influenced by her character flaws rather than the actions and influence she's had over events.
As for Robert and Cersei, it's a completely different situation than Cat and Ned. Cat and Ned had feelings for one another and gladly accepted their roles. Cersei hated Robert and WOULD NEVER have had sex with him had they not been in an arranged marriage, and had she refused when Robert demanded it he likely would have beaten her until she complied with her "wifely duties".
Robert doesn't deserve a pass when it comes to his intended actions with Daenerys. Robert also supported what the Mountain did with Elia and her children during the Sacking of Kings Landing. (It was believed that Gregor Clegane dragged Rhaenys from under her father's bed and stabbed her to death, then killed the infant many believed to be Aegon VI (though it now turns out it was probably a peasant child), then proceeded to rape and kill Elia their mother.)
Robert supported these actions of the Mountain and Tywin Lannister because he deemed them as necessary to secure his rule. This led to a division between him and Ned, nearly destroying their friendship. Ned believed they went too far and needed to be held accountable for their actions. They only reconciled over Lyanna Stark's death.
The situation with Daenerys was merely repeating Robert's past support for such actions.
The fact of the matter is Robert was a horrible person and a horrible king. The only person who seemed to even genuinely care that he died was Ned, but that was more for the man that he once knew than the man Robert eventually became as king. In fact, toward the end Ned and Robert were on the verge of war after Ned resigned his position as Hand of the King.
Sure, Cersei's motivations were to get rid of Robert for her own power schemes. However, I honestly don't blame her for that. Anyone who had to be married to that thing - I'm just shocked she didn't try and suffocate him with a pillow one night after he stumbled into their bed drunk after passing out on top of her. Even Robert's own brothers didn't shed tears over his death.
I don't see Robert as a victim of Cersei. I see him as deserving of his fate, just as Cersei will be deserving of her fate when either Tyrion or Jaime takes her life.
In the grand scheme of things Lysa is far worse than Cersei as she's the one who pins the blame on the Lannister's for the death of her husband. Without Lysa's actions Ned and Cat wouldn't have went chasing after them, which in turn led to the war between House Stark and Lannister. Without the death of Jon Arryn and the subsequent cover up which was orchestrated by both Lysa and Littlefinger the ENTIRE WAR wouldn't have happened.
This basically means that every major death - including Rob's and Ned's - can be laid directly at their feet. All of it is their fault.
It's really difficult, in the grand scheme of things, to say that anything Cersei has done has been anywhere nearly as comparable to what Lysa has done. Cersei may have done awful things, and have had vastly more face time than Lysa - but Lysa is VASTLY more responsible for what has taken place than Cersei. I mean, a lot of what Cersei has done wouldn't have even been possible or may never have happened without Lysa and Littlefinger manipulating events.
Lysa had the opportunity to come clean to Cat when she arrived with Tyrion. She had the ability to attempt to redeem herself in that moment, but instead she basically signed her own sisters death warrant. I mean, think about it. Every horrible thing that House Stark has suffered because of the actions of House Lannister can be laid at Lysa's feet.
Getting tossed out the Moon Door was too kind for Lysa. She is one of the few characters in the series that genuinely deserved some quality time with Ramsay Bolton. |
| Venger |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 21:53:38
Oh yeah, regarding Craster.
Gilly was crying. “Me and the babe. Please. I’ll be your wife, like I was Craster’s. Please, ser crow. He’s a boy, just like Nella said he’d be. If you don’t take him, they will.”
“They?” said Sam, and the raven cocked its black head and echoed, “They They They”
“The boy’s brothers,” said the old woman on the left. “Craster’s sons. The white cold’s rising out there, crow. I can feel it in my bones. These poor old bones don’t lie. They’ll be here soon, the sons.” |
| Venger |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 21:37:14
Yep. Murder > Rape. As for Craster's sons, weren't they taken away by the Others? I remember something about his sons being out there in the woods.
As for her and Robert, saying that she was raped because she was in an arranged marriage is like saying that Catelyn Stark was raped, Lyssa Tully was raped, or that any other woman in an arranged marriage is a rape victim. A lot of people, both men and women, are forced into arranged marriages they don't want. That's not the same as rape.
And you have a strange measure for saying Lyssa Tully is more evil than Cersei, given that she's got one murder under her belt and attempted two more. Cersei's killed far more people than her, from Robert's bastards to her childhood friend who was with her to see Maggy the Frog. And she didn't have Robert killed because she was the poor benighted abuse victim striking back at her abuser. She killed him to seize power. I'm doubly confused since you think Lyssa's worse than Cersei for trying to frame Tyrion for a crime she didn't commit... but have no comment on Cersei trying to frame Margaery for a crime she didn't commit.
