Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Agree on Gumboots post being excellent, and I for sure don't equate appreciation of GRRM with being a fanboy. Heck, I like the books a great deal myself.
One thing, though: With criticism of any book being inherently subjective, can it truly be considered "fair" or "unfair"?
I don't think that it is inherently subjective, particularly when we get away from arguing about whether a book is good or bad and start talking, as you have been in this thread, about the complexity of characters or some other specific aspect of the book. Whether complex characters are good or bad is a different, and probably unanswerable, question. But it's at least a question that can be addressed objectively.
I don't think that it is inherently subjective, particularly when we get away from arguing about whether a book is good or bad and start talking, as you have been in this thread, about the complexity of characters or some other specific aspect of the book. Whether complex characters are good or bad is a different, and probably unanswerable, question. But it's at least a question that can be addressed objectively.
I politely disagree, since complexity of character is judged in at least some part in comparison to other works of fiction that's made (or have failed to make) an impression on the reader. Also, as seen in this thread: A book or series you really like gives rise to thoughts and analysis, such as Gumboots comparisons to real world history above. As I never found GRRM exceptional, I've never given them that amount of thought and so has missed out on facts that stand out with more thorough reading.
I politely disagree, since complexity of character is judged in at least some part in comparison to other works of fiction that's made (or have failed to make) an impression on the reader. Also, as seen in this thread: A book or series you really like gives rise to thoughts and analysis, such as Gumboots comparisons to real world history above. As I never found GRRM exceptional, I've never given them that amount of thought and so has missed out on facts that stand out with more thorough reading.
I don't really see how any of that suggests that complexity of character is subjective.
Here's my interpretation of what you wrote above: 1. We judge a character in a work of fiction as complex or not in relation to other characters in other works of fiction.
That's fine, but doesn't suggest that those relative values of complexity are subjective.
2. If you like a book, you'll get more out of it, because it might lead you to ponder other, only tangentially related, topics.
Okay, but that's a non-sequitur. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the complexity of the characters in a work of fiction is a completely subjective judgement.
If my interpretation is wrong, please correct it.
Anyway, I seem to have drifted off topic somewhat, and apologize for that.
I don't really see how any of that suggests that complexity of character is subjective.
Here's my interpretation of what you wrote above: 1. We judge a character in a work of fiction as complex or not in relation to other characters in other works of fiction.
That's fine, but doesn't suggest that those relative values of complexity are subjective.
2. If you like a book, you'll get more out of it, because it might lead you to ponder other, only tangentially related, topics.
Okay, but that's a non-sequitur. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the complexity of the characters in a work of fiction is a completely subjective judgement.
If my interpretation is wrong, please correct it.
Anyway, I seem to have drifted off topic somewhat, and apologize for that.
I really don't see this as a derail, as a meta-discussion of book appreciation seems a logical progression from discussing the merits of a single book. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to answer your points right here .
1) Once again I'll have to state that whether you consider a character complex (used here as equivalent to believable) is dependent on your previous history of reading. For example, if your sole experience of, say, fantasy literature happens to be David Eddings, you'll most like find Moorcock characters to be incredibly detailed and human in comparison.
Add to this that your interpretations of the motives of literary characters most probably will be highly influenced by your own morals and belief system (the honour-based culture in "Song of..." discussed by Gumboot being a prime example), I'd still say that "complexity" is definitely a subjective value.
2) Let me use an example to clarify. The sci-fi writer Dan Abnett churn out piles of militatyr sci-fi set in the "Warhammer 40.000" universe. Now, these books can't be considered quality literature by any standards. However, me being a huge nerd, I act as GM for a RPG campaign set in that same universe and so spend quite some time considering the workings and culture of the society where the novels take place.
As such, I can place these "boys war stories" in a wider framework and so fins them more consistently logical and believable than if read as isolated works.
