The show with the chance of getting the best pilot ever just improved its odds
Monday, 20. July 2009, 12:13:59
Posts tagged with "Song of Ice And Fire"
The Way They Should Do It
Thursday, 13. November 2008, 13:50:45
Shuler Donner was happy to [...] shed a little light on things. "We have a script on Magneto which is actually sort of Magneto and Charles Xavier," she said. 'It's Eric and Charles in their early, early years."
Let's all cross our fingers that this is the movie they'll end up making - and that it'll get made. ANY movie about those two meeting, becoming friends, and, likely, parting ways, will automatically be better than the mess that was X3.
(In related adaptation-news, yesterday this was announced. Figured not all of you read my twittering.)
Fevre Dream
Wednesday, 30. July 2008, 19:28:34
The chains were very strong.
- Joshua York
We're in America, by the Mississippi, close before the Civil War. We're taken there through the eyes of Abner Marsh, steamboat cap'n, a damned ugly man whose appetite is only dwarfed by his integrity, and Sour Billy, the skinny overseer of the slaves at the Julian Plantation who is as clever as he is mean. Both these men are formidable - or, as Marsh would fondly pronounce the word, for-mid-a-bul - and interesting in their own right, but what George R. R. Martin's fantasy novel Fevre Dream is showing us through their eyes is more for-mid-a-bul still.
Fevre Dream is the story of Abner Marsh's dream of owning and piloting a steamboat so beautiful and grand that it would beat out even the famous boat Eclipse in a race, and of his new, mysterious business partner Joshua York's dream of - well, that'd be spoiling the surprise wouldn't it? Suffice to say that he, too, has a fond desire to put something beautiful into the world, and that something is the magnificent sidewheeler steamboat Fevre Dream.
Everything seems bright and wondrous for Cap'n Marsh as his lifelong dream begins its maiden voyage along the Mississippi, but isn't it damned odd how the polite and likable Joshua York insists on keeping the strangest hours, never coming out in the day, and how Marsh had to promise asking no questions about his strange behaviour in return for the funding?
At the Julian plant, a couple of run-away slaves is brought back into the hands of Sour Billy by a slave-catcher and his son. The terrified slaves have told odd tales along the way, but slave-talk is not worth listening to, and Sour Billy agrees. Still, it's somewhat strange that there's no-one but Billy to see at the plantation, and that they'll have to wait until nightfall before the owner will arrive to pay them for the service.
George R. R. Martin is my hands-down favourite fantasy-author with his ever-ongoing A Song of Ice and Fire, but I have never taken the time to read anything he's written outside of his vast epic. Mostly, it seems, he's written outside the fantasy-genre, but this particular book is an exception to that. And Martin does certainly not disappoint.
While in my respects a history-buff, I will freely admit that the 1860's is too recent for my tastes, and steamboats has never really tickled my fancy. The closest I've ever gotten to care about steamboats in my life was while reading chapter two of Keno Don Rosa's graphic novel The Life and Times of $crooge McDuck, but even there in-between gorgeous illustrations and exciting characters did not the concept of the riverboat-captains of the mid-1800's and their steamboats come to life as much as here.
What intrigued me most about this book, I think, was the characterisations - several secondary characters stick almost as well to the memory as the more central ones, and the main villain was in many ways as charismatic and interesting as the nicer people of the story. This relatively short book, ending at well beneath 400 pages, opens up a wide new world for me as a reader, a world I'd be very interested in seeing more of. (Alas, not likely to happen.) The book holds tragedy, but it's also got great displays of loyalty, trust, and honour - and even at times a little comedy. Strength in defeat, weakness in triumph, pathetically valiant and admiringly greedy, there is a lot of these things to be seen in Fevre Dream, and while Martin has here written a story far more clearly distinguishing between good and evil than the morally grey areas-loving Ice and Fire he still shows us characteristically complex characters dealing with characteristically complex moral issues. All the while neatly covered in what on the surface would seem to be a straight-forward conflict between right and wrong.
I must say I truly enjoyed this book. While never as singularly awesome as A Song of Ice and Fire, Fevre Dream grabbed me from the very first page of it I read and kept me going eagerly. And when I got there, the end did not disappoint.
A Storm of Swords - the boardgame
Sunday, 27. April 2008, 22:11:18
On the suggestion of Obdormio, I decided to write a short review of this game, technically an expansion to the original A Game of Thrones-game.
The original is probably my favourite boardgame of all time (which is saying a lot, because I play relatively many), based, as the title suggests, on the first book of George R. R. Martin's amazing fantasy-series A Song of Ice and Fire. A warning, by the way - while GoT is set during the first book and barely spoils the first half of it, and little else, SoS is set far later and spoils much of the first book and maybe parts of the second. If you are planning to read these books but haven't, GoT is a rather safe pasttime-pursuit, but SoS probably isn't.
While the original is primarily intended for five players - and a subsequent expansion-set let you play with six - Storm of Swords gives you a new board and several new rules tailor-made to transplant the gaming-system of the original to a game for four players. (I will for purposes of this post assume that the reader has at least a superficial degree of experience with the original game)
I've only yet played one game with it, and feel hesitant to be too adamant in my opinions, but so far I'd say it does a damned good job at it.
SoS introduces a lot of new tactical elements, primarily Leaders, two for each of the houses of nobility fighting for supremacy, that give you several new options especially relating to movements; and tactic-cards, which adds one major all-spanning tactic to the concrete orders you place every turn. I was sceptical to the latter, but it worked surprisingly well. Both of these options are available as possible add-ons to the original game as well, but I do believe it would make the game imbalanced and boringly slow if that was done. The one exception, here, might be for three-player-games on the original board, where I've tried out Leaders with what I think could only be described as great success, and am also strongly suspecting would favour an inclusion of the Tactics-cards.
SoS also introduces Allies, an option that is quite interesting indeed and sadly not transposable to the original game. Three powerful non-player houses of nobility as well as Merceneries and Outlaws add their influence to your civil war, and you as the player are always stuck between wanting to spend your resources improving your OWN position, and spending resources to win favour with the different fractions of non-player parties. In our game, interestingly, the second-place player (me, playing Baratheon) basically owed his entire position to his allied aides, while the first-place player (playing Greyjoy) managed completely without them whatsoever. This fact alone has me convinced that this is an excellent addition to the game adding many levels of strategy and choices neeed without really increasing the amount of boring silent sit-to-yourself-and-think-time mentionably.
Another thing SoS does is increase the importance of the three oversized tokens. On the smaller board, the order of play seems more pressingly vital than on the original one, and skimping out on the Iron Throne-bid is thus less easy a choice than before. Additionally, there is a second bidding-phase that sometimes occur, replacing the wildlings, and in some ways being able to break ties in this bid might seem at least somewhat more powerful than in the wildlings-bid of the original game. The Iron Throne-bid is thus adjusted in power and is more on the level of the other two. Additionally, as mentioned, the three tokens are more powerful, as the new Westeros-decks to be used with the SoS-board allow the holders of the tokens to influence the events of the game. This particular element is also useable with the original game, but I'm unsure if it will work as well there - it seems less appealing to increase the value of the first position compared to the second and the third in a five- or six-player game, as where in a four- or three-player game it adds dynamic it would instead simply overpower the leader on each track in the original one. Still, by the same logic, it could be interesting to try out with a three-player-game on the original board.
The floods, allowing some borders (rivers) to be crossed at some points and not at others, is another clever addition to the more crowded four-player board that allows for the nice mixture of planning, odds-calculating and hints of unpredictable luck that this series of games is so incredibly good at. You're never in control of everything, but you always know what you're not in control of and you always have options to act accordingly to minimise or maximise the influence luck will have on your play. It is, to my dice-hating-heart, ingenious.
Of other elements introduced by SoS is the wildlings-deck, to be used as an optional part of the original game to vary wildling-attack-outcomes if wished. I haven't tried this option out, but I suppose it might have its qualities. I instinctively feel uncertain about something adding more random chance to the game, however. Also included is a new set of House Cards, compulsory for use with SoS but optional instead of the old set(s) with the original game. More powerful than the original but less so than the one from the previous expansion, this new set is custom-made to balance out the added element of power the Leaders bring to the game.
All in all, I greatly enjoyed the game, and I find it had adapted the basic gameplay of the original game onto a new board for a lower amount of players absolutely superbly. Highly recommended for anybody who's tried out the original but often can't get together more than three or four players. (Obviously, this is an expansion, and you need the original game to make use of it, as it doesn't include all the pieces you'd otherwise need. Feel like that should be specified in such a post)
The original is probably my favourite boardgame of all time (which is saying a lot, because I play relatively many), based, as the title suggests, on the first book of George R. R. Martin's amazing fantasy-series A Song of Ice and Fire. A warning, by the way - while GoT is set during the first book and barely spoils the first half of it, and little else, SoS is set far later and spoils much of the first book and maybe parts of the second. If you are planning to read these books but haven't, GoT is a rather safe pasttime-pursuit, but SoS probably isn't.
