A Dance with Dragons
discussion
Does anybody else feel that the fantasy/magic elements of the whole series are a little too underwhelming?
date
newest »
newest »
Eyob wrote: "I've read all five of the ASOIAF books so far. And although I appreciate GRRM's approach towards the magical or fantas..."Well, that's his style. You prefere more glitter, I prefere less.
I find it like laws of market - the more there is, the value is less.
So, when a little magic happens in GRRM's world, I find that exciting. And if there were spels flying arond on every page, I would find that boring.
ASOIAF is considered to have little magic etc but hey,just think about LOTR instead. The one ring is a cool artifact but it's just one thing.(invisibility is nice but a whole organisation in ASOIAF can change their faces without rings etc)
Nazguls are fine, but they're not unlike the Others.
Elfs are immortal but does it play any role/significance?It'd make no difference if they weren't.
Ents are cool but seriously humanlike trees is the big deal? You get a spirit network of spying/whispering trees in Westeros.
An army of undead warriors win the ports for Aragorn? Btch pls, lots of undead in ASOIAF.
Gandalf dies and returns? "You're adorable" said Beric.
Most modern fantasy has low magic. Of course you get Malazaan type now and then which is ok.
Actually, I could use less magic in ASOIAF than whatever amount it has right now. As I said, I find the human element of the story more interesting, especially the war between the Starks and the Lannisters and the fate of some characters, especially the Stark children. If you ask me, sometimes I think that ASOIAF has too many low-glitter magic. I could do without those. My view is that if you are going to include magic, treat it for what it is. It doesn't even have to be fancy.@Yannis
I'm not sure I get you :-) . I haven't read LOTR so I can't comment on it, though I heard somewhere that it has more resonance. The reason I was interested in ASOIAF is because I heard that magic scaled low to make it feel realistic. I though that would be nice for a change. But I feel that there is a difference between being realistic and being dull or left half unexplained.
This series is considered as "fantasy for those who don't like fantasy", which I think is a great way of describing it. Because this is such an epic, I think that the magic element is very skillfully underplayed. You have the bits like the the Starks looking through their direwolves eyes, which is only a small thing, so often overlooked.However, you have people like Melisandre and the White Walkers, as well as dead people coming "alive" again, which is quite a big magical element, and if there were too many of these, I think it might overpower the book.
Ultimately, this series is about people and their will and struggle to survive. Adding in too much removes the human element.
As an aside, it would be considerably less believable if you "knew" that all the main characters were safe. In a lot of fantasy, the hero is safe the entire way through, but with this you have no idea who is going to win or even who is going to be alive at the end of the book. Maybe there won't be a winner at all?
I actually like how the fantasy/supernatural aspect of the world is handled in the books. It's refreshing.The story takes place in a time where magic and magical creatures are all but legends, and the characters are introduced to such things slowly. It makes sense. Some things have mysterious properties, some characters have occult abilities, but almost nothing in the series is openly shown as "magical". At least not for a long time. It's an intriguing way of presenting a fantasy world.
In any case, I'm sure the fantasy aspect of the story will have a much larger role to play in the final books.
Eyob wrote: "Actually, I could use less magic in ASOIAF than whatever amount it has right now. As I said, I find the human element of the story more interesting, especially the war between the Starks and the La..."You say you'd like less magic, I'm arguing about those who say it has too little. :P
I guess mainstream fans want zero magic and fantasy fans want more,but they both enjoy it so I guess Martin nailed the right ratio.
Lord Of The Rings and its heirs was high epic fantasy. Most modern fantasy though(mainly the last 2 decades) is low fantasy or at least low magic centered in intrigues,individuals etc. Still I don't think Sauron's army of -what they are in fact-ugly men(orcs) is more magic than the ice zombies in Westeros.
@JohnnyI too like the way the "magical" elements were introduced. It was these things which you explain that got me interested in the first place. I like the first three books, especially A Storm of Swords.