My point being, if you appreciate GRRM highly, you're far more likely to reread the books, consider the details that make them unique and build a framework in which you place the characters, and so gaining a greater understanding of their actions and motivations. If (as is my experience) you consider the books good but not great you'd be more predisposed to shrug off those deeper considerations and go on (or back) to another series.
That all makes sense if you're trying to say that different people will come to different conclusions about the question: "Is this character complex?"
It doesn't change the fact that that question does have an objective answer.
Similarly if the question were: "did Jesus rise from the dead?" different people's different experiences, upbringing, etc. would impact their answer to that question, but that doesn't change the fact that there is an objective answer to it.
Another comparison: a person born 1000 years ago would have had no access to the theory of evolution. If you could go back and ask that person about the ancestry of a dog ("do dogs share a common ancestor with pigeons?") for instance, that person's answer would be very different from that of someone educated in modern biology. That doesn't mean that the actual answer to that question is subjective. It simply means that people are subject to bias, ignorance, and other problems that make it difficult to find the correct answer to questions. Is a book good? That's a subjective question: If you think it's good, then it's good to you. Is a character complex? That's a question with a definite answer.
Of course, you say, "complex relative to what?" And that's a valid point. Similarly, "does a rabbit run fast?" is a question whose answer must be relative to something. So, I concede that you're correct that it's a relative question. But this thread is making relative comparisons. Relative to the general trend in modern literature, GRRM's characters are complex. That's a completely objective answer. Is it correct? That's what this thread is discussing.
That all makes sense if you're trying to say that different people will come to different conclusions about the question: "Is this character complex?"
It doesn't change the fact that that question does have an objective answer.
Similarly if the question were: "did Jesus rise from the dead?" different people's different experiences, upbringing, etc. would impact their answer to that question, but that doesn't change the fact that there is an objective answer to it.
Another comparison: a person born 1000 years ago would have had no access to the theory of evolution. If you could go back and ask that person about the ancestry of a dog ("do dogs share a common ancestor with pigeons?") for instance, that person's answer would be very different from that of someone educated in modern biology. That doesn't mean that the actual answer to that question is subjective. It simply means that people are subject to bias, ignorance, and other problems that make it difficult to find the correct answer to questions. Is a book good? That's a subjective question: If you think it's good, then it's good to you. Is a character complex? That's a question with a definite answer.
Of course, you say, "complex relative to what?" And that's a valid point. Similarly, "does a rabbit run fast?" is a question whose answer must be relative to something. So, I concede that you're correct that it's a relative question. But this thread is making relative comparisons. Relative to the general trend in modern literature, GRRM's characters are complex. That's a completely objective answer. Is it correct? That's what this thread is discussing.
I'd still say that "complex" has no objective answer and is subjective as used in this discussion (as I said, being quite synonymous to "believable", "human", "realistic" when used in this context).
However, you're quite right that for the purpose of the discussion (especially since I formed the OP as a comparison), using the question "are the characters complex when compared to other similar writings" is perfectly sufficient.
Moving on, let's take Tyrion as an example. [BEWARE: SPOILER] By far my favourite character, I'd describe him as a highly intelligent man, but one stigmatized by his stature to be shunted aside and mistreated mainly by his father, whos approval he still seeks. This leaves him working to the best of his ability (at least early on) for the betterment of a family that does not value his efforts and belittle him at every turn. Finally, his alienation drives him to leave and actively oppose that very family (shooting his father with a crossbow in the loo is quite the breakup).
Now, this makes for a great story, but my point being that it's hardly exceptional, even in a literary lanscape genrally populated by two-dimensional heroes.
Since I'm touting Erikson here, a character of his that undergoes significant change of motivations in a similar vein would be Trull Sengar, a man who happens to be the younger brother of Rhulad, who mostly by chance happens to become "emperor" (mainly figurehead, actually) of a dynamic young empire. Over his storyline, we get to follow this originally compassionate and reasonable man from caring brother through warning voice and on to outcast, with no single incident being critical. Rather, the change happens as they mostly do in everyday life, with being "the voice of caution" becoming less and less politically correct in a rapidly militarised society and dissent moving from something that's discussed to something that's brutally punished.