While the original is primarily intended for five players - and a subsequent expansion-set let you play with six - Storm of Swords gives you a new board and several new rules tailor-made to transplant the gaming-system of the original to a game for four players. (I will for purposes of this post assume that the reader has at least a superficial degree of experience with the original game)
I've only yet played one game with it, and feel hesitant to be too adamant in my opinions, but so far I'd say it does a damned good job at it.
SoS introduces a lot of new tactical elements, primarily Leaders, two for each of the houses of nobility fighting for supremacy, that give you several new options especially relating to movements; and tactic-cards, which adds one major all-spanning tactic to the concrete orders you place every turn. I was sceptical to the latter, but it worked surprisingly well. Both of these options are available as possible add-ons to the original game as well, but I do believe it would make the game imbalanced and boringly slow if that was done. The one exception, here, might be for three-player-games on the original board, where I've tried out Leaders with what I think could only be described as great success, and am also strongly suspecting would favour an inclusion of the Tactics-cards.
SoS also introduces Allies, an option that is quite interesting indeed and sadly not transposable to the original game. Three powerful non-player houses of nobility as well as Merceneries and Outlaws add their influence to your civil war, and you as the player are always stuck between wanting to spend your resources improving your OWN position, and spending resources to win favour with the different fractions of non-player parties. In our game, interestingly, the second-place player (me, playing Baratheon) basically owed his entire position to his allied aides, while the first-place player (playing Greyjoy) managed completely without them whatsoever. This fact alone has me convinced that this is an excellent addition to the game adding many levels of strategy and choices neeed without really increasing the amount of boring silent sit-to-yourself-and-think-time mentionably.
Another thing SoS does is increase the importance of the three oversized tokens. On the smaller board, the order of play seems more pressingly vital than on the original one, and skimping out on the Iron Throne-bid is thus less easy a choice than before. Additionally, there is a second bidding-phase that sometimes occur, replacing the wildlings, and in some ways being able to break ties in this bid might seem at least somewhat more powerful than in the wildlings-bid of the original game. The Iron Throne-bid is thus adjusted in power and is more on the level of the other two. Additionally, as mentioned, the three tokens are more powerful, as the new Westeros-decks to be used with the SoS-board allow the holders of the tokens to influence the events of the game. This particular element is also useable with the original game, but I'm unsure if it will work as well there - it seems less appealing to increase the value of the first position compared to the second and the third in a five- or six-player game, as where in a four- or three-player game it adds dynamic it would instead simply overpower the leader on each track in the original one. Still, by the same logic, it could be interesting to try out with a three-player-game on the original board.
The floods, allowing some borders (rivers) to be crossed at some points and not at others, is another clever addition to the more crowded four-player board that allows for the nice mixture of planning, odds-calculating and hints of unpredictable luck that this series of games is so incredibly good at. You're never in control of everything, but you always know what you're not in control of and you always have options to act accordingly to minimise or maximise the influence luck will have on your play. It is, to my dice-hating-heart, ingenious.
Of other elements introduced by SoS is the wildlings-deck, to be used as an optional part of the original game to vary wildling-attack-outcomes if wished. I haven't tried this option out, but I suppose it might have its qualities. I instinctively feel uncertain about something adding more random chance to the game, however. Also included is a new set of House Cards, compulsory for use with SoS but optional instead of the old set(s) with the original game. More powerful than the original but less so than the one from the previous expansion, this new set is custom-made to balance out the added element of power the Leaders bring to the game.
All in all, I greatly enjoyed the game, and I find it had adapted the basic gameplay of the original game onto a new board for a lower amount of players absolutely superbly. Highly recommended for anybody who's tried out the original but often can't get together more than three or four players. (Obviously, this is an expansion, and you need the original game to make use of it, as it doesn't include all the pieces you'd otherwise need. Feel like that should be specified in such a post)
New Ice and Fire-sample!
Thursday, 3. January 2008, 13:25:10
"A turncloak would tell you what you wished to hear and betray you later. Your Grace knows that I was fairly chosen. My father always said you were a just man." Just but harsh had been Lord Eddard's exact words, but Jon did not think it would be wise to share that.
"Lord Eddard was no friend of mine, but he was not without some sense," said Stannis. "He would have given me these castles."
Never. "I cannot speak to what my father might have done. I took an oath, Your Grace. The Wall is mine."
"For now. We will see how well you hold it."
- Jon Snow and Stannis Baratheon,
in a A Dance With Dragons-sample, by George R. R. Martin
Brutal irony
Sunday, 25. November 2007, 10:51:58
The common people pray for rain, or healthy children, and a summer that never ends. It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace.
They never are.
- Ser Jorah Mormont,
A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin.
Stormborn
Thursday, 15. November 2007, 02:53:23
If life was worthless, what was death?
- Daenerys Targaryen,
A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin
Icy, fiery testy thingy
Sunday, 9. September 2007, 15:02:58
As linked by Lotta.
Responsible. Respectable. Dour. That’s not shit coming out of your ass–it’s honor. You are clearly of House Stark.
You are a submissive personality, meaning that you are more than willing to relinquish control to someone more qualified; you will unflinchingly accept any responsibility that is thrust upon you, including servitude. Unfortunately for you, your unending patience and accommodating nature often make people look to you for a leader. In essence, you are the perfect leader: someone who has no desire to lead, yet is substantially well-qualified to do it.
You are also introverted, which means that people sometimes have difficulty understanding your thought process. Your dependable nature makes you predictable, but you’ve probably got all sorts of emotional dysfunctions when it comes to more intimate relationships. There are very few people whom you trust unwaveringly, and you’re not the type to confide in other people. So cold, so aloof–so Stark.
Finally, you are trustworthy–the very definition of the word. All secrets are safe with you. All of your vows are unbreakable. True to your name, you world is a stark place; there is black, and there is white. Your rigidity tends to undercut your overall value as a friend and ally. Honesty such as yours is hard to come by, which is easy to understand when you consider how easily manipulated you are by less decent individuals. Essentially, you’re the nice guy, and you’ll always finish last.
Representative characters include: Eddard Stark, Jon Snow, and Sansa Stark
Similar Houses: Frey, Lannister and Tully
Opposite House: Baratheon
When playing the game of thrones, you play it with one sword in your hand and another up your ass.
Responsible. Respectable. Dour. That’s not shit coming out of your ass–it’s honor. You are clearly of House Stark.
You are a submissive personality, meaning that you are more than willing to relinquish control to someone more qualified; you will unflinchingly accept any responsibility that is thrust upon you, including servitude. Unfortunately for you, your unending patience and accommodating nature often make people look to you for a leader. In essence, you are the perfect leader: someone who has no desire to lead, yet is substantially well-qualified to do it.
You are also introverted, which means that people sometimes have difficulty understanding your thought process. Your dependable nature makes you predictable, but you’ve probably got all sorts of emotional dysfunctions when it comes to more intimate relationships. There are very few people whom you trust unwaveringly, and you’re not the type to confide in other people. So cold, so aloof–so Stark.
Finally, you are trustworthy–the very definition of the word. All secrets are safe with you. All of your vows are unbreakable. True to your name, you world is a stark place; there is black, and there is white. Your rigidity tends to undercut your overall value as a friend and ally. Honesty such as yours is hard to come by, which is easy to understand when you consider how easily manipulated you are by less decent individuals. Essentially, you’re the nice guy, and you’ll always finish last.
Representative characters include: Eddard Stark, Jon Snow, and Sansa Stark
Similar Houses: Frey, Lannister and Tully
Opposite House: Baratheon
When playing the game of thrones, you play it with one sword in your hand and another up your ass.
Links of the Fortnight
Sunday, 28. January 2007, 11:24:48
Somehow, I seem to be finding less links lately. Don't know why, but I do. So! I'm changing the system to every other week. 'Key? Key. Anyway, here's the links:
TATATATAAAAAA! De hær e Valla-nytt.
http://grrm.livejournal.com/11326.html
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=80997 "We did." Gods, I laughed so hard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QAsUWDazQ&mode=related&search= "ARE YOU COLBERT OR COLBER(T)?!" "I'm whomever you want me to be, Bill."
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=81337 "HOGWASH?! WE HAVE IT ON TAPE!"
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=81345 "How dare you apply my party's cruel and inhumane family politics on my family?"
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=81108 "It's like he's holding these truths to be self-evident!"
