Another RR Martin comparison

[Sawbones79]

This is my first thread ever on JREF, so please tell if I'm out of bounds in any way.
Anyway, I've been intrigued by the discussion on the merits of George RR Martins "Song of..." series, especially the comparisons with Tolkiens books. My point is that Tolkien may well be a founder and vital source of inspiration for modern fantasy, but hardly the benchmark for fantastic literature when compared to modern-day writers. My prime example would be Steven Erikson whos "Malazan" series blows Martins books out of the water any day of the week IMHO. Sure, Martin is great at describing a believable civil war in a feudal society, but so is a great number a writers (Ken Follets "Pillars of the Earth" springs to mind). The parts of "Song of..." that's pure fantasy, on the other hand, are staples of the genre like dragons, monarchs in exile and scary inhuman monsters pouring in from the north. Also, his characters seems to by considered believable by many by the sole virtue of being "not noble", but to me they seem like the same kind of anti-heroes and identity seekers that run rampant in most modern culture.

Erikson, by comparison, has some of the most interesting characters ever in a fantasy setting and a great capacity to meander from tradegy to comedy and back again, no to mention combining epic drama with low-key interpersonal stories in a way that's not equaled in any fantasy series I've ever read.
Anyway, rant over. Anyone else read these two authors? Opinions?

 

[Vortigern99]

I've never read Erikson, but your description of his books is certainly selling me on the idea of reading them. I'm a big fan of both Tolkien and Martin (and LeGuin and Rowling and R. Adams and Alexander), so I'm always ready for some compelling fantasy.

What are Erikson's books called, what are they about and how are they different from Martin or Tolkien? Enquiring fantasists want to know.

 

[Sawbones79]

The books I recommend are called "The Malazan Books of the Fallen", starting with "Gardens of the Moon". As for the stories themselves, they basically take place in a huge and very complex world where basically everyone have conflicting loyalties and generally act like people tend to do. There is a meta-plot of sorts, but it's really only noticeable further along the series. What really sets the books apart in my opinion is that conflicting groups of generally nice people may end up in truly tragic circumstances without any of them being "evil" in a fantasy sense.
In one of the books, for example, the "bad guys" consist of an expanding empire built on religious fanaticism, whose army to a large part consist of hordes of starving peasantry subsiding on corpses from the battlefield. Now, this sounds like a cheap horror cliché, but when the book suddenly veers to tell the story of one such peasant and making his descent into degradation horrifyingly believable, the battles against the "good guys" that follows feels like a knife to the gut as you can't shrug off any of the sides as one-dimensional baddies.
As you listed a line of my personal favourites in your post, I'd love to hear what you think of Erikson if you do check the books out.

 

[IDB87]

Huge and Complex world...think of Erickson as Jordan and you'll get an idea.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

I'm halfway through book seven of the Malazan books. It's pretty dense stuff. I find myself stopping and saying, "What? Who? Where did this guy come from? Where are we?" The books are great, but there's a lot of strands in old Duder's head. It's not light reading.

 

[gumboot]

Also, his characters seems to by considered believable by many by the sole virtue of being "not noble", but to me they seem like the same kind of anti-heroes and identity seekers that run rampant in most modern culture.

On this point I disagree. Martin's characters are highly regarded because they're very complex and believable characters. His drama writing is very, very good. His most noble characters have flaws, and his most ignoble characters have nobility in them. Just like real people.

I've never read Steven Erikson but I am intrigued to discover more based on what you've said. And I would concur that Tolkien is far from the "best" of the genre. He gets kudos for creating it, but others have done far more with the genre, IMHO.

 

[Sawbones79]

Huge and Complex world...think of Erickson as Jordan and you'll get an idea.

Except that Erikson is capable of writing a sensible plot, advancing his storyline and describing strong female characters as something else than nagging subhumans with pathologic control issues that is .
Please note that I don't mean to bash your take on Jordans world, just bashing The Wheel of Time in itself. Damn, don't know why I stayed on until the seventh book of that trainwreck of a series.

