Fantasy Book Club discussion
General fantasy discussions
>
A Song of Ice and Fire- Overrated?
date
newest »
newest »
I got the first four books bundle for my kindle, thinking I was going to have a blast. But still couldn´t finish the first one. This is very weird in my case, I read Lord of the Rings in under one week.The problem I have with these books is the violence. I am too sensitive, and the first book took me for a ride I did not enjoy.
I think the first few books better than the last couple. Game of Thrones was, to me, easily the best book of the series.
Marie wrote: "I liked the first three books - those after that were just a way for the author to take up space. I mean, seriously, there should have been some serious progress made already, but then, there was n..."This is killing the fantasy genre.
It took me 20 years to finish Wheel of Time. I seriously finished high school, completed two degrees, worked for a few years, between start and finish.
That is ridiculous. I won't even read the first book of a series until it is finished amymore. I really want to read The Emperor's Blades but I won't until it is complete.
Marie wrote: "I liked the first three books - those after that were just a way for the author to take up space. I mean, seriously, there should have been some serious progress made already, but then, there was n..."I agree. The first three books were amazing; the 4th and 5th were not amazing. I'm also thinking that Martin may not finish the overall series at the rate he's writing.
I actually enjoyed the series in comparison with a lot of other rubbish that is filling the fantasy shelves.I agree that the series may never be finished by Martin but may end up being finished by another author (just like the wheel of time series).
GRRM and his song of Ice and Fire is easily one of my favorites; however the above point regarding how slow its moving is well made; combine that with how long he takes between books and theres a good chance that he will never tie together all these loose ends he has scattered all over his world.
For me it'll all depend on how, or if, he ends it. Right now (I haven't read Dragons yet) it is one of my favorite series. But I'm afraid the ending will either make it or break it.
I love the series. I have a friend who has been trying to read Book 4 and Book 5 together to try and keep the timeline correct and she said she enjoyed them a lot more doing this then reading them as two separate books. That's one of the main things I think is wrong with Book 4 and Book 5 was the characters being split between the books. I agree that Book 4 and 5 do make the series seem like it is dragging a bit. It would certainly explain why I'm bored by a couple of the storylines.
Angela wrote: "I love the series. I have a friend who has been trying to read Book 4 and Book 5 together to try and keep the timeline correct and she said she enjoyed them a lot more doing this then reading them ..."Seems like this would be a great opportunity for the publisher to double-dip: Release a special combined eBook edition of Crows/Dragons with the chapters rearranged. (Although it would probably be more complicated than that, wouldn't it?)
When Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle started coming out in paperback, they tried to do that in reverse -- the plan was to release the three gigantic hardcovers as maybe 7 mass-market paperbacks, and to rearrange the chapters so that each volume would focus on single set of characters (or maybe a couple of sets) instead of jumping between all of the different plot threads.
Bev wrote: "I actually enjoyed the series in comparison with a lot of other rubbish that is filling the fantasy shelves.I agree that the series may never be finished by Martin but may end up being finished b..."
Pretty sure he has stated he would not allow another author to finish ASOIAF. He has, however, revealed some crucial plot points to the senior Game of Thrones producers, so the TV show could potentially continue on in the event of his death.
I think after what happened with Jordan and his WoT series its a good idea for authors to have a plan what would happen to their series in the case of their deaths. Not just Martin.
Nienna wrote: "I think after what happened with Jordan and his WoT series its a good idea for authors to have a plan what would happen to their series in the case of their deaths. Not just Martin."I think publishers should refuse to publish a book one until the series is largely done.
Doug wrote: "Nienna wrote: "I think after what happened with Jordan and his WoT series its a good idea for authors to have a plan what would happen to their series in the case of their deaths. Not just Martin."..."Oh come on! Authors have to eat. And so do publishers, for that matter.
Sandra wrote: "Doug wrote: "Nienna wrote: "I think after what happened with Jordan and his WoT series its a good idea for authors to have a plan what would happen to their series in the case of their deaths. Not ..."I would at the least make the author sign a contract with hard deadlines and incentives to finish each book in a timely fashion.
I don't understand GRRM. If I were him, I would be frantic to secure my legacy, finish my achievement. Instead he piddles around with bullcrap, and will have his masterpiece finished by someone else.
Doug wrote: "Sandra wrote: "Doug wrote: "Nienna wrote: "I think after what happened with Jordan and his WoT series its a good idea for authors to have a plan what would happen to their series in the case of th..."Maybe he is just struggling with a suitable ending?
Just a thought and maybe I am way of the mark as I am not a writer.