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=81112 I *love* how he's on the verge of laughing out loud in the last second of this clip. XD
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=81290 I love it when the congressmen he interviews actually strikes a likable figure.
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=81289 Say what you will about Cheney, but you have to admit, being that scary is kinda cool.
TATATATAAAAAA! De hær e Valla-nytt.
http://grrm.livejournal.com/11326.html
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=80997 "We did." Gods, I laughed so hard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QAsUWDazQ&mode=related&search= "ARE YOU COLBERT OR COLBER(T)?!" "I'm whomever you want me to be, Bill."
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=81337 "HOGWASH?! WE HAVE IT ON TAPE!"
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=81345 "How dare you apply my party's cruel and inhumane family politics on my family?"
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=81108 "It's like he's holding these truths to be self-evident!"
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=81112 I *love* how he's on the verge of laughing out loud in the last second of this clip. XD
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=81290 I love it when the congressmen he interviews actually strikes a likable figure.
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=81289 Say what you will about Cheney, but you have to admit, being that scary is kinda cool.
Storm of Swords - you've gotta love it.
Sunday, 12. November 2006, 14:16:17
Obdormio says:
woah
Obdormio says:
Littlefinger!
Obdormio says:
!!!
Obdormio says:
the fiend!
Obdormio says:
the bastard!
Obdormio says:
the bloody brilliant genius bastard!
woah
Obdormio says:
Littlefinger!
Obdormio says:
!!!
Obdormio says:
the fiend!
Obdormio says:
the bastard!
Obdormio says:
the bloody brilliant genius bastard!
A Game Of Thrones Has Been Played, long live the squids
Sunday, 27. August 2006, 00:29:46
Seeing as Obdormio was in on this one, I thought I should write a wee rapport, in the eyes of the Lion.
The Lion, this time, as it turned out, was me, and boy did I make a piss-poor job at it. First round, I played okay, but with mistakes. Second round, I played fairly well. Third round, I stunk. Fourth round, I stunk again. And after that, I had one obsese little squad of Lannister guardsman trotting around the Riverlands and the eastern Westerland on search for something to do. I played the Lion like an itty bitty kitty.
To be fair, it wasn't all my bad. While I positioned myself wide open for what would be the main blow against me, I still think it was the smartest, albeit riskiest, thing for me to do. Yes, it was lousy done to the other players to do what I did, but that does not make it rational to choose to hurt me, who at that point was the weakest player on the board in all respects, over the player who not only was clearly in the lead, but who would in addition be the sole player to profit should I be targeted.
Of course, I was targetted, and I should have foreseen that. The player making the call was new to the game, the board-positions wouldn't look as obvious to him as they did to me, and he was right in wanting to punish my move, I shouldn't have expected him to have such a grasp on the game and the current situation as to realize that he rationally couldn't do that without effectively handing an already stronger player the victory. It really bugs me ho I often seem to lose games like this from overestimaiting my opponents. Oh, well.
The Kraken, of course, was the strongest player, the Stag being a rather distant second for most of the game. Highgarden was very latent throughout, never really going over into agressive-mode, which, if I should speculate (and why not, I spent most of the game walking in circles with a single over-supplied regiment with nothing better to do), was his main mistake. He played a very fair game up until the three last rounds or so, when he should have brutally expanded navally, either in the west (which he should have done in concordance with a similar naval assault in the northeast by the Stag) or in the southeast. I'd have preffered west were I him, not because the Kraken was the easiest target - it wasn't - but because that could have given him a chance at the Throne, while launching at the Stag would only increase Grejoy's relative power in the game. However, I might be wrong in assuming he could have held Baratheon back if he'd gone up northweast, so maybe southeast was his better choice, I didn't pay it THAT much attention. Anyway, I think Highgarden would have profited from getting more aggressive mid-game. As far as I can recall, aside from claiming Sunspear, Tyrell didn't do one single attack throughout the game, and obviously, that's not right.
The Wolf, now, the Wolf I didn't pay that much mind, so my thoughts there might be way off, but... I think he did rather well. Had I not been given the penalty the Kraken should have gotten, the Wolf might have been fighting Kraken rather closely for the leading position - a fight which could easily have weakened both enough to open for any of the other three players, but probably the Stag, who was both the strongest runner-up and the best positioned player to do so. However, I have one small quarrel with the Wolf - he should, really, really should, have accepted my round 2-offer for an anti-Kraken alliance. While this is obviously easy to say in hindsight, and I agree it wasn't that clear-cut a decision right then and there, I'm pretty sure that would have smothered the Kraken quite nicely - and, I might add, would have weakened the Kraken enough so that when the penalty was dealt to me, the Kraken wouldn't be able to take full advantage, placing the Wolf firmly in the lead. (Overlooking the fact that I wouldn't have bid as I had if the Kraken hadn't been so strong I considered him the only possible choice for the penalty) All speculation of course, but I do think that's how it would have played... and, well, I was right in my assumptions on how the actual game would go, so why not in this speculative one?
All in all, however, the Wolf did well, keeping the Stag at bay, and holding the Kraken off by subtly maneouvering for keeping the Lion weak enough for keeping the Kraken's main interests in the south. A maneouver which in the end, as I foresaw, worked to his disadvantage, but in the early-game, it worked just as he wanted, and kudos to him for that. It wasn't 'til the Ironborn had utterly finished the Lion off they turned their attention to Stark, and, well, up until that point the Wolf had been doing pretty damned well. Of course, that point came, as I knew it would, but... it was still a decent attempt.
All things considered, it was a good and entertaining game, despite my early fall from grace, and (hopefully) I've learned not to overestimate other players. I probably haven't - I didn't last time, or the time before that, or the time before that, etc, etc - but one can hope. And hopefully, next time such a situation arises, there will be a slightly more experienced player making the call. Cause gosh darn it, I did make the right move, had I just been able to convince others of my being right. (And that's veeeery easy, when the only one knowing it instinctively sat at my left hand side and would be the one profiting from it, wisely arguing against what he knew would destroy his already big advantage. Brotherly love indeed. And yet the bastard kept sparing my last little troop for no apparent reason later in the game. I think he felt bad. XD)
The Lion, this time, as it turned out, was me, and boy did I make a piss-poor job at it. First round, I played okay, but with mistakes. Second round, I played fairly well. Third round, I stunk. Fourth round, I stunk again. And after that, I had one obsese little squad of Lannister guardsman trotting around the Riverlands and the eastern Westerland on search for something to do. I played the Lion like an itty bitty kitty.
To be fair, it wasn't all my bad. While I positioned myself wide open for what would be the main blow against me, I still think it was the smartest, albeit riskiest, thing for me to do. Yes, it was lousy done to the other players to do what I did, but that does not make it rational to choose to hurt me, who at that point was the weakest player on the board in all respects, over the player who not only was clearly in the lead, but who would in addition be the sole player to profit should I be targeted.
Of course, I was targetted, and I should have foreseen that. The player making the call was new to the game, the board-positions wouldn't look as obvious to him as they did to me, and he was right in wanting to punish my move, I shouldn't have expected him to have such a grasp on the game and the current situation as to realize that he rationally couldn't do that without effectively handing an already stronger player the victory. It really bugs me ho I often seem to lose games like this from overestimaiting my opponents. Oh, well.
The Kraken, of course, was the strongest player, the Stag being a rather distant second for most of the game. Highgarden was very latent throughout, never really going over into agressive-mode, which, if I should speculate (and why not, I spent most of the game walking in circles with a single over-supplied regiment with nothing better to do), was his main mistake. He played a very fair game up until the three last rounds or so, when he should have brutally expanded navally, either in the west (which he should have done in concordance with a similar naval assault in the northeast by the Stag) or in the southeast. I'd have preffered west were I him, not because the Kraken was the easiest target - it wasn't - but because that could have given him a chance at the Throne, while launching at the Stag would only increase Grejoy's relative power in the game. However, I might be wrong in assuming he could have held Baratheon back if he'd gone up northweast, so maybe southeast was his better choice, I didn't pay it THAT much attention. Anyway, I think Highgarden would have profited from getting more aggressive mid-game. As far as I can recall, aside from claiming Sunspear, Tyrell didn't do one single attack throughout the game, and obviously, that's not right.