My problem is that somehow as the story progresses it doesn't feel that it's arriving at the natural destiny of the story elements. And when I say "natural", I'm not saying the plot should proceed the way I wish the characters should, but that it has to make sense or be convincing.
The thing is, whether we like it or not, these fantasy elements DO have a role to play, however subtle they maybe at first. We're all expecting a major showdown between humans and the White Walkers in the coming books. So naturally we're expecting some supernatural events to be sort of dominant later on. Add Danaerys and her dragons to the equation and well... You can only go so far in downplaying the fantasy elements of a book that is a strong premise of a "magical" plot.
I'm saying this not because I think there has to be magic shows, but because the book's plot has a tendency to "suggest" such inevitability. Whatever way you start your book, I believe that you must continue it in that fashion.
You did imply one thing, that the later books will resolve these "unfinished" fantasy elements. Maybe that's my problem there. He devoted 5 of his books to such a complicated and mostly human turn of events that I'm not sure how he will satisfactorily deal with all the remaining elements in just 2 books. If he is to suddenly upscale the magic in the next books, I think it would give it a feel of inconsistency.
@Cally
You're suggesting that there are too little of the fantasy elements, like with Melisandre, White Walkers and wights. I think that there are too many of them already, or we're exposed more than is required for the low-key threshold. That's my problem there. If you were too come with a woman that can predict your future or play seemingly impossible tricks with fire, or were to see an army of corpses come back to life, how would you react realistically, and humanly? I think the characters are already acting too normal for these events and are simply treating them as common enemies to be dealt with, with due respect to their manpower challenges, which is neither realistic nor human to me.
Yannis wrote: "I guess mainstream fans want zero magic and fantasy fans want more,but they both enjoy it so I guess Martin nailed the right ratio."Completely agree!
Yannis wrote: "Eyob wrote: "Actually, I could use less magic in ASOIAF than whatever amount it has right now. As I said, I find the human element of the story more interesting, especially the war between the Star..."I'm not saying I'd like less magic. Nor do I mean that there is actually too much magic in the series either. I'm OK with any "amount" as long as they are written good.
It's not with the "amount" of magic in GRRM's book per se that I have a problem with, but they way they are treated whenever they occur. He wants to take a realistic approach, which I think is a good point for him. But whenever "magical" events occur, well, you also have to treat them for what they are. He keeps popping up these magical incidences but somehow dampens them to give them a 'realistic' feel. This was OK during the first stages but you can't keep continuing the same way. Later on they must have some bearing. As I said, we're expecting a major showdown in a presumably supernatural event, the battle between humans and White Walkers. I could appreciate some mystery but you have limits on how far you can keep something secret without giving an impression that the whole or an important part of a story is left unresolved. The five books are just still building up the main story to be yet encountered, and I think these intermittent magical occurrences have been dragged a little too much.
I appreciate well-tempered magic for the sake of realism, but dull magic, you might as well leave them out altogether.
The idea that there is little magic in the series is just an illusion. There is magic, but GRRM somewhat suppresses their "extraordinary" effect.
Of course, the coming books may straighten what I feel are incomplete or unresolved plot elements, though I'm not sure if he can accomplish that with just two books. We'll simply have to wait (which is the major problem of GRRM, taking too long).
Eyob wrote: "Yannis wrote: "The idea that there is little magic in the series is just an illusion. There is magic, but GRRM somewhat suppresses their "extraordinary" effect."Hm. I'm not sure that I get it. Could you give me an example of what you would like to see? Like, what GRRM should have done with some magic event?
Well the magical elements are put aside like many other important things and readers do (and should) complain how the story drags in the 2 most recent books.Martin writes in a fantasy world that magic is rare/forgotten so he keeps it secret/unimportant until the final showdown.
We saw some ice zombies attack in the prologue, a big battle with them 2 books later and 5 books later we still wait for them to be unleashed in Westeros.