Comparing these two similar characters and their stories, I'd say that GRRM tells his story really well, but that Erikson does it exceptionally.
That being my point from the outset: "Song of Fire and Ice" is a great series, but it's not the pinnacle of modern fantasy nor the one radical paradigm-changer it's sometimes made out to be.
I'd still say that "complex" has no objective answer and is subjective as used in this discussion (as I said, being quite synonymous to "believable", "human", "realistic" when used in this context).
However, you're quite right that for the purpose of the discussion (especially since I formed the OP as a comparison), using the question "are the characters complex when compared to other similar writings" is perfectly sufficient.
Moving on, let's take Tyrion as an example. [BEWARE: SPOILER] By far my favourite character, I'd describe him as a highly intelligent man, but one stigmatized by his stature to be shunted aside and mistreated mainly by his father, whos approval he still seeks. This leaves him working to the best of his ability (at least early on) for the betterment of a family that does not value his efforts and belittle him at every turn. Finally, his alienation drives him to leave and actively oppose that very family (shooting his father with a crossbow in the loo is quite the breakup).
Now, this makes for a great story, but my point being that it's hardly exceptional, even in a literary lanscape genrally populated by two-dimensional heroes.
Since I'm touting Erikson here, a character of his that undergoes significant change of motivations in a similar vein would be Trull Sengar, a man who happens to be the younger brother of Rhulad, who mostly by chance happens to become "emperor" (mainly figurehead, actually) of a dynamic young empire. Over his storyline, we get to follow this originally compassionate and reasonable man from caring brother through warning voice and on to outcast, with no single incident being critical. Rather, the change happens as they mostly do in everyday life, with being "the voice of caution" becoming less and less politically correct in a rapidly militarised society and dissent moving from something that's discussed to something that's brutally punished.
Comparing these two similar characters and their stories, I'd say that GRRM tells his story really well, but that Erikson does it exceptionally.
That being my point from the outset: "Song of Fire and Ice" is a great series, but it's not the pinnacle of modern fantasy nor the one radical paradigm-changer it's sometimes made out to be.
You don't appear to be talking about character complexity, but rather the scope of the character arc. That's altogether a different matter. I'll try contribute more meaningfully to the discussion tomorrow (worked 15hrs today, on 5hrs sleep...) but ne of the more glaring points if we're looking at character arcs is that "A Song of Ice and Fire" isn't finished.
I think it's possible to read at least some parts of A Song Of Ice And Fire as a critique of how fantasy is typically written. At the very least it's a literary experiment to take the characters who would be the victorious heroes in other fantasy novels and show what happens to them if they are placed into a harsher world. Time and again we see heroes who fail, villains who aren't really villains, situations were a heroic narrative would give revenge and here we just see further bloodshed. let's take the life of just one character as the example:
Joffrey. To be honest, the list of candidates who would have a claim on being the "right" person to kill Joffrey is quite ridiculously long, and many of those people are Starks. Arya has some right of revenge, as Joffrey's lies got her friend killed. Robb (and indeed all the Stark children) has some right as Joffrey killed his father. Tyrion has some right based on the indignities thrust upon him by Joffrey. Who ends up actually killing him? The Tyrells, in concert with Petyr Baelish, neither of whom had been particularly wronged by him
The world of A Song Of Ice And Fire is a world where revenge doesn't really work. In this world Inigo Montoya would have stayed drunk in the gutter, and the six fingered man would have been murdered by Humperdink when he outlived his usefulness (or murdered Humperdink and blamed it on Wesley).
You don't appear to be talking about character complexity, but rather the scope of the character arc. That's altogether a different matter. I'll try contribute more meaningfully to the discussion tomorrow (worked 15hrs today, on 5hrs sleep...) but ne of the more glaring points if we're looking at character arcs is that "A Song of Ice and Fire" isn't finished.