The Wolf, now, the Wolf I didn't pay that much mind, so my thoughts there might be way off, but... I think he did rather well. Had I not been given the penalty the Kraken should have gotten, the Wolf might have been fighting Kraken rather closely for the leading position - a fight which could easily have weakened both enough to open for any of the other three players, but probably the Stag, who was both the strongest runner-up and the best positioned player to do so. However, I have one small quarrel with the Wolf - he should, really, really should, have accepted my round 2-offer for an anti-Kraken alliance. While this is obviously easy to say in hindsight, and I agree it wasn't that clear-cut a decision right then and there, I'm pretty sure that would have smothered the Kraken quite nicely - and, I might add, would have weakened the Kraken enough so that when the penalty was dealt to me, the Kraken wouldn't be able to take full advantage, placing the Wolf firmly in the lead. (Overlooking the fact that I wouldn't have bid as I had if the Kraken hadn't been so strong I considered him the only possible choice for the penalty) All speculation of course, but I do think that's how it would have played... and, well, I was right in my assumptions on how the actual game would go, so why not in this speculative one?
All in all, however, the Wolf did well, keeping the Stag at bay, and holding the Kraken off by subtly maneouvering for keeping the Lion weak enough for keeping the Kraken's main interests in the south. A maneouver which in the end, as I foresaw, worked to his disadvantage, but in the early-game, it worked just as he wanted, and kudos to him for that. It wasn't 'til the Ironborn had utterly finished the Lion off they turned their attention to Stark, and, well, up until that point the Wolf had been doing pretty damned well. Of course, that point came, as I knew it would, but... it was still a decent attempt.
All things considered, it was a good and entertaining game, despite my early fall from grace, and (hopefully) I've learned not to overestimate other players. I probably haven't - I didn't last time, or the time before that, or the time before that, etc, etc - but one can hope. And hopefully, next time such a situation arises, there will be a slightly more experienced player making the call. Cause gosh darn it, I did make the right move, had I just been able to convince others of my being right. (And that's veeeery easy, when the only one knowing it instinctively sat at my left hand side and would be the one profiting from it, wisely arguing against what he knew would destroy his already big advantage. Brotherly love indeed. And yet the bastard kept sparing my last little troop for no apparent reason later in the game. I think he felt bad. XD)
Go Martin!
Wednesday, 2. August 2006, 21:50:28
You know, it is irritating enough that this president is so ignorant about so many things, but what really infuriates me is that he WALLOWS in his ignorance and seems to take great joy in it.
- George R. R. Martin
And while we're quoting his Not A Blog (yes, I do believe I may have subconciously ripped that off, though I'm not sure) :
Oh, and I've also come up with a new title for the seventh (and final, I hope, I hope, I hope) volume of the series -- A DREAM OF SPRING. I like the sound of that a lot better than A TIME FOR WOLVES, which has been my working title for book seven up to now, and I also think it gives a better sense of the book that I want to write. So -- A DANCE WITH DRAGONS, then THE WINDS OF WINTER, then A DREAM OF SPRING. Shouldn't take me long (hah).
Yay.
my unread shelf alone filled twenty-two boxes. (And those are just MY unread books, Parris has her own). I have enough unread books to keep me reading for several decades. I never need to buy another book. But somehow I suspect I will.
Sigh. I wonder if I, assuming I'm still alive, will have an equally big heap of bought yet unread books when I'm his age.
I think I will.
I'll say this...
Monday, 31. July 2006, 16:07:53
...we've got taste, we Norwegian fantasy-geeks.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22A+song+of+ice+and+fire%22&ctab=1&geo=all&date=all
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22A+song+of+ice+and+fire%22&ctab=1&geo=all&date=all
Winter is coming
Sunday, 23. July 2006, 08:07:51
Just in case I haven't done this well enough myself, I'll give Unshelved the opportunity to rectify:
http://www.overduemedia.com/archive.aspx?strip=20060723
Oh, and, Obdormio, I'm looking at you.
http://www.overduemedia.com/archive.aspx?strip=20060723
Oh, and, Obdormio, I'm looking at you.
MORE GOODKIND-BASHING BY MARTIN!
Wednesday, 28. June 2006, 23:24:11
I just have to quote this:
And Martin replies:
It's all so wonderfully and delightfully and mean and as-a-matter-of-factly.
EMAIL OF THE MONTH
Reader ADAM HARMON writes:
I'm something of an online gamer since my last role-playing group disbanded a year or two ago. I started a new character on World of Warcraft and took a jaunt through one of the forests in the game. As chance would have it, I came across a blond woman named Cercei. Granted, the spelling was off (in online gaming, names are hard to secure), but I had to take a chance because I just finished reading A Song of Ice and Fire up until Crows for the second time. I told her privately, "Valar Morghulis," and without even skipping a beat, she replied, "Valar Dohaeris." It was the closest thing to a secret society handshake I've ever learned.
And Martin replies:
Hey, I think you may be on to something here! What a great idea, a pick-up line for ICE & FIRE readers! Don't know what to say to that cute girl you just spotted at the con party? Just stroll up and whisper, "Valar Morghulis." If she replies, "Valar Dohaeris," you know you've got something in common, and you're off and running, talking about your favorite characters and the books in general and other books you've liked and... who knows where it will end? And if she gives you a blank look instead, that's good too. Either she doesn't read at all, or she's a Terry Goodkind fan, and you can move on and find someone else. It's well known, mixed marriages don't work.
Of course, you don't actually say how this online relationship turned out. There are certain perils in getting too close to blond women named Cercei, no matter how they spell it.
GRRM
It's all so wonderfully and delightfully and mean and as-a-matter-of-factly.
Reading List
Monday, 1. May 2006, 12:37:39
I'm posting this more to have a easily available list somewhere than to inform you readers, so I apologize if this seems dreadfully boring.
1. Finish "The Hidden City", book 3 of the Tamuil-trilogy by David Eddings, last of the Sparhawk-books.
2. Read "Exiles Return", last book (at this point, at least) of the "Conclave of Shadows"-series by Raymond E. Feist
3. Read "The Malazan Book of the Fallen"-series by Steven Erikson, which has, like, six books brick-thick at this point or something, so this is going to be taking a while. Looking forward to it, though.
4. Read "Jimmy the Hand", last book (again, at this point, at least) of the "Legends of the Riftwar"-series of stand-alone books by Raymond E. Feist. Thanks to Rafe for this piece of information. Whoever you are, dude, I owe you.
5. Read "The Complete Sherlock Holmes Collection", at least a few more stories in it, I've been standing in the first fourth of the gigantic book for over a year now.
6. The "Labyrinth of Evil"-"Revenge of the Sith"-"Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader"-trilogy, which I've been post-poning for quite some months now.
7. Read "Knife of Dreams", latest book in the "Wheel of Time"-series by that Robert Jordan-fellow everybody keeps going on and on about.
8. Catch up on "Artemis Fowl".
9. At this point I should probably try something of Robin Hobb.
10. "American Gods" by Neil Gaiman.
11. Getting back into the Deverry-books by Katherine Kerr, I've only read the very first series, and that one in Norwegian, no less.
12. Reading "Flight of the Nighthawks" and whatever more Feist may have published in his Darkwar-saga at this point in time.
13. Sigh. Reading book 4-> of "Harry Potter", I guess...
14. Assorted "Discworld"-books.
15. Now, I'm sure this list will be obsolete before I get this far due to new interests, new publications and the like, but at this point I'd rather fancy reading Milton's "Paradise Lost" or Dante's "Divine Comedy". I should probably also give "Don Quijote" a chance, and I've been wanting to re-read some Jules Verne, haven't read him since the eight or ninth grade.
1. Finish "The Hidden City", book 3 of the Tamuil-trilogy by David Eddings, last of the Sparhawk-books.
2. Read "Exiles Return", last book (at this point, at least) of the "Conclave of Shadows"-series by Raymond E. Feist
3. Read "The Malazan Book of the Fallen"-series by Steven Erikson, which has, like, six books brick-thick at this point or something, so this is going to be taking a while. Looking forward to it, though.
4. Read "Jimmy the Hand", last book (again, at this point, at least) of the "Legends of the Riftwar"-series of stand-alone books by Raymond E. Feist. Thanks to Rafe for this piece of information. Whoever you are, dude, I owe you.
5. Read "The Complete Sherlock Holmes Collection", at least a few more stories in it, I've been standing in the first fourth of the gigantic book for over a year now.
6. The "Labyrinth of Evil"-"Revenge of the Sith"-"Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader"-trilogy, which I've been post-poning for quite some months now.
7. Read "Knife of Dreams", latest book in the "Wheel of Time"-series by that Robert Jordan-fellow everybody keeps going on and on about.
8. Catch up on "Artemis Fowl".
9. At this point I should probably try something of Robin Hobb.
10. "American Gods" by Neil Gaiman.
11. Getting back into the Deverry-books by Katherine Kerr, I've only read the very first series, and that one in Norwegian, no less.
12. Reading "Flight of the Nighthawks" and whatever more Feist may have published in his Darkwar-saga at this point in time.