As for Robert, he only tried to have Daenerys killed AFTER she was married to a Dothraki Khal with 100,000 Screamers at his back. He never tried to have her killed before, and was content to just leave Daenerys and Viserys to float about Essos. There's an enormous difference between coldblooded murder, of which Cersei is guilty a dozen times over, and having the leader of a potential invading army assassinated. Daenerys wasn't married off to Khal Drogo because he wooed her and asked her to be his bride. She was married off to Khal Drogo so that Viserys would have a 100,000 strong army with which to invade Westeros.
Cersei may be mentally ill, but so was the Son of Sam, and yet that doesn't give him a pass for the horrible crimes he's committed or make him any less evil. Likewise, Cersei doesn't deserve a pass, either, particularly since her type of crazy isn't like that of the Son of Sam in that she can still make rational choices and yet still chooses to murder her childhood friend or have the bastard children of her deceased husband murdered. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 21:18:39
You really think Cersei is worse than Craster? The dude basically kept all his daughters as wives, raped them repeatedly whenever he wanted, and if they gave birth to a son had those sons executed. The guy was just sick. At least Cersei kept her incestuous activities with her own brother, and didn't go after her children.
And once again, I don't blame Cersei for aborting any children she had with Robert. It was an arranged marriage that she hated, he was abusive toward her, and a drunken idiot. Her children with him were basically products of rape.
Robert was a horrible king and a horrible man. I honestly don't see how anyone could blame Cersei for having him killed. It's not like Robert ever had any qualms about killing other people. Just look at what he was planning to do to Daenerys. Hell, when Ned Stark stood against him he was willing to end his friendship with Ned over it!
If you want to be the least charitable to Cersei you could call her a wannabe Littlefinger. You could argue that the only reason she isn't successful is due to all of her massive character flaws. (Which is a good thing, because she is a rather horrible person.)
Littlefinger is completely responsible for all the crap that went down. He convinced Lysa to kill her own husband - Jon Arryn - by poisoning him. He told her that he was going to send Robert (her son) away to be fostered (true), and they actively worked together to create tension between the Lannisters and Starks.
All of the bloodshed and chaos that has taken place can be laid at the doorstep of Littlefinger and Lysa. They killed Jon Arryn, and they manipulated House Stark and Lannister against each other.
So, keep in mind that the entire time Tyrion Lannister is being held prisoner in the Eyrie - Lysa KNOWS Tyrion is innocent of the crimes. She knows this BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONE WHO POISONED HER HUSBAND!  She's perfectly willing to kill Tyrion, who she KNOWS is innocent, so long as it covers her tracks. However, doing so would only further a brewing war between House Lannister and House Stark - throwing her own sister into danger - AND LYSA KNOWS THIS!
It's a mistake to give Littlefinger and Lysa a pass because Littlefinger is charming and Lysa is clearly crazy. They actively knew what they were doing, and they actively manipulated things so the war would happen.
It's easy to look at Cersei's horrible character flaws - especially her narcissism - and proclaim her a villain. However, at the end of the day she's just an overly privileged, narcissistic fool, who is most likely mentally ill and is actively being played by pretty much everyone around her.
Cersei may think of herself as a Littlefinger, but she is no Littlefinger. And thank goodness for that, because Littlefinger probably has more blood on his hands than anyone else in the books. Pretty much every death in the books as a result of the war can indirectly be laid at his feet.
In the end, I guess, I'd say that I think it's more important to look at the actual crimes committed rather than be swayed by someones less-than-desirable character flaws. It's hard to claim that Cersei is a true "villain" of the series, when - despite her delusions - she's being played by other people all the time. |
| Venger |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 16:29:25
Again, not being as bad as someone else doesn't make you good. Cersei is evil, through and through, and just because she's not as evil as someone else doesn't make her less evil or deserving of justice. Although given your list, she's easily worse than Lysa Tully, Craster, and Viserys.
And not everybody commits murders. Only the bad guys commit murders. There's a difference between killing your opponents and murdering people. There's an enormous difference between the Hound gutting Baratheon soldiers on the Blackwater and Cersei throwing a young girl to her death in a well, or having babies and children murdered because they're the offspring of the husband who she also had killed. The former doesn't make you a murderer, but the latter does.
Cersei's one of the worst villains in the entire series, and frankly, I can't wait for the Valonqar (who I believe will turn out to be Jaime with a properly shaped golden hand) to choke the life out of her. |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 13:05:18
Cersie is definitely one of the most despicable characters I have ever heard off and personally I cant wait for Daenerys to get rid off her. Not only is she petty and vicious but also power hungry and mad and almost totally devoid of empathy for others.
