Some of the eldest characters in the series. Time to do a bit of generational look at the extreme geriatrics in GOT/ASOIAF, that just won't die yet, but should have long ago.

Be careful, for the Thread is Dark and Full of Spoilers:

175

Brynden "Bloodraven" "Three-eyed Raven" Rivers

By my counts he'd work out to be a Late Prophet and apparently FINALLY doing what he's supposed to be doing according to the generational cycle: training a Civic (Bran Stark) to take his place as the "Last Greenseer". Why is it lately that when Prophets get invoked, it's never the most recent examples of Prophets inspiring the Civics, but the last surviving remnants of the previous Prophets, eh?

198

Maester Aemon Targaryeon

By my counts he'd work out to be a Late Nomad, if not a Nomad/Civic cusper. He's the blind old Maester at the Wall who's full of sage advice and helps guide Jon Snow on his path to becoming the Lord Commander. The piece of advice he's most famous for giving "Kill the boy, and let the man be born."

208

Lord Walder Frey

By my counts he'd work out to be an Early Civic, if not a Nomad/Civic cusper. But in terms of personality and philosophy, he's pure non-distilled Nomad archetype. Has no problems with throwing out the rules when getting vengeance (Red Wedding). He's the first to break the sacred guest right in the War of the Five Kings. But then again, I know a few early Nomads (POC67) who would use that argument to point out that that makes him a "Dark Civic" (as Early Nomads would argue that Nomads never fought dirty, that they had unspoken code of ethics and honorable conduct--my argument usually goes: Late Nomads are Nomads too). Personally the old curmudgeon comes off much more "Nomad" than "Civic" to me--but I can compromise by saying "Nomad/Civic" cusper, in which case he takes the worst traits from each archetype and blends them together.

216

Grand Maester Pycelle

This guy is most obviously a Civic character, though the TV show has an Artist archetype I believe portraying him. He's got tunnel vision on his duty to House Lannister, though he should have given up House loyalties when he became a Maester. Video clip which displays Pycelle's character nicely, below:

~Chas'88

Last edited by Chas'88; 04-16-2014 at 12:13 AM.

"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."

I just watched Alien 3 at my parent's house, for the first time in well over a decade, and I was stunned to see a young Lord Tywin (Charles Dance) nailing Ripley. Stunned I say.

Last edited by JordanGoodspeed; 04-15-2014 at 11:40 PM.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

And as for why I like GOT/ASOIAF... I like all the historical jokes it makes and winks to Shakespearean History plays that come out of it. Like the latest chapter released on GRRM's website contains one gigantic parody of Richard III within it.

I like Shakespearean history plays and the winks GRRM makes to actual history (and believe it or not he's tamer than the actual history in a lot of cases--much tamer--imagine our own ancestors were WORSE than the people portrayed on GOT Bad Dog... much worse in a lot of cases). I generally like a Medieval/Fantasy setting. So when those two things collide, melikes--even if it'll end in Gotterdamrung.

All true. I simply don't like this particular work. Good that you enjoy it.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

snip

OK, so Charles Dance and a lot of the RSC/RADA staples are getting paychecks. Good; it keeps them alive until they do something I like.

Radiation from Enterprise has died down to a level that a new Trek TV series should be possible before 2020. Not to mention lots of guest shots on Downton Abbey and Sherlock. Charles Dance as guest villain seems a lock.

A good clip from the current season of GOT which displays a good archetypal interaction between an elder Artist archetype (Ser Barristan Selmy) and a younger Civic archetype (Daenerys Targaryeon).

Just some set up so the scene is fully understood. Daenerys has been going around from city to city freeing all the slaves and gathering an army so she can later go and take back Westeros. Freeing all the slaves causes the cities nearby who depend on the slave trade to team up and attack her. She responds by riding out to face them. This particular city decided that along her way she should have for every mile marker a dead slave to greet her pointing in the direction of the city.

Now that Daenerys has taken the city she has a small confrontation of ideals with Ser Barristan over how to respond to a city that's fallen to its knees to her.

~Chas'88

"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."

WW 2, the Allies liberate the camps, and force the locals to march through them after they claim not to know what was going on. BTW, which generation was Ike? Not a civic.

Lost, I believe.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

WW 2, the Allies liberate the camps, and force the locals to march through them after they claim not to know what was going on. BTW, which generation was Ike? Not a civic.

And here I thought you were "done" with this thread, as per your earlier statements?

There's forcing the people who claim to not have known what they were ignoring to walk through the camp (that's just putting your money where your mouth is--you didn't know, well now we're sure that you do know)--and then there's forcing them to undergo and experience the exact same thing--pound of flesh for pound of flesh. Two different things IMO. Similar, I will admit, but two different things nonetheless. And the subtle difference between them is important IMO.

One is a pragmatic solution, the other is taking things to an extreme too far that ignores pragmatism in favor of Old Testament sense of justice--hence the Merchant of Venice paraphrased quote. Nomads, say whatever else you want, recognize that demanding a pound of flesh for a pound of flesh isn't practical. It is however a perfect example of an unreflective & overbold statement--two negative qualities of Civics.

Also was it Ike himself giving that specific command? Pure curiosity on this question.

~Chas'88

"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."

