# Get rid of the dark lord!



## krunchee (May 7, 2014)

Hi guys,

My question today is this. What conflicts are available to is as fantasy writers? 

I am struggling to think of something that doesn't involve a tyrant at the top trying to take over... What other conflicts are strong enough to write an entire novel on?

Cheers,
Zach


----------



## Philip Overby (May 7, 2014)

I'm of the opinion that I don't really want to write anymore novels that deal with global conflicts. If other people want to do that, cool. But I'm more interested in local conflicts. While you may not be able to do a whole series on smaller conflicts, you can certainly do stand-alones that way. 

For instance, instead of having a hero go off to fight the dark lord and his minions, you could have the hero deal with problems closer to home: trolls attacking the local farmsteads, a mysterious man arriving promising salvation for a price, or a runaway wizard seeking solace in a small village. Each of these situations could lead to loads of conflict, enough to fill up a whole book. It depends on how far you want to stretch a simple idea. I find that not getting too complicated can make the conflict that much stronger. 

So while global conflicts that span continents are certainly fun, you could do a lot with a more localized conflict as well. 

Here's another example of a character: a blacksmith down on his luck.

Some potential conflicts:

1. His wife is threatening to leave him if he doesn't stop drinking so much
2. His eldest son doesn't want to be a blacksmith and wants to go to a local magic school
3. A giant wolf has been roving the countryside killing folks
4. A rival silversmith moves into town, promising that the giant wolf can't be taken out with simple steel or iron, putting the blacksmith in a worse position
5. The largest storm the region has seen in fifteen years is approaching

Etc. etc. 

So yeah, I think you could do a lot with a story like that if you just heap more and more trouble on your MC. I don't think fighting a dark lord is necessarily always the worst thing a person can face. Loneliness, disappointment, failure, worthlessness, jealousy, fear, these can all be themes that fuel conflict.


----------



## Mythopoet (May 7, 2014)

Well, you've got the classic "36 Dramatic Situations":


Supplication
        a Persecutor; a Suppliant; a Power in authority, whose decision is doubtful.
        The Persecutor accuses the Suppliant of wrongdoing, and the Power makes a judgment against the Suppliant. Example: The Trial

Deliverance
        an Unfortunate; a Threatener; a Rescuer
        The Unfortunate has caused a conflict, and the Threatener is to carry out justice, but the Rescuer saves the Unfortunate. Example: Ifigenia in Tauride

Crime pursued by vengeance
        a Criminal; an Avenger
        The Criminal commits a crime that will not see justice, so the Avenger seeks justice by punishing the Criminal. Example: The Count of Monte Cristo

Vengeance taken for kin upon kin
        Guilty Kinsman; an Avenging Kinsman; remembrance of the Victim, a relative of both.
        Two entities, the Guilty and the Avenging Kinsmen, are put into conflict over wrongdoing to the Victim, who is allied to both. Example: Hamlet

Pursuit
        Punishment; a Fugitive
        The Fugitive flees Punishment for a misunderstood conflict. Example: Les MisÃ©rables

Disaster
        a Vanquished Power; a Victorious Enemy or a Messenger
        The Power falls from their place after being defeated by the Victorious Enemy or being informed of such a defeat by the Messenger. Example: Agamemnon (play)

Falling prey to cruelty/misfortune
        an Unfortunate; a Master or a Misfortune
        The Unfortunate suffers from Misfortune and/or at the hands of the Master. Example: Job (biblical figure)

Revolt
        a Tyrant; a Conspirator
        The Tyrant, a cruel power, is plotted against by the Conspirator. Example: Julius Caesar (play)

Daring enterprise
        a Bold Leader; an Object; an Adversary
        The Bold Leader takes the Object from the Adversary by overpowering the Adversary.

Abduction
        an Abductor; the Abducted; a Guardian
        The Abductor takes the Abducted from the Guardian. Example: Helen of Troy

The enigma
        a Problem; an Interrogator; a Seeker
        The Interrogator poses a Problem to the Seeker and gives a Seeker better ability to reach the Seeker's goals. Example: Oedipus and the Sphinx

Obtaining
        (a Solicitor & an Adversary who is refusing) or (an Arbitrator & Opposing Parties)
        The Solicitor is at odds with the Adversary who refuses to give the Solicitor what they Object in the possession of the Adversary, or an Arbitrator decides who gets the Object desired by Opposing Parties (the Solicitor and the Adversary). Example: Apple of Discord

Enmity of kin
        a Malevolent Kinsman; a Hated or a reciprocally-hating Kinsman
        The Malevolent Kinsman and the Hated or a second Malevolent Kinsman conspire together.

Rivalry of kin
        the Preferred Kinsman; the Rejected Kinsman; the Object of Rivalry
        The Object of Rivalry chooses the Preferred Kinsman over the Rejected Kinsman.

Murderous adultery
        two Adulterers; a Betrayed Spouse
        Two Adulterers conspire to kill the Betrayed Spouse. Example: [[Clytemnestra and Aegisthus]]

Madness
        a Madman; a Victim
        The Madman goes insane and wrongs the Victim.

