I think writing as a box of chocolates . [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Many authors put the sweet candy on one side and the yucky candies on the other. And on the box there is a small note which side is yum for your tounge and which makes you gag. Martin however has no note and mixes the good and bad chocolates. And many of the chocolates are so revolting! This keeps you on edge. You don't know what you are going to get whether its good and bad. For some people (like myself) think of it as a very fun game. I am always on edge, wondering if the chocolate is good or bad. Despite the damage some of the candies do to my taste buds.

To put it simply:
Martin's box of chocolates has a close resemblanse (I can't spell the word so sue me!) to that of life's box of chocolates.

I hope the chocolate thing made sense. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[ 11-28-2004, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Sythe ]

I just didn't like the use of the "f" word. This is a "fantasy" world. There's no reason to use that language, or even sh!t. Terry Brooks does a great job and never uses anything like that and no matter what anybody says, the book can be just as good without it. Terry uses "shades" a lot, but that's as bad as it gets.

George Martin create realistic characters in a real world. This isn't a fantasy world in the same way a disney movie is fantasy.

It's what our middle age might have been like with a little touch of supernatural added in.

Considering this, he *has* to use that language, or the characters would not be realistic. A 12th century warrior does not care about being politically correct. He's probably even crude on purpose because he like it.

This also isn't a world where the main characters win all the time, because in the real middle age, everyone win and lose as much as the next guy, no matter how noble their cause can be.

If you can't handle being shocked, or even getting mad, then you won't be able to handle those books. You *will* get mad, that's certain.

[ 11-29-2004, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

Getting mad, sad happy or any other emotion is what makes a good book. Terry Brooks can make me cry and he never has to use harsh language. It's not necessary, ever!

Don't you agree that with just that line you quoted we can see the personality of the character?

Don't you wish that spoiled brat would get a beating to teach him good maners?

I like Brooks, but in my opinion his work is targeted for a younger audience. The Shannara series is one I've recommended for my teenage son (I've restricted my kids from the Song of Ice and Fire series). I think most fantasy is available and enjoyable for teens, but Martin is the exception. His work is definitely targeted for adults, and that has allowed him to explore darker subjects that most of us would agree are inappropriate for kids.

Basically I believe Brooks and most fantasy authors lose a sense of gritty reality due to their writing choices. The reality is that most of us have heard worse than the above Martin quote in our lives... and his willingness to use graphic and/or vulgar language gives his characters a depth (for good and bad) that other fantasy has trouble achieving. Add to that the fact that Martin's characters are fully capable of good and horrible evil (even Ned made some very bad decisions), and you have characters that would not have looked out of place in Versailles during the reign of Louis XIV. The only reading I've EVER done that matched the conniving back stabbing "game of houses" that Martins nobility played were descriptions of life in Versailles.

Jordan's "Wheel of Time" is a popular series that conforms more to the 'restrained' style of most fantasy... and he spends some time describing "The Game of Houses"... or Noble Intrigue, but his imagery leave these characters lacking. My impression is that if you took his WORST, most Cunning Evil and talented Noble and tossed them into Martin's game (or Versailles for that matter) he/she wouldn't last 10 minutes. Why would I have that Impression? Well... because they never really did ANYTHING that evil, nor did they say anything that bad. After reading your quote, how do you feel about the character who said it (forgetting about the author who wrote it for a minute)?

(little spoiler here) - I thought he was a spoiled little **** who deserved a helmet of molten gold, I don't think a sugarcoated version of that character would have been nearly as satisfying to kill off.

[ 11-29-2004, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

Variol, I wholeheartedly respect your right to read what you want.

But, when it comes to what is necessary for GRR Martin, every use of the F word makes it a better book than those around it. Every graphic rape, every suffering death, every trencher or meat that spills across the threshes, every severed limb, every last gurgle of death, every "brave man" who pisses himself, every toothless dirty little whore, every disfigured and maimed and dirty and rotten and smelly thing, every bit of bodily excrement running down the legs of a royal man shot with a common crossbow.

These are the things that make me *believe* the world of GRR Martin. Make me love it. Make it ring truer than any other fantasy out there.

There is nothing I hate more than fantasy that caters to the lovers of Wordsworth and his fluffy forest bunnies. If you set something in medieval times, there will be filth, disease, putridness, and the animalism in men will be more obvious. These are the realities of living in a world of that technology level.