Point taken about it being a work in progress, but I can't really see a separation between character arcs, these to a large point being dependent on the actions and therefore the motivations of the character, and character complexity.
Sounds like a rough day BTW. sleep well!
My point being, if you appreciate GRRM highly, you're far more likely to reread the books, consider the details that make them unique and build a framework in which you place the characters, and so gaining a greater understanding of their actions and motivations. If (as is my experience) you consider the books good but not great you'd be more predisposed to shrug off those deeper considerations and go on (or back) to another series.
This is an interesting point, and I'd tend to agree with it, however I think you're actually reinforcing Roboramma's point here. In the above scenario the complexity objectively exists but the disinterested reader fails to notice.
This seems to be what Roboramma has been saying all along; the characters either are, or are not complex. What changes is whether a given reader detects the complexity. Enjoyment of the writing is a good consideration. For example a reader who found Victor Hugo's wordy writing style boring or excessively descriptive would probably never appreciate Jean Valjean's complexity. The fault (such that it is) lies in the reader then, or perhaps in Hugo's writing style, but not in the complexity of the character.
I would propose that there are elements of Martin's writing that led you to be less than enthused or engaged by the work. That caused you to skip over the deeper complexity and move on to something else. That doesn't mean the characters weren't complex, it just means Martin's particular writing style failed to engage you.
Interestingly enough, at this point I'm discussing the central theme of Martin's work, which is perception. And I'd like to tie this in with our previous brief discussion on character arcs.
In simple terms, a character arc is change in a character. That could mean their station or position in life, or it could mean their actual personality, make-up, etc.
Traditionally, good story-telling requires the protagonist to undergo some sort of arc, as traditional story-telling is about recounting a character's journey.
I would personally argue, and it's a point I touch on in my own book, that actual life (and therefore any sense of realism) does not adhere to a narrative structure at all, and further that people by-and-large do not change.
What we see in Martin's work is a reflection of a more realistic world, where events do not follow a linear storyline but rather ebb and flow in a more sporadic manner. In one moment a character is a victorious hero, in the next a fallen and dissolute failure. If we take our previous example of Tyrion...
He goes from family outcast to prisoner, to war leader, to Hand of the King, to ignored hero, to family outcast once more... and so forth. While this is going on he's also undergoing dramatic changes in circumstance with regard to the various sub-plots (such as his relationship to Sansa Stark). There's no neat arc to his story, but rather a violent and unfeeling series of ups and downs. And by and large we see that same pattern of ebb and flow with our other protagonists. That's very, very realistic.
Secondly, as a general rule, the characters in "A Song of Ice and Fire" do not undergo personality changes. There are a few very rare exceptions, by more or less each remains the person they were at the beginning of the story. That's much, much more realistic than a character who undergoes a neat "transformation". That doesn't happen in real life.
What, instead, Martin does to approximate a character arc is there are two separate elements to every character; how they are perceived by others, and how they actually are. Most importantly, there's not a single POV character who is accurately viewed by everyone else. A few intimate companions may be close to the mark, but many are far, far off base. Their perceptions are clouded by their own assumptions, their own fears and desires, and their own hardships.
One of the cleverest character "arcs" in the series is the Lannister brothers, and what's so dramatic about it is that in both cases the entire world views them totally differently than to how they really are.
And again, that's fundamentally much, much more realistic and complex than traditional story arcs.
If we jump back to Robb Stark, as the archetypal fantasy hero, we'll see how that assessment is far off the mark. In fact, if I were to identify any heroic character he was most like, it would be King Arthur, who was precisely a highly realistic and complex character inserted into a traditional fantasy role, with inevitable results (I'm thinking of the more complex "tragic hero" interpretations of King Arthur such as derived from the French Romantic stories rather than the bare-bones original tales).