Nomad Solutions

The Rebellion Generation (261 - 278 AL)

This clip shows example of different Nomad archetype's reasonings behind their answers to problems that appear. (the year of this scene is 298--End of the Unraveling)

Ned Stark (b. 263) - "Honor"
Robert Baratheon (b. 263) - "Fear & Blood"
Varys (b. 26?) - "Do vile things for the Good of the Realm"
Petyr Baelish (b. 268) - "Deal with it now before it becomes a bigger problem later"
Renly Baratheon (b. 278) - "Long overdue"

One example of an elderly Civic:

Pycelle (b. 216) - "The lives of the Many outweigh the lives of the Few"

The characters they're talking about that are absent:

Jorah Mormont (b. 258) - Idealist/Nomad "Joneser" cusper
Daenerys (b. 283) - Young Civic

Last edited by Chas'88; 05-21-2014 at 04:34 PM.

"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."

Civic Solutions

The Long Summer Generation (279 - ~295 AL)

This clip shows a young Civic attempting to come to grasp with the issues of ruling.

Daenerys (b. 283 AL)

"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."

Idealist-Civic Relations

The Mad Generation (240 - 259) Idealist -- named because members of their cohorts either are labeled as such or become so

The Long Summer Generation (279 - ~295) Civic

This scene shows how Idealists view/wish their own relationships with Civics are like.

Tywin Lannister (b. 241)

Cersei Lannister Baratheon (b. 266)

Tommen Baratheon (b. 291)

"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."

Originally Posted by Chas'88

~Chas'88

General Veers needs his Imperial Walker back. Just to make Charles dance.

Time for a few Nomad/Civic interactions on this show. This type of interaction:

Younger Hero: "I want to do something, change things!"

Older Nomad: "Now hold on a minute, stop and think before acting for just one second. I've seen a lot of shit, and because of that I know that shit ain't changing just because you want it. Wise up kid, and know your place before you get yourself hurt."

OR

Older Nomad: "I've seen shit and I'm going to make you go through just as much shit as I have for thinking you can be any different."

-----

Benjen Stark (born sometime between. 268 - 273 AL) & Jon Snow (b. 283 AL)

Maester Aemon (born 198 AL) & Jon Snow (b. 283 AL) --though the show ages Maester Aemon down a few decades

Sandor Clegane (b. 271 AL) & Sansa Stark (b. 286 AL)

Cersei Lannister (b. 266 AL) & Sansa Stark (b. 286 AL)

Jaime Lannister (b. 266 AL) & Brienne of Tarth (b. 280 AL)--though the show ages her up to be a peer of Jaime's

Tyrion Lannister (b. 274 AL) & Podrick Payne (b. 289 AL)--though the show ages Pod up about a decade

Sandor Clegane (b. 271 AL) & Arya Stark (b. 289 AL)

~Chas'88

Last edited by Chas'88; 06-30-2014 at 04:34 PM.

"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."

Hey Chas.

Thanks for the analysis. I'll have to check all this out when I get a chance.
(I'll let you know if I have any questions or comments).

Anyway, it's a pretty cool show, IMO; Well-produced for the most part.

Prince

PS: I stopped following the book's story line, so I won't be waiting for certain stuff to happen.

Last edited by princeofcats67; 07-01-2014 at 05:21 PM. Reason: Punctuation. Egad!

I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."

Originally Posted by Chas'88

...

Lord Walder Frey

By my counts he'd work out to be an Early Civic, if not a Nomad/Civic cusper. But in terms of personality and philosophy, he's pure non-distilled Nomad archetype. Has no problems with throwing out the rules when getting vengeance (Red Wedding). He's the first to break the sacred guest right in the War of the Five Kings. But then again, I know a few early Nomads (POC67) who would use that argument to point out that that makes him a "Dark Civic" (as Early Nomads would argue that Nomads never fought dirty, that they had unspoken code of ethics and honorable conduct--my argument usually goes: Late Nomads are Nomads too). Personally the old curmudgeon comes off much more "Nomad" than "Civic" to me--but I can compromise by saying "Nomad/Civic" cusper, in which case he takes the worst traits from each archetype and blends them together.

...

~Chas'88

Hey, Chas.

Question: Would a Nomad allow his wife to be killed(and respond so 'non-chalantly')?

Prince

PS: So, do you have any favorite/least-favorite characters/storylines?

I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Hey, Chas.

Question: Would a Nomad allow his wife to be killed(and respond so 'non-chalantly')?

If he views them solely as brood mares and not people... But again, he works out to be an early Civic or Nomad/Civic cusper if you do the math so, meh...

PS: So, do you have any favorite/least-favorite characters/storylines?

I generally find there's something for everyone in these stories. While I like the TV show version of Danaerys (for the large part)--the book version becomes irritating at times.

In general most of the chapters set in Essos have me losing interest real quick as I don't really care about Essos on the whole. The exception to this of course is the Free City of Braavos--but the rest of Essos IMO can just fall off a map somewhere and die as far as I'm invested in it.

I don't really care for the Ironborn characters that much at all. I like Davos, but I think he should've attached his ships elsewhere than Stannis.

