Miodrag

Once again, to make myself clear, I have nothing against terms GRRM uses to describe genitalia. On the contrary, he manages to use the language that seems suitable for the culture he chose as a setting. I just don't like when he uses them in narration. I'm completely fine with Tyrion talking or thinking about cunts, but it's somewhat distracting for me when a narrator does it. However, as I said, close-third-person narration is a tricky technique, because what I can find too personal, some other reader can find too neutral, and vice versa, so my complaint is a very personal one. And it's really not a big complaint. I see absolutely no reason to think GRRM wanted to "fully explain" The Others, but failed to do it because of a format. I'm pretty certain The Others are fleshed out exactly to an extent GRRM wanted so far. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a single thing that suffered because of a POV structure of the books. Looks like he managed to tell everything he planed to, and to put aside everything he didn't want revealed or looked at from proximity. It'd help if you give me some example of books suffering because of a POV structure. In what way and at what instance did POV structure limited Martin so far? The Others don't fit at all, because everything suggests that, at this point in the story, they are to be perceived as the most terrifying, but still very mysterious, threat for the mankind. In every case, had he wanted, I guess he could've given a POV to Coldhands, for example. That chapter most probably wouldn't be nearly as tricky as Cersei's walk of shame, or Sansa's first period, or Tyrion during the battle at the Blackwater, or Jaime after losing his hand, not to mention the Red Wedding or Bran's chapters (for example, Bran not reaching Meera because he didn't want to look strange or funny shows the empathy Martin feels for his characters is perhaps unparalleled), and so on. The books are full of chapters that were extremely difficult for writing, so I don't quite get why would anyone think that GRRM dropped anything because it was too hard for him. Especially because The Others don't seem to be too dependent on reasoning, so I don't see what would be so difficult in writing a POV for someone among them in the first place. About details, of course you're entitled to find them not interesting, but much of those details are crucial in describing the world and the setting of ASOIAF. Even the food descriptions serve to reveal differences between social classes, and in ADWD they even play a role in a dramatic way (Frey Pie). I think the story would loose much of its depth if those descriptions were cut. For comparison, I tried to read Malazan Book of the Fallen series, and quit after the first book, precisely because the world isn't properly established at all. Everything's about the characters (and even they weren't too deep, by the way), while the setting is never looked at seriously and thoroughly. As for the show, that's where we disagree the most. At this point, it looks like the show is telling a story of its own, and not trying to tell ASOIAF in another medium. But, whatever story they're trying to tell, be it Martin's or their own, they're not doing it well, because their story is full of plot wholes and characters' inconsistencies. And it's not like they have no details. It's just that their `details` (like burping whores and all those brothel scenes and Margaery's "shenanigans" and detours a la the showdown at Craster's and Yara's attack on Dreadfort) are meaningless for both the setting and the characters, not to mention for the general story.

1) POV structure is really not a limiting factor. It doesn't take anything away from the story. On the contrary, in hands of a skilled writer, especially the one able to joggle multiple POVs, it adds new layers to the story, like characters' intimacy and feelings. Nothing is lost because of a POV structure of the books. The very backstory of Jon's parentage is a testament to that, along with countless other subtly planted perspectives that enable a reader to look at the plot and characters from different angles. In truth, it is the show that is infinitely weaker in that regard, because it looks like D&D are preoccupied with inventing scenes for character that don't have POV chapter in the books, but they fail to depict the world and the culture of ASOIAF. 2) Tyrells are more fleshed out in the show? Really?! Even though some important members of the family are cut? Again, you seem to be confusing more screen time with more fleshed out. Please, for the love of god, tell me how is TV Margaery "more fleshed out" than her book original. What is it that we know about TV Margaery, that justifies so much screen time wasted on her? Not only that she's as shallow as anyone, she's also drastically inconsistent: in season 2, she's an immoral slut who proposes a menage a trois with her husband and his lover/her brother; in season 4, she's shocked that someone killed Joff, and that her granny had a role in it. And what about Loras? Is he "more fleshed out" in the show as well?! 3) What was big about seeing White Walkers? What info did we get there? 4) Your posts are getting more and more entertaining, ever since you "explained" in that other thread why do you prefer TV Sandor over book Sandor. By the way, where do you place TV Sandor? Is he among the characters you find "more fleshed out"?