 

[Sawbones79]

On this point I disagree. Martin's characters are highly regarded because they're very complex and believable characters. His drama writing is very, very good. His most noble characters have flaws, and his most ignoble characters have nobility in them. Just like real people.

I've never read Steven Erikson but I am intrigued to discover more based on what you've said. And I would concur that Tolkien is far from the "best" of the genre. He gets kudos for creating it, but others have done far more with the genre, IMHO.

I've got an ongoing discussion with a close friend regarding the complexity of Martins characters. Basically, he shares your views while I consider the character descriptions to be unusually comlex for a fantasy series (Tyrion being my personal favourite), but still nowhere near the level of complexity we see in other genres (such as Elroys crime novels).
I guess, however, that this is very much a matter of personal taste. I'd certainly recommend checking out Erikson, but be warned that the friend I mentioned above didn't make it through the first book. I put this down to him being a Martin fanboy .

 

[gumboot]

Basically, he shares your views while I consider the character descriptions to be unusually comlex for a fantasy series (Tyrion being my personal favourite), but still nowhere near the level of complexity we see in other genres (such as Elroys crime novels).

It sounds like you're implying that characters in fantasy are significantly less complex than other popular genres of writing. I disagree. I think characters in general are not very complex.

Tyrion or Jaime Lannister are every bit as complex as legendary characters like Jean Valjean, IMHO. If anything, Martin demonstrated that fantasy can have character drama of comparable level to any of the great works of literature.

Martin's one of my favourite authors, but I am far from a fan-boy, and don't hesitate to point out what I consider major weaknesses with his work, but I still hold that complex characterisation is undeniably his strength.

I suppose an interesting question might be "What makes a complex character?"

 

[gumboot]

Except that Erikson is capable of writing a sensible plot, advancing his storyline and describing strong female characters as something else than nagging subhumans with pathologic control issues that is .
Please note that I don't mean to bash your take on Jordans world, just bashing The Wheel of Time in itself. Damn, don't know why I stayed on until the seventh book of that trainwreck of a series.

Well that's hardly realistic, is it?

 

[Sawbones79]

It sounds like you're implying that characters in fantasy are significantly less complex than other popular genres of writing. I disagree. I think characters in general are not very complex.

Tyrion or Jaime Lannister are every bit as complex as legendary characters like Jean Valjean, IMHO. If anything, Martin demonstrated that fantasy can have character drama of comparable level to any of the great works of literature.

Martin's one of my favourite authors, but I am far from a fan-boy, and don't hesitate to point out what I consider major weaknesses with his work, but I still hold that complex characterisation is undeniably his strength.

I suppose an interesting question might be "What makes a complex character?"

Please note that I really don't want to sound inflammatory, I truly enjoy discussing books in this manner. For some reason, a lot of discussions I've had on the subject of "Song of..." both online and IRL have for some reason degraded to angry quarrels filled with "but YOUR favourite writer did THIS". Somehow, people seem to feel strongly for these books, making it an oddly touchy subject. So, the fan-boy remark was meant as tounge-in-cheek, sorry if you took offence.

Anyway, I often find characters in fantasy fiction to be less developed than in other fields, and Martin definitely stands out as a great example. However, I stand by my point that in a wider selection of literature, or when compared to Erikson (or Kings Gunslinger series, for all that) they are good but far from exceptional as far as believability and complexity goes.

 

[gumboot]

Please note that I really don't want to sound inflammatory, I truly enjoy discussing books in this manner. For some reason, a lot of discussions I've had on the subject of "Song of..." both online and IRL have for some reason degraded to angry quarrels filled with "but YOUR favourite writer did THIS". Somehow, people seem to feel strongly for these books, making it an oddly touchy subject. So, the fan-boy remark was meant as tounge-in-cheek, sorry if you took offence.

You will have to work a lot harder than that to make me take any offense.

However, I stand by my point that in a wider selection of literature, or when compared to Erikson (or Kings Gunslinger series, for all that) they are good but far from exceptional as far as believability and complexity goes.

Since you enjoy discussing books in this manner, would you care to talk a bit more about why you think this? Since he's already been mentioned, how about we discuss Tyrion Lannister? Or alternatively pick if you like another major character that you don't think is particularly impressive in complexity. What do you consider simplistic or flawed about their development, and how do you think that contrasts with more universally recognised complex characters?