And to top it all off she is also an incompetent ruler. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 04:17:01
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
Most is an exaggeration. Besides, I do seem to remember that... (Highlight for spoilers below)
...Tywin Lannister, Joffrey Baratheon, Balon Greyjoy, and a number of other villains have so far been disposed of. Nevermind that Cersei Lannister is being brought down by her own incompetence. Likewise, Daenerys Targaryen, Stannis Baratheon, Davos Seaworth, Jon Snow*, Arya Stark, Bran Stark, and a number of other heroes are still in action and growing stronger. Nevermind the introduction of new characters like the Manderleys, who've taken up the Stark cause.
*I don't think Jon's dead.
There's no shortage of heroes in the series.
At the moment. But with the way they die off, particularly while the bad guys aren't dying off, I'm not giving odds on many of them making it to the end of the series (in about 20 years! ).
I'm pretty sure Daenerys will be the one who ends up with the Iron Throne. After all, she's the one with the Dragons. I'd say she's one of the main "heroes" in the series. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 04:14:10
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
Cersei's one of the most quintessentially evil characters in the series. Loving her kids doesn't take away from that, nor does her unwillingness to commit one particular murder, especially when you consider all the other murders and brutality which she's committed or taken part in since she was a kid. Hell, it's even debateable if she loves her kids, or is so narcissistic that she seems them as an extension of herself and as her avenue to power. Don't forget the childhood friend she threw into the well and Robert's bastards who she had killed, not to mention her viciousness towards Tyrion, hurting him even when he was a baby. Her walk of shame is the least of what she deserves.
Sure, Cersei isn't a paragon of virtue, but she can't even hold a candle to some of the worst people in the series. Cersei may be a screwed up narcissist, but I'd take her any day of the week when compared to the Bolton's (both father and bastard son), Gregor Clegane the Mountain, Theon Greyjoy, Lysa Tully, Vargo Hoat, Craster, Viserys, and her own son Joffrey.
Hell, I think Littlefinger is as bad or worse than she is... The difference between him and Cersei is that he's more capable and sane, but he's not afraid to kill those who get in the way and he's intent on turning Sansa into his little plaything because she reminds him of her mother who he loved.
When compared to those people, Cersei is just sad and pathetic, destined to have a desire for power but as Tyrion put it "too low of cunning" to be successful.
And when it comes to murder, it's rare to find anyone who has completely clean hands. Some people kill for ambition, others for cruelty, and some in the name of "justice" or "honor" but in the end they're all murderers.
The world is cruel and harsh. No one is getting to the Iron Throne without leaving a trail of blood behind them, and more often than not, those who suffer the most are the smallfolk.
For me, one of the best things I like about the books is that Martin makes it very hard for the reader to completely hate any one of the characters... even as they sometimes do horrible things. He strives to write most of them as nuanced and complicated. Jaime Lannister is a great example of this; he's a character that I thought I could never love after what he did to Bran. Yet, now I find himself rooting for him and his continued character redemption.
Personally, I find Cersei post walk of shame to be roughly on the same level as Sandor Clegane the Hound or Ser Ilyn Payne in terms of vileness. They have their own fair share of tragedy that shaped them into what they became, and are as much a victim of circumstances as they are the creator of victims.
As for Cersei denying Robert an heir... I don't blame her for that. It's hard to feel sorry for Robert having his children aborted when they were all basically rape-babies. What I find more galling is that she sees herself as a victim of all this (and she is), and yet when it comes to Sansa (who is in the EXACT same position with her son who is EVEN WORSE than Robert) she basically tells her that she better give birth to his children and be grateful for how "nicely" she was being treated by him. WTF? Cersei often does this to other women, in fact, frequently seeing them as "frightened hens" who only matter because of their husbands, or "whores" - ironically, she's all the things she hates in other people.
Although, I guess this is part of what makes Cersei interesting and complex. ...but now that I'm thinking about it again, I want her to die all over again, and I'm feeling less sorry for her now.
EDIT: Forgot to add Viserys to the list of characters more horrible than Cersei. I mean, seriously, how could I forget him? "I would let his whole tribe f*** you - all forty thousand men - and their horses too if that's what it took." Ugh. I was so glad when he got his golden "crown". I hope it hurt like hell. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 04:04:38
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
Most is an exaggeration. Besides, I do seem to remember that... (Highlight for spoilers below)
...Tywin Lannister, Joffrey Baratheon, Balon Greyjoy, and a number of other villains have so far been disposed of. Nevermind that Cersei Lannister is being brought down by her own incompetence. Likewise, Daenerys Targaryen, Stannis Baratheon, Davos Seaworth, Jon Snow*, Arya Stark, Bran Stark, and a number of other heroes are still in action and growing stronger. Nevermind the introduction of new characters like the Manderleys, who've taken up the Stark cause.