I don't really care for the Targs or their dragons outside of Danaerys & Master Aemon. All the rest of the Targs... meh...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First and foremost I like the North & Northern/First Men culture (not to mention the Wildlings), then I like Dorne & Dornish culture (especially the contrast between the Rhoynish Salty Dornish and the Andal/First Men Stone Dornish--that this show has not explored at all! I need me some House Dayne! *bangs fist*), then I like the Vale & its cultural conflict between First Men & Andal culture. Outside of those three places & cultures, I then like individual characters from the rest of Westeros: Edmure Tully in his medieval hot-headed frat boy version of LBJ-ness is a fun character--too bad the show didn't do him too much justice. Brynden Tully is great as well, because he's simply great and fucking awesome in his bad-assery. Olenna Tyrell is a hoot and I'd enjoy having a conversation with her--though I'm not so sure she'd say the same of me. Tyrion & Bronn are fun together, but not so much as individuals---not a fan of how the show white-washes Tyrion though. Brienne and her road trip is entertaining at times. Jaime I like but I'm trying hard not to get too attached to him.

I find the Seven & the Faith boring and vanilla bland--as with most Andal culture outside of the Vale and Dorne. Andal culture where its hegemonic is quite boring. The Westerlands contains hints of being interesting in a prior time (with a suggested North/South split culturally between Andal & First men cultures--with Houses Reyne & Westerling having First Men origins). The Riverlands only gets interesting when the Brackens and Blackwoods show up and again tease that Andal vs First Men feud (even though both houses are First Men in origin originally--they just like feuding that much that one of them adopted Andal culture just to spite the other). But yeah, where Andal culture is hegemonic? BOR--RING. The Reach? I'll only visit there if I can chat with Olenna Tyrell. The Stormlands? Mehh... The Crownlands? ZZZzzzzz ZZZzzzzzzz ZZZZZzzzzzzz

Last edited by Chas'88; 07-04-2014 at 03:31 PM.

"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."

Originally Posted by Chas'88

If he views them solely as brood mares and not people... But again, he works out to be an early Civic or Nomad/Civic cusper if you do the math so, meh...

Chas, just for the record, my question had no implication i/r/t your analysis; I do hope it's
clear between us that I hold your opinion i/r/t generational theory in the highest esteem.

Anyway, what you said definitely makes sense i/r/t GOT considering
that Petyr Baelish was married to Lysa Arryn(at least technically).

I was just interested in looking at the Nomad/Civic-Cusp i/r/t Nomad vs. Civic tendencies.

Originally Posted by Chas

I generally find there's something for everyone in these stories. While I like the TV show version of Danaerys (for the large part)--the book version becomes irritating at times.

Well, I guess at least she's learning some things(eg: locking-up the dragons).
It'll still be necessary for her to learn that Justice is subjective(IMO)
and, without some serious introspection, can easily become Revenge.

Originally Posted by Chas

In general most of the chapters set in Essos have me losing interest real quick as I don't really care about Essos on the whole. The exception to this of course is the Free City of Braavos--but the rest of Essos IMO can just fall off a map somewhere and die as far as I'm invested in it.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Chas

I don't really care for the Ironborn characters that much at all.

Me neither. Plus, the Boltons are just plain creepy.

Originally Posted by Chas

I like Davos, but I think he should've attached his ships elsewhere than Stannis.

I don't really care for the Targs or their dragons outside of Danaerys & Master Aemon. All the rest of the Targs... meh...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Chas

... I need me some House Dayne! *bangs fist*) ...

LOL!

Originally Posted by Chas

Jaime I like but I'm trying hard not to get too attached to him.

I hear you, but it appears that he's learning to not make the wrong choices
(despite the occasional backslide!).

Originally Posted by Chas

I find the Seven & the Faith boring and vanilla bland--as with most Andal culture outside of the Vale and Dorne. Andal culture where its hegemonic is quite boring. The Westerlands contains hints of being interesting in a prior time (with a suggested North/South split culturally between Andal & First men cultures--with Houses Reyne & Westerling having First Men origins). The Riverlands only gets interesting when the Brackens and Blackwoods show up and again tease that Andal vs First Men feud (even though both houses are First Men in origin originally--they just like feuding that much that one of them adopted Andal culture just to spite the other). But yeah, where Andal culture is hegemonic? BOR--RING. The Reach? I'll only visit there if I can chat with Olenna Tyrell. The Stormlands? Mehh... The Crownlands? ZZZzzzzz ZZZzzzzzzz ZZZZZzzzzzzz

LOL!

I was really just focusing-on GOT(as opposed to ASOIAF),
but basically after Ned Stark got killed(*sigh*), I'm really
only interested-in Jaime, Jon Snow & Sam(& Gilly) and
The Night's Watch, and Arya. Oh, and Margaery Tyrell!

Prince

PS: What the hell ever happened to Gendry?

Last edited by princeofcats67; 07-07-2014 at 03:33 AM. Reason: Punctuation

I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I was just interested in looking at the Nomad/Civic-Cusp i/r/t Nomad vs. Civic tendencies.

Ahh, that sounds like it's worth a thread all its own!

Well, I guess at least she's learning some things(eg: locking-up the dragons).
It'll still be necessary for her to learn that Justice is subjective(IMO) and, without some serious introspection, can easily become Revenge.