We saw some dragon eggs as precious stones at the beginning and now we have 3 adult dragons flying around but no one has tamed them to lead an invasion.
A man has to wait.
it's called suspension of disbelief and it means that martin has deliberately (and quite masterfully, in my opinion) created a universe where fantasy occurs in relative terms only. within his world these "fantastic" elements are at times mundane, every day parts of existence. with few exceptions—the dragons hatching being one notable one—most of these occurences are not supposed to seem necessarily magical at all, simply uncommon. the magic of the series exists in such a subtle, supporting role that makes the human element of the characters shine. this series is clearly a fantasy, but the focus is not on fantasy but on dense character-driven storylines.
@EyobI understand what you're saying, and you bring up more than valid points. I just don't think the fantasy aspect in these books is as downplayed as you claim. A Song of Ice and Fire shouldn't be compared to the Classic Fantasy and High Fantasy standards because it's basically a different genre.
I do think that the first three books are the best in the series though.
@Yannis
No offence, but the way you're comparing the two series makes little sense to me.
- Invisibility is NOT the only power granted by the One Ring and I see no connection between that and the Faceless Men's ability to disguise themselves. And there's nothing supernatural about that as far as we know, by the way.
- Nazgùls and White Walkers have nothing in common. Nazgùl are wraiths bound to Sauron, slowly corrupted by their rings of power while The Others (the "common" type, those who once were normal men, not the ones in white armor. We don't know much about those yet) are basically zombies.
- I'm not sure what you meant with the Elves and The Ents, but they are two of the most iconic races in the Fantasy genre.
- The Army of the Dead won back Pelargir by literally scaring the Corsairs of Umbar away. Technically, they didn't even fight, and we don't know if they can actually interact with corporeal things and living creatures.
- Gandalf and Beric Dondarrion? Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously, they are both resurrected, but the similarities end there. Gandalf was brought back to life by Eru (the supreme God of Arda and Middle-earth) and then ascended to a higher being, while Beric was simply resurrected with magic by Thoros of Myr, the way he was, wounds and all.
I don't see it.
I'm not trying to find similarities/analogies(ASOIAF is clearly a different kind of epic fantasy than the Tolkien-like subgenre), I just point out that the "wow magic!" things/moments in other fantasy novels are found in ASOIAF too;it's just that they're not so important and impressive in ASOIAF since Martin isn't focusing on them.Martin starts with a scene of undead/demon/ice zombies and then narrates a story of medieval intrigue.In the last books most interesting parts were how the hero broke his fast... -.-
Tolkien goes the other way.Starts with a simple guy living a quiet life(most interesting thing is a birthday party -.-) in his cottage and later BOOM goblins and orcs and wraiths serving an evil demigod all over the place.
Yannis wrote: "I'm not trying to find similarities/analogies(ASOIAF is clearly a different kind of epic fantasy than the Tolkien-like subgenre), I just point out that the "wow magic!" things/moments in other fant..."Ah, my bad. Sounds like we meant to say the same thing then!
Yeah, Middle Earth is a world full of magic, and the people in it are okay with that, so to speak. Westeros is a medieval world where magic is a myth to most people, and it's shown in a far less obvious way.
Eyob wrote: "@JohnnyI too like the way the "magical" elements were introduced. It was these things which you explain that got me interested in the first place. I like the first three books, especially A Storm..."
Actually, that's not what I said at all. I said that if there were too many of the big elements, then it would overpower the distinctly human elements of the book, which ultimately is what it is about. I don't think that the magic is overplayed - I think it is just right.
I agree that the magic elements are just right.
I find the lack of flash and glitter to make them more believable and natural. I enjoy the fact that it's just a part of life and not something outside and apart from everyone.