 

[Sawbones79]

You will have to work a lot harder than that to make me take any offense.




Since you enjoy discussing books in this manner, would you care to talk a bit more about why you think this? Since he's already been mentioned, how about we discuss Tyrion Lannister? Or alternatively pick if you like another major character that you don't think is particularly impressive in complexity. What do you consider simplistic or flawed about their development, and how do you think that contrasts with more universally recognised complex characters?

Sure! I feel that the Stark family can definitely be considered the protagonists, especially in the first couple of books. However, since they generally act in a straight-up and quite honourable manner I never feel that their involvement in the civil war that followsis really understandable. It would have been far more interesting to see the principal Starks working as a force for unification and peace, rather than just another ultimately doomed faction working to put one of their own on the throne. And having their army killed off in the most obvious trap ever described in literature kind of leaves them seeming as hopelessly naive, kind of like archetypal good guys pulled from an Eddings novel thrown out in a far harsher world than the one they evolved in, so to speak. in short, how the heck did that family hold on to a position of power for as long as they did?
I'd love to expand some on Tyrion, but for now I have to get back to work. Damn it, I have to stop checking JREF when there are patients in the waiting room .

 

[gumboot]

Sure! I feel that the Stark family can definitely be considered the protagonists, especially in the first couple of books. However, since they generally act in a straight-up and quite honourable manner I never feel that their involvement in the civil war that followsis really understandable. It would have been far more interesting to see the principal Starks working as a force for unification and peace, rather than just another ultimately doomed faction working to put one of their own on the throne. And having their army killed off in the most obvious trap ever described in literature kind of leaves them seeming as hopelessly naive, kind of like archetypal good guys pulled from an Eddings novel thrown out in a far harsher world than the one they evolved in, so to speak. in short, how the heck did that family hold on to a position of power for as long as they did?
I'd love to expand some on Tyrion, but for now I have to get back to work. Damn it, I have to stop checking JREF when there are patients in the waiting room .

Thanks for the reply. Not entirely sure how well this can be discussed as character complexity, since you're raising the issue of an entire family, not an individual. The Starks are not all the same, of course. Having said that, there's probably enough meat here that we can discuss the plausibility of a family that adheres to the values followed by the Starks.

I actually disagree completely with your first point. Given the values that the Starks are raised on, their involvement in the Civil War seems essentially inevitable.

If we consider that the Starks put such values as honour above even their own preservation and survival, once Ned was beheaded the only thing Robb could do was go to war. Bear in mind that Robb's intention was never originally to make a claim for the throne himself, that was essentially a result of his vassals exploiting the situation for their own gratification. His original intention was to restore the honour of his family name, his father's memory, and recover his sisters.

None of this is particularly unbelievable. I could, with little effort, cite countless actual historical examples of such behaviour.

What's really interesting to me about Robb's short-lived war is that on countless occasions they did move very close to peace and reconciliation, but something would happen which would take it out of the picture again. Had the right Starks and Lannisters sat down at a table together peace would have come. Had each side been able to put aside their personal affronts and preconceived notions about the other side they could have found common cause. But it didn't work out that way. I find that highly realistic. In fact in our own century both WWI and WWII are perfect examples of horrific bloodshed that in each instance was the result of knife-edge situations that could have gone either way.

World War I, for example, turned into a global war because of a collection of treaties designed to maintain the peace. WW2 was triggered, in large part, because of the severity of the Treaty of Versailles which was intended to prevent Germany from ever waging war again. The two most horrific conflicts in human history, and both caused by the pursuit of peace.

As to how their army was lost (I'm going to assume you're referring to the Red Wedding) that was perhaps the more archetypal story element, but it wasn't the "trap", that all goes back to Robb falling in love and breaching his alliance with the Freys. Which is perfectly in keeping with a young, naive, and idealistic character like Robb (I find it interesting that you use such words to describe their behaviour, because that's exactly what Robb is supposed to be). He's exactly the sort of person who would fall in love and then do the "honourable thing" and marry the girl, thus sealing his fate (just as Ned would do the "honourable thing" and keep a promise to his dead sister that sees him, his wife, and Jon suffer. I suspect many in the Stark faction were pretty nervous about the second alliance terms with the Freys, but the point is by then they had no choice. They had to risk it. The reality is the Freys were going to side with whoever they thought was the strongest. The Starks gambled that the Freys saw them as the most powerful. They lost that gamble. Catastrophically.