Fatal imprudence
        the Imprudent; a Victim or an Object Lost
        The Imprudent, by neglect or ignorance, loses the Object Lost or wrongs the Victim.

Involuntary crimes of love
        a Lover; a Beloved; a Revealer
        The Revealer betrays the trust of either the Lover or the Beloved.

Slaying of kin unrecognized
        the Slayer; an Unrecognized Victim
        The Slayer kills the Unrecognized Victim.

Self-sacrifice for an ideal
        a Hero; an Ideal; a Creditor or a Person/Thing sacrificed
        The Hero sacrifices the Person or Thing for their Ideal, which is then taken by the Creditor.

Self-sacrifice for kin
        a Hero; a Kinsman; a Creditor or a Person/Thing sacrificed
        The Hero sacrifices a Person or Thing for their Kinsman, which is then taken by the Creditor.

All sacrificed for passion
        a Lover; an Object of fatal Passion; the Person/Thing sacrificed
        A Lover sacrifices a Person or Thing for the Object of their Passion, which is then lost forever.

Necessity of sacrificing loved ones
        a Hero; a Beloved Victim; the Necessity for the Sacrifice
        The Hero wrongs the Beloved Victim because of the Necessity for their Sacrifice.

Rivalry of superior vs. inferior
        a Superior Rival; an Inferior Rival; the Object of Rivalry
        A Superior Rival bests an Inferior Rival and wins the Object of Rivalry.

Adultery
        two Adulterers; a Deceived Spouse
        Two Adulterers conspire against the Deceived Spouse.

Crimes of love
        a Lover; the Beloved
        A Lover and the Beloved enter a conflict.

Discovery of the dishonour of a loved one
        a Discoverer; the Guilty One
        The Discoverer discovers the wrongdoing committed by the Guilty One.

Obstacles to love
        two Lovers; an Obstacle
        Two Lovers face an Obstacle together.

An enemy loved
        a Lover; the Beloved Enemy; the Hater
        The allied Lover and Hater have diametrically opposed attitudes towards the Beloved Enemy.

Ambition
        an Ambitious Person; a Thing Coveted; an Adversary
        The Ambitious Person seeks the Thing Coveted and is opposed by the Adversary.

Conflict with a god
        a Mortal; an Immortal
        The Mortal and the Immortal enter a conflict.

Mistaken jealousy
        a Jealous One; an Object of whose Possession He is Jealous; a Supposed Accomplice; a Cause or an Author of the Mistake
        The Jealous One falls victim to the Cause or the Author of the Mistake and becomes jealous of the Object and becomes conflicted with the Supposed Accomplice.

Erroneous judgement
        a Mistaken One; a Victim of the Mistake; a Cause or Author of the Mistake; the Guilty One
        The Mistaken One falls victim to the Cause of the Author of the Mistake and passes judgment against the Victim of the Mistake when it should be passed against the Guilty One instead.

Remorse
        a Culprit; a Victim or the Sin; an Interrogator
        The Culprit wrongs the Victim or commits the Sin, and is at odds with the Interrogator who seeks to understand the situation.

Recovery of a lost one
        a Seeker; the One Found
        The Seeker finds the One Found.

Loss of loved ones
        a Kinsman Slain; a Kinsman Spectator; an Executioner
        The killing of the Kinsman Slain by the Executioner is witnessed by the Kinsman Spectator.

Or you could go a bit more basic with the "7 Basic Plots":

Overcoming the Monster
The protagonist sets out to defeat an antagonistic force which threatens the protagonist and/or protagonist's homeland.

Rags to Riches
The poor protagonist acquires things such as power, wealth, and a mate, before losing it all and gaining it back upon growing as a person.

The Quest
The protagonist and some companions set out to acquire an important object or to get to a location, facing many obstacles and temptations along the way.

Voyage and Return
The protagonist goes to a strange land and, after overcoming the threats it poses to him/her, returns with nothing but experience.

Comedy
The protagonists are destined to be in love, but something is keeping them from being together, which is resolved by the end of the story.

Tragedy
The protagonist is a villain who falls from grace and whose death is a happy ending.

Rebirth
The protagonist is a villain or otherwise unlikable character who redeems him/herself over the course of the story.


----------



## Steerpike (May 7, 2014)

The examples above are good. Basically, any conflict open to any writer of any kind of book is open to a fantasy writer.


----------



## deilaitha (May 7, 2014)

Philip Overby said:


> I'm of the opinion that I don't really want to write anymore novels that deal with global conflicts. If other people want to do that, cool. But I'm more interested in local conflicts. While you may not be able to do a whole series on smaller conflicts, you can certainly do stand-alones that way.
> 
> ...
> 
> So yeah, I think you could do a lot with a story like that if you just heap more and more trouble on your MC. I don't think fighting a dark lord is necessarily always the worst thing a person can face. Loneliness, disappointment, failure, worthlessness, jealousy, fear, these can all be themes that fuel conflict.