See the tragic trilogy by Aeschylus: The Oresteia. For meditations on that theme.

But considering her house words are "Fire & Blood" I think that's one lesson she'll fail to learn.

I think the Ironic twist in her future to come is that she'll turn into the usurper role she supposedly despises in the end.

Me neither. Plus, the Boltons are just plain creepy.

The Boltons are the perfect Ironic foil to the Starks IMO, which makes sense thematically, as ASOIAF & GOT are works of Satire & Irony, not Romance.

I'm going to do an archetypal review of GOT/ASOIAF, where I compare the tropes that are "typical" and how GRRM either inverts them or plays with them, soon. I find that'll be easier to expand upon for the meat of the main books, because when you get down to it, time has moved so slowly in his novels that doing a generational analysis on the book series itself can be distilled to one post as they're in the early years of their crisis.

So expect me to start quoting that archetypal critic: Northrop Frye; yet again soon.

I hear you, but it appears that he's learning to not make the wrong choices
(despite the occasional backslide!).

It's usually when characters begin to show the beginning or close to earning redemption that they get axed by GRRM.

LOL!

I was really just focusing-on GOT(as opposed to ASOIAF),
but basically after Ned Stark got killed(*sigh*), I'm really
only interested-in Jaime, Jon Snow & Sam(& Gilly) and
The Night's Watch, and Arya. Oh, and Margaery Tyrell!

Prince

PS: What the hell ever happened to Gendry?

The honorable Nomad in you would love Ned Stark--it's why I love him too. He's the epitome of a Nomad who takes Honor to the X-treme.

Gendry has already fallen off the pages of the book, I kinda expect him to stay off at this point, though in the TV show they expanded his role by having him fulfill the role of two characters, one as Gendry Waters and the other as his half-brother Edric Storm. He's a blacksmith near that Inn (in the books he's a blacksmith for the Brotherhood without Banners, but considering they sold him out in the TV show, sending him back there would not make sense) last we saw of him. So if Edric Storm makes another appearance in the books, I expect that whatever Edric's future will be, so will Gendry's in the TV show.

Margaery in the TV show is much more interesting than the Margaery in the books, that much I'll say.

"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."

Originally Posted by Chas'88

See the tragic trilogy by Aeschylus: The Oresteia. For meditations on that theme.

Thanks for the heads-up. I haven't the time to read it yet, but
after briefly looking-over the synopsis, it looks pretty cool.
(especially the 3rd part)

Originally Posted by Chas

The honorable Nomad in you would love Ned Stark--it's why I love him too. He's the epitome of a Nomad who takes Honor to the X-treme.

FWIW, I find the "X-treme"-label to fit well for Late-X;
Not so much(if at all) for Early-X. Just an observation.

Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Chas

I'm going to do an archetypal review of GOT/ASOIAF, where I compare the tropes that are "typical" and how GRRM either inverts them or plays with them, soon. I find that'll be easier to expand upon for the meat of the main books, because when you get down to it, time has moved so slowly in his novels that doing a generational analysis on the book series itself can be distilled to one post as they're in the early years of their crisis.

So expect me to start quoting that archetypal critic: Northrop Frye; yet again soon.

Sounds good; I look forward to it.

I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."

An Archetypal Examination of A Song of Ice and Fire - Part One: Romance or Irony?

The following is the first in a string of essays designed to explore ASOIAF from an archetypal perspective in literary analysis. I will attempt reference the books in general here where I will be discussing the series in generalities and later I'll quote them specifically when getting into the more nitty gritty details.

Explanation of Methods & Background Knowledge to know before Continuing:

I will primarily be using Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye's book Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (published 1957), and be drawing most predominantly from the third essay (Theory of Myths) but also a little bit from his first essay (Theory of Modes) in this examination of ASOIAF.

In the early beginnings of the third essay, Frye spends an adsorbent amount of time comparing literature to painting and music in searching for equivalent terms in those art forms to archetype that's found in literature.

"In this book we are attempting to outline a few of the grammatical rudiments of literary expression, and the elements that correspond to such musical elements as tonality, simple and compound rhythm, canonical imitation, and the like. The aim is to give a rational account of some of the structural principles of Western literature in the context of its Classical and Christian heritage.

...

A famous letter of Cezanne speaks of the approximation of pictorial form to the sphere and the cube, and the practice of abstract painters seems to confirm his point. Geometrical shapes are analogous only to pictorial forms, not by any means identical with them; the real structural principles of painting are not to be derived from an external analogy with something else, but from the internal analogy of the art itself. The structural principles of literature, similarly, are to be derived from archetypal and anagogic criticism, the only kinds that assume a larger context of literature as a whole.

...