Doug wrote: "Nienna wrote: "I think after what happened with Jordan and his WoT series its a good idea for authors to have a plan what would happen to their series in the case of their deaths. Not just Martin."..."I can understand your point of view (the reader in me certainly agrees), but that would not make sense for the publisher - they'd be leaving money on the table. Think of how much money they've made off Martin already - and how much less they'd have if they waited until he was almost done.
I don't think a series should be finished before its sold, but I do think it would be a good idea for an author to know ahead of time how and when their book will end and pitch it in its entirety to a publisher. But maybe they do? I know nothing about publishing.
Nienna wrote: "I don't think a series should be finished before its sold, but I do think it would be a good idea for an author to know ahead of time how and when their book will end and pitch it in its entirety t..."I've strongly suspected for years that when a series blows up popularity wise like SOFAI or Harry Potter, the publisher says "Yeah, turn that trilogy into a five or six book series."
Doug wrote: "Nienna wrote: "I don't think a series should be finished before its sold, but I do think it would be a good idea for an author to know ahead of time how and when their book will end and pitch it in..."I think you're probably right. It doesn't seem like a coincidence to me that so many series have a great first book followed by books with heaps of padding and fluff. Did the writer just become bad overnight? Hardly - they were probably told, as you suggested, to start spreading the books out to make more money.
They probably do. I've heard this with urban fantasy and paranormal romances in particular. But I also think authors themselves get caught up in the story and can't quit it. I want to believe this is what happened to Jordan. Maybe I'm wrong.I wish someone would force Rowling to write more Harry Potter books personally... ;)
Nienna wrote: "They probably do. I've heard this with urban fantasy and paranormal romances in particular. But I also think authors themselves get caught up in the story and can't quit it. I want to believe this ..."Rowling is one of the few authors who I wish would go back to one of the universes she's created. There is a lot of room for more (both before and after the series) for her to work with. It helps that apart from a bout of writer's block in the middle of the series, she writes at a decent clip.
As for writers who get caught up in the story… I believe that's what happened to Anne Rice.
I don´t like books without an ending. I feel cheated. I don´t care if they are part of a series or not, the author should take each story to completion. This maybe comes from the old tale about RR Tolkien. They say that when he finally had Lord of the Rings ready, the publisher didn´t dare to use the red pen to take it to a commercially viable size... So they cut the book in three, to release each at a price people would pay.
And people bought it. Being good business it became trendy.
I like Lord of the Rings, a lot. But I have the "trilogy" as one book, as it was intended initially.
I've tried reading Game of Thrones multiple times, but could never get past the first handful of chapters. I am not completely sure why to be honest. My best guess is that there's nothing that really hooks me into the story and that the generic pseudo-medieval setting bores me.
The Thing that truly irritates me about Asoiaf is that it seems to use violence, death, sex, and shock to draw its readers in. I began to question the actual writing ability of GRRM after finishing aSoS.Its a bit hard for me to explain. When I say writing ability I mean like the use of language. If you read the Malazan Series, the language is almost poetic,if you read Mistborn Trilogy, the language is witty. If you read the Kingkiller chronicles, the author manages to imply many things without writing them. ASOIAF lacks the subtlety and grace of any of these works. When I read ASOIAF, the language is too blunt. It just tells you what happens and lets the shock of the death of major characters do the rest.
I just think poor GRRM wasnt born with the NATURAL WRITING ABILITY of other authors. Thats why he spends 5 years writing each book while other authors can write a book of similar length and depth in 1-2. GRRM has to continuously edit his works and his writing still comes off inferior.
Another irritating thing is that he doesn't really create an imagery of the ASOIAF world or describe anything well enough for you to form an image. I only really got a truly clear picture after watching the TV show (and that has been changed a bit aswell)
And the final grievance is how unoriginal his world is. A medieval setting, a war based on the war of the roses, a wedding based on the black dinner, a house named lannister (named after the lancasters), a continent which even in the books is shaped like england, a wall which is based on a real wall in england, a rich trade city named qarth with three walls (carthage = qarth. it even sounds the same), bravos which is venice, an almost completely historically accurate feudal system, free cities based on italian city states. I cant think of a single original thing in his books except maybe the 'others'
If GRRM had a natural knack for writing like other authors he would undoubtedly be the best. Unfortunately the fact that he can only manage prose and simple colloquial language has turned me off his books.