I really like to use the whole global conflict/dark lord bit as a backdrop to explore the themes that you mention.  The dark lord or war cliche is a good thing for a metanarrative, while the actual story itself focuses more on a local basis.  Other things that are interesting are civil wars or tribal disputes, or where the enemy is more of a faceless corporation or government collective.  A WIP of mine that is currently on the back burner takes a local dispute that becomes global, all while focusing on one character.  His main battle is one of emotional abandonment and attachment disorders (explored from a medieval perspective, since attachment disorders weren't really understood), while the secondary battle is a friend turned enemy and a vicious coup that throws his nation into civil war. The friend might be seen as a dark lord type, but it's more personal than, say, Sauron way way over there is doing bad stuff and making nasty rings. 

The dark lord trope--particularly the distant, universally evil dark lord--as the central conflict is getting a little over-used, but I think it still has a place as a canvas for a much more personal story. 

You are absolutely right about one thing, Phil:a dark lord or outside enemy is far from the worst thing a person can face.  Something that is way under-explored in literature are disorders such as fetal alcohol syndrome or radical attachment disorder.  My adopted sister is afflicted with both of these; the physical wiring of her own brain is a vicious foe to her.  You would not believe the frustration she experiences on a day-to-day basis, knowing that she is "different" and can't keep up with other people. Not to mention the resentment she harbors for her birth mother for a) drinking and b) abandonment.  Barring a miracle, a person with these problems will never be free from them.  Their enemy lives in their own body. 

Now that is a story worth telling.


----------



## Mythopoet (May 7, 2014)

deilaitha said:


> I really like to use the whole global conflict/dark lord bit as a backdrop to explore the themes that you mention.



It's worth noting that the quintessential Dark Lord story (LOTR) does precisely this. Sure, the threat of Sauron looms over the story, but most of the actual conflict portrayed in the story comes from much more local sources. Frodo's struggle with the consuming power of the Ring and the petrifying fear that is the main weapon of the Nazgul. Frodo and Sam's complicated relationship with Gollum. Gandalf's efforts to unite the Free Men of Rohan and Gondor. The betrayal of Saruman against his own order. Aragorn's feelings of guilt and uncertainty in the wake of Gandalf's fall. Eowyn's despair and unrequited love. Eomer's unjust banishment and struggle to maintain his loyalty to his country in spite of it. Every character's struggles with the themes of power and resisting corrupting power. I could go on and on. Sauron may have set the stage, but the conflict comes from numerous sources close to and within the characters.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 7, 2014)

deilaitha said:


> I really like to use the whole global conflict/dark lord bit as a backdrop to explore the themes that you mention.  The dark lord or war cliche is a good thing for a metanarrative, while the actual story itself focuses more on a local basis.



I'm not sure if anyone here is familiar with the Atelier series of video games. I'll use the TV Tropes description:



> Okay, you know how every RPG has the grand heroes chosen by fate to become wonderful friends and stand up to the evil sorcerer/empire/corporation/monster and keep it from destroying the world?
> 
> This game is not about them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Terry Greer (May 7, 2014)

One of my favorite fantasy books is Jack Vance's The eyes of the Overworld.
There's no big bad overlord in it - just a rather cunning theif (too cunning really) trying to get back to where he started. 
The main conflict thus becomes who he meets enroute and the environment - and its superb.

You don't need to have a demon overlord (in fact they're pretty boring really) - the environment itself and world can be the best antagonist and challenge to overcome if handled well.

in my view Game of Thrones has succeeded because it doesn't have a central big bad - no Sauron equivalent - just great characters interacting in brutal and unexpected ways.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 7, 2014)

Terry Greer said:


> ...in my view Game of Thrones has succeeded because it doesn't have a central big bad - no Sauron equivalent - just great characters interacting in brutal and unexpected ways.


Agreed. It's about competing interests between characters. Most of which have tendencies within for both good and wickedness. Though, in the backdrop, we have the steady approach of something more ominous and sinister.


----------



## hots_towel (May 7, 2014)

Terry Greer said:


> in my view Game of Thrones has succeeded because it doesn't have a central big bad - no Sauron equivalent - just great characters interacting in brutal and unexpected ways.


arent the white walkers the cliche bads from that series? the dragons are starting to look like they will end up filling that spot also (or more the roll of godzilla/king kong/ cloverfield). and GoT has a global conflict too with everyone hating each other. 

im from the opinion that global conflicts and dark lords arent always bad. theyre only bad if done wrong. Mass effect wouldnt have had epic endings (the first and second one i mean) if the conflict was localized. Fll metal alchemist started with a local conflict, bu then blew up into another "world saving" finale. I think even breaking bad took the whole walter white thing to a national height. 

it makes your finale that much more of a spectacle. If you want a non-global conflict for your story, then we as readers need to REALLY feel for your characters if you want that ending that leaves a lasting effect on us


----------



## Ayaka Di'rutia (May 7, 2014)

The main conflict in one novel I wrote is the character trying to overcome herself - her grief, her grief-induced madness, and finding redemption.  There is a very powerful villain that enters the story later and that forces the MC to overcome what you could call her final trial involving her main conflicts.  She makes the right choice, and because of that, she is able to redeem herself and defeat the big bad and many of his followers.