Ultimately, given what we were presented about the Starks, I feel the way they act is 100% in keeping with the sort of people they are. What then remains, is your last question. In a world as dirty and scheming as Westeros, how did they manage to hold onto power? It's an interesting question, but ultimately I think it's one with a pretty straight forward answer.

The Starks ruled their own kingdom, and its sheer size and the hostility of the climate meant no one was every going to wrestle it from them by force. I get the impression that for most of the history of the Kingdoms they've basically sat up there alone and isolated from the scheming of the south. Their land isn't rich, it isn't strategically important, and there's no way any one else could produce an army large enough to take and hold it by force. They're a lot like Russia, actually, in that regard.

If we look at real cultures on earth that originate in harsh climates, there's a common theme, which is rigorous ethical codes that mean more than life itself. Consider the honour codes of the Pathan tribes of the North West Frontier, or the Bedouins of the Middle East.

To me it is quite logical and believable that a ruling family that has to survive in such a harsh and unforgiving climate would have a rigid code of ethics that they adhered to with blind fanaticism. And the moment any Stark heads south, into less ideological lands, they seem to be destroyed. There's a lesson in that.

Also bear in mind that the Starks are not alone in their dedication to honour at the cost of more practical and immediate concerns. Stannis Baratheon is a perfect example, and I get the impression Jon Arryn was of similar form. At least some of the Night's Watch clearly practise their duty in the spirit it was intended.

Ultimately in these sorts of medieval societies honour and other lofty notions was important. I think we of modern times often misinterpret the way in which those values were regarded, and as such make a judgement that these ideals weren't adhered to, or were only played lip-service to. That's mostly incorrect. Medieval lords and knights really did by and large believe in their ideals and strive to live by them, it's just their ideals weren't what we think they are.

If anything, it's the Lannisters and Renly Baratheon that break the mold by not adhering to such values. Them and of course the underlings like Littlefinger and Varys, but then, they aren't powerful rulers, are they?

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the Mad King's reign severely eroded adherence to such rigid codes of chivalry, because it became a matter of survival with such a cruel and unpredictable ruler. When it comes down to a matter of preservation some of those values go out the window (or at least, only those willing to abandon those values survive). The Lannisters, the Freys, and the Littlefingers of the world are the new order, given the opportunity to prosper under Aerys' reign.

 

[Sawbones79]

Good points one and all, especially on why the war just couldn't be escaped. As I wrote in the OP, the development of a civil war in a feudal society is definitely the strongest part of the series IMHO (the monsters of the north and the take on religion being the weakest ones, but if you don't mind we can save those for later in order not to clutter up the discussion).
So, the points of honour: Rob Stark is definitely honourable, brave and a dedicated leader for whom I have a great deal of sympathy. This, however leads me back to my original point that as a hero he's not that different from a number of fantasy heroes fighting against the oppressors in power.

 

[kbm99]

I made it through three? maybe four - of Erikson's books before I ran out of steam. I don't disagree with the OP, exactly, but Erikson's flaw (in my mind at least) is a pretty common one in fantasy writing - he can't stop topping himself.

If character A is the greatest swordsman the world has ever seen, you can bet your ass character B is the *real* greatest ever, since his technique was handed down through a three-hundred-thousand-year tradition. Character C is the only one to ever master five schools of magic, until the character who mastered 11! is introduced, and so forth.

I'm being kind of harsh when I probably shouldn't, the guy really can write, though I don't think he eclipses Martin in any particular. But the non-stop superlatives wore me down after a while.

 

[Giz]

I made it through three? maybe four - of Erikson's books before I ran out of steam. I don't disagree with the OP, exactly, but Erikson's flaw (in my mind at least) is a pretty common one in fantasy writing - he can't stop topping himself.