13. Sigh. Reading book 4-> of "Harry Potter", I guess...
14. Assorted "Discworld"-books.
15. Now, I'm sure this list will be obsolete before I get this far due to new interests, new publications and the like, but at this point I'd rather fancy reading Milton's "Paradise Lost" or Dante's "Divine Comedy". I should probably also give "Don Quijote" a chance, and I've been wanting to re-read some Jules Verne, haven't read him since the eight or ninth grade.
Spikeaton
Sunday, 16. April 2006, 00:42:06
My youngest brother and I have just had a Spikeaton! We have both, relatively recently, re-watched Buffy's second season and "Lovers' walk", the season 3-episode with Spike in it, and we felt like following the chap further on. We also, during our recent "last-third-of-season-5-a-ton", saw "Crush", another Spike-centred piece.
And I'll keep this post spoiler-free for your benefit, Olaf.
So tonight we watched, in order, "Fool for Love" (which was the integral piece we felt missed between "Lover's walk" and "Crush"), "Entropy" (because I mistakenly thought it contained some stuff that turned out to be in the episodes after, but still, not a waste, a lot of Spikey goodness in "Entropy", too), and, of course, "Lies My Parents Told Me". We would have continued with "Destiny" and "Not Fade Away" (honest to God, there's not a character in Angel's season 5 to whom NFA isn't a vital piece of character-arc) had my brother felt up to it, but he wanted to gain a level or two with his new Undead character on World of Warcraft before he went to bed, so I watched a "Scrubs" and then went to weblog about the Spikeaton instead. :D
Anyway, "Fool for Love" - amazing. Simply. Amazing. I'd forgotten just how amazing. "You're beneath me." Sigh. Pure lovelyness. Maybe - just maybe - my favourite non-Joss-sode of the series. And, I think, the single most important episode for Spike as a character, edging out "Lies My Parents Told Me" by a couple of hairs. If it hadn't been for out decided Spike-focused evening, by the way, I'd have put on the Angelsode "Darla" after this one, they're obviously made with watching them back-to-back in mind, but I've never done it. Oh, well, some other time, I suppose.
"Entropy" was very good, too, though obviously not in quite the same league. It made me ache to re-watch "Selfless", though, something I've been meaning to do for ages but never seem to get aroudn to.
"Lies My Parents Told Me"... I love that episode. Objectively speaking, not quite as good as "Fool for Love", but the message it tells... the moral of the episode... the harsh brutality of the lessons learned... they're all so very much in keeping with the brutal realism I prefer in my fiction. (I love "A Song of Ice and Fire" for crying out loud!)
Also, "Early one morning" is one heck of a tune! :D
To conclude, Spike rocks, and though Joss clearly is Boss, Buffysodes by other people can be mind-bogglingly good, too. :D
And I'll keep this post spoiler-free for your benefit, Olaf.
So tonight we watched, in order, "Fool for Love" (which was the integral piece we felt missed between "Lover's walk" and "Crush"), "Entropy" (because I mistakenly thought it contained some stuff that turned out to be in the episodes after, but still, not a waste, a lot of Spikey goodness in "Entropy", too), and, of course, "Lies My Parents Told Me". We would have continued with "Destiny" and "Not Fade Away" (honest to God, there's not a character in Angel's season 5 to whom NFA isn't a vital piece of character-arc) had my brother felt up to it, but he wanted to gain a level or two with his new Undead character on World of Warcraft before he went to bed, so I watched a "Scrubs" and then went to weblog about the Spikeaton instead. :D
Anyway, "Fool for Love" - amazing. Simply. Amazing. I'd forgotten just how amazing. "You're beneath me." Sigh. Pure lovelyness. Maybe - just maybe - my favourite non-Joss-sode of the series. And, I think, the single most important episode for Spike as a character, edging out "Lies My Parents Told Me" by a couple of hairs. If it hadn't been for out decided Spike-focused evening, by the way, I'd have put on the Angelsode "Darla" after this one, they're obviously made with watching them back-to-back in mind, but I've never done it. Oh, well, some other time, I suppose.
"Entropy" was very good, too, though obviously not in quite the same league. It made me ache to re-watch "Selfless", though, something I've been meaning to do for ages but never seem to get aroudn to.
"Lies My Parents Told Me"... I love that episode. Objectively speaking, not quite as good as "Fool for Love", but the message it tells... the moral of the episode... the harsh brutality of the lessons learned... they're all so very much in keeping with the brutal realism I prefer in my fiction. (I love "A Song of Ice and Fire" for crying out loud!)
Also, "Early one morning" is one heck of a tune! :D
To conclude, Spike rocks, and though Joss clearly is Boss, Buffysodes by other people can be mind-bogglingly good, too. :D
Forced inspiration
Monday, 20. March 2006, 01:21:09
I wanted to make a post. I can't think of anything to post about. Thus, I search my mind. What do I come up with?
Please, as if you don't know it'll be Whedon-related.
Well, it won't. Not per se.
It'll be LISTS! LISTS! LIIIIIIISTS!
Ehrm. I'm calm now. Really, I'm calm.
LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISTS!
TOP FIFTEEN VILLAINS OF ALL BOOKS, TV-SERIES, MOVIES AND COMICS I CAN THINK OF.
Many of these characters have lots of different incarnations, and I list only those I am both familiar with and like.
1. The Joker (from the comics "Batman" and the television-series "Batman the Animated Series")
2. Lex Luthor (from the modern-age comics "Superman" and television-series "Smallville" and "Lois & Clark")
3. Darken Rahl (from the book-series "the Sword of Truth")
4. Grand Admiral Thrawn (from the "Thrawn-trilogy" book-series of Star Wars)
5. Angelus (from the television-series "Angel" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer")
6. Eric Magnus "Magneto" Lensherr (from the comics "X-men", "Ultimate X-men" and the "X-men" movies)
7. The Phantom Blot (from the "Mickey Mouse"-comics)
8. Doctor Victor von Doom (from the comics "Fantastic Four", "Ultimate Fantastic Four" and the "Fantastic Four"-movie)
9. Shere Khan (of the "Jungle Book"-book, Disney's "The Jungle Book"-movie and the "Jungle Book: Shaonen Mowgli"-television series)
10. Scar (of the "Lion King"-movie)
11. Holland Manners (of the "Angel"-television series)
12. Lionel Luthor (of the "Smallville"-television series)
13. Martel (of the "Elenium"-books)
14. Saruman (of the "Lord of the Rings"-book and ditto movies)
15. Hans Gruber (from the "Die Hard"-movie - there's probably lots of villains I like better that I'm just not trying hard enough to remember, but I just had to get Alan Rickman on the list)
(notable characters who'd probably have made the list if I had considered them true villains: The Janitor from the "Scrubs" television-series, Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish from "A Song of Ice and Fire"-fantasy book-series and Lucifer from the "Sandman" and "Lucifer"-comics.)
Remember that this is probably highly dependent on my unreliable memory and moods.
Now, we have a list, what can we surmise from it? Well, if you dismiss characters acting out of uncontrolled insanity (The Joker), pure greed (Gruber, Saruman, Scar) or megalomaniacally based actions without further reasoning behind them than ego (Shere Khan, The Blot, Doom, Rahl), that means seven of my favourite villains can be considered, in their own ways, heroes. (That doesn't mean the eight I listed before can't, mind, it just means I'm not going to try)
- Lex Luthor
Lex is a fascinating example of what a really excellently made antagonist can be. Something that intrigues me about him especially is how he is the opposite to Superman. Superman is emotional, caring, emphatic, Lex is cool, distanced, cynical. What makes this so intriguing is that the same parallell exists between The Batman and The Joker. Batman is analytical, strategical, level-headed and surgical in his actions. The Joker is instinctive, random, unpredictable and insane. This, though of course not an exact parallell, places Batman and Lex on the same side of the scale. (And, amusingly enough, Joker and Superman on the other) This fascinates me - Superman's total antagonist have far more in common with Superman's arguably closest ally than with almost any other character in the DCU. I dunno, it just fascinates me.
To get back to the point, though, Lex is more than a mere villain who is wants to take over the world. Yes, he wants to take over the world, but he has reasons that, while questionable, are far more valid than the average super-powered warlord-wannabe's. Lex considers himself the most intelligent man on Earth - which may even be true. Thus, he considers himself best suited for leading mankind. Which, again, may be called a rational line of thought. He considers the greatest potential threath to humanity to be a Superman turned tyrant. Again, this is very probably a sound estimate, as Superman is one of, if not the, most powerful single creature in the earthly DCU, magics not taken into consideration. So, he reasons, as the world's natural leader, it falls on him to rid them of this potential threath before it is too late.
Lex, in his own eyes, is a self-sacrificing hero. His reasoning for innocents being killed as a result of his acquiring more power is "necessary casualties for the greater good". If he is to lead humanity, which he by his reasoning should do for humanity's sake, against a foe like Superman, he'll need whatever resources he can get.