Kik wrote: "The Thing that truly irritates me about Asoiaf is that it seems to use violence, death, sex, and shock to draw its readers in. I began to question the actual writing ability of GRRM after finishing..."Yeah, he's probably crying all the way to the bank. ;)
Benjamin wrote: "Yeah, he's probably crying all the way to the bank. ;)" "I really dont see how his wealth has anything to do with his writing ability. Also to clarify, I didnt say asoiaf sucked i just said those were the things i found irritating. I actually wish GRRM was a better writer. the dark atmo and characterisation of ASOIAF is a game changer in the fantasy genre but the quality of the writing is average.
He almost seems like the Leonardo Di caprio of the writing industry. All the masses who dont know much about movies love leo and repeatedly insist he deserves an oscar but the elite in the academy of motion picture who actually have the expertise to judge movies methodically have realised that his acting falls a bit short of the standard of an oscar winner compared to his competition. I used to think ASOIAF was the greatest fantasy series ive ever read. It was certainly a step up from the books i was used to reading. But then I actually read tolkien's LOTR books, steven erriksons malazan and their writing outshone GRRM's writing so much that i was forced to re-evaluate my love for the Asoiaf series. Also, as i said, part of the reason was ASOS. The red wedding scene was very blunt. It wasnt well written but relies on the fact that you are rooting for the good guys to shock you.
So again to clarify, Im saying the series is good but its not truly great so I agree with the person who created this post that ASOIAF is overrated. I mean honestly, a huge number of fans only read the series AFTER they watched the show because they wanted to know what happens without waiting.
Does your book have sex, death, betrayal and shocking scene? Congrats sir, this is just the kind of stuff we love to play on HBO!
I won't argue that there's certainly more poetic prose style in the world that GRRM's, but the man knows how to create interesting characters and tell a compelling story. To me, prose is just a vehicle for conveying story and character; elegant prose for its own sake is a lovely decoration, but I find substance far more interesting. Martin's writing has never distracted me, and I consider that greatly in its favor.
Benjamin wrote: "I won't argue that there's certainly more poetic prose style in the world that GRRM's, but the man knows how to create interesting characters and tell a compelling story. To me, prose is just a a vehicle for conveying story and character; elegant prose for its own sake is a lovely decoration, but I find substance far more interesting. Martin's writing has never distracted me, and I consider that greatly in its favor"Thats an interesting way to put it. A "vehicle for conveying story and character".
That is exactly why its important to have elegant/poetic prose. I mean otherwise why are there writers? There could just be storytellers who get to the point of the story. The whole point of actually writing it down is so the story is told beautifully rather than just plainly.
Ill use a more literal analogy of the vehicle. The reader is the passenger, the plot is the destination and the quality of the writing is the 'ride'. What's the point of having a boring ride rather than a nice, relaxing ride. When you read, is the point just to arrive at the ending of the story or is it to ENJOY the story?? It sounds really corny but i think you can understand what im getting at
If you want, Ill give you a list of my personal favourite fantasy books and maybe after you read those you will see things my way and understand why i believe the quality of the writing is as important as the subtance
The point, for me, is to enjoy the story. When all is said and done, I don't remember the prose; I remember the story and the characters. I find that overly poetic/elegant prose distracts me because I find myself focusing on the words themselves instead of what the author is trying to convey. Martin's prose is professional and straightforward. Yeah, it could be prettier, but I wouldn't enjoy the story any more. I'd probably enjoy it less, because it takes more mental energy to parse it.I'm reading Guy Gavriel Kay's Ysabel right now and while I am enjoying it, I'm finding that the prose tends to be a little flashy, and it does (to a small degree) distract me from the story he's trying to tell. I'm in no danger of abandoning the book, and I'm certain that it won't make much of a difference in the end as to whether I enjoyed the story and characters. But I'm noticing it, and that, to me, is a negative.
I don't agree with your implicit assertion that prettier prose always makes for a better reading experience. Beyond a certain level of skill and professionalism, it's all icing, and too much icing makes me nauseous.
How do you enjoy the story if the writing isnt as good? Like would you enjoy ASOIAF if someone just told you the plot?The only book ive ever read that was mentally taxing was the classic 'war and peace'. Most authors these days are easier to understand but they dress their story a bit better than GRRM. It shouldn't take more mental energy because the writing is a bit more elegant
How quickly do you read your books? I suspect the difference comes down to that. When I see flashy language it doesn't distract me from the plot long because I take my time reading the book anyway.
Well Ive never read a book with TOO MUCH icing before. Is there a specific book you are talking about?
Kik wrote: "How do you enjoy the story if the writing isnt as good?By magic, I guess? I don't know. I've read and enjoyed lots of books that lacked orgasm-inducing prose. You're making a false dichotomy: Either a book's prose is amazing and the book is great, or the prose is crap and the book sucks. There's a lot more factors to quality than that, and I'm pretty sure you know that, so I don't know why you can't get past the idea that someone can enjoy a book for other reasons, even if the prose is just okay.