First of all, let me make it clear that though there are a number of clearly magical incidents, there is no glitter or flash. Which is a good approach. And I don't want them to be fancy or anything; in fact I like the idea. But I don't want them to be unduly suppressed either. You might make it more about "humans" but that will take away the realism for me.@Edwin
Good point. However, beyond a certain amount of magical incidents, you can't pretend that the general magic present is still insignificant and it's OK for the characters act normal as if they disbelieve them or are somewhat oblivious to the extraordinary things happening around them. When magic starts happening around you, you will start to respond after some point, even if gradually. But the characters seem to continue business as usual. The events beyond the Wall were too big a deal for Westeros to turn a blind eye to it. I think at least the Northmen shouldn't have been that oblivious. Also, I don't see the point of mentioning the talking tree-door under the Wall through which Samwell and Bran passed through. Unless there is a future role for it, I think the story would've been better off without it (which in my opinion makes this a "glitter"). Etc.
I like the first three books. I think they got the approach just right. Besides, they're the "genesis" of the story. My issue is that the latter books don't seem to be responding to these developments. I think I'm concerned with the coming books. We haven't even got into the main story element yet - the expected showdown between humans and The Others which I think will be the dominant part. GRRM stated somewhere that the 6th book will mostly focus beyond the Wall, on the battle with the Others I'm sure. And there are only 2 books left. After rolling with a long and undertoned magic, is the magic suddenly going to pick up?
Sometimes I feel that GRRM works a little too hard to underplay the magic to emphasize the "human" element. Does that make it realistic? I don't know about what other people feel but I think the story itself might have been dragged a little too long. Of course, I understand that either the "amount" of magic or how underplayed it is is a matter of opinion.
Oddly, I could see myself happier with even less magic in the books. What really compels me to keep reading are the relationships, the intrigue and the political dysfunction of the the series. I find myself rolling my eyes whenever magic shows up. I can believe the talking (mindlessly repeating crows) and the idea of soul transference for Bran, but when Arya got a new face and there was a magic door I had to skip over it. It's when GRRM makes these magical elements seem real and not so supernatural that I can handle them. I don't know much about GRRM, but I think he is probably trying to make the supernatural elements appear merely preternatural because he didn't want a dark-as-shit Harry Potter.
There is supposed to be a lot more magic in the last two books when Arya dies.
Nova wrote: "There is supposed to be a lot more magic in the last two books when Arya dies."Tell me where it says that Arya dies?.....
"I'm saying this even though I saw the TV series first"That is your first mistake.....while the series is quite good and entertaining....George's words were, "I wrote the books to be unfilmable," it cannot be equal to the books....there are so much information reading the story, that they have to film it......like a movie, leaving stuff out and changing things to accomodate the series. Read the books first....then see the HBO series. The magic in George's books are so subtle...you don't even realize its magic. You can only see that reading the books.
Part of me wonders if the book would have achieved the level of commercial success in terms of its television series if it had been all sword and sorcery - people like a good soap opera. I do wish there were more elements of magic within the story, but at the same time, I was very surprised to enjoy it *without* the obvious benefits of magic. I usually don't read those books, but his writing was quite compelling (aside from the 4th book, of course)
@AnnemarieActually, I kinda agree with you. Honestly, it's been the human element you described so far that has got me interested (though not all the magic was bad either). Those elements peaked in the third book and somewhat grown less interesting after that. I too didn't like the Faceless Men. I was hoping that I would find a meaningful role for them as I read the books, but so far I'm dissappointed. As for Bran, I could accept his being a warg and all but to be honest I'm fed up with the course his character is taking. Whenever I read about him I go like "Yeah yeah you're a warg, you've got some greensight, you met the Children of the Forest, met the tree-man Brandon, they've got big plans for you, blah blah blah. Stop dancing around and get to the point already!" Too much magic here if you ask me. If you include magic you either treat it right and keep it balanced for whatever purpose you intended for it - realistic or fanciful - or don't include it.
@Nancy
You misunderstood me. When I said "even tough I saw the TV series first", I meant that it was already a spoiler for me and hence I wasn't suprised; I was expecting the hatching of the dragons since I start reading the book. But the way it was written - the hatching of the dragons - was so good that I wasn't dissappointed. It had style, and most of all it was NECESSARY for the story. The reason I started reading the books was because of the TV series, and for what it's worth, I like the books better.
