As we dive into Book Four, we've gotten a thorough look at the story's villains. I find the characters interesting because there's a simplicity to them; pretty much for any character, if you were doing casting, you could easily define who gets a black hat and who gets a white one. The distinction between good and evil seems so clear cut. So you have that moral satisfaction. But there's also the satisfaction of several likable villains, like Petyr Baelish and Varys the Eunuch. I was trying to figure out what's so intriguing about these obviously rotten eggs, and maybe it's the fact that they understand their world so well? Their vile manipulations are so doable only because they are so knowledgeable about their surroundings and put so much effort into being on top of things. Their very horridness arises from their skill at their jobs, which makes them admirable in a way and fascinating to watch, even while you eagerly await their comeuppance.
Do you see any sort of distinction among the villains in the book? Why are some more interesting than others?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think you've hit it on the head. Sort of that "evil genius" phenomenon. There's something smooth and masterful about them, which can be attractive. And they're manipulators, which means they are less obvious about their villainous intentions, as opposed to people like Cersei, Joffrey, Ser Alliser Thorne, etc.
It was interesting how Jaime Lannister gradually became more likable in Book Three, after he loses his hand, does right by Brienne, tells off his father and sister, frees Tyrion.
Your take on the book as basically black and white, good vs. evil is interesting because I opened up Book Four yesterday and glanced at the review blurbs in the front. At least two of them compared "Song of Ice and Fire" to "Lord of the Rings" and said the Martin books rose above Tolkien by being more morally ambiguous while "LOTR" is simply good vs. evil.
Good point about Jaime. His evolution is interesting. Not clear to me if he's becoming a better person or if his eyes are slowly being opened to reality after his misfortunes. His self-involvement is so thorough it's hard to judge him.
I am not a fan of LOTR comparisons. I think all that the books have in common is the creation of a highly detailed and engaging fictional world. Aide from that, how are they alike, really? And to say that Martin rises above Tolkien seems kind of nuts to me, and not just because Tolkien was so much more gifted as a writer (Martin can spin a greatly entertaining tale, but it's not the caliber of literature that LOTR is). Tolkien seems absolutely consumed with moral ambiguity to me! His focus on how EVERYONE is corruptible, even the great Gandalf, who assiduously avoids contact with the ring out of fear of moral failure; the inclusion of characters like Sméagol, who seem totally rotten, but then not quite; Boramir's shocking moral struggle; and Bilbo's too. I don't think Martin's characters are really that sophisticated. I feel like with almost every single one I can say this person is basically good and this person is basically evil. I mean, maybe there are a few unknown quantities, but in general it seems fairly clear. Maybe I'll be surprised.
What do you think of those LOTR comparisons?
Yeah, I agree with you on the LOTR comparisons. Did you see the Time review on the first page of Book 4? It characterizes LOTR as just "pretty elves against gnarly orcs." Which sort of offends me. Tolkien's work is so rich and multi-layered and fucking beautiful! Another review says Martin's work reflects our current world a lot better than LOTR. Which seems nuts to me, too. To say that one quasi-medieval fantasy world is more "current" than another. And why? Because he uses the word "tummy"? It's dumb to compare them because it's not even close. Martin's books are impressive in a lot of ways, but he's no Tolkien. Tolkien would never have a character say "Let's do this." (Just read that and groaned.)
Good grief! It's one thing to make a comparison between the two books, but to make a comparison that puts TOLKIEN in a bad light? That makes TOLKIEN seem lacking in imagination?! That's outrageous. People are entitled to their opinions, but, honestly, whoever espouses that particular opinion is a complete dipshit.
(I've winced several times at phrasings by Martin that seemed sloppy or anachronistic or cliche.)
Post a Comment