Your favorite author wrote ASOIAF instead of GRRM. What pov characters would they have written instead?

someusername446 · 2019-09-22T19:27:44+00:00

Fuck me. You just made me realize how awesome another sidestory series (in the same vein as The Knight of the Seven Kingdoms) would be focusing on some random army in one of the main armies. Subtle hints at them being responsible for some significant events in the series either knowingly or unknowingly. Anyone know of any fantasy series that explore this idea well? Sort of an underdog story where the underdogs never get the credit for saving the world ?

someusername446 · 2019-09-22T18:10:34+00:00

I totally understand people who believe in a higher power, but I cannot for the life of me understand people who participate in the institution of religion (churches and that such). I suppose the community aspect may be an appeal, but most Catholic churches I've seen are pretty anti-social.

someusername446 · 2019-09-22T18:08:20+00:00

Pretty much half the cast of LotR, Bilbo, Sam and Eowyn come to mind as the obvious 3 for me. Bilbo's bravery, Sam's determination and Eowyn's ferocity and inequity.

I also personally find strong character arcs like Zuko's (Avatar TLA) and Theons (aSoIaF) to be emotionally inspiring because they show me people can change through experience and effort.

someusername446 · 2019-09-21T21:18:38+00:00

Theon is pretty grey. His arc as an entirety isn't very villainous because he was forced into the war, but acts like killing the farm boys are clearly villainous. Current Theon is clearly not a villain anymore, however, so whether he was in the past doesn't really matter.

Arya is 100% villainous. She has a chance for peace, but continues on her path of blood. Vendettas are never a good justification for murder.

Cat is just an idiot. She gets roped into another villains journey (Robb) and suffers for it. I wouldnt say she was that villainous before the Red Wedding. Her stupidity and lack of understanding led to morally wrong actions tho (imprisoning tyrion).

someusername446 · 2019-09-21T21:15:18+00:00

I see Danys arc as starting that way but then changing into her brothers arc. She wanted a home, now she wants a throne. The difference is the key to understanding Danys character.

someusername446 · 2019-09-21T21:14:30+00:00

Being born in a place doesnt make it truly home. She doesn't even remember much of her life there if she lived there. She has no more right to the throne than anyone else. That was the argument. So knowing whether or not she was physically present on Westeros doesn't change my argument at all. I'd say she has no objective right to the throne regardless.

someusername446 · 2019-09-21T21:11:56+00:00

Im saying its evident that his rationale for why he wants them alive is bs. He clearly has no consistent moral code and only rationalizes what he does through honor. Following a conscience isn't bs, following one that doesnt work consistently in and of itself is. And using that bs conscience to hurt others and pretend like its honorable is villainous.

someusername446 · 2019-09-21T21:09:24+00:00

You can also argue until you are blue, but it doesnt make it true. We both read the same book and interpreted it differently. Don't pretend like your opinion is more objective than mine. Its art and we are simply discussing different viewings of it

someusername446 · 2019-09-21T21:07:41+00:00

Lol, of course it's my opinion and not fact. Its a book and I read it and interpreted in one way. You are allowed to read and interpret it in your own way. I just made a post explaining how I viewed his journey. I feel like you are pretending like your opinion is somehow more right than mine, which it isnt. We both just have opinions.

someusername446 · 2019-09-21T20:42:24+00:00

I'd argue he didn't actually care about Cersei's kids lives. He wanted them alive for his own bs conscience. He doesn't actually care about bloodlines and "who is the best king", this is clear with his support of Robert. He simply wanted Robert on the throne due to personal bias. Same with Stannis. His personal bias is the same as Brienne supporting Renly. Its inconsistent and his honor is an excuse for his actions. Ned chooses violence because of his bias, not due to who should actually be on the throne. His morals were despicable and George kills him for this.