@Ken E
I don't think I would have liked the book if it was all flashy sword and sorcery either. It all depends on how a story was set up in the beginning, and ASOIAF was not set up for flashy twists. Otherwise I agree with your comment, especially about the 4th book; a really bad successor for a book as dramatic and intriguing as the 3rd one.
I think the title of thread is misleading (if you think I should change it please suggest so). Generally what I want to say is that I think the momentum for keeping the magic realistic somewhat starts to lose its balance as the story progresses, and hence less impressing compared to what one would expect from the inclusion of a tempered magic. I feel that the story has been dragged a little too much, especially for the latter books (as I consider the first 3 very good ones) and the magic didn't help.
Whenever some magic is included, I expect them to have a somewhat meaningful and sensible role, particularly if you present it in a realistic fashion. Otherwise I find it hard to accept the necessity of its inclusion if not frustrated. (In my view, the magic tree-door under the Wall, Beric Dondarrion's resurrection and the Faceless Men fail in this regard, while the Stark children's uncanny connection with their direwolves was done well). AND you have to treat the magic according to its nature. For example, some may consider there was glitter during the dragons' hatching, but that is not necessarily unrealistic. There were dragons, they became extinct. And they came to life again. There is no way to avoid the grand moment, because hatching long-dead dragons IS a big deal. There is no simple magic that could bring legendary creatures back to life convincingly. In fact, to look real, you'll need some "abracadabra". You just can't avoid it. Otherwise, a more realistic effect would be to not include magic at all. Take the Faceless Men. I honestly don't see the purpose and necessity of fancying up of their overly simplistic face changing (magical) techniques; it doesn't feel real. It's magic but unimpressive. I hope this will clear up what I'm trying to say.
Eyob wrote: "@AnnemarieActually, I kinda agree with you. Honestly, it's been the human element you described so far that has got me interested (though not all the magic was bad either). Those elements peaked i..."
I also think that he takes so long to introduce magical concepts that they lose value through the novels - a sort of depreciation in the eyes of the reader. Bran had established a connection with the 3 eyed crow in book one, but it takes four books for anything to materialise. Perhaps he is not as comfortable writing sorcery elements - as really, the focus on this book is plots and intrigue. Magic could dull this. Although, saying this, I secretly hope for more in the later works, hehe.
Ken E wrote: "Eyob wrote: "@AnnemarieActually, I kinda agree with you. Honestly, it's been the human element you described so far that has got me interested (though not all the magic was bad either). Those elem..."
Exactly! That's what I feel too (ESPECIALLY ABOUT BRAN :-) ). If GRRM wanted to focus on the plot and intrigue only he could've dropped the magic altogether. Otherwise, if you include magic it might as well have some augmenting value, without affecting the realism (and this book needs the magic because it was set up that way - the Others, etc). If not, then you have wasted lots of words. I too was also hoping there would be a little bit more in the latter books, you know just to offset the unduly decline I perceived in the current ones. But now I'm no longer sure he could satisfactorily deliver them from their currently "compromised" state. Of course, I can't say this without actually reading the coming books, which I will. I've started it, and I have to finish it.
Yeah. I will not put my money on magic being too strong a theme in the coming books. I think that he will treat it as always - shrouded in mystery, vague (perhaps deliberately vague). I also wonder how the TV series (and its popularity would come with upping the magic element. Aside from the LOTR and HP, magic in story books hasn't achieved cult status among the commercial masses) would cope with this. If he does decide to introduce a greater depth to the magical world, I wonder if he will be playing catch up - since he has been so spartan in his detail in how the magic system works - not like Jordan or Brooks, who are quite detailed in how they describe it. I honestly think he is going to keep it to a bare minimum, and judging from how long he takes to roll out books, we are not going to solve this conundrum any time soon :)
Ken E & EyobI'm in agreement. I can't wait for the next book, I only got into these books last year and read them as fast as I could only to find out there might be a decade wait for the next book... not sure I can stick around long enough. Bran's story line bores me. He's one of the few people that I read quicker and skip through to get to someone interesting. The other's don't rely on fantasy as an element of the story and therefor I can stand it.
