Assuming the series goes that far and doesn't end up like Rome. I doubt it's cheap to make.

Not to mention how some of the things that happen in the story may drive off viewers. Especially people who think that the Starks are the heros (which is most of them).

But yeah, without the Meereenese knot (the resolution to which seemed to serve no purpose) Martin should work faster, provided his editor pushes him a bit. If not, they might as well release his notes because I don't think another author will do it justice.

 

The Starks will always be the heroes.

(Haven't read ADWD)

 

They definitely seem to fit the heroic archetype. Unfortunately they're in the wrong type of fantasy series so they end up looking like selfish, delusional, holier-than-thou assholes who fuck over everyone who puts their trust in them.

 

Well I'd say that even with those qualities, they're better than 95% of the people in Westeros (and Easteros, and everyone else on whatever horrid planet this all takes place on), and they really don't deserve all the shit Martin piles on them.

 

The only Stark who even remotely seemed asshole-ish to me at any time is Catelyn.

 

Well, considering that they're planning on splitting up ASoS at least, and possibly ACoC as well, he's got a little longer. But yeah, what everyone else said.

 

Here's the problem I have with that (and it should probably go in the show thread, but whatever). It's already going to take seven years to finish the adaptation. This is a huge period of time for child actors- the ones playing Bran, Rickon, Arya, Tommen, and even Sansa will be hard pressed to appear not to age significantly during production. This is why any delays in the writing of the last two novels will screw them- as a TV producer, I'd consider filming as much of the younger characters' arcs as early on as possible, even to the extent of filming scenes from Winds of Winter & a Dream of Spring while they're still in post-production on Clash of Kings. Do you remember how much the kid on Lost grew between second and third season?

The other option is to treat the progress of events as taking years instead of months in the adaptation. It wouldn't be unreasonable to see the War of Five Kings take a few years to resolve, so long as the audience is reminded that the seasons on the world of Westeros & Essos often last several years at a pop. Sure, 'Winter is Coming', but not like in a predictable way.

By the way- has anyone heard of a cosmological model that could explain that sort of unpredictably variable season?

 

I think Martin's said that the reason is magical and not scientific.

 

Really? Clash of Kings seemed the lightest on content to me when I was reading it compared to Game of Thrones and Storm of Swords.

I hadn't considered how having so many child actors in such a possible long runner could end up, I hope it's not too jarring. On a related topic the girl who played Sansa was 14! She looks much older to me, I wonder how she'll look in a few more years.

And I am under the impression that the seasons are a purely magical phenomenon, unrelated to the movement of the planet around a sun.

 

Better in what way? Because they're "honorable"? How useful is that to the people who died for them and their families? Look at all the people who died because Robb rationalized away his marriage to the Freys and Ned decided that helping Cersei and then Stannis was more important than helping the realm.

If Ned hadn't been so caught up in his honor he would have wondered for six seconds what a cornered cat like Cersei would do (considering the things he thinks she's done already) or why LittleFinger was helping him when the best he would ever get out of it was banishment from the council and King's Landing, which LF told him point blank.

See that's the thing. I judge people as assholes differently.

As shown above Ned pretty much screwed himself and Robert to protect the lives of a little harpy and her children. And when Robert died because of it he refused to take the measures necessary to protect the throne.Robert was dead already, only self-delusion would prevent him from acting smart and fast and doing what Varys said and claiming Joffrey and the others before he died. But nope, honour.

Robb is younger and I can get why he did what he did but still. I began to hate him when he came back rationalizing his marriage to whats-her-face. Only honorable? Bull. Honourable would have been keeping his pact with the Freys and giving him a chance against the Lannisters, but he was in love so he wrote it off, despite how fucking stupid it was and the potential repercussions. I don't think he could have foreseen what would have happened but at the very least he would lose the Freys after they had committed treason and bled and died for him. Asshole much?


Sansa lives in her own universe so I never really thought about her and I skipped most of Arya's journey.

Jon Snow is one of the few that I like, although it is interesting to me how he seems to be cold towards his brothers when he gained command, which you don't really notice when you're reading from his perspective.

The only difference between the Starks and the majority of the 'bad' people from the other houses is that their weaknesses take the form of common fantasy tropes so we're more likely to forgive them and expect them to get out of it alright.

The problem with filming it all together is whether HBO will spend the money to do it. Sansa's stuff should be easy since the sets are already built but Arya's might be more difficult I think (I can't remember anything about her arc). I guess they could cut most of it and just film it now though.

 

Well they aren't all power-hungry sociopaths that go around raping, murdering and deliberately making an already shitty world a considerably shittier place, unlike almost everyone else with any amount of influence in this series. I'd say that's a point in their favor.

As for the rest... I'm short on time at the moment, so this probably isn't the best counter-argument, but I don't see any of the the Starks' supposed failings as being failings at all. In any other place these choices -- preserving lives and staying true to love -- would be positive. They're not wrong, the world they're in is.