*I don't think Jon's dead.
There's no shortage of heroes in the series.
At the moment. But with the way they die off, particularly while the bad guys aren't dying off, I'm not giving odds on many of them making it to the end of the series (in about 20 years! ). |
| Venger |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 02:52:53
Cersei's one of the most quintessentially evil characters in the series. Loving her kids doesn't take away from that, nor does her unwillingness to commit one particular murder, especially when you consider all the other murders and brutality which she's committed or taken part in since she was a kid. Hell, it's even debateable if she loves her kids, or is so narcissistic that she seems them as an extension of herself and as her avenue to power. Don't forget the childhood friend she threw into the well and Robert's bastards who she had killed, not to mention her viciousness towards Tyrion, hurting him even when he was a baby. Her walk of shame is the least of what she deserves. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 02:29:35
I really don't think there are "villains" or "heroes" in a Song of Ice and Fire, at least not in the traditional sense. Oh, certainly there are horrible people in the world, but most people have a tendency to fall somewhere in the middle.
Take Cersei Lannister as an example. Is she a villain? I don't think so. Sure, she's not a paragon of virtue, but she genuinely loves her children (perhaps a bit too much in the case of Joffrey). I mean with a child like Joff you -NEED- a mother's love to overlook his... um... many flaws. Frankly, he's the first kid in a book that I ever openly wished a horrible and horrific death upon.
Then when he died, the only person I felt sorry for was Cersei.
She lives in a world where a woman isn't supposed to be ambitious, but she has ambition coming out of her ears. Sure, she sucks at it. However, that doesn't stop her from having it, and why should it? She actively strains against the sexism of her world. (In a way, this is part of her sad irony, to be ambitious in a world where it is unacceptable for a woman to have ambition, and not only that - to actively suck at it.)
Then take a look at the two primary men in her life, outside of her twin brother. Her father and her husband King Robert. Her father, while good at many things, being a parent isn't one of them. He's emotionally cold and distant, and constantly disapproving. All of his children feel like they can never live up to his high expectations of them (and they can't). Then you have Robert who is a drunken womanizer and is actively abusive toward her, fueling anger and resentment she has for her arranged marriage.
It's easy to see how Cersei was shaped by events outside of her control, and how in many ways life has been unfair and unkind to her. It's easy to see how she could feel the way that she does... and it's easy to see all the reasons that she's screwed up in the head.
Often I found myself hating Cersei's guts, but after Joff died and what happened with her later in the books... I didn't feel she deserved that level of shaming and abuse.
Keep in mind, of course, that she had no intention of executing Ned Stark. That was 100% Joffrey.
Similarly, what happened to Theon Greyjoy... seriously, that was messed up. I hated his guts and wished so strongly for him to die, but after seeing him reduced to "Reek" - I wanted someone to kill him, not out of anger, but out of mercy.
At this point in the books I'm rooting for Daenerys Targaryen. However, since she can no longer have children I'm not sure how she'll continue her bloodline. Maybe she'll become enlightened and establish a democracy? So doubtful... |
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 01:28:41
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
quote:
Probably the singe greatest (literary) moment in the LotR was when Boromir died. At that point, we felt the characters mortality... something normally denied us. It made the rest matter.
I guess it was fitting, then, that Sean Bean played both Boromir AND Ned Stark. :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEhtsgu6bJg
As for Martin killing characters, it really sucks when he kills off characters that I really liked (Hint: Their surnames start with an "S"), but he does it in a realistic manner. And by that I mean to say it's a natural outgrowth of events. He's not doing it half-hazardly for the shock value, like in some cases where storytellers think killing characters off at random intervals is enough to make their story "realistic" or "gritty", which is a real problem I have with some stories when their attempt at "realism" is throwing in random amounts of sex and violence without any thought to story. And while it does suck that many of the bad guys keep going on, that's also realistic. The world is full of evil people who've never been called to account for their crimes and likely never will. I don't think that's how it's going to end, as it's still a fictional work and I don't think the fans would stomach a novel series that ends with someone like Cersei Lannister winning it all, but I can understand him having things go that way for as long as they have. Besides, if the bad guys were disposed of way back in book three then what would he have done for the next four books?
Well, the flip side is: who's going to stop the bad guys, when most of the good guys were killed off?
Or we simply wait for the bad guys to turn upon themselves... as evil almost invariably tends to do. [Or maybe I've just read too much of the DRAGONLANCE Saga.] |
|
|