Arya's storyline, while there is a magical element it is aimed at enhancing her role as a developing character. I'm really interested in seeing where she goes as a person and individual separate from the Starks. However, other than her nightly prayer (list of people to kill) she seems to have given up on her family. Of course, she's only 10 so what she can do against the empire/kingdom is beyond me.
Eyob wrote: "@AnnemarieActually, I kinda agree with you. Honestly, it's been the human element you described so far that has got me interested (though not all the magic was bad either). Those elements peaked i..."
Great response! I totally agree!
Annemarie wrote: "Ken E & EyobI'm in agreement. I can't wait for the next book, I only got into these books last year and read them as fast as I could only to find out there might be a decade wait for the next book..."
Well you could be right about Arya's current course, though I felt that her character has been drifting aimlessly so far. But I'm still not impressed with the way the Faceless Men are presented. At first they seemed promising but they ended up being magic you just have to swallow. I don't like that in a fantasy book that purports to present realism. It would've been OK with me if their magic had at least a sort of genesis or explanation as to how they got it, or something similar. And what's worse is know this cult will be a part of Arya and I'll simply have to take that as well.
But 5 books to develop a character is too long, similar to Bran. And on top of that, apparently the turning point of her role is just starting. How is GRRM going to play out her character in just 2 books? I don't know. Maybe by some miracle he'll manage to resolve some of these magical and story shortcomings. Maybe not. We'll just have to see. Provided GRRM gets the books out in time.
@Eyob - I hear ya! I like Arya, but only because I think she's a spunky little mirror of Sansa (who up until the last book bored me to tears). But the Faceless Men are frustrating. I know that they are an element I should be paying attention to, but unlike the Wall, this is an organization that GRRM didn't invest in with a backstory or at least some decent exposition, so why should I invest in them with my curiosity.I'm not sold that it will be only 2 more books. As much as I HATE quoting Star Wars... I got a bad feeling about this.
Hey everyone.It's actually what I've quite enjoyed about the series. There's no overdoing the magic. Unlike, for example Lord of the Ring, the characters don't bump into magic creatures all the time. In Game of Thrones, magic is concealed, not for everyone to see or to experience. I absolutely loved it.
Cheers!
This series reminds me of the soap Dallas on steroids with a light varnish of fantasy. It's all politics, betrayals, double crossings, sex, fighting and wars. As others have said, my biggest complaint is he kills off the characters I like. It is very frustrating to invest so many hours of reading (some pleasurable, others slogging through) only to have people you've grown to like killed off. By the end of book 4 I was so angry at the author that I wanted to throw the damn book across the room until I remembered it was a kindle version! Seriously, after reading reviews of book 5 I am in no hurry now to pick it up. Not if he continues to kill off the good guys. And at least 2 more books after that? I thought it would have made a nice trilogy - he's pushed it too far with too much nonessential pages and pages in each book. No thanks, I've already wasted too many hours on a series that has disapointed more than entertained me. I'm done with it. On to some really good fantasy like a new Robin Hobb...
I am hoping that the stuff happening over the wall ends up overwhelming all the other conflicts. Otherwise, what's the point? Also, Cersei better die a long, horrible death.
@DaisyI agree with some of your points, particularly about how he overstretched the books. That's part of what made me have a problem with the fantasy elements. A small dose of magic does seem like a good recipe for this kind of book, but the story gets dragged on so much that at some point the importance of the under-emphasized fantasy elements get diluted, and the human elements as well seem to lose a bit of its coherence (especially after the 3rd book), held together only by the expected climax of some sort we hope to read in the future books.