 

Which is my point. They think they're in a fairy tale and act as such. And because we recognize the tropes it seems acceptable on first glance. And isn't not accepting reality and working with it the definition of madness?

Also: most of the nobles don't actually go that far beyond trying to advance themselves, it's the little guys and the people on Essos who go crazy.

And also the world is fucked up, but lets be honest staying true to love isn't always the positive way to go. It's simply selfish indulgence. Robb could have saved everyone a bunch of grief if he had put his men and his people ahead of his heart. That's what a good leader does imo. But like most fantasy heroes with a love interest, he chose selfishness wrapped up as honour.

Yes, from a story-telling perspective it's a safe bet, everyone wants to read about love triumphing despite all odds. As long as the heroes come out of it, everyone can pretend it wasn't a terrible idea on their part. Unfortunately in Westeros love provides no protection.

And preserving lives? LF's plan would have preserved more life than telling Stannis the truth. This is Stannis we're talking about.Those kids were dead the minute he arrived at KL. And Robb had to have known how bad it would get if he lost the Freys. Not to mention that if he was really interested in preserving life he could have simply bent the knee, leaving Sansa as a hostage and kept his lands and titles with minimal bloodshed. He'd already bloodied the Lannister's nose and they had the Baratheons to worry about. Hell he could have bent the knee to /them/.

It's funny, if they were religious fundamentalists and had made decisions that bad based on faith they would be getting slammed. But because they're fundies of another type they get praised as heroes.

From my perspective someone like Tywin Lannister who is willing to do whatever it takes to secure his house's position is much more useful than the two Lord Starks we've had. Well, as long as you're not a dwarf.

Wow. Apparently this is Stark-hate day for me.

 

The Starks have wolves though. Wolves are cool.

 

I think GRRM is trying to change the fundamental ways the Starks rule. As we know, the Starks generally don't mix with the South. Besides tournaments, when has a Stark ever ventured off to the South to participate in the political mischievousness with the rest of the Kingdom? Plus we have to remember that it was Rickards maester (whose name I forget at the moment) who proposed/suggested that Lyanna be betrothed to Robert and Brandon betrothed to Catelyn. He's the one that planted the seed to Rickards "southern ambitions." That's something that I have a feeling is going to be elaborated in the next few books.

In a way, I do agree with Ned being the sole reason for putting the Starks in such a dire predicament. He wasn't used to the ways of the rest of the Kingdom. He didn't know how to adjust and keep his mouth shut when need be and thus, his kids are paying the price. However, I think that's the point. Sansa is being "tutored" by LF, and by the end of the story will probably end up as Lady of the Eeyrie/Riverrun or if anything Queen of Winterfell.

Rickon is a wild card, but is most likely believed to be tutored by Manderly if all things go according to plan. Arya I'm not certain, but I can bet that eventually she will never forget that she is a Stark, no matter how much she tries to run from it. Jon, depending if he is indeed the son of Lyanna and Rheagar will probably end up on the Iron Throne.

Case and point, like Scrib said in a perfect world, the Starks would be the ideal family, but this isn't an ideal world. The children have been put in some dire situations, but in the end, I doubt the North will be so segregated from Westeros. The kids (well young adults by then) will be better equipped to deal with the politics.

 

Scrib: I agree with you on many points about characters being stupid by serving ideals rather than looking to maximise welfare. However, I think you go a bit too far when you suggest that Tywin is better than the Starks.

Certainly Tywin is more pragmatic, and that is something of a virtue in and of itself. However, let us not forget that he was also a complete arsehole, a murderer and a rapist. Nor was he overly concerned with the welfare of the people or the state. He was after power, just like everyone else. Including Littlefinger.

 

The difference between Tywin and LF is that he had a vested interest in the security of the crown beyond his own advancement. He wasn't just there to feed off the chaos and jump from juicy target to juicy target. His power was tied to the throne and so is was in his interests to protect it. The Lannisters were for all intents and purposes the throne so his power was it's power.

Don't get me wrong, he was horribly evil in his spare time, to an incredible level, even for Westeros but he definitely left the Lannisters in a better position than they would have been if they had been busy fighting little rebellions.


Which is unfortunate, because I would rather they all go away, but with the three most powerful houses tied together it seems unlikely that any upstart could win.

 

I am reminded of those people who like to pretend that Malfoy and his ilk are all really just misunderstood and that it's Harry and Dumbledore and the rest of the Gryffindors who just like to try and keep the poor misunderstood Slytherins down. It's not a perfect comparison, of course, but it's still an amusing parallel to me.

 

Wow. That was such a wrong parallel and strawman that I'm not quite sure how to respond.

EDIT: Son of a bitch, I used up my 1,000th post in this thread and didn't realize it.

 

So....GRRM read the first 9 minutes of a Victarion chapter. !!!!!!!!

It's the last 9 minutes of the video, and dear lord, it is epic.

 

You aren't kidding. Here's to hoping this is the chapter that gets packaged with the ADwD paperback release.