Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I really started to like the Khal and was sad the way the plot line ended. I felt Daenerys had finally started coming into herself and their relationship. I thought they truly loved each other by that point. I was surprised how it ended so quickly.

They kill off main characters mercilessly. This is not the usual trope, in which main characters dodge every bullet, somehow. This series of books/movies breaks a lot of molds.

I have only read the first book, and was shocked! You are right this breaks the molds for sure, I wasn't expecting it at all. At first I didn't like him but he grew on me. I am starting the 2nd book today and very excited to see what happens now.

I was a bit sad because as you said, I thought Dany was starting to be really happy with Drogo and that they would have been a good mixture for the future of the series.

But, on the other hand, Drogo was an idiot, and well, ya can't fix stupid. All he had to do was follow instructions and he probably would have been fine.

I was surprised he died, although if he didn't die, there wouldn't have been a funeral pyre and the dragons wouldnt of hatched!

I disagree that the Drogo is less likable in the book. I actually found him much more likable in the book. The scene of they're wedding night especially. In the book i found it almost brutal the way he treats her. In the book I thought he seemed much more understanding. I also think I started to see Dany's love for him more quickly in the book. She starts to care for him fairly quickly. In the show I thought it seemed initially like she was just trying to please him to make things easier on herself. I didn't feel like she really started to care for him until right before he gets killed off.

I was sad to see him go as well. I liked his character, but I think it's useful as we see Dany develop and become a much stronger leader after his death. So although I was sad when he was killed off, the result of his death goes into making Dany one of the most bad ass female characters which I love.

Well, although he was a likable character in the book, for some reason he never really grew on me... I was not sad nor happy to see him go... for me he was not really an unmissalbe person... nor a protagonist.

Well, it was sad but I understand that his death was necessary.

Not really. I mean, sure, he was an interesting character, but we didn't spend enough time with him for me to actually care much about his fate.
Plus, it's not like his death was unexpected. The head of the greatest Dothraki horde commits to conquer the Seven Kingdoms for Daenerys' sake and sit her and their unborn child on the Iron Throne? I mean, Dany getting her rightful throne back is one of the main storylines, so that was obviously too good to be true.
Killing him off was a great move, in my opinion. It shifted the balance of the story and allowed Daenerys to grow and finally choose her own path.
So, yeah, we lose a cool character, but we get an infinitely more interesting Dany and three freaking dragons in return. Overall, I'd say I'm pretty happy he died...

Think it this way, if Drogo never died the dragons would have never hatched. So as far as Daenerys is considered she lost Drogo and got him back in the form of Drogon(The black dragon).
The chances of her sitting on Iron Throne is much higher with Dragons than Khal Drogo. Drogo was a brave man, never defeated.. but he was scared of the sea. He might not even have survived the sea travel..

Honestly, in this forum I can admit, I was a little disappointed that Drogo was killed so early in the series. But, I suspected that some great tragedy had to happen for Daenerys' character to gain more strength and personal power in the plot. I just would have liked to see him go in a more heroic way.

But, its a great move for the series in my opinion. This is a mold-breaker--there's no formulaic fiction writing going on here. No character's safe. Look at how Eddard ended up. So... the 'Games' are definately afoot!

SHEESH! I was def. surprised about Eddard! I am scared about the characters I like. I am only in book 2 and already I realize this author is VERY different about the characters. Just knowing that any of them could be gone at anytime makes me want to keep reading.

Hell yeah! I think the death of Khal Drogo and Eddard Stark will go down in the saddest most shoking deaths in literature. Were they pointless? One could argue yes but at the end of the day it gave me the same shock and sadness that I felt when reading Sirius' death in Order of the Phoenix.

Hell yeah! I think the death of Khal Drogo and Eddard Stark will go down in the saddest most shoking deaths in literature. Were they pointless? One could argue yes but at the end of the day it gave me the same shock and sadness that I felt when reading Sirius' death in Order of the Phoenix.

At least Hawaii's own Jason Momoa got to return as Drogo in the House of the Undying on the show; Drogo didn't come back in the book. Any Hawaiians out there?

Brittany wrote: "Hell yeah! I think the death of Khal Drogo and Eddard Stark will go down in the saddest most shoking deaths in literature. Were they pointless? One could argue yes but at the end of the day it gave..."


smh

What does smh mean?

George R.R. Martin and Stephen King write under the philosophy that no one is invulnerable. That's what makes them so appealing. The "Dance of Ice and Fire" series is fantasy for people who don't like fantasy.

Maybe shaking my head???

Phebe wrote: "They kill off main characters mercilessly. This is not the usual trope, in which main characters dodge every bullet, somehow. This series of books/movies breaks a lot of molds."