I don't like the way he kills off some of the characters either, especially the Starks. Sure tragedies happen in a story, but sometimes I think he does so by rather forcing the story take a direction which becomes a little less natural to take in. I have a hard time accepting Robb, who turned out to be a skilled war leader, taken down by treachery which I felt was rather too simple.
About the 4th book, it was the worst of them all in my opinion. But if you've gone that far, well then I suggest you might as well read the 5th book because it is better (though not as good as the first 3 books in my opinion) and covers incidents in the other geographical area during the same time frame. To make things clear, book 4 and 5 occur in the same time, but 4 covers events in Westeros, while 5 covers events mostly in Essos. Checking out events surrounding Danaerys and Tyrion after reading a long scorched Westeros book is a little refreshing.
@Lisa
That's what I hope too, but with the way the story's been progressing I do have doubts. GRRM has a skill of setting the arena for a great epic story-telling, but he does tend to diffuse some of the story's great parts. In the beginning, the Others and the wights were these mysterious beings that were to be feared, and later on they were reduced to rather common occurrences among the Wall's keepers. I hope GRRM will get his act together and get the story on track.
I think the " magic " will be added slowly as it has been, and then multiply exponentially as the story continues to pick up speed, like a snowball rolling downhill, nothing will be able to stop it once it gets going!
I believe magic disappeared when the dragons were killed off and will begin to come back as the 3 dragons mature <\spoiler>
i think it's smart of martin to keep the magic to the minimum. it creates a better sense of awe when something fantastic does occur. not to mention that the focus of the story isn't on fantasy but more on complex character development and interaction.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I've read all five of the ASOIAF books so far. And although I appreciate GRRM's approach towards the magical or fantasy elements - understressing them to give them a realistic effect - I feel that he's taken it too far.
You know when you read or watch fantasy stories you expect an expanded horizon and the stories to woo you. Trying to make the fantasy elements as realistic as possible is a good thing; it will help the story sink in more.
But in this series, the only magical moment I've experienced is when Danaerys hatched her dragons. It was a beautiful moment. I'm saying this even though I saw the TV series first. In most of the cases, GRRM would build up a plot with a magical element that will leave you anticipating some climactic twist or so, but they tend to end up below expectations.
For example, anybody remember the spell-bound door under The Wall which Samwell passed through by revealing his identity? The one Coldhands couldn't pass through? Well, GRRM made a point of creating that part of the story but so far that was it's only appearance. What's the point then? We're given nothing of its origin nor any worthy role in the whole series.
I was also underimpressed with the way Bran being a warg or his transformation into one was eventually revealed. I'm sure that before the book "announced" it, most readers have already guessed it.
And don't start with the events and creatures north of The Wall. They have most of the fantasy elements - The Others, giants, wargs, wights, etc. At the beginning, GRRM made a smart move in giving only glimpses of these things, which would build up your anticipation about their future role. But towards the end, you are unable to experience the "big deal" about them. You get used to them without feeling much of their supernatural essence become desensitized to them. It becomes a simple "humans-versus-others" thing without the fascination.
And what of the Brotherhood with Banners? GRRM created those noble bandits, and for all his resurrecting abilities Beric Dondarrion has now died off without playing much of a role in the series. So why bother with them in the first place?
And apart from Arya's and Jaqen H'ghar's possible future role, I am currently unimpressed with the implied significance of the Faceless Men.
GRRM has this habit of creating characters or events with mysterious or unkown origins, and while you're expecting some revelation of the origin or some important future role, he will kill them off or phase them out without doing so, dampening your suspense.
So far it was mostly the human element of the series that has me mostly captivating - it has some incredible twists now and then - but even so I don't know how far he can go with that with the story generally being so dependent on the events in the North and with most of the bad guys gone, particularly Tywin Lannister dead.
It maybe me, but I want to know if there are others out there that feel the way I do.