I didn't say they would be crap, or unenjoyable just not as great. There are fillers and boring bits in even the best books. Good prose means the different between enjoying even those bits or having to slog through those feeling bored. Also you have to agree with me that ASOIAF lacks certain imagery because of the way its written (mostly though character dialogue or thoughts. IT seems a bit lazy to describe most things through character dialogue and thought rather than actually finding the right words and moment to describe them). Honestly Benjamin, If you had 5 years of time like GRRM to write a single book, i believe your writing would be as professional as his if not more. Just from discussion, I can see that you are more better at wording things out than GRRM. After all, you took my complaints about the book and described them better than I did so im guessing you are quite eloquent. I mean think about it. 5 years a book!! and he can only write the book in a very straight foward fashion. The quality of writing you might expect from a high scoring English student in the HSC. Maybe even less, since those students tend to use better wording.Only the fact that it described a medieval type hierarchy allowed me to have any concept of what westeros looked like. And that imagery was pulled from my own mind based on medieval movies and the GOT show and not from the writing itself. Its only because most people know what knights and castles looks like that GRRM gets away with it.
I just want to link you to something. Ill assume for now you haven't read malazan. This is the prologue of gardens of the moon.
http://www.stevenerikson.com/index.ph...
Just look how skillfully written that is. In those 6-7 pages, he has managed to give you an idea of the major players and forces (implications that the gods are active, laseen, the soldiers, the claw), introduced magic already, some of the geography of the malazan empire, its current political status, the bridgeburners, You have a sense of inevitability. And in these 3 characters you can see people at various stages of being beaten down by life. Whiskeyjack is tired and doesnt try to fight the inevitable, fiddler is younger but not that young so hes become cynical and paran is a young boy who yearns for the future, unaware of reality. In other words, that prologue has set up not just Gardens of the moon but all ten books in the series perfectly. Very rarely have I seen so much of the mood/setting of an entire book or series described in just a few pages. The writing itself is truly genius
It does all this while at the same time gives you a beautiful image of whats going on in that scene. when i read that prologue, I could picture it all in my head.
Compare that to the prologue of Game of thrones. It just introduces a looming threat while not really giving you an idea of what to expect from the book. Plus the "looming threat in the prologue that appears later in the books" has been done too many times imo
I agree with Benjamin that there are so many elements in a story that can be enjoyed, and the writing is only one of them. I personally prefer books with characters that I love. It can be slow-paced with only a few characters, like Robin Hobb's books, or it can have a huge array of characters with many plot twists, like ASoIaF. But they have to have great characters.I just read an Indonesian novel that was nominated for an award here. It has very beautiful prose and deep philosophy and in-depth research. But I couldn't quite enjoy it because I didn't care about the characters.
Hmm, I like the ride analogy if you use the other side of it. Tolkien is a sweet old Jaguar, GRRM is a Jeep. Both will get you to your destination. The Jeep is loud and bumpy and your hair gets all messed up, but it can be a lot of fun, and you can go offroad. The Jag gets you there in style and comfort but the radio is stuck on classical music and any side trips are tasteful, sedate.
Sometimes you're in the mood for one or the other. Both have good and bad points. But I don't think many would argue that the Jeep is an amazing work of automobile art.
I think Kik is definitely right that prose style is not Martin's strong point, and nor is originality. But I think he's being needlessly narrowminded in insisting that prose style is all that matters. Martin's work is far more interested in putting compelling characters through an interesting story, with character development. It's a strawman to say that this is the same as just telling you the plot. For example consider translated poetry (or indeed some translated prose of a poetic nature). If you only read the translation, you don't get the original words. But reading a poem in translation and reading a synopsis of what a poem is about are very different things. Because between the style and the substance there is something else, which is how the substance is formulated. You can admire the formulation even if you don't admire the presentation.
[Kik's also totally wrong about DiCaprio, who is an exceptionally good actor, although it's true that some of his best work was early in his career, before he was famous. But if you really want to go by awards recognition, you don't get four Oscar nominations in the first place without being a really good actor, plus he has a Silver Bear, which is rather more highbrow than an Oscar, plus a bunch of critical awards. So, OK, he may not be Day-Lewis, but he's still one of the best actors of his generation.]
People don't read books just for one reason. There are different ways a book can be good. And yes, a sufficiently terrible flaw in one dimension can make something a bad book - but Martin's certainly not at that level of stylistic ineptitude.