In the same series I've worked on, there are other villains that have influence over large amounts of people, but deep down they are actually quite "human," and don't come across as the impossible, mysterious dark lords that can't be defeated until almost all hope is lost, tropes I've seen in LOTR, the Wheel of Time, and Beyonders.  Powerful, sure, but not impossible as people and villains.

As intriguing as a dark lord in a book/series can be (if they're written correctly), I prefer villains I can get to know personally throughout the book or series.


----------



## Penpilot (May 7, 2014)

Basically any plot in the whole universe can be used in fantasy. People are people even if they live in a fantasy world. You can choose to focus on any type of conflict you want and it can work as a novel.

Don't get caught up in the trap that every novel has to be world shaking with stakes involving all of existences. I wrote an urban fantasy about old friends coming back together after someone important to them dies. The personal stakes end up being high after one of them gets into some trouble, but if they fall, the world will still go around.

Evil overlord plots tend to come to the forefront because they're simpler on the surface, big bad guy and good guys try to stop them; big obstacles and big triumphs. Things tend to plot themselves a little.

But if you take something like a baker's son get's sent to summer camp where they get to ride dragons, the plot isn't so obvious as the evil overlord. You'd have to really think about the type of story you're telling. Is this a coming of age story? Is this high adventure? Is it a survival story after the boy gets lost in the woods?

Some people, if given those parameters, wouldn't know where to start. Plotting for me became a lot easier once I learned a story structure. There are many different theories on structure out there. Not one of them is the right structure or the best, but knowing at least one helps in organizing your thoughts, and gives you direction when developing a story. I'd suggest you google a few up. I'd recommend you google Dan Wells 7 point structure in youtube. He describes one of the plotting structures that I use.


----------



## Svrtnsse (May 7, 2014)

Penpilot said:


> Basically any plot in the whole universe can be used in fantasy. People are people even if they live in a fantasy world. You can choose to focus on any type of conflict you want and it can work as a novel.



I'd like to second this.
My current WIP is based on a very simple idea: boy meets girl. It could have been written in the real world, or in the near or far future, or as a historical romance, or any other setting really. I chose to put it in a fantasy setting. It's a fairly low-key and laid back story, but it's definitely fantasy. 
I've got magic and spirits and strange creatures. There's brewing of potions and there's forbidden mysteries not to be tampered with. All these things add depth to the world, but in the end, they're irrelevant to the outcome of the story. It could just as well have taken place on a space ship.


----------



## Chessie (May 7, 2014)

Boy meets girl is my favorite. Out of any storyline, its the one that gives me goosebumps with the infinite amount of variety. It must be a girl thing.


----------



## Philip Overby (May 7, 2014)

To verify my earlier post, I _have_ written one epic and it will probably turn into a trilogy. It has regional ramifications, but there isn't really a dark lord. Well, maybe there is, I don't know. That said, it will be the only series I do in that style. I'm more interested in doing smaller, weirder (maybe) stories after that. I'm a big fan of China Mieville's style of each novel being like his own spin on different genres (mystery, fantasy, etc.) Not sure if this will kill me as a writer, but I'd like to not be confined by a strict definition of what I'm supposed to be writing as a fantasy writer. 

I do think if your story needs a powerful dark lord, it's fine to use one to be a source of conflict. But really as Penpilot said, don't be limited by "fantasy style" plots. The people that read books are humans from Earth (to the best of my knowledge anyway) so using the human experience to build conflict is certainly helpful.


----------



## Jabrosky (May 7, 2014)

One of the plots I am developing at the moment does feature a "dark lord" of sorts. Actually, she's a lady rather than a lord, and she doesn't necessarily want to conquer the _entire_ world. Instead she targets one particular country, namely the heroine's. What makes my villain different from your stereotypical dark lord is that she's motivated less by a generic evilness than a specific ideology (namely racial or cultural superiority). In my opinion devotion to an oppressive ideology can do wonders for villainy.


----------



## skip.knox (May 7, 2014)

My current story involves a house that is dying. An ogre tries to save it even as the magicians who reside there try to flee it. Whether the house stands or falls, the rest of the world will go on. A previous short story involved a kid in the desert and an Oldsmobile Roadmaster.

I recommend the OP read more widely. As others have pointed out, there are (literally) a million stories to tell, any of which could be placed in a fantasy setting. And there remain yet another million stories to tell involving evil overlords. Seventy percent of which will be ... well, you know.


----------



## Terry Greer (May 10, 2014)

hots_towel said:


> arent the white walkers the cliche bads from that series? the dragons are starting to look like they will end up filling that spot also (or more the roll of godzilla/king kong/ cloverfield). and GoT has a global conflict too with everyone hating each other.



I take the point, but the original question posed a big bad in the context of a tyrant trying to take over - The white walkers are certainly a threat - and there may be a 'big bad' leader - but I hope not as that would be a cop out. Currently at least I wouldn't really classify them as big bads though - personally I'd keep that for individuals (e..g. the equivalent of a dark lord) otherwise the term ends up getting used as anything that causes conflict.

In the same way dragons are really a force of nature - there isn't a 'Smaug' like one among them, and I doubt that one will become a threat even like Vermithrax in Dragonslayer - they're more weapons of war.