Sounds like you need to quit reading Martin. Just my [img]graemlins/2cents.gif[/img]

Well then smarty pantses: If you go by that theory, Tolkien is strictly for children! Right? I mean, you can't find any harsh language in there and personally I found it pretty darn good. Lots of people felt the same way and they made it, book of the century!
David Gemmell is a good example too. Some things are harsh in there but he puts it a little lighter. Let's face it, it's "fantasy" you know "make believe"!! So, what are you going to do, put a greater emphasis on fantasy!?

Don't get mad...

Tolkien is special the same way the first working plane was special. It doesn't mean there won't ever be better planes, or even better transportation methods.

Fantasy doesn't mean nice.

I'd like to point you to the definition of fantasy at dictionary.com.

I won't post the whole page, but of the dozen or so definition they give, only one refer to fantasy as "whimsical or fanciful". The other just describe it as supernatural, unrealistic or improbable.

What I'm getting at is that fantasy is not related to how light hearted a story is. They can be as nice or cruel as the author and readers want it.

Trust us on this one, George Martin will take you on the best roller coaster ride of your life. Don't hold the language and actions against the book or author, hold it against the character that does the offense. It's going to feel really good when he bite it.

There are times I kept reading only for revenge.

I like to "make believe" a cruel and harsh world. It make the exceptions so much more special than in the average feelgood story.

[ 11-30-2004, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

Everyone is entitled to their own views about what to them makes a good book. We don't all follow the same sports, we don't all come to love the same woman, and we don't like the same foods. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be people out there that like liver just cos I can't stand the stuff. Each to his own.

We can all respect Variol even if he is not a fan of this set of books. Just be aware Variol that if you run down something because it doesn't meet your ideals of what fantasy is then you are imposing an interpretation and provoking a response from those with differing opinions.

I am among a group who like the odd "dark" story - that doesn't mind stumbling across a book that tells it "warts and all". That doesn't mean that I don't read other books that you might have on your "nice" list. It just means that I sometimes like eating steak, and sometimes chicken. Martin is more your brutal fiery Beef Vindaloo, so if you don't like spicy foods don't eat them.

Gee - I could murder a curry ;) .

I really don't think you guys are getting me? I'm going to read the book (hope I can finish it before it has to go back to the Library) but there's no need for the harsh language, is all I'm saying.
If he worded the sentence: I'd let his whole khalasar (have or take) you if need be, sweet sister... It would have made the same point with the harsh language and not limited he audiance. I'll read it, but others won't and they won't let their kids either, I hope.
Plus I find that using that world took the book from a fantasy setting to somewhere, which I don't want. It's escape'ism and to think that that word excists in the fantasy word makes it unbelievable.
Even if he had made up his own word for it would have been better, but still understood, like Terry Brooks uses "shades" instead of... well use your imagination. :D

I see your point, but by just replacing that word in your above post, it seem to me the character lost most of his attitude. It certainly changed the tone of his dialog.

Ditto - there is no need to neuter the dialogue.

Variol I think the change you suggested would work on the surface, but it would change the character.

With your version I envision a casually cruel Noble leaning back in his big overstuffed chair, scented kerchief to nose and saying your line in an effeminate voice. Vulgarity requires too much effort, he's too disinterested to actually care what his victim is thinking.

Viserys is DEFINITELY not that character... he's egocentric, manic, very vulgar... and purposely cruel. He doesn't say things with detached superiority, he says them with active intent to cow, control, feed his ego, sow fear... and more. He's the type that leans foward so he can smell the fear, eye's alight and unstable. Casually cruel he is not, he enjoys it too much.

See, to me, that word only exists in the real world. Then you put it into a fantasy book, it's no longer a fantasy place I can believe in. It's just another story. I would come to the defense of an author that I like too but, do you sort of know what I mean?

Yup I see your point, and no doubt slang has changed over the years, making todays obscene words different from those even a hundred years ago. I think of it this way... all authors make accomodations to the audience they're writing for. Most fantasy is based around the middle ages... but we don't expect to have to learn old english before we can read them. If the character is vulgar and would have sworn in a given situation... then I don't have a problem with using a modern approximation to the word the character would have used (in whatever language he/she speaks). Of course that makes the book at least PG-13 (R in the case of Martin) to me, and I treat it as adult materials.

In french, fantasy is not a term we use to refer to books. Medieval, magic supernatural are classified as Science Fiction.

Imo, it's GRRM's world, and if he wishes to use such language as "normal" in the world - why shouldn't he? Just because its "modern slang" in ours, it doesn't mean that the same words and meanings never developed in his. *shrugs*