1601

Remember, part of the style is that he throws you into a world that’s in progress - he doesn’t try to formally introduce everyone, tell all of the backstory at the beginning, etc. There are a LOT of characters introduced at the start, but the ones you need to remember, you will.

1602

Oh, now that just makes my head hurt. GRRM is more mature as a writer because he doesn’t plagiarize himself multiple times in a single book. And the content is certainly far more mature in both substance and tone. I mean, seriously, Eddings?

1603

ASoIaF has a lot of sex for an epic fantasy. But a lot of sex, generally? No and Hell No.

Typical mainstream fiction aimed at a female readership has WAY more sex – and far more descriptive sex – than ASoIaF. It’s not even close, really.

It probably was the names.

1604

Yeah, my mom reads nothing but romance novels. I have no idea how the sex scenes compare between Martin and the stuff she reads, though.

1605

I would have completely agreed with you if it weren’t for the Brynden Rivers thing in ADWD. I had absolutely no memory of who that was during the reveal.

1606

You also have to get used to the fact that when people speak to each other they sometimes use the formal title, sometimes only the first or last name and sometimes the nicknames. That’s actually a lot of additional names for a series of several hundred characters.

It’s been a while but I’ve always regarded the works of Eddings as very recommendable fantasy stuff. Not having to read through machoistic sexual intercourses did certainly help. I was also not aware Eddings is plagiarizing himself, maybe this is because I only read the books and not the comments about the books. I got tired early on because the works were labeled as good kids or teenage stuff. I certainly don’t agree. Same with Eyes of the Dragon by King.

Now that I’m nearing the end of the first book (each original work has been split to two separate books over here), I have to mention the following issues I have with the series until now:

(1) Too macho, I mean the females are more or less all shown as either weak or scheming
(2) Too much references to human history, the horse riding tribe comes to mind as an extreme example
(3) Repetitive events, e. g. Ned’s son and daughter lurking
(4) The unnecessary sex stuff…
(5) Dragons? How imaginative. Why isn’t it possible for an advanced writer to come up with some new and innovative kind of beast. I mean, Dragons? Seriously?
(6) It’s appears to be a bit too medieval either
(7) The myriad of names for each character and the style they are used makes it hard to not think to miss something without going back from time to time

Otherwise it’s rather exiting and I’m eager to dig deeper.

1607

I only read two Eddings books, and although I enjoyed the writing style, the two stories were almost identical in terms of plot progression, so I couldn’t bring myself to read a third. I suspect that’s what they mean.

Hum. I’d be interested to see if you still feel this way at the end of the CoK. Females are constrained by the society, but they exercise a great deal of influence and power. Arya and a later character both break out of those constraints.

By this you mean that the cultures shown in the books are too close to a historical analogue?

I didn’t get that impression from the first book, but that is certainly a valid criticism of the fourth book.

Part of Martin’s goal with the series was to turn traditional fantasy archetypes on their heads. He could have made up brand new beasts, but why?

I can’t parse that statement. You feel that his descriptions of the society are too close to medieval Europe and you wish he’d come up with a more original fantasy civilization?

Amen.

As good as the first book was, the second is superior in my view; I don’t think you’ll be sorry.

1608

I don’t recall ever having problems with the names.

1609

When I read Game of Thrones for the first time, I had a lot of trouble trying to figure out who Lord Peytr, Lord Baelish, and Lord Littlefinger were and how they related to one another.

Jon Arryn’s squire Hugh gave me problems the first time too. Dunno why, I just could never keep him and Lancel straight in my head given that they seemed to share the same role in the story.

1610

Don’t leave now!

1611

Well, I have read them all more than once. Of course you have to take care to follow the intended order. http://www.sorcerers.net/Books/index_eddings.php
I’d recommend reading the prequels at the end. Theyare certainly basing their views on some kind of bias and I guess most of them didn’t even try to dig deep enough but only were looking for nitpicks they could confirm their bias with.

(1) is directly connected with (2), (4) and (6). So:

I really don’t see this. In fact the opposite is true for me so far. Maybe things will change later on, I certainly hope so.