We saw in the first essay that, as the modes of fiction move from mythical to the low mimetic and ironic, they approach a point of extreme "realism" or representative likeness to life. It follows that the mythical mode, the stories about gods, in which characters have the greatest possible power of action, is the most abstract and conventionalized of all literary modes, just as the corresponding modes in other arts--religious Byzantine painting for example--show the highest degree of stylization in their structure. Hence the structural principles of literature are as closely related to mythology and comparative religion as those of painting are to geometry." (Frye, pp 133 - 134)

To further summarize the point Frye is coming from: he is taking literature to its most abstract and idealized points, back tracking to what he considers the base of storytelling in Western literature: Classical Mythology (primarily Grecco-Roman, but also Celtic, Middle-Eastern (Gilgamesh, Egyptian tales, etc.), and Norse as well tossed in from time to time as he had available to him in 1957) as well as the Christian Bible. That it's from these sources our archetypes formed and have been passed down to us through story telling as we've moved further and further away from their idealized mythological forms and into ever increasing realistic and ironic forms (and that that move from mythology to realism is the second time we've had that move--the first time was in Classical world as the stories went from that of Gods to the ironic plays of Plautus and Terrence, before Christianity came in to wash away the old Classical mythology and give us a new baseline--though it had to compete with Norse and Celtic mythologies in the fall of the Grecco-Roman civilization).

Having said that let's begin by stating that Northrop Frye loosely identifies four basic "myths" or plot narratives which he gathers from Classical Mythology and the Christian Bible that the rest of Western Literature can trace their "ancestry" back to one of these four categories. He labels these four myths as: Comedy, Romance, Tragedy, and Satire & Irony. Romance deals most distinctly with archetypes in their purest forms and their most innocent incarnations. Frye even goes into a tremendous deal of apocalyptic imagery (associations of Heaven or Christ's second coming and Plato's Ideal societies) which often gets attributed to Romance. To contrast this on the opposite side of the "wheel" is Satire & Irony which deals with "realism" and "experience" in its archetypal incarnations--with a tremendous deal of demonic imagery (associations of Hell or the catastrophes of the End times, and Hades) which is attributed to Satire & Irony. Rising up from Satire & Irony and slowly reaching back to Romance is Comedy as realism is slowly "dismissed" in favor of a happy ending. And Falling from Romance to a decline down to Satire & Irony is Tragedy as innocence and idealism is sacrificed and reality slowly sets in. He further applies the four parts of Aristotle's breakdown of plot to each mythos' unifying theme, stating that together all four mythos put together from end to end tell one narrative story:

"The four mythoi that we are dealing with, comedy, romance, tragedy, and irony, may now be seen as four aspects of a central unifying myth. Agon or conflict is the basis or archetypal theme of romance, the radical of romance being a sequence of marvelous adventures. Pathos or catastrophe, whether in triumph or in defeat, is the archetypal theme of tragedy. Sparagmos, or the sense that heroism and effective action are absent, disorganized or foredoomed to defeat, and that confusion and anarchy reign over the world, is the archetypal theme of irony and satire. Anagnorisis, or recognition of a newborn society rising in triumph around a still somewhat mysterious hero and his bride, is the archetypal theme of comedy." (Frye 192)

We start from the innocence in Romance, we fall as we have a Tragic catastrophic realization, we are left to wander the desolate wastelands of Satire & Irony, but having survived such a wasteland rise once again with the hope of a Comic happy ending.

How this applies to ASOIAF:

Having explored and loosely defined each of the four mythoi which Frye explores, I now come down to the question I have about ASOIAF, the answering of which will take up the rest of this first post:

Is it Romance or is it Satire & Irony?

At first glance the answer would seem obvious, right? The simplest answer would be to say that it's part of the "fantasy genre", therefore whatever fantasy belongs to. Therefore since ASOIAF belongs to whatever fantasy belongs to, right? As I'll discuss in a moment, falling back upon modern genres as a crutch isn't helpful when thinking of the mythoi which Frye speaks about, for modern genres are simply another name for works of fiction done in a specific "style" and can feature many different mythos (as the Science Fiction genre houses both Romance and Satire & Irony). Hence, fantasy is loosely defined in popular opinion as a style of fiction which has a roughly Medieval or Renaissance setting and centers around magic or the supernatural being the key focus of the genre, with one hero going on a perilous quest to slay a dragon or some other monster which threatens the kingdom, with Fantasy as a modern genre essentially stemming from J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings Series.

Given that definition of the fantasy genre, not even ASOIAF seems to fit in it, right? I mean, who do you mark out as the "one" hero of the story? Magic is hardly the center of the story, it exists on the periphery and has long since been considered nearly dead in their world. The only loose definitions that ASOIAF meet is that it has a roughly Medieval setting and that as a work of fiction it is influenced from Tolkien, but in a way that'll be important later on.

In truth, Tolkien's Middle Earth and the various other fantasy genre stories of its similar ilk do belong in the Romance mythos, as the world is still portrayed as innocent and that that innocence is worth preserving--at the cost of the innocence our Hero, Frodo, has.

Thus taking our Tolkien baseline for Fantasy, let us compare the genre of fantasy itself with the mythos of Romance:

"The romance is nearest of all literary forms to the wish-fulfillment dream, and for that reason it has socially a curiously paradoxical role. In every age the ruling social or intellectual class tends to project its ideals in some form of romance, where the virtuous heroes and beautiful heroines represent the ideals and the villains the threats to their ascendancy. This is the general character of chivalric romance in the Middle Ages, aristocratic romance in the Renaissance, bourgeois romance since the eighteenth century, and revolutionary romance in contemporary Russia.

...