Robb Stark is not the archetypal hero. Rather, his followers perceive him that way, because it inspires them. In reality Robb is a complex youth, with a host of both flaws and positive traits, that prove initially inspiring but ultimately disastrous. (A historical example is perhaps Richard The Lionheart who was perceived and remembered as a great hero and ruler, but was in reality anything but - and indeed I have my suspicions that Richard I is ultimately the inspiration for Jaime Lannister)
He's young, to begin with, and that youth cannot be ignored. Young people, typically, tend to be more passionate, idealistic, and naive than older people. He is, essentially, Ned Stark absent Ned's temperance, caution, wisdom, and self-control (the first book painfully illustrates how those traits, too, in excess, can cause tragic results).
Over the course of his life he does develop some wisdom, but too late to save him or his cause. He's one of the few characters that appears to evolve, and it's no coincidence that he begins as a boy. It is during childhood and the teenage years that a real person's personality actually changes as it slowly develops into the personality they will retain for their entire adult life (barring any dramatic personality-altering events in later life). Thus the characters we see who actually undergo personality "arcs" are characters like Bran, Sansa, Arya and Robb - the children.
Another thing to note about Robb is that, aside from Rickon, he is the only Stark (including Catelyn and Jon) who is not a POV character. Thus he's the only one whose head we never see inside. And this is a common trend throughout the books; we don't see inside the heads of the "kings" we see inside the heads of those around them. Thus we only ever get an idea of how others see them. (The exception - because Martin always has an exception - is Daenerys - we see inside her head, but there's not a single POV character around her thus we never know what anyone use truly thinks of her, an interesting reversal of the trend)
It's through Catelyn that we're exposed to most of Robb's personal flaws, through the eyes of the Lannisters and their allies that we see him as an impulsive and dangerous (but ultimately naive) war leader, and through his supporters that we see him as the archetypal fantasy hero.
It cannot be emphasised too much just how important perception is in Martin's work. Where we see this so dramatically illustrated is with Jaime Lannister - thus far the only major character present from the outset who became a POV character quite late in the piece.
Prior to him becoming a POV character, it would have been fair to assess his characterisation as fairly shallow. Perhaps even two dimensional. That's because that's how the world sees him. He's either a shining gold knight, or the worst of oath-breakers. Two distinct aspects dictate how the world seems him; one is how he consciously presents himself to the world, the other being the single infamous act he is known in infamy for.
But once we get inside his head we see that neither of these is true. There is a complex and troubled man inside that gold shell. Notably, he cares a great deal what others think of him, yet makes a determined effort to present the opposite, and in doing so dooms himself to those two contrasting perceptions of the golden god and the evil kingslayer (both images which, it appears, he despises).
You have to bear that dichotomy of perception and reality in mind when trying to assess the complexity of a character such as Robb Stark, which we only see through others' eyes.
Just to reiterate and clarify, I've not read of heard of Erikson before, so cannot make any comment on the complexity of his characters, nor on the relative complexity of characters between the two works.
It may be that Erikson's characters are more complex than Martin's. I don't (and cannot) dispute that point as I lack the knowledge to do so.
But if we allow that Erikson's characters are more complex than Martin's, that does not mean Martin's characters are not complex. I agree with Roboramma that there's an objective call that can be made in that regard.
One thing that hasn't yet arisen is a definition or understanding of what constitutes a complex character, and I'd like to do that now.
In literature theory there's two general types of character; complex and archetypal. Note that these only apply for major characters - every story has its share of minor "bit players" which are never fully developed.
An archetypal character is essentially one who embodies a certain moral position or world view, and remains internally consistent by being made of a related collection of ideas. They may be at conflict with the world around them, but generally they don't come into conflict with their self.
A complex character, instead, has competing traits and desires that force them into conflict not only with the outside world, but with their own self.
Complex characters are, of course, far more realistic.
How complex a character is becomes a much more difficult issue to pin down, and making comparisons between characters even moreso. At the very least everyone partaking in the discussion needs a very thorough knowledge of the two works being compared, or the discussion becomes pointless.
