Well! I actually finished reading 'A Game of Thrones' a few days ago. I wanted to have a chance to think about how I felt and write about the impressions that lingered with me (I also took a chance to read the first Harry Dresden book which I will post about very soon).
So on the first part of this topic I focused mainly on my fascination with Martin's fantastic depiction of intrigue that draws a reader in and his incredible command of physical description of the world in which he writes. These things I am happy to say carried through the entire book (although most of you who are reading this have probably already read it...multiple times to!). I suppose what I should give now is a general report of what I noticed while reading it.
Where to start...I suppose I ought to say that this book has every right to be made into a first class tv series (I'm avidly looking forward to watching it). I think that one thing that stood out to me after having thought about the book for a few days were the characters. I mentioned previously that the intrigue in the book was due in part to the variety and depth of the characters. While I write this and think about the book I can recall many characters with clarity because, even the 'minor' characters play a role. Martin does a wonderful job of cutting out extraneous items from his story, by making everything from geography, culture, history, and individuality, play a part in the telling of the tale. Could this be a bad thing? One of my friends mentioned that one possible pitfall of the tv series was that all the characters in 'AGOT' are larger than life, and that the way they are portrayed on screen may not live up to the book's standards. Could the fact that there are no extraneous characters/plot items in a story detract from it's reality? Well I suppose that question begs another question > how do we define reality? It could very well be that in our own lives we could choose to view our experiences as never extraneous, that everything plays a part in our life as a whole. Such a view on a story would then not just include the stories of the central characters, but of the stories of the characters around them. Maybe there is just a small tendency of Martin to not delve into the dispositions of the 'common folk,' treating them as a mass rather than a mass of individuals. He does include the dispositions and stories of the 'common folk' who are interacting with the central characters, but I would also like to see how they interact with those not in their constant vicinity. Anyways back to the things I liked about the characters who played a role. They were memorable. Their names, characteristics, desires (or their careful hiding of desires), all of it was so well defined and clear that I felt that I had a good enough mental picture of them to always have a reference in mind. Furthermore it wasn't just a cookie cutter representation either. The characters have faults and strengths. They all have their own histories which intermingle for stunning stories and relations.
Another impression I was left with was that this world had an incredible amount of historical depth. Maybe the history might not reach as far back as Tolkien's Middle Earth, but the history that was there was part of the trajectory that the story had. You could see clearly that past events (natural, historical, etc) had an effect on the 'present' of the book. The history of past dynasties, dragons, magic, and then the more recent history of Ned and Robert's pre-'AGOT' years all flow together. It feels as though there is a foundation that everyone in this world is working from, each with their own interpretations, reactions and expectations. This is a very human behavior and Martin captures it well.
The last thing I want to comment on regarding 'AGOT' was sparked by a general consensus those in my workshop group had about Martin's book, that was further reinforced by something I read on his wiki page. "George R.R. Martin," as said in the workshop I attend, "is very hard on his characters." His wiki page also acknowledged that he seems to be very cynical in his writing. I can't help but draw a parallel from Martin to Tolkien in that the story of Middle Earth as a whole only had 2 maybe 3 'happy endings' among countless tragedies. But for those who feel that these two writers are too cynical or choose to 'see the worst' in people I would point them in the direction of human history. So much of our history is told by temporary happiness punctuated by tragic events that are either unavoidable or caused by hidden forces. A government might be newly democratic only to be knocked down by an Imperial power. A charismatic politician might secretly be addicted to a certain vice etc. Very rarely are there lasting happy endings to stories, and even many of those endings are eventually ripped to shreds by the world around them. 'AGOT' in particular is a perfect representation of a struggle humanity faces even now in the struggle of Ned Stark and his fate. There is a constant struggle from the individual level to the global of honest people trying to keep the peace and protect the welfare of the public, which is set in opposition to those who are dishonest and seek to benefit their own selfish views of life. I remember a person from a class I had last semester who was incredibly unsettled and I could say depressed by the sheer amount of tragedy and horror that existed in the world and how could anyone ever hope of opposing all the 'bad' in the world. Ned, in one interpretation, represents the need to oppose certain fates regardless of how hopeless it seems in the moment for the sake of the future...sometimes we do not fight for ourselves, but we fight for those generations years ahead of us. People in stories like Ned Stark are more prophetical than the identified prophets because of their principles and ideals regarding humanity and human behavior.
These are the reasons I like George R. R. Martin's 'AGOT.' it provides a myriad of outlooks on humanity and philosophies of life, and then takes them one step further by causing them to interact, oppose, and reinforce each other.
Note: I do intend on posting about my reading of Jim Butcher's 'Storm Front' tomorrow or the day after. The next subject is magic in a contemporary setting.
No comments:
Post a Comment