Arya is the archetype of a girl in a male body, so having her do even more male things and getting even more masculine will not surprise me. I had also just to remember the sister of Ned’s wife (Cat?) in the mountain stronghold, who is even weaker than all the women described before. The worst example was the first sexual intercourse between Sansa and the Mongol chieftain and the story following these events, showing her as a young girl having to be sexually available all the time.

Yes and I’m sure I will find more.

Of course. The young ages of some of the participants and their development clearly show medieval connections for example.

That’s because you’re only reading 5 pages per hour I suppose.

No, of course not, I’m going through it straight to the current end.

1612

Who? What?

1613

Are we done now?

1614

He did say he was having problems with the names.

1615

EDIT: Find the interview here. Interesting how writers’ perception of their work frequently differs from the audience’s.

Another funny question and answer from that interview:

What is the most valid criticism that you’ve received?

I don’t really have an answer to that one. There’s certainly valid criticism of details. I have a horse that changes sex between the first and second book, for example. I do make mistakes, and I regret that because it confuses the issue. There are other so-called “mistakes” in the book that are not mistakes—they’re very intentional because I’m trying to get at something having to do with the point of view structure and the unreliable narrator. Two different characters may remember an event in two different ways—well that’s not a mistake, that’s deliberate. When you have horses changing sex, it blurs the distinction and throws the reader off. So I guess that’s a valid mistake.

1616

I do actually find it odd that people complain about his tendency to embroider the heraldry, food, and other luxuriant description simply because it’s such a big part of the style from the get-go.

1617

I’m wondering if anyone has taken a stab at reconciling the chapters between AFfC and ADwD yet? I’d really like to read the books in chronological order…

1618

I was thinking that too. FFC would have been much more tolerable re-integrated into these chapters. I wouldn’t have minded so much Brienne that way.

1619

[quote=“Lynch,post:1611,topic:202”]

I really don’t see this. In fact the opposite is true for me so far. Maybe things will change later on, I certainly hope so.[/QUOTE]
I think we might be talking past each other here, so let me be clear on what I mean: Martin is taking traditional swords-and-sorcery tropes and deliberately subverting them in his story. The most honorable man in the kingdom is outmaneuvered, defeated, and killed by the wicked queen; the most gallant and chivalrous knight in the realm is gay; the realm’s greatest warrior and champion - he who vanquished an evil king - is a douche who is incidentally in an incestuous relationship with the aforementioned wicked queen. There are a few better examples that I won’t mention because they are in later books.

Beyond the gray characterizations of the “traditional” fantasy roles, I thoroughly enjoy his messing with the western myth/Tolkien trappings. Martin’s dwarf does at one point don the accouterments of a Tolkien dwarf: a beard, furs & leather, a pot helm, and a double-bladed axe; but he does so only for one scene, and it’s intentionally played as contrived. Martin’s dragons are neither fearsome beasts that exist to be slain, nor wise elder beings – they are WMDs that everyone wants desperately to possess.

Sure, there are both weak and strong women in the series, just as there are weak and strong men. For every weak woman there is almost certainly an equally weak man. The only difference is that the weak men are in positions of power.

Right, but to make that statement true you have to ignore all the role-reversals in that relationship that happen later in the book.

Meh. This doesn’t bother me too much for a couple reasons. First, as I noted above, Martin set out to make a swords-and-sorcery story that subverts many of the tropes, so starting out with a Tolkien-esk 12th century European analogue was kind of a given.

Secondly, there have been so very many diverse cultures in the real world that creating anything actually alien is pretty damned tough. I bet if I spent all day coming up with what I thought was an original fantasy culture and then presented it to my (unemployed) buddy with the PhD in medieval history, he’d glace at it and say “Oh, this is just like the [blank] tribe from the steppes of [blank].”

So yes, the Northmen have a Teutonic feel, and the Dornish have a vaguely Arabian tone, and the Iron Islanders are sort of Viking-like. In the later books you get introduced to the Eastern cultures which have an odd mix of Byzantine, Ottoman and Aztec about them – none of them are direct analogues, but your mind will always try and find one anyway.

1620

Tin, before digging through your post: are there any spoilers included? Remember I’m currently only at the middle of the first book according to the original arrangement. In fact I was already reading that the most honorable man was killed and hope you are talking about Jon (?, the first hand) and not Ned (don’t reply to the last sentence for obvious reasons).