Off-Topic General Discussion - Page 123

I objectively enjoyed the first books more, but if you keep some kind of continuity between these and the lasts (as in you're not reading a book, but part of an ongoing series) the later ones do a good job of giving you a sense of the passing of time and how the Company, its people, its objectives and stuff evolve. It's pretty interesting when put into perspective with how (in the first cycle) Croaker is focused on the Company's past and history as a cement for its members and insists on reading excerpts from previous generations' annals to everyone.
I really loved the way the 2nd and 5th book are constructed (w/o spoiling, we follow several point of views, at least one of them being a lowly inhabitant from a derelict city, and the way his arc is confined to said city which has its own atmosphere and status as the character's only life place I found great).

The first book could easily stand on its own, and I really liked how the magic, setting, history, etc. were voluntarily left pretty vague, so it's not some kind of epic quest covering years of prophecies and such, and it's not some pretentious "amazingly-built world" or anything, either. It's just what it is, a story of some men, in some place or some world. I got really gripped by Soulcatcher—as in "it's one of the characters who left the biggest impressions on me". It's not particularly original, it's not an amazing character in its own right either. It's Cook's writing: the way Soulcatcher is presented to us, through the eyes of the people dealing with it (and to whom it wants to give a specific vibe) rather than by an omniscient narrator, and the very matter-of-factly way Soulcatcher handles its interactions (rather than being a poser) gives it a great quality because you don't get told how it is, you read it for yourself.
That's a great strength of Cook, I think: he's good at "Show, don't tell", contrary to a bunch of authors, and it's really refreshing and makes for more compelling characters.

It mostly cut parts of the beginning (Harker's trip till he gets into the castle, most of what happens in the castle (the 3 vampire girls and how he loses himself the first time and how he finds the count's coffin are in, then it cuts straight to how the count locks him in his room and he makes his escape), then most stuff pertaining to Lucy, and literally everything Renfield-related, save for his last 2 scenes.

The part about the castle annoyed me the most because I really liked how Stoker set up the atmosphere and the feeling Harker has of being lost, alone in a huge mansion, the vague unease he gets. It's really the part I'd have wanted an integral version for.
The epistolar format made the story-telling rather enjoyable.
Another point I really liked is how the count is charismatic through his very strong presence, rather than that fucking dumb "rule" that seems to exist now that every vampire must be a young sex-symbol (with implications in bed ofc) with a "perfect body". I guess it's due to Ann Rice? Whatever, I digress. The count's a hairy, 40-or-so looking guy with very prominent features (he's said to have rather messy hair with huge eyebrows and big, bony archs for example) whose "magnetism" doesn't come from sex-appeal but simply his towering physique and sheer presence (voice, gaze, bearing, etc.). I really liked the way it was described too, really made me feel that the guy's supposed to leave an impression, instead of reading "he has all these features, which I tell you are impressive, so you have to think he is too".

I remember the part where Van Helsing first exposes everything he knows about vampires to the rest of the group, so they know what they're going against. It's a long, very long rant speaking of superstitution and how science makes people so sure of themselves that they stop paying attention. The way it's written is pretty hilarious because Van Helsing sounds like a very biased preacher imparting his truth to the listeners.

The characters and setting are nothing special really. Actually, a bunch of them annoy me.
Ned Stark didn't bother me like he did an apparent whole lot of people, but I'm pretty accepting toward these broad archetypes. He looks like he was designed to serve as an example, anyway.
Jon Snow and Daenerys, however, are insufferable Sues and Martin's writing really doesn't help, being particularly weak concerning these two and doing nothing to conceal the weaknesses and obvious cliches/paths the characters are meant to follow (although I usually avoid making these statements since I read in French, it's not about the wording but the way the whole thing (and chapters) is handled for these two so I'm assuming a translator would never alter a work so much that it doesn't come from Martin).

There are characters I enjoy reading, but I'm very conscious about the limitations of the format, character, or my own shortcomings.
Tyrion's chapter I like reading, partly for him, but he makes it very easy to keep in mind from pretty early that's he designed to be likable and the character you sympathise for and root for, with his weaknesses exposed early (such as Shae) so you know he'll have it rough sooner or later. So I don't call him a good character, because it's "Tyrion is written as someone the reader should like and I agreed to do it" rather than "Tyrion is written as one of the characters, and I happened to like him".