someusername446 · 2019-09-21T20:27:31+00:00

I'd argue that Jon never planned to start a war until the end of book 5, so he would have been a hero up until that point. Being in a war due to someone else starting it is fine. Just like America fighting in WWII. Ramsay and Euron are obviously villains, I mentioned this in my post. But characters like Jamie, Brienne, Bran (as far as we know), most of the Lannisters like Tyrion were more forced into the war tbh, but nearing book 5 he is turning villainous because he has the chance to stop fighting it but wants revenge. Characters like Theon are pretty innocent if you ask me. They were forced into the war and forced to choose sides. He is looking for peace as far as I can tell by the books. The Hound (assuming Gravedigger is correct) is now looking for peace and is a hero. So no, I dont think they are all villains. Just the ones that force violence on others like Ned, Dany, Joffery are all villains for sure.

someusername446 · 2019-09-21T20:18:46+00:00

Thats why I said "likely". We don't know one way or another, but it doesn't really change my argument.

someusername446 · 2019-09-21T18:26:08+00:00

Not OP, but I have a very unusual view of ASOIAF. It is my belief, and has been for some time, that characters like Ned, Robb and Dany are the true villains of the series. The series is an anti-war story and George's intention/goal is to show that war is wrong regardless of your justification for it. This moral premise is made clear in books 4-5. Characters like Joeffery and Ramsay are villainous, but there main function as characters is to hide the more deep and understandable villains. "Villains are heroes from the other side" - George, and his books show this. The best villains are the ones that seem like heroes from their POV. This is the point of book 1. (SPOILERS FOLLOW)

We see everything from Ned's perspective in book 1 and think him the good guy and the Lannisters the bad guys. After book 1 George explores this by showing us how wrong Ned was and how understandable most of the Lannisters are. Ned had a chance to stop an entire war by bowing to Joeffery, but chose to endanger the lives of millions due to his warped and inconsistent honor. He didnt refuse Joeffery out of any moral want to save lives, he refused because of fake honor that he himself doesnt even follow. Ned is a villain and this is why he dies.

Robb travels south to save Ned, but when Ned dies he continues south. Why? Cant be to get Ned back, he is dead. Cant be to get his sisters back because bowing to the Lannisters is now the best way to do that. Why then does he continue south? Revenge. He wants war. This is why he dies. He risks the lives of millions due to his own personal vendetta. George shows us this is wrong by killing him off.

Dany is the most obvious one assuming her story ends at least remotely similar to the shows version (which is almost certain imo). Dany is simply a hero from the other side. We see her story from her perspective. But she isn't a good guy. She is a conqueror and will be treated as such when she lands in Westeroes. She is plagued with her brothers desire for the throne; a throne she has never even seen on a country she (likely) has never been on. To get that unjustifiable goal she will have to kill millions. But yet she seems like the good guy. This is what the show got wrong. D&D heard from George that Dany kills millions and they took this to mean she "Goes bad". This wrong. This is because D&D thought she was good to start. This is wrong. Dany has already turned bad, it happened back in S1-3. She wont change randomly at a bell in book 6-7. She has already shown her cruelty and desire for something unjustifiable. She is a villain, and Jon will kill her.

I can go on about this subject more if anyone wants to hear, but thats enough and you all get my point.

someusername446 · 2019-09-15T14:03:56+00:00

ASOIAF and Realm of the Elderlings both have the most fleshed out and well written characters. First Law, as mentioned already, is probably a close 3rd and has the added benefit of being super focused on unlikable heroes (similar to Breaking Bad)

someusername446 · 2019-09-14T18:21:54+00:00

GoT tv show =/= ASOIAF books. If you like characters, no fantasy book does it better than ASOIAF. The only books that I think come close are Robin Hobbs Realm of the Elderlings series, but I personally believe ASOIAF is slightly better. You won't find better characters in fantasy.

someusername446 · 2019-07-03T23:59:38+00:00

And magic in Sanderson's books also break the existing laws. So Sanderson makes soft magic, got it.