Thus my only point in this discussion is whether Martin's characters are complex. I think, by any standard, they are.
While I agree that your own history of literary reading can inform your assessment of how complex a set of characters is, I don't entirely agree on the depth of its influence.
As example, my early fantasy reading was, in fact, the works of David Eddings often cited here. As a young teenager I thoroughly enjoyed these works, but at no point did I have the least notion that the characters were complex. They were clearly not.
This is an interesting point, and I'd tend to agree with it, however I think you're actually reinforcing Roboramma's point here. In the above scenario the complexity objectively exists but the disinterested reader fails to notice.
This seems to be what Roboramma has been saying all along; the characters either are, or are not complex. What changes is whether a given reader detects the complexity. Enjoyment of the writing is a good consideration. For example a reader who found Victor Hugo's wordy writing style boring or excessively descriptive would probably never appreciate Jean Valjean's complexity. The fault (such that it is) lies in the reader then, or perhaps in Hugo's writing style, but not in the complexity of the character.
I would propose that there are elements of Martin's writing that led you to be less than enthused or engaged by the work. That caused you to skip over the deeper complexity and move on to something else. That doesn't mean the characters weren't complex, it just means Martin's particular writing style failed to engage you.
Interestingly enough, at this point I'm discussing the central theme of Martin's work, which is perception. And I'd like to tie this in with our previous brief discussion on character arcs.
...........
I would personally argue, and it's a point I touch on in my own book, that actual life (and therefore any sense of realism) does not adhere to a narrative structure at all, and further that people by-and-large do not change.
What we see in Martin's work is a reflection of a more realistic world, where events do not follow a linear storyline but rather ebb and flow in a more sporadic manner. In one moment a character is a victorious hero, in the next a fallen and dissolute failure. If we take our previous example of Tyrion...
He goes from family outcast to prisoner, to war leader, to Hand of the King, to ignored hero, to family outcast once more... and so forth. While this is going on he's also undergoing dramatic changes in circumstance with regard to the various sub-plots (such as his relationship to Sansa Stark). There's no neat arc to his story, but rather a violent and unfeeling series of ups and downs. And by and large we see that same pattern of ebb and flow with our other protagonists. That's very, very realistic.
Secondly, as a general rule, the characters in "A Song of Ice and Fire" do not undergo personality changes. There are a few very rare exceptions, by more or less each remains the person they were at the beginning of the story. That's much, much more realistic than a character who undergoes a neat "transformation". That doesn't happen in real life.
What, instead, Martin does to approximate a character arc is there are two separate elements to every character; how they are perceived by others, and how they actually are. Most importantly, there's not a single POV character who is accurately viewed by everyone else. A few intimate companions may be close to the mark, but many are far, far off base. Their perceptions are clouded by their own assumptions, their own fears and desires, and their own hardships.
One of the cleverest character "arcs" in the series is the Lannister brothers, and what's so dramatic about it is that in both cases the entire world views them totally differently than to how they really are.
And again, that's fundamentally much, much more realistic and complex than traditional story arcs.
If we jump back to Robb Stark, as the archetypal fantasy hero, we'll see how that assessment is far off the mark. In fact, if I were to identify any heroic character he was most like, it would be King Arthur, who was precisely a highly realistic and complex character inserted into a traditional fantasy role, with inevitable results (I'm thinking of the more complex "tragic hero" interpretations of King Arthur such as derived from the French Romantic stories rather than the bare-bones original tales).
Robb Stark is not the archetypal hero. Rather, his followers perceive him that way, because it inspires them. In reality Robb is a complex youth, with a host of both flaws and positive traits, that prove initially inspiring but ultimately disastrous. (A historical example is perhaps Richard The Lionheart who was perceived and remembered as a great hero and ruler, but was in reality anything but - and indeed I have my suspicions that Richard I is ultimately the inspiration for Jaime Lannister)
He's young, to begin with, and that youth cannot be ignored. Young people, typically, tend to be more passionate, idealistic, and naive than older people. He is, essentially, Ned Stark absent Ned's temperance, caution, wisdom, and self-control (the first book painfully illustrates how those traits, too, in excess, can cause tragic results).