- Grand Admiral Thrawn
Another "greater good" kind of person. He really just wants order, and like Lex, considers himself the best suited person to manufacture this order. In fact, putting him on the villain-list at all is something I do with doubt.
- Angelus
Is not crazy (in the sense that his actions are random and irrational), nor is he greedy or obsessed by his own ego. He's just evil. He likes it when bad things happen to other people. He may very well be the best display of a purely sadistic villain with no power-hungry main motive whatsoever I've ever seen.
- Eric Magnus "Magneto" Lensherr
He wants equality. Or, allright, not equality, he wants to practice a kind of humanitarian darwinism. Mutants are more developed than humans, ergo they should be put in better positions in society. This does not mean humans should be treated poorly, they are intelligent life, but they should ideally not be treated as as good as mutants - and under no circumstances as betters. He does, at times, go to extremes to reach his goals, and thus is considered a terrorist and a villain, but at heart, he's just a staunch defender of what he sees as his leaderless people, a people mistreated and bereft of priviligies. Sure, he thinks a hell of a lot of himself, but why shouldn't he? He is, after all, very intelligent and immensly powerful.
- Holland Manners
While it is dubious, Holland appears to at one time in his life has chosen to work for evil to be able to do greater good later in his life - at least this is the lesson he tries to teach his protegè Lindsey McDonald. This means he follows a code of ethics that will always allow him to let monsterous things happen with a clear conscience - he simply convinces himself "this will make me more powerful, and thus at a later point in time able to do even greater good than stopping this right now would be"...
- Lionel Luthor
As I see this character, though this can certainly be argued, he wants power for his son, not for himself. Everything he does is aimed at molding and shaping his son to be the greatest man who ever lived - as Lionel rates these things. This is very unegositical, and thus, I think, very un-villain-like.
- Martel
He's an odd one. He seems to have betrayed his order, mentors and boyhood friends for power, but he seems to half-way regret his choice throughout the entire trilogy of books. Due to some kind of personal set of ethics, he never tries to repent his misdeeds, though, he just seems to accept that he has chosen to be the bad-guy and, somewhat melancholy, acts like the bad-guy. His last words, though, were to the mentor he betrayed and the man who killed him - saying they were the only two people he ever loved.
Please, as if you don't know it'll be Whedon-related.
Well, it won't. Not per se.
It'll be LISTS! LISTS! LIIIIIIISTS!
Ehrm. I'm calm now. Really, I'm calm.
LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISTS!
TOP FIFTEEN VILLAINS OF ALL BOOKS, TV-SERIES, MOVIES AND COMICS I CAN THINK OF.
Many of these characters have lots of different incarnations, and I list only those I am both familiar with and like.
1. The Joker (from the comics "Batman" and the television-series "Batman the Animated Series")
2. Lex Luthor (from the modern-age comics "Superman" and television-series "Smallville" and "Lois & Clark")
3. Darken Rahl (from the book-series "the Sword of Truth")
4. Grand Admiral Thrawn (from the "Thrawn-trilogy" book-series of Star Wars)
5. Angelus (from the television-series "Angel" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer")
6. Eric Magnus "Magneto" Lensherr (from the comics "X-men", "Ultimate X-men" and the "X-men" movies)
7. The Phantom Blot (from the "Mickey Mouse"-comics)
8. Doctor Victor von Doom (from the comics "Fantastic Four", "Ultimate Fantastic Four" and the "Fantastic Four"-movie)
9. Shere Khan (of the "Jungle Book"-book, Disney's "The Jungle Book"-movie and the "Jungle Book: Shaonen Mowgli"-television series)
10. Scar (of the "Lion King"-movie)
11. Holland Manners (of the "Angel"-television series)
12. Lionel Luthor (of the "Smallville"-television series)
13. Martel (of the "Elenium"-books)
14. Saruman (of the "Lord of the Rings"-book and ditto movies)
15. Hans Gruber (from the "Die Hard"-movie - there's probably lots of villains I like better that I'm just not trying hard enough to remember, but I just had to get Alan Rickman on the list)
(notable characters who'd probably have made the list if I had considered them true villains: The Janitor from the "Scrubs" television-series, Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish from "A Song of Ice and Fire"-fantasy book-series and Lucifer from the "Sandman" and "Lucifer"-comics.)
Remember that this is probably highly dependent on my unreliable memory and moods.
Now, we have a list, what can we surmise from it? Well, if you dismiss characters acting out of uncontrolled insanity (The Joker), pure greed (Gruber, Saruman, Scar) or megalomaniacally based actions without further reasoning behind them than ego (Shere Khan, The Blot, Doom, Rahl), that means seven of my favourite villains can be considered, in their own ways, heroes. (That doesn't mean the eight I listed before can't, mind, it just means I'm not going to try)
- Lex Luthor
Lex is a fascinating example of what a really excellently made antagonist can be. Something that intrigues me about him especially is how he is the opposite to Superman. Superman is emotional, caring, emphatic, Lex is cool, distanced, cynical. What makes this so intriguing is that the same parallell exists between The Batman and The Joker. Batman is analytical, strategical, level-headed and surgical in his actions. The Joker is instinctive, random, unpredictable and insane. This, though of course not an exact parallell, places Batman and Lex on the same side of the scale. (And, amusingly enough, Joker and Superman on the other) This fascinates me - Superman's total antagonist have far more in common with Superman's arguably closest ally than with almost any other character in the DCU. I dunno, it just fascinates me.
To get back to the point, though, Lex is more than a mere villain who is wants to take over the world. Yes, he wants to take over the world, but he has reasons that, while questionable, are far more valid than the average super-powered warlord-wannabe's. Lex considers himself the most intelligent man on Earth - which may even be true. Thus, he considers himself best suited for leading mankind. Which, again, may be called a rational line of thought. He considers the greatest potential threath to humanity to be a Superman turned tyrant. Again, this is very probably a sound estimate, as Superman is one of, if not the, most powerful single creature in the earthly DCU, magics not taken into consideration. So, he reasons, as the world's natural leader, it falls on him to rid them of this potential threath before it is too late.
Lex, in his own eyes, is a self-sacrificing hero. His reasoning for innocents being killed as a result of his acquiring more power is "necessary casualties for the greater good". If he is to lead humanity, which he by his reasoning should do for humanity's sake, against a foe like Superman, he'll need whatever resources he can get.
- Grand Admiral Thrawn
Another "greater good" kind of person. He really just wants order, and like Lex, considers himself the best suited person to manufacture this order. In fact, putting him on the villain-list at all is something I do with doubt.
- Angelus
Is not crazy (in the sense that his actions are random and irrational), nor is he greedy or obsessed by his own ego. He's just evil. He likes it when bad things happen to other people. He may very well be the best display of a purely sadistic villain with no power-hungry main motive whatsoever I've ever seen.
- Eric Magnus "Magneto" Lensherr
He wants equality. Or, allright, not equality, he wants to practice a kind of humanitarian darwinism. Mutants are more developed than humans, ergo they should be put in better positions in society. This does not mean humans should be treated poorly, they are intelligent life, but they should ideally not be treated as as good as mutants - and under no circumstances as betters. He does, at times, go to extremes to reach his goals, and thus is considered a terrorist and a villain, but at heart, he's just a staunch defender of what he sees as his leaderless people, a people mistreated and bereft of priviligies. Sure, he thinks a hell of a lot of himself, but why shouldn't he? He is, after all, very intelligent and immensly powerful.
- Holland Manners
While it is dubious, Holland appears to at one time in his life has chosen to work for evil to be able to do greater good later in his life - at least this is the lesson he tries to teach his protegè Lindsey McDonald. This means he follows a code of ethics that will always allow him to let monsterous things happen with a clear conscience - he simply convinces himself "this will make me more powerful, and thus at a later point in time able to do even greater good than stopping this right now would be"...
- Lionel Luthor
As I see this character, though this can certainly be argued, he wants power for his son, not for himself. Everything he does is aimed at molding and shaping his son to be the greatest man who ever lived - as Lionel rates these things. This is very unegositical, and thus, I think, very un-villain-like.
- Martel
He's an odd one. He seems to have betrayed his order, mentors and boyhood friends for power, but he seems to half-way regret his choice throughout the entire trilogy of books. Due to some kind of personal set of ethics, he never tries to repent his misdeeds, though, he just seems to accept that he has chosen to be the bad-guy and, somewhat melancholy, acts like the bad-guy. His last words, though, were to the mentor he betrayed and the man who killed him - saying they were the only two people he ever loved.