If character A is the greatest swordsman the world has ever seen, you can bet your ass character B is the *real* greatest ever, since his technique was handed down through a three-hundred-thousand-year tradition. Character C is the only one to ever master five schools of magic, until the character who mastered 11! is introduced, and so forth.

I'm being kind of harsh when I probably shouldn't, the guy really can write, though I don't think he eclipses Martin in any particular. But the non-stop superlatives wore me down after a while.

Argh. I just HATE that in fantasy authors.

I think you just saved me from trying that series.

 

[Sawbones79]

I made it through three? maybe four - of Erikson's books before I ran out of steam. I don't disagree with the OP, exactly, but Erikson's flaw (in my mind at least) is a pretty common one in fantasy writing - he can't stop topping himself.

If character A is the greatest swordsman the world has ever seen, you can bet your ass character B is the *real* greatest ever, since his technique was handed down through a three-hundred-thousand-year tradition. Character C is the only one to ever master five schools of magic, until the character who mastered 11! is introduced, and so forth.

I'm being kind of harsh when I probably shouldn't, the guy really can write, though I don't think he eclipses Martin in any particular. But the non-stop superlatives wore me down after a while.

Yeah, there are plenty of über-warriors to go around allright , though I think that's one of the things that make the series stand out in my view: All those monstrous people are just as constrained by relationships, shame, hope and the inherently random nature of the universe as the ordinary dog soldiers and craftsmen that also play important roles in the books.
If you've got the energy, give them another chance. The Tisted Edur empire that rises in the later books is probably the best example of credible evil I've seen in fantasy literature, starting out as an attempt to reclaim what's been lost by an indigenous people, and ending as a monstours construct built on intrigue, notions of racial superiority and with a truly broken, lonely man as emperor.

 

[Morrigan]

So, the points of honour: Rob Stark is definitely honourable, brave and a dedicated leader for whom I have a great deal of sympathy. This, however leads me back to my original point that as a hero he's not that different from a number of fantasy heroes fighting against the oppressors in power.

Except that Robb Stark isn't the protagonist (so he can't really be the "hero"), and

he also loses. Really badly. In typical fantasy, heroes don't get horribly murdered at their uncle's wedding feast by their own vassal lords and don't get their pet's head sewn onto their corpses.

It's a little unfair to say, "GRRM's characters aren't that complex, look, Robb Stark is just like a typical fantasy hero, young and brave and honourable and all", considering the above in spoiler tags, AND the fact that GRRM's cast of characters is huge. If anything, I would use Daenerys Targaryen as an example more than Robb Stark for this. But the fact that SO many of his characters, despite the huge cast, are complex and believable, is a notable feat, I'd say. The most well-rounded and/or believable ones I'd say are Ned, Tyrion, Jaime, Robert, Cersei, Catelyn, Sansa, Arya, Jon Snow, Stannis, Sandor, Gregor, Tywin, Joffrey, Jorah, Shae, Bronn, Brienne, Theon, Asha, Littlefinger, Varys.
And then you have more minor characters, who have actually little screen time, yet are colourful and/or somehow memorable all the same: Syrio Forel, Qhorin Halfhand, Oberyn Martell, Vargo Hoat, to name but a few.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Thanks for the reply. Not entirely sure how well this can be discussed as character complexity, since you're raising the issue of an entire family, not an individual. The Starks are not all the same, of course. Having said that, there's probably enough meat here that we can discuss the plausibility of a family that adheres to the values followed by the Starks.

I actually disagree completely with your first point. Given the values that the Starks are raised on, their involvement in the Civil War seems essentially inevitable.

If we consider that the Starks put such values as honour above even their own preservation and survival, once Ned was beheaded the only thing Robb could do was go to war. Bear in mind that Robb's intention was never originally to make a claim for the throne himself, that was essentially a result of his vassals exploiting the situation for their own gratification. His original intention was to restore the honour of his family name, his father's memory, and recover his sisters.

None of this is particularly unbelievable. I could, with little effort, cite countless actual historical examples of such behaviour.