Sad thing is that it makes it's own mold and follow it. So far I've been able to tell who would get killed or in some other way have their ass handed to them.

libellule wrote: "As for the original question. I felt no sadness about Drogo. Daenerys admires him, and we see him through her eyes, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a terrible person, who among other things condones slavery, violence, mass murder and rape.
"

By your description, every single character in ASOIAF series is a terrible person.

libellule wrote: I'm pretty sure most of the deaths of notable characters happen at times when it's convenient to the plot, or when the continued existence of a character would be tedious...
"

Yes but as I see it he kills characters when thier survival would amount to a story about a hero and he doesn't want that. So they either have to die, fail miserably, or be "corrupted" as in Aria and mabey Tyrion. If he follows this line Daenerys will either die, fail or become the worst tyrant ever.

It annoys me to that killing off characters is seen as a mark of good fiction. It is not. Beeing unconvetional in a very convetion bound genre is refreshing. But when his own conventions are showing it becomes annoying.

I love ASOIAF and am thinking of getting into The Wheel of Time, but I'm intimidated-14 books each at least 800 pages? Any thoughts?

I just started Weel of Time, and to me it looks like it's gonna take me a long time to get trough the first one alone... :) so good luck

I didn`t really mind as much and he wasn`t really a main character in my mind so I don`t really care too much. Although George does break boundaries because he did kill one of the main characters in the very end of the book.

I was sad because they were one of the few characters who had a good relationship. Granted their marriage started off on the wrong foot (well the right foot in the book but then jumped onto a wrong foot) Dani grew into her own and became the strong warrior while married to him. She learned to lead through loyalty, to destroy through fierce savagery but to inspire tolerance and to reward fealty with trust and treachery with death. She loved Drogo, and he had grown to respect and love her. That's pretty damned rare in the GOT universe.

I was totally sad about Drogo! I loved that guy! I loved Ned Stark too! But I respect the story line of Dany, she really came into her own, and her husband's death was necessary... maybe.

I felt more sorry for Dany's loss, but not too sorry for Drogo, because lets face it, he's bonkin her when shes 14 and that's just wrong.

This book is very good at making you feel sorry for monsters, but you have to remind yourself of the unforgivable acts they have committed.

Ryan.m wrote: "I felt more sorry for Dany's loss, but not too sorry for Drogo, because lets face it, he's bonkin her when shes 14 and that's just wrong.

This book is very good at making you feel sorry for monste..."

Well, true he is 'bonkin' her when she is only 14, BUT, people seem to forget... this is the MIDDLE AGES! Things were quite a bit different then. You just can't compare it to modern times. Most 'marriages' were arranged for power purposes, girls had no say in anything.

I hate to sound negative about Drogo, but he got what was coming to him. His people had a history of raping and killing. I guess his death accompanied his lifestyle.

libellule wrote: "Christine wrote: "Well, true he is 'bonkin' her when she is only 14, BUT, people seem to forget... this is the MIDDLE AGES! Things were quite a bit different then. You just can't compare it to mode..."

Agreed! I've gotten into it with a professor about how this isn't set in the past... the past never had Westeros, the wall or dragons. It's set in imaginationland and in there we can set the rules. This is why I had to stop reading the books. They are nothing more than poorly written rape stories with dragons thrown in. I grew up reading fantasy and always believed that the mark of great sci-fan was the author's ability to make a reader want to engage in this world. As a woman, I can't see how I'm supposed to want to engage in this world since my only role is under the subjugation of men... and don't point out Dany's "strength and power" she has three MALE dragons backing her up. Before them it was Ser Jorah, before him it was Drogo, before him it was her patriarchally driven family. Martin deliberately wrote my half of the species a big "fuck you" with these books.

although this is a made up era in a made up place, still most fantasy storys are based on the Middle Ages, or even before that. I don't say Martin isn't demeaning towards women, I'm just saying that this was how people used to live in the real world too. And frankly, with what I see every day in the newspaper, we're getting pretty damn close to that way of living again, don't you think?

Michael wrote: "although this is a made up era in a made up place, still most fantasy storys are based on the Middle Ages, or even before that. I don't say Martin isn't demeaning towards women, I'm just saying tha..."

Doesn't mean I have to like and support it through buying books that celebrate it.

I didn't say that, just wanted to point out that somewhere deep down, the man just depicts what it was like.

Michael wrote: "I didn't say that, just wanted to point out that somewhere deep down, the man just depicts what it was like."

