Chyll

Perhaps I misunderstood the actual comment.

I interpreted the comment to be "send people up top to engage the ships", which is doable and the ships explode nicely.

If you mean "stand on top of and ride", then no.

Actually, yes, we can.

No *shiver*

There was nothing to see... *shudder*

Happy to help.

It does have a positive message on the whole, meant to highlight it as a good thematic fit to the larger AP topic not the AP-is-happy-fun-time sub-topic.

Similar, Ringo had a collapse of tech civilization as AP/fantasy series, think it is called The Council Wars. The first book was good fun There Will Be Dragons. Bit of a reach for this AP discussion, though, as it becomes much more fantasy/sci-fi...

Ex-Heroes was a fun read. I haven't got around to reading the sequel, yet.

The Road is soul crushing. I watched the movie and made it through to the end just blindingly, achingly hoping for some glimmer of sadness to brighten things... (And because Bale's performance was fantastic.) I'll never pick the book up now.

Good, just wanted to confirm - forums discusiosn have a history of running amok, afterall.

Agreed. I could easily see Freakshow running around a Gamma World type setting.

Thanks, that all falls in the learning more than what was in the notes, and nice to hear.

Nope, sure can't.

Oh, absolutely agree. And for clarity's sake, I am in no way implying your experience/take was wrong. Sounds like a completely different brand of equally good times to me.

Just saying, let's not leap to the conclusion that post-apoc is amusing because it can be, because it also can lead to something more serious also.

Then your choices at the time sure didn't match what was going on at the gaming tables I sat at.

That implies more that there are different sub-genres than anything.

And despite the cited sources, I can't begin to think about how the post-apoc could be anything but grim and depressing...

Depressing doesn't do The Road justice. It starts with Depressing and heads out, and down from there.

For added notes:

The Postman by David Brin (not the horrible film adapatation, the fine book) is good.

SM Stirling has an interesting take with his Montival series.

I would have expected to see energy resistance and maybe a toxic damage aura... I am not sure I get the psi resistance... but overall nice to see this set concept get some attention. I look forward to seeing/hearing more.

There is a fine line between communicating 'about/for your product' and 'engaging your community'.

Actually, I've found your position and approach to be consistent on a variety of topics.

I was just trying to toss out some other perspectives and elements of the issue.

I understand where you are coming from, just not sure it is something that would even make my nitpick list. But to each their own.

And I'd argue that the world of Westeros hasn't been that static either.
Valyria and it's fall, the conquering of the seven kingdoms, a complete forgetting of why the night's watch really exists other than a place to send undesirables...

You know, it may be those variable seasons that may just be the explanation you want. If a the cycles of long, hard winters nearly destroy everything/one then it would be hard to get any purchase on technological advancement. Couple that with active magic to weaken a need for scientific drive... and then a long summer of decadence followed by starvation and again a frozen population...

Added note, your earlier comparison to Hadrian's Wall was pretty apt - manned and supported with vigor at it's start, but by the fall of the wall it was a forgotten corner of the Empire that really protected little and no one cared much about.

In a world with magic, dragons, and walking dead I can't see getting hung up on expectations of anything pre-conceived notions of realistic.

edit: and for the sake of discussion - I give you the Han Dynasties of China as a relatively static society for 1000+ years, so the premise is not unbelievable at all, really.

Yeah, process failure of editing after posting, but I realized I had poorly worded what I meant. (Glad I got them in fast enough. *whew* )


Well, I'd add that it may be collateral damage from the cliche destruction, but there are few safe assumptions about which characters actually satisfy the requirement of the story arc and which are minor. (at least up until now - we are starting to run out of options at this point...)

Actually, to be fair, Martin is quoted as saying essentially that he doesn't have it all mapped out and the story goes where it goes. Take that with a grain of salt, of course, but the essential element of Olantern's comment in that case was solid.

edit: for clarity's sake, that doesn't mean it is random, and there isn't an over-arc plan or direction. But it does mean, I think, that there is a lot of freedom along the way.


The rest though...

No, not really.

I don't see any of it as 'being pushed around'. I see what the narrative does is actually looking at events and saying - if so-n-so really is like 'this' as a person, what would happen? In fact, I'd say it is the opposite of what you describe - he is letting the characters push themselves. YMMV, of course, but I look at the book's events and personalities radically differently.

Can that hold true for the entire work, and no personal feelings of the writer sliding into place? Hard to say... However, if he is invested in all his characters at some level, then I believe it is certainly possible.


This left me completely confused. Ned held his ground for his ideals rather than sacrificing that core of what was good for him, and that is bad... but a morale of "sacrifcing whatever must be done to achieve one's goals" is creepy?



Anyway, I also think that the fundamental antagonist / sympathetic character concept is particularly under attack in Martin's narrative. I am not convinced that there is a traditional hero or villain. This is due both to a willingness to let events happen regardless of outcome to significant characters and the disjointed, faceted narrative viewpoint - similar in many respects to the past works of those such as Frank Herbert who knowingly used this tactic to limit reader identification with a 'hero' perspective. Sure we are able to identify favorites, but I don't think it is any one character's story - yet - and hence no side is clear.