GOT has global conflict sure - but the real meat of the story is how individuals treat each other - and how decisions have consequences - I really think this grounding in human behavior rather than the usual fantasy tropes and sterotypical bad guys is what has broken the barrier to mainstream acceptance.

If you look hard enough there are potential sterotypes in there - but to me they avoid that label nicely (so far at least).


----------



## hots_towel (May 10, 2014)

Terry Greer said:


> I really think this grounding in human behavior rather than the usual fantasy tropes and sterotypical bad guys is what has broken the barrier to mainstream acceptance.


This i can definitely agree with. It's also why I hardly consider it a fantasy to begin with. 

I personally am not too excited about this series (I read the first book and didnt care for it), but I did happen upon an interview with martin where he pretty much agreed that his work is more akin to a drama set in a historical fiction. In which case, there's really no need for a dark lord. 

I think it's safe to say none of us really expect a Sauron (though you could argue with Sauron's motives that he isnt inherently evil) or a big bad when you pick up a general fiction book about a bank teller or something


----------



## Mythopoet (May 10, 2014)

Terry Greer said:


> GOT has global conflict sure - but the real meat of the story is how individuals treat each other - and how decisions have consequences - I really think this grounding in human behavior rather than the usual fantasy tropes and sterotypical bad guys is what has broken the barrier to mainstream acceptance.



Nope, sorry, I don't buy that. Good fantasy has always had those things. 

The real difference with GOT seems to be that everyone in it treats everyone else badly and everyone has lots of sex and then goes around killing each other. I think it makes modern people feel better about themselves.


----------



## Jabrosky (May 10, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> Nope, sorry, I don't buy that. Good fantasy has always had those things.
> 
> The real difference with GOT seems to be that everyone in it treats everyone else badly and everyone has lots of sex and then goes around killing each other. I think it makes modern people feel better about themselves.


I take it you're not a GoT fan, are you?

(I tried reading the first book and couldn't get into it. I think a major part of the problem was that the novel felt really unfocused, what with all the viewpoint switching and apparent lack of a unifying plot.)

I think any story with one-dimensional good and bad guys will be received as poorly characterized regardless of genre. There's a difference between a story have a clear-cut moral theme and having every character be one-dimensional in alignment.


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 10, 2014)

One of my novels is simply about social reform.  One religious leader is corrupt and unpunished because of how the laws work, so my MCs work to change the laws so that kind of corruption can't occur again.  He isn't a dark lord in any way, nor does his reach stretch beyond the city.  That's probably the closest I've come to writing an actual dark lord.  Well maybe not...

I have a novel that has an empirical-type mage who does use dark magic to capture a city.  But it isn't his own magic.  He's using an enslaved dragon to bring a city into darkness and create fear.  I guess that's kinda dark-lordy.

Most of my stories tend to be local conflicts.  not wars or even battles, but quests and individual motivations that meet with obstacles.  One is a coming-of-age story, another is about loyalty, family, and personal truths.  It really depends on how you look at it.  I guess some of the antagonists I've written could fill the dark lord shoes, but really, none of my power level is on par with Sauron.  

I think the best stories are ones that explore those things which make us human.  Things like love, betrayal, fear, paranoia, obsession, validation. I try to write stories that have "small" consequences.  If my characters don't succeed, the world would go on.  But their lives would be ruined.  Maybe it sounds inconsequential, but for me, it's just the way I prefer to write.  My ideas are neither unique nor truly epic.  I write real people who have to make tough decisions and find the personal strength or get strength from their allies, to accomplish things they didn't know they could.  I think every one of my characters has skeletons in their closets, weaknesses that make them vulnerable, and needs that drive them to sometimes stupid distraction.

If you're looking for non light vs. dark conflict, try gray-scale characters with opposing goals.  One wants to make something happen and the other wants to keep it from happening.  It's simple, really.  That basic concept is solid, all you need to do is throw some unique ideas into the mix and it becomes a great story.  For one of my stories, I took that simple concept (no antagonist in the book) and threw my young man, aspiring paladin and threw him into an adventure with a blind priestess who sees the world exactly opposite of my hero, and a wild-man hunter who hides his werewolf nature behind a gruff exterior.  The characters themselves are the conflict.  While they try each other's patience around every turn, the longer they journey together, the more their goals align and the more they realize working together might benefit everyone.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 11, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> I think any story with one-dimensional good and bad guys will be received as poorly characterized regardless of genre. There's a difference between a story have a clear-cut moral theme and having every character be one-dimensional in alignment.



It seems like what happens is that fans latch onto the one character who seems to have depth. That's the primary appeal of Han Solo in the light and dark of Star Wars, and the primary appeal of Severus Snape amongst the largely one-sided characters of Harry Potter. (And boy do they get peeved if you try to take that depth away. Remember, Han shot first!)


----------



## Penpilot (May 11, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> (I tried reading the first book and couldn't get into it. I think a major part of the problem was that the novel felt really unfocused, what with all the viewpoint switching and apparent lack of a unifying plot.)