MSN-latedate
Thursday, 23. February 2006, 19:30:01
Yeah, okay, so I've been extremely sloppy on the MSN-nick-update-front. Anyway, I'm still using "Grief" - I'll probably not feel allright about switching back to "Loki" until there's an official go for a live-action-slayerverse-project. Meaning I might very well be doomed to Grief for all time. 
Be that as it may, short-time changes is okay, I figure, so to promote the Final Round of the Ultimate Disney Comics Badguy Vote on Andeby Online. I'm currently switching between my second-to-favourite and my third-to-favourite finalists in my nick. Hopefully, this might get them some votes, because they're hopelessly behind the Beagle Boys for the time being, and I for one cannot stomach the thought of the Beagle Boys scroing second best in such a contest.
You'll note I speak only of "second best" here, that's because my favourite, and apparently most other people's too, The Phantom Blot, has a rather substantial lead, so he'll probably win, I'm not too worried.
So, my nicks will vary between "Magica - Røyst frå Tryll!" (Magica - Vote DeSpell!) and "Gulbrand - Røyst Gråstein!" (Flintheart - Vote Glomgold!) this week, as they are my third-to and second-to-favourite characters in the finalè.
My subnicktext has changed a lot recently, among other things it's been the line from the Daily Show I ended my second-to-last post here before this one with.
Now, it's: "It's quite vexing" - Petyr "Littlefinger" of House Baelish, Lord Paramount of the Trident and Lord Protector of the Vale
That's a quote from "A Feast For Crows", the most recent book in the "Song of Ice and Fire"-series, and is in a somewhat humorous manner referring to the Queen Regent Cersei destroying her own base of power by sheer stupidity, arrogance and paranoia even faster than Petyr had anticipated.
Be that as it may, short-time changes is okay, I figure, so to promote the Final Round of the Ultimate Disney Comics Badguy Vote on Andeby Online. I'm currently switching between my second-to-favourite and my third-to-favourite finalists in my nick. Hopefully, this might get them some votes, because they're hopelessly behind the Beagle Boys for the time being, and I for one cannot stomach the thought of the Beagle Boys scroing second best in such a contest.
You'll note I speak only of "second best" here, that's because my favourite, and apparently most other people's too, The Phantom Blot, has a rather substantial lead, so he'll probably win, I'm not too worried.
So, my nicks will vary between "Magica - Røyst frå Tryll!" (Magica - Vote DeSpell!) and "Gulbrand - Røyst Gråstein!" (Flintheart - Vote Glomgold!) this week, as they are my third-to and second-to-favourite characters in the finalè.
My subnicktext has changed a lot recently, among other things it's been the line from the Daily Show I ended my second-to-last post here before this one with.
Now, it's: "It's quite vexing" - Petyr "Littlefinger" of House Baelish, Lord Paramount of the Trident and Lord Protector of the Vale
That's a quote from "A Feast For Crows", the most recent book in the "Song of Ice and Fire"-series, and is in a somewhat humorous manner referring to the Queen Regent Cersei destroying her own base of power by sheer stupidity, arrogance and paranoia even faster than Petyr had anticipated.
Chainfire [spoiler-free]
Sunday, 5. February 2006, 22:07:11
So, book nine of the "Sword of Truth"-series is finally read. This means that Mr. Goodkind once again has been allowed to shower me in his "enlightened belief in the sovereignity of the individual"-oh-yes-we-got-this-nine-books-ago-shut-up-please-crap by mere force of his talent for storytelling. For this book is good. I read for hours every day from I bought it to I was finished, something I very, very rarely do these days - I didn't even do it with Martin's latest (though this does in no way mean that "Chainfire" can compete with "A Feast for Crows" even on a good day).
The plot takes off immediately, chapter one being close to the very definition of in medias res in my book. The characters are all old and dear, and they all seem to have at least one scene in this book - which is marvellous. The new characters, few as they are, are given so little page-space it's almost as if the very point of this book is to act as a counter-point to book seven where we didn't meet the main characters of the series until the very last chapters, and this allows us to reunite with some of the oldest and best creations of Goodkind's series - characters like Zedd, Nathan and Nicci.
The plot sweeps you along with Richard on his very frustrating quest - and believe me, you will be frustrated with him - and though this might seem rather like following a common recipe for the books, it works so well I refuse to complain about it. The dialogue - apart from the speeches, which I'll get to later - is good, though I would prefer a little more humour. What is there is good, though, and the sparse use of it adds to the feeling of stress and haste soaking this book.
Future readers of it should be warned already now, though - this is the first book in a trilogy within the series, and it does not neatly wrap up things in the end like the previous books have done. It does have a clear ending in its own way, but it is also very much a "part 1 of 3" kind of deal. This trilogy is rumoured to be the end of the series as a whole, or possibly the end of the Jagang-storyline. I would actually prefer the latter, despite this series having gone on for quite a while already - this universe and these characters holds too much quality to be ended in another two books.
Well, that was the good - and I really, really got carried away by this books, there's action and twists at every turn, especially once you start to get a few hundred pages into the thing (it's close to 750 pages total, if I remember correctly) so don't overlook the good just because there's plenty of bad. Because there really is:
First off, Goodkind's crush on Richard seems to get stronger with every book. Oh, Richard is so fantastic, oh, Richard and his raptor eyes, oh, Richard sees to the heart of the issue in the time most other people take just to pronounce the phrase "uhm", oh, Richard is so big and handsome, oh, Richard is the only one in millenia upon millenia born with both sides of the gift, oh, Richard is so wise... It gets, to be frank, so tiresome it kind of nudges me in exact opposite direction of what is intended - I start to get slightly fed up with Richard's personality. Then he's nice to animals and stuff and I forgive him again, at least for a while.
So, okay, Goodkind totally loves his protagonist more than a few simple appointments with a psychiatrist will solve (narcissism, if I ever saw it), but that's not really all that annoying. Because, for the most time, he's right, Richard is Da Man With Da Plan, and like almost every character of the series, you just can't help but to like him.
Warning, next paragraph contains a spoiler for the series finalè of the tv-series "Angel"
Second point of complaint would, of course, be the constant preaching. There's no subtext in this book. There's just a helluva lot of text. In previous books, with a few yet usually understandable exceptions, Richard and his gang of merry admirers preserved most of their speeches to grand situations, the final chapters, the eve of battle, the turning of the people, and the like. Not anymore. No, by now they hold speeches to each other during the most casual of conversations. Every situation is turned into an ideological lesson of simplistic philosophy and propaganda. This, I don't really like. Luckily, by chapter three I'd already gotten the knack of regcognizing these speeches by sentence number three, and how to skip ahead without really missing the content. So, in the end, they bothered me far less than they could have. Still, this is not to ignore: the book would have been much, much more fast-paced (and thus better) if Goodkind limited himself to fewer and shorter speeches and repeated his moral lessons slightly less often. To quote Lindsey McDonald, he gets "a little preachy, and I breeze out, a'righ'? I got the important bits," the individual, the freedom, the sovreign self, reason above emotion, contradictions are bad and altruism is silly. Yeah, yeah. So here's the plot-twist - it's a good book.
It should also be noted that the first third of the book contains by far the greater portion of these speeches, so don't be scared off by them.
Third point is that not only does Goodkind and all of his characters love Richard, but seemingly, everybody in his world gets hugely impressed whenever other people shows sign of sentience. They get impressed with each other so often it is, quite frankly, somewhat embarrasing to read. It also, combined with the speeches, gives you a clear impression of being spoke down to by the author. Which, obviously, you are, but at least he used to cover it slightly better up. (I hope. Maybe I should re-read the series before confirming that I stand behind my last accusation)
But, if you can ignore these things, and for the most part I could, this book is splendid. It wraps up plotlines, characters and elements from the entire series this far into one big heap, and it does so seemingly without effort. Elements from book one and two are brought up with as much ease as elements from book six and eight. Especially it seems to tie things together with the first two books, which I particularily loved, those being among my clear favourites of the series.
How things turn out in the two following books will have a great deal to do with the quality of the plot and development in this one, but it really restored a lot of hope I've more or less lost during book 7-8, which all were more or less okay, but not really good.
So, ignore the mediocre chorus singing of capitalist glory, and you'll have a great, exciting fantasy-novel. I especially recommend it to anyone who's read the series but considers stopping now - yes, he's preachy, but the plot progresses (something it kind of hasn't done in a while), and it's quite enjoyable.
The plot takes off immediately, chapter one being close to the very definition of in medias res in my book. The characters are all old and dear, and they all seem to have at least one scene in this book - which is marvellous. The new characters, few as they are, are given so little page-space it's almost as if the very point of this book is to act as a counter-point to book seven where we didn't meet the main characters of the series until the very last chapters, and this allows us to reunite with some of the oldest and best creations of Goodkind's series - characters like Zedd, Nathan and Nicci.