[N]o matter how great a change may take place in society, romance will turn up again, as hungry as ever, looking for new hopes and desires to feed on. The perennially childlike quality of romance is marked by its extraordinarily persistent nostalgia, its search for some kind of imaginative golden age in time or space." (Frye 186)

This brief introduction to the basic feel of the romance mythos describes exactly what Tolkien was attempting to reach with his books, and what most of his followers in the Fantasy genre attempted to do after him. Tolkien himself, like most men born and raised in the Victorian world he grew up in, looked back at the Medieval time as a general "time of pre-industrial innocence" to paraphrase Terry Jones from his video series on "Medieval Lives". To the Victorians, the Medieval world was an innocent golden age before the rise of industry and capitalism ruined it all. Tolkien approaches his writing with this set of nostalgia goggles firmly in place (even though he was a latter-day member of the last generation to grow up with a Victorian world view), with his own specific lament that the English Anglo-Saxons were "frenchified" and never had a chance to have their own separate mythology. The Lord of the Rings thus was supposed to be an attempt to create a false mythology for the English to claim as their own--with him hoping for it to become a more collaborative effort once he had fundamentally sketched out the basic facts about the world. He still has that Victorian mindset about the Medieval Age being a "lost golden age" which he brings with him, he projects ideals which he usually associates with the "Englishness" of Anglo-Saxons (the Rohan of his books for example are jokingly referred to as "Anglo-Saxons with horses, his way to possibly create a people who would withstand the Norman French invasion). The focus of his stories revolves around the marvelous adventures of two hobbits--one for adventure, and the other to solve the conflict which threatens to destroy the world of Middle Earth itself. Added in his critique there's more Victorian holdovers of the semi-industrialized might of Sauron being thought of as "bad", "evil", and completely unambiguously as the threat to the ascendancy of the more pastorally associated ideal man, elves, and hobbits. In short, The Lord of the Rings and the fantasy genre it inspired in its wake I'd very easily classify as one modern expression of the mythos of Romance. Other modern expressions in genres you can find in the Action/Adventure, and some strains of the Space Opera/Science Fiction genres which I have little time here to explore in further detail beyond saying that Romance now exists in three different times: Fantasy (past), Action/Adventure (present day), and Space Opera/Science Fiction (future).

Given all of this, would I call ASOIAF a member of the Romance mythos, or even a member of the Fantasy genre? No, I wouldn't. To begin with, I would hardly call the ASOIAF an "innocent" world. Innocence is a negative trait and one which is quite literally and quickly beaten out of any character who possesses it. One only needs to read Sansa Stark's point of view chapters to see where being an "innocent" in the world of ASOIAF will get you. Of all the characters in this world, Sansa is the one with the most Romantic viewpoint--only to be rivaled by her younger brother Brandon in his first two chapters.

Secondly I would not call ASOIAF a member of the Romance as it frequently shows how characters do not achieve their wishes or dreams, or come to see them as rather harder and more difficult to manage than they first imagined. This arc is seen quite plainly in Jon Snow's POV in the first book as he sees the Night's Watch as some ideal order of a "band of brothers" all honorably serving together and defending the realm. In a story that was actually part of the Romance mythos, it would be. Instead we are treated to the Wall and the Night's Watch being a place where the unwanted and forgotten are sent to rot. The Night's Watch being filled with rapists, male prostitutes, thieves, and traitors. Throughout AGOT Jon wishes to become, like his Uncle Benjen, a ranger in the Night's Watch--eventually First Ranger, a line of duty he sees as the most honorable position due to it requiring prowess with a sword and fighting. Instead he becomes a steward--who has to serve the food and wash the dirty clothes of the Lord Commander--and he only leaves to go on a ranging when the Lord Commander of the Watch decides to lead a "Great Ranging" himself. While on that ranging, Jon is forced to go undercover and pretend he broke his vows to the Night's Watch in order to learn more about the plans the wildlings are hatching, where Jon learns that his wish and dream of being a ranger was hardly the ideal honorable profession he'd imagined it being. This same pattern can be seen in Sansa's character arc as she learns being the perfect bride to a golden prince is hardly all it was cracked up to be, and to smaller extents in other point of views, Jon and Sansa simply being the best and easiest examples of this part.

Is ASOIAF a nostalgic longing for a past golden age? I'd hardly say so. Instead, like most "palace intrigue" stories, it thrives on airing all the dirty laundry and scandal it can, often showing the mirror to our face of our ancestors own worst faces--compared to how Romance often likes to show us them on their "best" days (or at least how we'd like to imagine their "best" days were). One only needs mention things such as the Red Wedding, the Purple Wedding, as well as the violent and bloody depictions of human suffering which permeate across the pages of ASOIAF. No, ASOIAF is quite clear that it is very unhappy with the realities of the world it exists in, and we the reader seem ready to cheer on any infantile sign of slowly creeping modernity hiding on the fringes of that world--eager to see it spark and move the world closer to ours, which in contrast is seen as the better of the two worlds--or so we are made to feel.

No, ASOIAF is not a member of the Romance mythos, nor the fantasy genre which was inspired from that mythos as a particular stylized expression. Then, if ASOIAF is not Romance, is it Satire & Irony then?

Let us turn to Frye to seek the answer to this question:

"We come now to the mythical patterns of experience, the attempts to give form to the shifting ambiguities and complexities of unidealized existence.