Yeah, I thought that too in my first attempt at reading the first book. But once you get into the characters, all of them, things will pick up, and the unifying plot is really slow to appear and arrives with a whisper. Again it's all about the characters and the drama and the external things like war take more of a back seat.


----------



## Steerpike (May 11, 2014)

Yeah, GoT definitely has an overarching, unifying plot. You have to put the pieces together, especially really on.


----------



## Terry Greer (May 11, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> Nope, sorry, I don't buy that. Good fantasy has always had those things.
> 
> The real difference with GOT seems to be that everyone in it treats everyone else badly and everyone has lots of sex and then goes around killing each other. I think it makes modern people feel better about themselves.


I wouldn't agree with that- there are good pockets of humanity in GOT that treat each other well (The surviving Starks, Tyrion, Sam and Denary's - who is shaping up to be the one we want to root for). However the brutality of it all is obvious (based as it is on a lot of real history) Ed Stark is killed precisely because of his unwillingness to 'play the game'.

Most fantasy books have had those things sure - but it was always the fantasy elements that took center stage, and a lot of the conflict tends to lack bite - that's not the case with GOT. However, there are a lot of Fantasy books out there and I'm sure there are other examples that are just as strong - I just haven't come across them.

In truth I'm happy with both approaches really, one of my favorite fantasy authors is Jack Vance - the world and the fantasy elements are center stage in his dying earth stories (despite there being some fantastically sneaky and amoral  characters such as Cudgel the clever), but I can't see the books ever appealing to a wide audience outside those who like the genre as there's (sadly). 

As for sex - I totally agree - unless you include series such as the Gor books its traditionally been handled in a very coy and superficial way - and its that which has almost certainly opened the door a bit to some audiences.

Personally I'm always a bit uncomfortable with sex scenes in novels - but there's no denying their power when handled well. However what constitutes acceptable to an individual reader is sure to vary enormously.


----------



## Mythopoet (May 11, 2014)

Penpilot said:


> Again it's all about the characters and the drama



Which is precisely why I hated it. 

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE character driven stories. Dune, for instance, is one of my all time favorite books. Totally character driven. But I would hold up Paul (or Leto II or Jessica or Alia or the Baron Harkonnen and on and on) to any character from ASOIAF and the latter would just, in my opinion, look small and pathetic in comparison. 

It's not the character driven nature of the books that turned me off. It was the characters. It just boggles my mind that so many people love the characters of ASOIAF. They're almost entirely all horrible, horrible people or will be by the time the series is done breaking them. Either that or dead. Anyone with an ounce of goodness seems to either get killed of or ruined. I'm sure there are still "pockets of humanity" but, frankly, that's not enough. Martin is too eager to portray violence and horror and darkness and evil but seems loathe to balance it out with any of the goodness and heroism and inspiring light that can _also_ be found throughout the history of humanity. Why? Why is he so obsessed with all the bad things about humanity in our history and why doesn't he see all the good? 

I was watching an episode of Attack on Titan last night where one of the main characters who has suffered unspeakable horrors and trauma in her short life says "This world is cruel... but it is also beautiful." Wow. That's a great character. The characters in ASOIAF can't even compare.


----------



## Jabrosky (May 11, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> Martin is too eager to portray violence and horror and darkness and evil but seems loathe to balance it out with any of the goodness and heroism and inspiring light that can _also_ be found throughout the history of humanity. Why? Why is he so obsessed with all the bad things about humanity in our history and why doesn't he see all the good?


A lot of history books fixate on humanity's conflict-driven side, such as wars and power struggles. In that respect they're not much different from fiction. Consequently, we grow up with this cynical view of the human past that emphasizes bloodshed, repression, and other nastiness, and series like ASoIaF appeal to that prejudice. This is probably where the perception that the series resembles real history comes in.


----------



## Steerpike (May 11, 2014)

To me it's more a stylistic or thematic choice. The extent to which GRRM focuses on the darker aspects of human nature isn't more realistic than books that bias in favor of honor and nobility. Neither is truly realistic. It just comes down to what you like. I like both types of story, and there are plenty of each to choose from. My favorite Abercrombie book makes GRRM look like CS Lewis. There are characters I like well in GoT. Martin does a pretty good job with characters, be they good or b bad.


----------



## Terry Greer (May 11, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> Why is he so obsessed with all the bad things about humanity in our history and why doesn't he see all the good?



That's fair enough - not every book is to everyone's tastes.
I would say though that perhaps he concentrates on those aspects precisely because they're not normally handled in fantasy books.

And again - they're not all douchbags - not by a long way - we get true nobility to cheer in the form of Brienne, and Tyrion as well not to mention Jon Snow and Denerys and there are many more who are trying to do good (Even Varys who puts the Realm before everything - and understands the cruelty and how to deal with it). It just takes a while to figure out which character's you're rooting for.

But there's no reason why everyone should like it - we all draw the line on what we enjoy and why in different places.


----------



## Gurkhal (May 11, 2014)

Big Asoiaf fan here! A heart of gold and crimson that beats for the lions of the West is what I've got.