I get what you're arguing, honestly I do. And I loved these books when I read them all in one go last year (I found out about the series really late in the game). But then I was able to sit and think about them and I realized that he's playing both ends of the knife. Yeah, rape and brutality was part of the medieval world (let's all be honest, it's part of this world but at least now it's illegal and almost punishable by law!) but he's also got dragons flying around and magic! Which, lest I'm crazy, is NOT part of the medieval world... because it's not real. So if these books take place in imagination land, and not the past (because there are NO dragons in the past) why does he have to play with the "let's just brutalize women" literary technique. Trust me, if the role was reversed you'd be crabbing about it too.

I don't really agree with that... every great story has a foundation of truth in it. And let's be honest, the way of living is that foundation. Of course dragons don't excist, and magic either. But that doesn't take away that he stays true to a "Medieval" theme so you want. I mean, there's no cell phones or computers popping up all of a sudden, so he can't really take today's way of living and transform it to his story...
I really get where you're comming from however...

If his death made you sad, then don't read the rest of the series. Especially not book 3. Yeesh.

Jennifer wrote: "I have only read the first book, and was shocked! You are right this breaks the molds for sure, I wasn't expecting it at all. At first I didn't like him but he grew on me. I am starting the 2nd boo..."

Wait until you get to book 3. Yeesh, and you thought HIS death was sad?

Well, that part is based upon the travelling hordes of Genghis Khan. Although it may be a little bit overely described. However, even today 14 year old girls (and younger) are forced to marry men they don't love nor know. But very few people give a rat's ass about them. Basicly it's the same...although I must admid the killing isn't involved, but raping and hitting the more...
I'm not defending nor attacking anyone here, just stating what is...

You have to remember that although she's very young, has already been trough a lot. I think because of that, her coping mechanism is extremly well trained. Although she's worried, she won't ever show it. Not in a small part out of fear for dissapointing her brother (who at that point is still near).

I think her fear of the Dothrakki is far less than the fear she bears for her brother (remember "don't wake the dragon")

I don't disagree there! I never really liked any chapter about Dany... and in that you're right, it's like her chapters have been written in a hurry... Maybe George was glad every time to finish her chapters, who knows...

I loved Drogo, I was very sad when he died. However, I have now learned the most valuable lesson of all: Never allow yourself to become attached to Martin's characters. . . it will only end in heartbreak. It took the Red Wedding for this to really sink in. Too bad I am still madly in love with a handful of his characters. . . I better restock on tissues before Winds of Winter comes out. ;)

°Õ°ù¾±²õ³óé wrote: "I disagree that the Drogo is less likable in the book. I actually found him much more likable in the book. The scene of they're wedding night especially. In the book i found it almost brutal the wa..."

ALMOST brutal? It was rape! Yes in the book he is more "rounded" individual, with a more developed nice side. His love of Daenerys is more of a love of equals - or near-equals - than the series which seems a bit more love for the pretty child-bride though they do start to build a more honest relationship. Then he dies.

Amber wrote that he was stupid, "should have followed instructions" - I always thought Mirri Maz Duur probably poisoned him on purpose.

Oh and i was mostly sad for Daenerys's sake, not so much because I love Drogo. But I was sad nevertheless.

Michael wrote: "You have to remember that although she's very young, has already been trough a lot. I think because of that, her coping mechanism is extremly well trained. Although she's worried, she won't ever sh..."

From what I've read of Genghis Khan (BTW - did you know that Genghis was an insult? fun fact) was a prolific rapist. I get a little annoyed when people call him a conquerer, that's like calling Hitler a politician. (for those of you ready to make the argument that Hitler was a politician, please stay out of this conversation.)
I've never had a problem with an author acknowledging that rape is part of our shared cultural past. Rape, murder and theft are all realities of our past, and of our present. Sadly, they seem to be part of our future as well. What I would like to see in a book is world that operates without it. And I've read plenty of books that do. I'm just as much of a sci-fan geek as any man I've ever met (and frankly more so) but I have to tolerate worlds that marginalize me, degrade me and would sell me as property. Yeah, that was the past, and I live in 2013 where I have two masters degrees and handle a gun better than my two brothers. So why is it when I pick up one of the ASOIAF books I think "damn I wish I was a white guy".

I want rape removed from literature like this because it isn't being used to teach or illustrate a point. There's no way you think this rape is like Toni Morrison's _The Bluest Eye_. This is just gratuitous use of sex to appeal to the lowest in the reader. It's a gore fest.

It's actually very insulting to men as well. These books say to men "you are an animal with no soul who enjoys raping and degrading women, and if you're not that, well then you're a guy who has no real problem with it when other guys do."