Over the course of his life he does develop some wisdom, but too late to save him or his cause. He's one of the few characters that appears to evolve, and it's no coincidence that he begins as a boy. It is during childhood and the teenage years that a real person's personality actually changes as it slowly develops into the personality they will retain for their entire adult life (barring any dramatic personality-altering events in later life). Thus the characters we see who actually undergo personality "arcs" are characters like Bran, Sansa, Arya and Robb - the children.
Another thing to note about Robb is that, aside from Rickon, he is the only Stark (including Catelyn and Jon) who is not a POV character. Thus he's the only one whose head we never see inside. And this is a common trend throughout the books; we don't see inside the heads of the "kings" we see inside the heads of those around them. Thus we only ever get an idea of how others see them. (The exception - because Martin always has an exception - is Daenerys - we see inside her head, but there's not a single POV character around her thus we never know what anyone use truly thinks of her, an interesting reversal of the trend)
...........
Prior to him becoming a POV character, it would have been fair to assess his characterisation as fairly shallow. Perhaps even two dimensional. That's because that's how the world sees him. He's either a shining gold knight, or the worst of oath-breakers. Two distinct aspects dictate how the world seems him; one is how he consciously presents himself to the world, the other being the single infamous act he is known in infamy for.
..............
You have to bear that dichotomy of perception and reality in mind when trying to assess the complexity of a character such as Robb Stark, which we only see through others' eyes.
Just to reiterate and clarify, I've not read of heard of Erikson before, so cannot make any comment on the complexity of his characters, nor on the relative complexity of characters between the two works.
It may be that Erikson's characters are more complex than Martin's. I don't (and cannot) dispute that point as I lack the knowledge to do so.
But if we allow that Erikson's characters are more complex than Martin's, that does not mean Martin's characters are not complex. I agree with Roboramma that there's an objective call that can be made in that regard.
One thing that hasn't yet arisen is a definition or understanding of what constitutes a complex character, and I'd like to do that now.
In literature theory there's two general types of character; complex and archetypal. Note that these only apply for major characters - every story has its share of minor "bit players" which are never fully developed.
An archetypal character is essentially one who embodies a certain moral position or world view, and remains internally consistent by being made of a related collection of ideas. They may be at conflict with the world around them, but generally they don't come into conflict with their self.
A complex character, instead, has competing traits and desires that force them into conflict not only with the outside world, but with their own self.
Complex characters are, of course, far more realistic.
How complex a character is becomes a much more difficult issue to pin down, and making comparisons between characters even moreso. At the very least everyone partaking in the discussion needs a very thorough knowledge of the two works being compared, or the discussion becomes pointless.
..........
As example, my early fantasy reading was, in fact, the works of David Eddings often cited here. As a young teenager I thoroughly enjoyed these works, but at no point did I have the least notion that the characters were complex. They were clearly not.
Ok, finally off gardening chores to give this post the in-depth answer it deserves. First of all, I think we can definitely agree that appreciation of a book is definitely more conductive to in-depth analysis than lukewarm acceptance. It's rather obvious you've given these books far more thought than I and thus your analysis of the character surpasses mine.
That having been said, I've never before heard of archetypal and complex characters being a divisor in literature before. Using that grouping, Martins characters are definitely complex (please let me reiterate that I've never stated otherwise, I just find them well-written rather than exceptional, wich is why I started this thread as a comparison).
Staying with Tyrion as a main example, I think your post above exemplifies where the series makes it strongest point: Not in the characters, but in the organic unfolding of the happenings around them. Tyrion acts and reacts in a manner that's logical and believable considering what we know of him and how his circumstances change, as does Robb (and Jamie, for that part).