The plot sweeps you along with Richard on his very frustrating quest - and believe me, you will be frustrated with him - and though this might seem rather like following a common recipe for the books, it works so well I refuse to complain about it. The dialogue - apart from the speeches, which I'll get to later - is good, though I would prefer a little more humour. What is there is good, though, and the sparse use of it adds to the feeling of stress and haste soaking this book.
Future readers of it should be warned already now, though - this is the first book in a trilogy within the series, and it does not neatly wrap up things in the end like the previous books have done. It does have a clear ending in its own way, but it is also very much a "part 1 of 3" kind of deal. This trilogy is rumoured to be the end of the series as a whole, or possibly the end of the Jagang-storyline. I would actually prefer the latter, despite this series having gone on for quite a while already - this universe and these characters holds too much quality to be ended in another two books.
Well, that was the good - and I really, really got carried away by this books, there's action and twists at every turn, especially once you start to get a few hundred pages into the thing (it's close to 750 pages total, if I remember correctly) so don't overlook the good just because there's plenty of bad. Because there really is:
First off, Goodkind's crush on Richard seems to get stronger with every book. Oh, Richard is so fantastic, oh, Richard and his raptor eyes, oh, Richard sees to the heart of the issue in the time most other people take just to pronounce the phrase "uhm", oh, Richard is so big and handsome, oh, Richard is the only one in millenia upon millenia born with both sides of the gift, oh, Richard is so wise... It gets, to be frank, so tiresome it kind of nudges me in exact opposite direction of what is intended - I start to get slightly fed up with Richard's personality. Then he's nice to animals and stuff and I forgive him again, at least for a while.
So, okay, Goodkind totally loves his protagonist more than a few simple appointments with a psychiatrist will solve (narcissism, if I ever saw it), but that's not really all that annoying. Because, for the most time, he's right, Richard is Da Man With Da Plan, and like almost every character of the series, you just can't help but to like him.
Warning, next paragraph contains a spoiler for the series finalè of the tv-series "Angel"
Second point of complaint would, of course, be the constant preaching. There's no subtext in this book. There's just a helluva lot of text. In previous books, with a few yet usually understandable exceptions, Richard and his gang of merry admirers preserved most of their speeches to grand situations, the final chapters, the eve of battle, the turning of the people, and the like. Not anymore. No, by now they hold speeches to each other during the most casual of conversations. Every situation is turned into an ideological lesson of simplistic philosophy and propaganda. This, I don't really like. Luckily, by chapter three I'd already gotten the knack of regcognizing these speeches by sentence number three, and how to skip ahead without really missing the content. So, in the end, they bothered me far less than they could have. Still, this is not to ignore: the book would have been much, much more fast-paced (and thus better) if Goodkind limited himself to fewer and shorter speeches and repeated his moral lessons slightly less often. To quote Lindsey McDonald, he gets "a little preachy, and I breeze out, a'righ'? I got the important bits," the individual, the freedom, the sovreign self, reason above emotion, contradictions are bad and altruism is silly. Yeah, yeah. So here's the plot-twist - it's a good book.
It should also be noted that the first third of the book contains by far the greater portion of these speeches, so don't be scared off by them.
Third point is that not only does Goodkind and all of his characters love Richard, but seemingly, everybody in his world gets hugely impressed whenever other people shows sign of sentience. They get impressed with each other so often it is, quite frankly, somewhat embarrasing to read. It also, combined with the speeches, gives you a clear impression of being spoke down to by the author. Which, obviously, you are, but at least he used to cover it slightly better up. (I hope. Maybe I should re-read the series before confirming that I stand behind my last accusation)
But, if you can ignore these things, and for the most part I could, this book is splendid. It wraps up plotlines, characters and elements from the entire series this far into one big heap, and it does so seemingly without effort. Elements from book one and two are brought up with as much ease as elements from book six and eight. Especially it seems to tie things together with the first two books, which I particularily loved, those being among my clear favourites of the series.
How things turn out in the two following books will have a great deal to do with the quality of the plot and development in this one, but it really restored a lot of hope I've more or less lost during book 7-8, which all were more or less okay, but not really good.
So, ignore the mediocre chorus singing of capitalist glory, and you'll have a great, exciting fantasy-novel. I especially recommend it to anyone who's read the series but considers stopping now - yes, he's preachy, but the plot progresses (something it kind of hasn't done in a while), and it's quite enjoyable.
MSN-update
Monday, 2. January 2006, 19:53:09
I've decided, for no reason bar narcissism, to keep this non-blog posted on any changes in my MSN-look - that is, nick-changes, subnick-text-changes and changes of the personal image shown to represent me will all be made public here the day the change takes place.
My root-nick, if you please, which usually is reflected in my nick even when it is not itself a part of the nick, is "Loke", or English "Loki", after the norse god of trickery and deception. (This is obviously a very bad play on me using a nick to decieve people into thinking they know who I am when they don't even know my name.) (Was that reverse psychology, or not? Mwhahahaa)
Right now, my nick is JOLELOKE, which essentially translates to YULE-LOKI, and my picture is this:
...in other words, for those who are not complete geeks and already see this, I've taken a picture of Eric "Magneto" Lensherr, one of the most central villanous characters of Marvel Comics, in an alternate incarnation as High Inquisitor in the comic-books "1602" by Neil Gaiman, and manipulated a Santa's hat on him. This because I use that pic without the manipulated hat on several message-boards already, and it seemed to fit the nick.
My subnicktext has been "Don't Panic" since I re-watched "Hitchhiker's Guide" on DVD some days ago.
I'm not changing the first two until I feel like Christmas is over, but the third one is changing now into the words of House Lannister in the fantasy book-series "A Song of Ice And Fire": "Hear me roar!" This happened as I saw one of my MSN-contacts using the words of House Stark in the same series as his subnick-text ("Winter is Coming") and I decided to play the copycat. I'd preferred "We do not sow", of House Greyjoy, but it implies a plural, and I'm just one person. I also like "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken", of House Martell, but I'm pretty proud of my ability to bend without breaking, so... it didn't fit.
Not that I'm a lion or anything. I'm really quite shy. But, you know, the pessimist-one was already taken, I might as well go for megalomania.
My root-nick, if you please, which usually is reflected in my nick even when it is not itself a part of the nick, is "Loke", or English "Loki", after the norse god of trickery and deception. (This is obviously a very bad play on me using a nick to decieve people into thinking they know who I am when they don't even know my name.) (Was that reverse psychology, or not? Mwhahahaa)
Right now, my nick is JOLELOKE, which essentially translates to YULE-LOKI, and my picture is this:
...in other words, for those who are not complete geeks and already see this, I've taken a picture of Eric "Magneto" Lensherr, one of the most central villanous characters of Marvel Comics, in an alternate incarnation as High Inquisitor in the comic-books "1602" by Neil Gaiman, and manipulated a Santa's hat on him. This because I use that pic without the manipulated hat on several message-boards already, and it seemed to fit the nick.
My subnicktext has been "Don't Panic" since I re-watched "Hitchhiker's Guide" on DVD some days ago.
I'm not changing the first two until I feel like Christmas is over, but the third one is changing now into the words of House Lannister in the fantasy book-series "A Song of Ice And Fire": "Hear me roar!" This happened as I saw one of my MSN-contacts using the words of House Stark in the same series as his subnick-text ("Winter is Coming") and I decided to play the copycat. I'd preferred "We do not sow", of House Greyjoy, but it implies a plural, and I'm just one person. I also like "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken", of House Martell, but I'm pretty proud of my ability to bend without breaking, so... it didn't fit.
Not that I'm a lion or anything. I'm really quite shy. But, you know, the pessimist-one was already taken, I might as well go for megalomania.
Latest comments
-
Has nothing to do with letting the other guy getting the final w ...
-
-
The sad truth, though, is that neither of you are willing to let ...
-
No, I don't want you to be overruled by the minority. I want you ...
-
I should add that I think fairness from an individual point of v ...
-
Jackstrom: don't worry, me too. I'm faking intelligence and hopi ...
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 November 2009January 2010
| ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Latest blog posts
Countdowns
147 days until
Iron Man 2
154 days until
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
518 days until
Spider-man 4
560 days until
Thor
595 days until
The First Avenger: Captain America
882 days until
The Avengers
Try a faster and more secure Web browser. Download Opera
Georgius the Peasant is blogging on My Opera
My Opera is a blog and photo sharing community with millions of members. Join now to follow Georgius the Peasant's blog and get your own.
WIDGETIZEHelp | Disclaimer | Terms of service | Web analytics powered by HitsLink