Arya's chapters gave some exposition, and had side-characters I liked (like the guy from the Night Watch who fetched her is a very annoying cliche with a setup for being a Sue which thanksfully looks like it won't come to fruition (only read the first 2 books so far). The character itself reeks of that "no matter what she does she will be right even if she's wrong because it has to be so" and it prevents me from being able to immerse myself in her chapters, on top of making me dislike her shortcomings and flaws rather than embrace them.

Sansa is... I heavily disliked her originally. It didn't bother me too much because it was Sansa as a "person", rather than as a character of a story, and her chapters didn't seem badly written or anything to me, they just didn't catch my interest so I was bored is all. The author wrote a character with traits I personally dislike and I'm totally fine with it, as he doesn't try at the same time to shove a particular perception of her down my throat (like he does for Arya or Daenerys). I'm cool with him creating her, and he sounds cool with me not liking her, everything's fine.
She became more interesting in the 2nd book, but that's partly a flaw in me as a reader (I'll get to it just below), and also the fact that we go from "Here is Sansa. I show her to you." to "This is Sansa in situation X, I tell you how she thinks and fares within this context", which is oftimes more interesting, regardless of the situation (as in I'm not asking for blood and threats to be entertained).

I realised that I like Sansa more since her hardships, and liked Daenerys more at the very start, before she became the Very High, Queen with a destiny.
It made me reflect back on Megatokyo, with one of the ongoing theme being how "fans" approach stories and characters (to put it shortly, a character of the comic is "the analogue" for the sad dying girl, and she's pointed out already that people are fans of her story rather than who she is, with bitter/sarcastic lines such as "There's not much point if I don't die at the end, is there?"). The reason why I liked Daenerys at the start was because I'd be able to sympathise with her situation, the whole "I remember that house and I'd rather not have left it and lead a quiet life there, but now circumstances are putting me in a pretty terrible situation I don't have much control over", not with who Daenerys was/her personality. Said personality has been developed more once she's been put in her situation (with significant changes too, that we are supposed to take as "character growth", but I'd rather call it a fraud) and I indeed don't like it at all.
In a close way, Sansa's more likeable since she's in her predicament because it forces other aspects of her personality out, that you can appreciate way more easily than the spoilt princess one, and her situation is more relatable/easy to sympathise for, too.

Varys is another character I like, with the twist that we only see him in other people's chapters. It's an obvious and certainly needed ploy though, since as a player he would decrease the interest in other players' own plans (mostly Tyrion, Petyr and Cersei), knowing so much about every side on top of his own.
Having his own chapters would also make it much harder to introduce him as a talented spy with all sorts of tricks and stuff, and I can't blame Martin for it: it's an awful load of work to show a puppeteer' maneuvers in a believable (read non-artificial) way, and certainly not worth it if your readers are ready to acknowledge his skill as such if you just show them the results. There are a lot of characters in a lot of works who are displayed this way, it's nothing new (even a shonen showing the outcomes of some guy hyped as super strong's battles, but never the actual fights, does that on a lesser scale).
So I like him while knowing that he's a pretty cliche character (although I like the depiction, his mannerisms, etc. he's not the overly "dark" character nor the cunning (and posing) trickster) that would never live up to his hype if we were to see him work, and I only direct my expectations toward how Martin'll handle when he inevitably "bursts out" with his plan and what'll happen to him.


All in all it's mostly "smooth sailing till the Sues get to do their show, you guys have fun in-between" and it's making it really hard to actually root for a character or be invested in the overarching plot.

The arc with Toc in Pannion Seer's land and the Tenescowri is some of the most depraved shit ever. AWESOME!

I can definitely agree with Dany being a Mary Sue, but I don't see how that's the case with Jon, esp. after ADWD. I can see him fitting some of the standard tropes (Longclaw, good fighting skills, warg). Yet within the context, it does make sense. Plus, he isn't the best swordsman, warg or the only one with Valyrian steel.

On Arya, it's very clear that she's moving towards the dark side. She shows no remorse after killing people (Dareon, Tickler+squire) and is basically turning into the Bride from Kill Bill, fully bent on revenge. In the books it is shown that Arya can be very wrong. Gendry is right for not going with her, same goes for Hot Pie. She's wrong for liberating Harrenhal, since after Roose leaves he leaves her with Vargo Hoat's lot. Her not realizing her wrongness is part of her character, incredibly stubborn.

Ticking off most of the major tropes shouldn't really surprise you anyway in a Fantasy series where there are 40+ major characters (and 150+ important ones), if not more. It'd be incredibly difficult avoiding them all.

and my man GRRM had the good sense to kill them all off, hue