That's why I thought the absolute saddest part of the books was Arya's last conversation with her father. She asked him what she would do when she was grown up, and he said that she will marry a lord and help him run HIS barony. She just looked at her dad, like it was the first time she had ever really seen him and just said "that' not me, that's Sansa." That's rough, she finally saw that her father (because of the culture he lived in) couldn't/wouldn't see her for the person she was only as the marketable item that he needed her to be.

I'm being hard on the books, they are books after all. But we take our cues and social mores from literature and media. (not sure that's good) Books help us to be better people, I don't see that Martin is building towards something. (not that it is his responsibility to do so... his end game might have just been sh!t loads of cash)

PS - completely apologize for the size of that last post! Holy Cow, I'm verbose!

Well, what you say is true, if you look at the book as if it "means" anything (don't quite know if you know what I mean). However, I think most adult readers will see it's just a story. I'm no catholic (and I appologize in advance for it) but the Bible works the same no? Or are we really expected to believe all those things really happened?

I guess indeed you could say that it is demeaning towards men too... although I'm not quite sure whether a lot of men will notice... thanks for pointing out that one Annemarie.

No need to apologize for the big post, I'm really enjoying this conversation.

ps. thnx for the fun fact about Khan.: :)

I have a very high respect for men and believe that they would see this type of lit as offensive them if we lived in a culture that talked a little more openly about rape.

Don't apologize for not being Catholic, it's not your fault you're not, no one's perfect! (NO, JK!) My family's actually Catholic (never appealed to me, getting up early on Sundays...ugh) but there was never the expectation to accept the bible literally. Just to see it as a series of anecdotes that, when read, should give us a collection of social norms that we then codified into laws. Granted I actually believe that it worked in the opposite direction, there were already in-place social mores and religious texts simply wrote them into their narrative. But that's outside the point.

If the first direction is true: Books give us social mores then this book is appealing to our lowest nature. That we are all opportunistic animals that have no real loyalty to each other and only look out for our own interests. The book says that this is okay as the bad characters are flourishing (Cersei's back on top!, and before anyone uses her as an example of female power, then I'll just say "get thee to grade school" agency is not power).

If it's the other way, that books simply adopt our current social norms then I'm afraid to leave home! Well, actually, as I typed that I realized that human trafficking, sexual violence, slavery are all part of our world. I'm lucky in that I live in America, in New England and I've had the family and community's support to get a good education and be a success (public school teacher...so sort of success). But all over the world there are people who have nothing like that. Actually that was ignorant of me, people in THIS country don't have those chances.

I dunno know what I want from Martin. I guess I just want to see him create a world where people just kill and plot and scheme and work for their interests but sex is never a threat. A woman isn't a battlefield, a man isn't a weapon, we're all just a human.

Well, indeed I think that books mostly adopt our current social status. It's not because we live in civelized countrys,that everybody does. Most of the 3rd world countries don't get the chances that we get. And don't have the cultural norms and vallues we have.
And I'm affraid that these vallues we speak so high of, will vannish te longer a crisis holds...

I don't think a world where killing, plotting and scheming are the norm, wouldn't have any rapes going on either... it's a way for both a man and a woman to feel "superior". (and don't give me the "women can't rape"-part, cause they sure as hell can)

It's just part of the game so to speak... and with that I don't want to say I condone it... far from that... but you find this theme everywhere, from fiction in books and on tv/film, till our news-broadcasts, practically every day...

Martin... he has created a twisted kind of writing style, that no one really condones, but loves to explore further...

Sounds good, Michael. I get where you're coming from, and this has been a good conversation. You're certainly correct about people in developing nations not getting the chances that people in post-industrialized nations do and I hope that I had made that part of my point.

I would never say that women can't rape. Anyone can rape, and anyone can be a victim of rape or sexual abuse. But you do have to admit that rape is much more common when it is a male predator on a female victim. I'm not arguing that rape is a male crime, I arguing that culture hasn't worked to help education both halves of the species that rape is not an acceptable form of aggression. There are many forms of acceptable aggression, competitiveness, ambition, even fighting and war (when absolutely necessary) but rape and sexual violence, never.

I just worry that by continuing to make rape part of the entertainment culture of this country we are, in a way, condoning it. Not to say that Martin should stop the book and have a disclaimer, "rape is wrong" but why include it. Why not just have Vargo Hoat beat Brienne up, why try to rape her? What would that accomplish? Why have scene after scene of Jayne Poole's obviously destroyed body slowing revealing a destroyed psyche? I get that the men doing these are the obvious villains, but it's only working to show that women are nothing more than victims or pawns.

I've read a lot of books where men and women are put in dire situations, and no one stops and says "hey, we should rape the girls". Because they were a little worried about the orcs. :)