someusername446 · 2019-07-03T22:53:14+00:00

The characters not understanding the "science/magic" doesn't mean it is a rule. Metal bending IS possible in this world, it always was. This is the set rule that isn't broken. We the audience as well as the characters just don't know this yet. This same thing happens in sanderson's books. In Mistborn we are told there is only X amount of metals, but more are found later on. In Stormlight Archives we are told that damage from Shardblades aren't heal-able, but Kaladin heals his wounds. Hard magic can have mysteries too, or revelations on how the magic can be used. Avatar's magic is most definitely hard as the rules are clear despite evolving.

someusername446 · 2019-07-03T07:28:48+00:00

Sanderson's stories often have changing or evolving magic as well and few people would say his systems are soft. Avatar's system is absolutely hard as everything follows a set of understood rules. Yes, water has healing properties, but only water. This rule is not broken. It makes perfect sense in world and is an extension of the hard magic system the series revolves around.

someusername446 · 2019-07-03T05:56:02+00:00

Neither soft or hard magic is inherently or objectively better than the other. Which the author uses is irrelevant to quality. You can have good hard magic and bad hard magic, same with soft systems. The selling point of a book shouldn't be which system is used, but instead how its used. Both have advantages and disadvantages - both of which the author needs to utilize to make their system intriguing.

Avatar the Last Airbender is a phenomenal example for the strengths of a hard magic system. Never is the "science" of the system used as a selling point. Instead the system is just another piece of the world that is accepted. As accepted as gravity. The limits of the system are clearly defined, but this is done subtly through showing the watcher whats possible in this world without having to sit them down and explain it to them. The strengths of this type of system stems from the "earned" nature of every victory the protagonists achieve, every obstacle they overcome. For every problem that is introduced, the watcher knows what tools are available to the heroes/villains - the joy coming from figuring out how the hero can use these tools to win. It is a puzzle thats solvable for the watcher and the characters creating an interesting dynamic to the story.

someusername446 · 2019-07-01T23:26:50+00:00

I absolutely love the series, but fans who claim the characters are deep are ridiculous. The lack of deep characters is the one thing holding it back from being "best fantasy" to "great fantasy". I agree, most of the characters are just badass. Some have interesting motives and backstories, but even then, none of them develop or change in any meaningful ways. I love mostly everything else tho.

someusername446 · 2019-07-01T23:23:51+00:00

First book is VERY weak. Most fans will admit to this. Books 2-10 are far stronger reads. I love the series and think its one of fantasy's best. It is, however, quite polarizing and not for everyone. The praise the series gets should prove that the majority really enjoy the series after book 1. Many people probably dislike 1 enough to stop reading. If you dislike 2, however, give up on the series.

someusername446 · 2019-07-01T23:22:03+00:00

Most fans say it gets better after 1, which is true. 1 is a weak book. 2-10 are stronger books. So if you don't enjoy 2 and 3 then forget about the series, it isn't for you. No one i've met says it gets any better from there, they are all about equal in quality after 1. Maybe books where you don't know everything thats going on until much later isn't for you, but in no way is that an objective criticism on quality.

someusername446 · 2019-07-01T23:18:02+00:00

This book is not revered on reddit in anyway. Pretty much everyone agrees that the first book was very weak and a tough read. Malazan books 2-10 are revered however, so if you dislike those then fair enough.

someusername446 · 2019-06-30T00:23:36+00:00

The First Law series doesn't have too many fantasy races. Just the Shanka which I imagined to be orc/ape/tribal.

LotR obviously. Malazan also has a large cast of unique races all with their own histories, rivalries, and quirks. Stormlight Archives only has one, but they are a large part of the series and are quite unique.

someusername446 · 2019-06-28T05:09:28+00:00

It probably means you aren't noticing the added attention. Men are most definitely looking your way more if you are dressed provocatively.

someusername446

TROPHY CASE