Anyway when looking at the huge amount of sources for conflict among humans without a dark lord I'm almost lost at this being an issue at all. Power struggles within and between kingdoms can work just as well as racism, hatred, love etc. to explain why certain people are at odds with each other.


----------



## Penpilot (May 11, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> It's not the character driven nature of the books that turned me off. It was the characters. It just boggles my mind that so many people love the characters of ASOIAF. They're almost entirely all horrible, horrible people or will be by the time the series is done breaking them. Either that or dead. Anyone with an ounce of goodness seems to either get killed of or ruined. I'm sure there are still "pockets of humanity" but, frankly, that's not enough. Martin is too eager to portray violence and horror and darkness and evil but seems loathe to balance it out with any of the goodness and heroism and inspiring light that can _also_ be found throughout the history of humanity. Why? Why is he so obsessed with all the bad things about humanity in our history and why doesn't he see all the good?



I'm guessing you didn't get too far into the story, so yes, in the beginning he sets up a cruel and unforgiving world inhabited with some despicable characters. But that's just the set up. These seemingly despicable characters aren't immune to the harshness of this world. As we learn about their motivations and they suffer consequences, they change not only as characters but in the reader's eyes. This isn't to say their sins are forgiven or excused, but they're understood. The evil they committed was not out of evil bat-shit craziness but for understandable reasons, like love.

And for some characters, they get their just desserts.

Two characters I absolutely hated at the beginning, Jamie Lannister and Sansa Stark, turned out to be a couple of my favourites. Why? Because they changed. I wanted to strangle Sansa, but she learned from her mistakes. She grew and she's shown that just because someone is physically weak doesn't mean they can't be strong. That no matter how difficult the situation, how you handle it is what matters.

For Jamie, a character that committed one of the biggest A-hole acts in the series, he shows just because a character commits a monstrous act doesn't mean he's a monster. There's honor in him and there's darkness. That's what a lot of the characters are like in ASOIF. That's a part of what makes them interesting. None of the characters are "Heroes". Heroes end up with their heads on pikes.

In the world of ASOIF there's not the naive notion that good always triumphs because nobody is wholly good, just like in real life. There are only victors, and they're the ones who write history, and that's where "Heroes" come from, at least in those terms. Peel back the curtains on some of the biggest good-guy heroes in history and a lot of times you'll find some of the biggest SOB ever born.


----------



## Malik (May 11, 2014)

^^ This.

Malcolm Reynolds, in the _Jaynestown_ episode, says, 

"The way I figure it, any man who ever had a statue made out of him had to be one kind of son of a bitch or another."

Truer words were never said.


----------



## Steerpike (May 11, 2014)

Malik said:


> ^^ This.
> 
> Malcolm Reynolds, in the _Jaynestown_ episode, says,
> 
> ...



I love that episode.


----------



## Mythopoet (May 12, 2014)

Penpilot said:


> None of the characters are "Heroes". Heroes end up with their heads on pikes.
> 
> In the world of ASOIF there's not the naive notion that good always triumphs because nobody is wholly good, just like in real life. There are only victors, and they're the ones who write history, and that's where "Heroes" come from, at least in those terms. Peel back the curtains on some of the biggest good-guy heroes in history and a lot of times you'll find some of the biggest SOB ever born.



Yes, that's the problem. This world is actually, really, full of heroes. They don't often make it into the history books, but they fill history nonetheless. Because in the real world there is plenty of reason to believe in good triumphing over evil. Good actions are rewarded much of the time, even if it's not in the ways we expect. But in Martin's cynical world there's no real reason to pursue good. The best you can do is survive. I object to such a world on principle. And it saddens me that so many people relish it.


----------



## Steerpike (May 12, 2014)

I think you guys are projecting way too much on the readers of any given type of work. On the one hand, readers who like traditional good v. evil stories are naive, while on the other hand if you like GRRM's work you're relishing in cynicism. Both are nonsense, in my view. They're two different types of stories, both perfectly capable of being done well and being enjoyed by a wide variety of people (of whom very little can be said based solely upon their enjoyment of a particular work). 

In addition to fantasy, I also enjoy horror, another genre where people tend to make unfounded assumptions about the reader. But I'm as likely to watch a Disney cartoon like Tangled, so now what?

I think people just need to acknowledge there are different tastes and that there is nothing wrong with that, rather than spending so much time validating their own choices with pretended objectivity. What is it a about the culture around things like books and gaming that compels people to try to turn subjective preferences into an objective reality?


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 12, 2014)

Okay, person who's never read GOT here, but a big part of why I'm staying away from it is that when folks talk about it, they tend to talk about all the rape and torture and murder. Like, _Madoka Magica_ is a story about selfishness and shortsightedness, and it can be quite cynical, but it only shows blood once, and even its more disturbing scenes aren't graphic or gross-out. And _Paranoia Agent_ is a story about people lying to themselves, and it's definitely cynical as all hell--it goes so far as to imply an rape, but doesn't show it, because showing it wouldn't be necessary for the story. I do think there can be value and purpose in depicting the worst of human excesses, and I've done so myself in some of my stories, but dredging through so many of those excesses at such length doesn't sound like something I'd be able to get through. (Granted, I've heard people say the series has a running theme that trying to rule like Caligula will inevitably get you overthrown or assassinated . . .)