...

As structure, the central principle of ironic myth is best approached as a parody of romance: the application of romantic mythical forms to a more realistic content which fits them in unexpected ways. No one in a romance, Don Quixote protests, ever asks who pays for the hero's accommodation." (Frye 225)

As such Satire & Irony are the "anti-Romance", whose form is shaped by whatever Romantic ideal it is parodying.

Frye continues to make a distinction between Satire & Irony by saying:

"The chief distinction between irony and satire is that satire is militant irony: its moral norms are relatively clear, and it assumes standards against which the grotesque and absurd are measured.

...

Irony is consistent both with complete realism of content and with the suppression of attitude on the part of the author. Satire demands at least a token fantasy, a content which the reader recognizes as grotesque, and at least an implicit moral standard, the latter being essential in a militant attitude to experience. Some phenomena, such as the ravages of disease, may be called grotesque, but to make fun of them would not be very effective satire. The satirist has to select his absurdities, and the act of selection is a moral one.

...

Irony with little satire is the non-heroic residue of tragedy, centering on a theme of puzzled defeat." (Frye 225 - 226)

Already we come much closer to finding ASOIAF's home than we did with Romance. While The Lord of the Rings may have inspired it partly, as author GRRM admits:

"This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple." (Rolling Stone article extracted quote found on the Tolkien Society website)

He even goes so far as to ask the very question Don Quixote says nobody asks in a Romance in Frye's quote above:

"Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?" (Rolling Stone article extract from above link)

What Martin asks of Tolkien, the fantasy genre, and the Romance mythos in general is: "why aren't you more like reality?" Realism such as what he asks, belongs more to the realm of Satire & Irony than it does the idealized innocence of Romance. And we see this theme repeated throughout his works as Martin employs history and realism to what he sees as a "grotesque" example: Fantasy.

"The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that." (Rolling Stone article extract from above link)

ASOIAF in this light isn't part of the Fantasy genre, it's a satire of it or the beginning of an anti-Fantasy genre. One must know the norms of Fantasy and Romance in order to interpret just what he is parodying (and in further parts of this essay we will look back to the archetypes and norms of Romance just to see how ASOIAF mocks, counters, or mirrors them), or what ironic reality he brings to light that most Fantasy novelists would gloss over (like Tolkien's unstated orc genocide he mentions) but never for an instant confuse ASOIAF for Fantasy or Romance, for it approaches it only to mock it.

End Part One.

Preview of Part Two: Who's the Hero?

"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."

Chas, you need to write a book about all this stuff, I'd gladly read it!

To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism

Hey, Chas.

I was wondering if you've been watching GOT Season 5.

Not bad, so far, IMO. Like I said before, I stopped reading the books
so I wouldn't be waiting for things to happen on the TV show, so if you
don't mind, please, no spoilers.

Anyway, after watching the first three episodes, it seems to me that
the show is really exploring the whole 'mercy vs. justice' theme.

Any thoughts on the season so far?

Prince

PS: At this point, I'm pretty much only interested in Arya and Jon Snow.
(Oh, and Margaery, of course! )

I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."

This season is almost nothing like the books. It seems like they're skipping 75% of the last 2 books and next season we will be in all new unpublished material. I can understand why. Books 4 and 5 focused heavily on characters that the show either never introduced, or barely had any screen time previously. If they did a faithful adaptation, the plots of the main characters would slow to a crawl as the already bloated list of simultaneous plots doubled. Still, that's bad news for GRRM who already is struggling to keep up with the pace of the show. I don't think there's any chance of him finishing the books before the show spoils his ending now.

'79 Xer, INTP

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Hey, Chas.

I was wondering if you've been watching GOT Season 5.

Not bad, so far, IMO. Like I said before, I stopped reading the books
so I wouldn't be waiting for things to happen on the TV show, so if you
don't mind, please, no spoilers.

They're cutting and pasting things from the two books at this point, giving a more minor character's plot to a major character, cutting other plots altogether as they involve characters they either didn't introduce at all. Which is fine, and I can understand that. What these two books largely do is show the after effects of the War of the Five Kings, and while it's great material to ponder and really philosophize and discuss: such as how the nobility have made the lives of the peasants miserable to the point that they start bringing ramifications that the rulers have to deal with. It's the classic scenario you find in Don Quixote, as I mentioned above, when the Innkeeper asks who's going to pay for Don Quixote's accommodations. I'll admit it's not going to push the plot forward too fast, and it's a much more ironic and realistic look at what it means to be a Medieval King that destroys the fantasy of wanting to sit upon the Iron Throne that the show has over-hyped. The show wants the story to be more Romantic, with small touches of irony and satire here and there, while the books, especially from this point forward really start diving into the more realistic and ironic and leave the fantasy of Romance behind.

They are also messing up a central theme that can be found in the books, especially IMO in the Dornish plotline that I'm seeing. The character that we've seen on the show argue about getting vengeance (Ellaria), actually was the character in the books who made a beautiful speech about how vengeance earns you nothing--which is the overall point of the vengeance plotlines in the story, that you're most often not going to get vengeance, and it's a fruitless pursuit when you do chase after it. Ellaria's speech about how vengeance earns you nothing was actually quite moving when I read it, and I'm sad to see it go in place of the "wronged woman" cliche that she's been turned into.