What would make this portrayal go from good to exceptional in my mind would be a deeper portrayal of the processes by which Tyrions outlook changes making his reactions to the world around him change not only due to circumstance, but due to a changing view of the world and his place in it.
In short, I'd like more POV time with a smaller number of characters, perhaps focusing on a more limited timespan and less dramatic changes in balance of power.
As I said, this is a subjective view. I look forward to the next book, and I'll have to reread the other ones and get a fresh look at them, since the first time I read them they'd been hyped to such a degree that it might have made me soewhat disdainful.
(Oh, and another recommendation: Scott Bakkers "Prince of Nothing" series. Very gritty, characters painted in dark shades of gray all across and all set within a very believable portrayal of a crusade).
I have to say that I find Tolkien a unique writer and not especially a genre writer, even in the sense of possibly having established the fantasy genre (he certainly has had huge influence in the matter). He was influenced by pre-modern languages and epics, and wanted to write "an epic for England" (based on actual, functional languages he invented). He wrote and re-wrote for decades without a hope for publishing, or even much thought about it. He was not aiming for realism or modernism, actually he pretty much was aiming not to be a realist or a modernist. And he succeeded: a strange, strange accomplishment, born of compulsion - and of genious.
Now I think Martin might approach Tolkien's status (depending on the conclusion of his series), but his angle is very different, he pretty much does aim for realism (though of a narrow kind), portraying our human hunger for power and safety as it appears in history (in betrayals and travesties of all codes of honour and decency). I hope there will be a satisfying conclusion, whatever shape it might be (hard to imagine even). I think we are extremely lucky in having both of these visions as wildly unlike each other as they are. I don't really know a third name that could compete with these two giants - perhaps Le Guin?
edit: apologies for not touching upon Erikson, in my view he really is not in this class, nowhere near actually, just wanted to make a point about the Tolkien-Martin comparison (as I happen to think that Tolkien really is an apt comparison with Martin).
I have to say that I find Tolkien a unique writer and not especially a genre writer, even in the sense of possibly having established the fantasy genre (he certainly has had huge influence in the matter). He was influenced by pre-modern languages and epics, and wanted to write "an epic for England" (based on actual, functional languages he invented). He wrote and re-wrote for decades without a hope for publishing, or even much thought about it. He was not aiming for realism or modernism, actually he pretty much was aiming not to be a realist or a modernist. And he succeeded: a strange, strange accomplishment, born of compulsion - and of genious.
Now I think Martin might approach Tolkien's status (depending on the conclusion of his series), but his angle is very different, he pretty much does aim for realism (though of a narrow kind), portraying our human hunger for power and safety as it appears in history (in betrayals and travesties of all codes of honour and decency). I hope there will be a satisfying conclusion, whatever shape it might be (hard to imagine even). I think we are extremely lucky in having both of these visions as wildly unlike each other as they are. I don't really know a third name that could compete with these two giants - perhaps Le Guin?
edit: apologies of not touching upon Erikson, in my view he really is not in this class, nowhere near actually, just wanted to make a point about the Tolkien-Martin comparison (as I happen to think that Tolkien really is an apt comparison with Martin).
This underlines my points on how views can differ, especially when comparison comes into it. I think GRRM far outranks Tolkien when it comes to the experience of reading, but I agree on Tolkiens impact on literature (not just fantasy), as well as recognizing the sheer scale of his work and the effort put into it.
Funny that you should mention LeGuin, as she would be one of the few writers I'd place in "top tier" along with Erikson, Bakker and R.E. Howard (when at his best).
One interesting line of thought is what constitutes truly awful fantasy literature. Leaving aside pure bargain-bin gaming universe trash like Dragonlance and such, I'd nominate Jordan for being monstrously derivative, dull and trying to portray his characters as real people, but achieving only quarrelsome soap-opera villains.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