What's really interesting to me about Robb's short-lived war is that on countless occasions they did move very close to peace and reconciliation, but something would happen which would take it out of the picture again. Had the right Starks and Lannisters sat down at a table together peace would have come. Had each side been able to put aside their personal affronts and preconceived notions about the other side they could have found common cause. But it didn't work out that way. I find that highly realistic. In fact in our own century both WWI and WWII are perfect examples of horrific bloodshed that in each instance was the result of knife-edge situations that could have gone either way.

World War I, for example, turned into a global war because of a collection of treaties designed to maintain the peace. WW2 was triggered, in large part, because of the severity of the Treaty of Versailles which was intended to prevent Germany from ever waging war again. The two most horrific conflicts in human history, and both caused by the pursuit of peace.

As to how their army was lost (I'm going to assume you're referring to the Red Wedding) that was perhaps the more archetypal story element, but it wasn't the "trap", that all goes back to Robb falling in love and breaching his alliance with the Freys. Which is perfectly in keeping with a young, naive, and idealistic character like Robb (I find it interesting that you use such words to describe their behaviour, because that's exactly what Robb is supposed to be). He's exactly the sort of person who would fall in love and then do the "honourable thing" and marry the girl, thus sealing his fate (just as Ned would do the "honourable thing" and keep a promise to his dead sister that sees him, his wife, and Jon suffer. I suspect many in the Stark faction were pretty nervous about the second alliance terms with the Freys, but the point is by then they had no choice. They had to risk it. The reality is the Freys were going to side with whoever they thought was the strongest. The Starks gambled that the Freys saw them as the most powerful. They lost that gamble. Catastrophically.

Ultimately, given what we were presented about the Starks, I feel the way they act is 100% in keeping with the sort of people they are. What then remains, is your last question. In a world as dirty and scheming as Westeros, how did they manage to hold onto power? It's an interesting question, but ultimately I think it's one with a pretty straight forward answer.

The Starks ruled their own kingdom, and its sheer size and the hostility of the climate meant no one was every going to wrestle it from them by force. I get the impression that for most of the history of the Kingdoms they've basically sat up there alone and isolated from the scheming of the south. Their land isn't rich, it isn't strategically important, and there's no way any one else could produce an army large enough to take and hold it by force. They're a lot like Russia, actually, in that regard.

If we look at real cultures on earth that originate in harsh climates, there's a common theme, which is rigorous ethical codes that mean more than life itself. Consider the honour codes of the Pathan tribes of the North West Frontier, or the Bedouins of the Middle East.

To me it is quite logical and believable that a ruling family that has to survive in such a harsh and unforgiving climate would have a rigid code of ethics that they adhered to with blind fanaticism. And the moment any Stark heads south, into less ideological lands, they seem to be destroyed. There's a lesson in that.

Also bear in mind that the Starks are not alone in their dedication to honour at the cost of more practical and immediate concerns. Stannis Baratheon is a perfect example, and I get the impression Jon Arryn was of similar form. At least some of the Night's Watch clearly practise their duty in the spirit it was intended.

Ultimately in these sorts of medieval societies honour and other lofty notions was important. I think we of modern times often misinterpret the way in which those values were regarded, and as such make a judgement that these ideals weren't adhered to, or were only played lip-service to. That's mostly incorrect. Medieval lords and knights really did by and large believe in their ideals and strive to live by them, it's just their ideals weren't what we think they are.

If anything, it's the Lannisters and Renly Baratheon that break the mold by not adhering to such values. Them and of course the underlings like Littlefinger and Varys, but then, they aren't powerful rulers, are they?

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the Mad King's reign severely eroded adherence to such rigid codes of chivalry, because it became a matter of survival with such a cruel and unpredictable ruler. When it comes down to a matter of preservation some of those values go out the window (or at least, only those willing to abandon those values survive). The Lannisters, the Freys, and the Littlefingers of the world are the new order, given the opportunity to prosper under Aerys' reign.

Excellent post, Gumboot, I think your analysis is pretty much dead-on. I think your comparison of The North to Russia is particulary apt.

I also don't consider myself a fanboy just because I'm willing to challenge unfair criticisms of GRRM's work.