----------



## Jabrosky (May 12, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> Yes, that's the problem. This world is actually, really, full of heroes. They don't often make it into the history books, but they fill history nonetheless. Because in the real world there is plenty of reason to believe in good triumphing over evil. Good actions are rewarded much of the time, even if it's not in the ways we expect. But in Martin's cynical world there's no real reason to pursue good. The best you can do is survive. I object to such a world on principle. And it saddens me that so many people relish it.


When it comes to history, there is always the problem of what constitutes good and evil in a given time and place. Very often you have people doing things that they considered righteous even if they seem evil to our sensibilities. That's moral relativism for you.

That said, I'm in favor of stories with clearer-cut morality myself. There's no rule saying the morality of a fantasy setting has to perfectly mirror that of any real historical society.


----------



## Steerpike (May 12, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> When it comes to history, there is always the problem of what constitutes good and evil in a given time and place. Very often you have people doing things that they considered righteous even if they seem evil to our sensibilities. That's moral relativism for you.
> 
> That said, I'm in favor of stories with clearer-cut morality myself. There's no rule saying the morality of a fantasy setting has to perfectly mirror that of any real historical society.



Yeah, it's kind of funny the extent to which I've seen some people say that fiction set in a fantasy world can't include moral absolutes, good and evil races, and the like if it is intended to be serious or realistic. Those statements presuppose that development as it occurred in our world is the only logical possibility, and I don't think that point of view makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Jabrosky (May 12, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, it's kind of funny the extent to which I've seen some people say that fiction set in a fantasy world can't include moral absolutes, good and evil races, and the like if it is intended to be serious or realistic. Those statements presuppose that development as it occurred in our world is the only logical possibility, and I don't think that point of view makes a lot of sense.


While a perfect utopia probably wouldn't allow for much conflict, it might even be a fun world-building exercise to take a historical setting that interests you and modify it so that its values better fit your own. Take the stereotypical medieval setting for example. You could keep the chivalric knights in shining armor, the big stone castles, and everything else you like about that place and period, but what if you had a democratically elected leader instead of the traditional feudal monarch?


----------



## Penpilot (May 12, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I think you guys are projecting way too much on the readers of any given type of work. On the one hand, readers who like traditional good v. evil stories are naive, while on the other hand if you like GRRM's work you're relishing in cynicism. Both are nonsense, in my view. They're two different types of stories, both perfectly capable of being done well and being enjoyed by a wide variety of people (of whom very little can be said based solely upon their enjoyment of a particular work).



I think you're reading into my post something that I didn't intend. Just because someone likes simple black and white stories doesn't make them naive. My reference to naivety is in regards to how the book treats those who value things like honor a little too much, like Ned Stark. I've said this many times on this forum. There's room for all types of stories, and there's nothing wrong with preferring one type over another. My response was directed at Mythopoets questions regarding the characters and why people love them. It was never intended to be a comment on any person's character. Because a judgement like that would be silly. It'd be like calling someone boring because they like vanilla ice cream 




Steerpike said:


> I think people just need to acknowledge there are different tastes and that there is nothing wrong with that, rather than spending so much time validating their own choices with pretended objectivity. What is it a about the culture around things like books and gaming that compels people to try to turn subjective preferences into an objective reality?



My comments are not objective, nor were they intended to be. If they came off as a pretend objectivity then I should have stated as personal opinion more clearly. I think reading a book is like watching a movie. Sometimes you're in the mood for Die Hard. Other times you want Taxi Driver. Both are good and should be appreciated for what they are, not what we want them to be.


----------



## Gryphos (May 13, 2014)

I don't personally think people should be shying away from black and white morality because, you know what, morality _is_ black and white (I think at least). And so is the world. Yes, the world has grey in it, but it has a lot more black and white, more than people like to think. And thus, so are characters, and villains and heroes do exist. To use GoT as an example (a story praised for not having set heroes or villains), Joffrey is a villain for obvious reasons. So is Cersei for hating the poor. So are the Masters for their slave trading. The Hound is a villain for stealing money from that farmer. The same could be said of real life. Serial killers are villains, human traffickers are villains, governments are full of villains.

And there are also heroes. These are the people who are, you know, kind people. They don't need to save the world, they just need to be a decent human being, which villains aren't. To use GoT again: Ned Stark was a hero. The reason he died wasn't because he was kind, it was because he was honourable (kindness and honour don't have to go hand in hand and yes, honour is worthless). Danaerys is a heroine because she's freeing the slaves, a show of kindness. Margaery is a heroine because she gave toys to the children at the orphanage. And it's the same in real life. Someone who gives money to a beggar is a hero, someone who risks his own life to save someone else's is a hero, someone who campaigns against corruption and prejudice is a hero.

My general view is that the world is not made up of all different shades of grey. It's made up of spectrums of black and white. People at the very end of the 'black' part are 'dark lords' real or not, so it is perfectly realistic to have a dark lord be the main antagonist of a story because, whether you intend it or not, your antagonist _is_ a dark lord.


----------