But that doesn't make for good TV apparently.

Anyway, after watching the first three episodes, it seems to me that
the show is really exploring the whole 'mercy vs. justice' theme.

A kindergarten version of the theme, but yeah. Sorry, but the mishandling of the theme is something they've done time and again and it irritates me for a reason I'll mention below.

Any thoughts on the season so far?

If you don't mind I'm going to talk about what's lost in adaptation thus far without looking ahead, so to speak.

I didn't expect the last two books to be perfectly adapted--and I did expect a lot to be cut--but I'd thought they wouldn't make the worst mistake an adapter could make in adaptation, which is to contradict the theme of a story in adaptation. If you can't stay close to the story or characters as written, then at least stay close to its theme and greater ideas. The large part of this season so far seems to be them trying to improve upon the last two books and failing miserably. A lot of the nuance is lost in favor of making blanket statements.

The Faith plot line in the books felt as though they were the voice of the smallfolk--who were sick and tired of the aristocracy's wars taking away their children either to fight and die (sons) or be raped by soldiers (daughters), burning their crops and fields, and generally making life for them miserable. That's why the Sparrow movement in the books became so popular, because the smallfolk were tired of being on the receiving end of the nobles' petty wars.

But the TV show goes out of its way to make all the noble characters super sympathetic rather than the much greyer characters they are in the books... which misses the larger point being made about how the Game of Thrones is pointless and petty.

Because we have to be apologetic to the ruling class I guess? When the books almost go out of their way to show that outside of the North and Dorne (which is because the nobles in each of those realms have cultural differences), the aristocrats suck when it comes to considering the smallfolk. So no... the Sparrow movement in the show seems to be just a bunch of radicals that crop up out of nowhere and beyond hosting a soup kitchen, seem to be more a stand in for conservative evangelicals and the "moral majority" in the minds of HBO producers apparently. This can only end badly. They also seem to be set up for HBO to make a passe commentary on contemporary real life situations that are out of place for the series and diminishes their inclusion in the show--well if what I predict is going to happen, happens (we weren't reminded of Loras' sexuality for a gratuitous naked scene for nothing IMO).

While I disagreed with the Sparrows' tactics, I did at least sympathize with the problems that concerned them. I thought they went about it all the wrong way, but I could at least understand how and why they did what they did, and I also thought they actually did give the smallfolk a voice.

But apparently not.

PS: At this point, I'm pretty much only interested in Arya and Jon Snow.
(Oh, and Margaery, of course! )

Arya gets interesting, you'll enjoy her plot line I think. I won't spoil anything, but she's one of the reasons to keep watching IMO.

Daenerys' story line so far seems to be sticking close to the theme, if not the details, so I'm excited to see that play out.

Not looking forward to the Sansa/Theon story line mash up that they're doing. Sansa's story line in the books doesn't involve her going North... a minor character does that instead, Sansa's best friend: Jeyne Poole. I actually think the exclusion of Jeyne Poole contributes more to the white washing we're seeing as well. In the books Jeyne Poole is Sansa's best friend and her constant shadow until the murder of the Stark household, after which Sansa makes mention of Jeyne being upset (and Sansa doesn't quite comprehend that Jeyne saw her father being killed in front of her) and Cersei then tasks Littlefinger with getting rid of Jeyne Poole so that Sansa isn't upset anymore. Jeyne Poole then disappears for an entire book, only to return at the end of Book 3 where she's obviously had some severe mental trauma as she's now convinced that she's Arya Stark. In Book 5 we realize just how bad the mental trauma goes and just what Littlefinger did to poor Jeyne. Jeyne had been sent to one of Littlefinger's brothels where she'd been forced to learn to be a prostitute quite unwillingly (I imagine the first time would have been considered rape), until the crown needed an "Arya Stark" to send north to Winterfell for Ramsay to marry.

Losing Jeyne's storyline though, sure makes Littlefinger seem all so nice and squeaky clean and fatherly though, doesn't he? :rollseyes: And it would have brought a downer to all those sexy scenes HBO likes to toss out, because they can't show prostitution in a negative light, now can they? :rollseyes:

I get the idea that if you have a character whom the audience is more invested in and one who they aren't that you go for the one that they're invested in (though I don't know a lot of people who watch the show for Sansa), but I think cutting Jeyne really loses a sense of just how even the guys saying that they want to "overthrow the system" are just as bad, if not worse than the ones who perpetuate the aristocratic system itself.

So what you're losing is a lot of the moral and philosophical commentary which I think is what sets the series apart from your typical fantasy fare, but that's my ax to grind...

Sorry, but you wanted to know my opinions.

"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."

Okay, it took me forever, and I finally got done with book 5, and I've gotta say I'm a tad disappointed. Everyone said "oh, just as soon as you like a character, they turn up dead." Not true at all. It's actually "by the time I like a character, then hate them again because they bore me near to death, they might die."

Of all the characters in the story, you've got 3 that are really interesting: Jon, Tyrion, and Davos. And of those, two are stuck interacting with some terribly boring people, namely Stannis and the Red Lady. At least with Tyrion, insufferable characters are likely to die.