[Brandon: persevere. The first book is the weakest, imo, and the beginning of it is the worst part.]
haha fair enough but which do you consider leos best works? I havent seen anything pre-titanic. I have seen maybe a dozen or more of his films and none of them really impressed me much. He certainly wasnt anywhere near the level of Javier Bardem in no country for old men or Day Lewis in There will be Blood/Lincoln and i think that is the level needed to win an oscar. The main point of criticism most people seem to have with leo is that in movies he "plays leo". He plays basically the same character for a lot of his movies. I actually enjoyed django and the great gatsby simply cause he wasn't playing his usual character (despite the odd accents in both movies :L)EDIT: as a side note, I really like this forum's community. No flaming and no fanboys about. Ive found any forum with a large population of fanboys tends to be a disaster area. Anyone who disagrees with what the fanboys think instantly get set upon by a hundred people. The ratio of logical people who can make a coherent argument and fanboys who just group spam is about 1:100. They are like the zombie herds in walking dead lol: easy to kill but overwhelm you with numbers. But this forum is good since everyone is making valid arguments and giving proof for them :. I take it that this means everyone here is a true fantasy fan and actually know what they are talking about
I remember in 2008 when hardly as many new about this series.I was living in China, teaching English, and I'd just finished Book 2. I had to have Books 3 and 4, so I made a late-night run to Hong Kong to get them.
Guys, doing a run like that takes about 4 hours both ways, to move maybe 30 miles. I'd pick up this first book and give it a chance.
Game Of Thrones #1
I've just started reading it. I'm only 8 chapters in but I'm really enjoying it. But, who knows, maybe it'll take a turn for the worst later on. So far so good though.
Kik - Leo in 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape?' is my personal favorite.
I tried to read the first volume and got to about page 100 when I finally realized there wasn't going to be anybody in the book that I identified with or even liked. So, I chunked it. I have run into a bunch of people that liked it and a bunch of people that hated it. The people that liked it all liked Tyrion. I couldn't stand him. So, there is a basic dichotomy going here. I would never tell somebody that they shouldn't read something, but it's not for little Susie!
The only person I identified with in the first book was Sansa, and everyone else seems to hate her, so I'm with you there.
I like the way Martin juxtaposes his characters which for me makes his characters seem deeper Like Brienne & Jamie could not be more different but they were excellent together Arya & The Hound and even Jon and Sam to a certain extent. I am a big fan of the books and the TV series and it surprises me that so many people do not like them at all. i do agree though that the first 3 books were the best and the last 2 in my opinion are just filler for the final 2 books.
Oops, looks like the electronic Gremlins ate my post so I'll see if I can cull this from memory...You're perfectly within your rights to dislike a book or TV series that others love, since tastes are subjective. For example, I've personally never been able to get into Sopranos or the Dune books, no matter how my friends insist I should. It's not that they're badly written. I'm glad other people enjoy them! It's just that, well, the writing style just doesn't happen to connect with me.
That being said, I happen to love the "Song of Ice and Fire" books because... well, because I do! In other words, I get a lot of pleasure out of reading George Martin's stuff because his writing style really connects with me. I like that he has plenty of violence and he's willing to kill off main characters, sure, but what mainly draws me in is how deeply he gets me into all these characters' heads, how the actions and thoughts of so many unreliable narrators get under my skin. In fact, I read the last book on the Kindle app on my phone, of all things!
That being said, I know some people just don't care for all the POV shifts. If you're looking to give Martin's stuff another chance, you might want to check out the prequel novellas, "The Tales of Dunk and Egg." They're great but different than the Game of Thrones stuff. For one thing, they have just a couple central protagonists and a more "traditional" narrative thread. Actually, they were my introduction to Martin's Westeros. If you feel like giving them a chance, you might like them!
Either way, though, happy reading!
Not sure where to post this recent news:"George RR Martin: Game of Thrones twist will appear in books, not TV show"
"George RR Martin has revealed he will go ahead with a twist in the next Game of Thrones book The Winds of Winter that will not be able to happen in the TV adaption, because the character has been killed off on the show."
Here's the article: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016...
Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
A Game of Thrones #1 (other topics)The Emperor's Blades (other topics)
Dying of the Light (other topics)
Sandkings (other topics)
Portraits of His Children (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Neal Stephenson (other topics)Ayn Rand (other topics)
Makes it more realistic, in my opinion. There are never really such things as completely good or completely bad in real life, so why should there be in our literature? The characters grow and evolve based on their experiences..the ones that stay alive anyways