I understand non-Latin angle completely. In fact, you just reminded me of that ridiculous TV dialogue between Tyrion and Jaime, about different forms of murders - regicide, patricide, fratricide and so on. One more testament to the show's poor writing. But, I wasn't talking about that. What I had in mind is preserving neutrality as much as possible, even while describing highly intimate situations like sex. GRRM managed it just fine in ACOK, especially in Dany's chapters, which are centered around her very sexual relationship with Drogo. All those scenes are very sexual and intimate, and yet, as far as I can remember, not once did GRRM use words like "cunt" or "cock" in them. My problem with using those words is that they are inevitably intimate. Most probably, no objective narration would ever use such language. When the characters use them, fine. When narration uses them, not so much. But, again, it's just a nitpicking, and a very subjective complaint. If I was his editor, I'd suggest to him to use some other expressions, but I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Sorry, but first I have to tell you, its somewhat strange if you completely ignore big parts of my reply to your previous post, and instead just move to the next complaint. You said queenmaker subplot is ridiculous. I replied by explaining why I don't find it ridiculous. You said Martin puts too many details in his prose. I pointed to other authors that put even more details in their stories. To both of my points you had nothing to say. You just moved to another set of complaints. Is that how you want to discuss things: you keep on bringing more and more complaints, and I keep on rebutting them? Honestly, I'm not interested in that kind of "debate", because it looks like you just feel the need to bash GRRM a little, especially if you think he's focused on politics because he's opting for the easier way out. Don't know your taste in literature and your prerogatives, so, for all I know, you may be legitimately disappointed by what you consider is too much politics and too little magic. But: 1) that has nothing to do with me, nor anyone who isn't you - there's nothing to discuss there, because it's a matter of personal taste, not an opinion; and 2) calling ASOIAF politics easier than the alternative is not an opinion I can find serious. Several years ago, an expert in legal history did an interview with GRRM, focus of which was the legal system of 7K. The interviewer admitted that GRRM's knowledge on the matter of medieval legal systems surpasses his own. How many writers receive that kind of praise? (Last year someone posted a link to the podcast with an interview, if someone can find it I'd be grateful.) Tom Holland, a well-known historian, is an ASOIAF fanatic who never neglects to mention how fascinated he is with the universe GRRM created, which he, Holland, describes as heavily rooted in historical realities and at the same time very imaginative. Another historian, Stephen Atewell, runs a site called "The Race for the Iron Throne", in which he meticulously analyzes ASOIAF, chapter by chapter, by comparing it to the actual historical facts and data. Not to mention that, for a male, writing characters like Cersei, Sansa, Cat (all very feminine, in their own respective ways) had to be a monstrous task. Regardless of what will GRRM ultimately do with The Others and how is he going to approach them, what he accomplished so far with political intrigue, character development, social studies and yes, even magic (Bran's entire arc), is hardly easier than anything.

For me it's the other way around: I'm not a fan of narration becoming too personal. Like, it's OK if a character curses or uses words like "cunt", be it in dialogue or in own mind. But when foul language is found in a narration, it diminishes the `neutral` aspect of the narration for me, and since this isn't a first person narration, I like it to remain as neutral as possible. Now, having said that, I do understand this whole "close third person" narration is a very tricky thing, especially if an author joggles with so many different POVs, so I give GRRM some slack. And it's not like I'm too bothered by that in the first place. All in all, wouldn't agree that its some serious mistake nor "almost amateurish". Considering he manages to satisfy both people like you and people like me, with all of our obvious difference and differing tastes, I'd say GRRM is not without considerable skills in regards to narration. So do I, which is why, during my first reading of ASOIAF, I was so surprised at how few complaints I actually have. Like, I expected a genre literature, and found something that is way better than genre literature. In regards to "action" (in a very broad sense of the word), you could say that the pace is uneven. However, even the slowest chapters, like Bran's chapters in ACOK before Theon's invasion or certain Dany's and Sansa's chapter from the beginning of ASOS, do have their purpose and they reveal so much about the characters, or settings, or, even more important, about the general circumstances (societies and cultures) the story takes place in. For my taste, GRRM builds the tension perfectly, and everything's heading toward the culmination which happens in the later half of the book. What you say about the ending is not the product of pace, but of various factors that don't necessarily have anything to do with the book itself. Granted, it was not the happiest point at which to end the book, but once the series is finished, I'm sure nobody will have a problem with it. As for the actual pacing of AFFC and ADWD, I really don't share the popular opinion that "nothing happens" in those two books. On the contrary, a lot of things happen, only not the things that were widely expected (like Dany's invasion, for example). They are pretty different books from the first three, but I happen to like a less wide but certainly deeper look at things in AFFC, and then thematically the most unified book that is ADWD. Because of the crazy rich plot in the first three books, somewhat different approach was needed for some finer looks at Westeros and Esoss. In another words, in AFFC and ADWD it became much clearer that ASOIAF is way more than just a character study it's often described as. Have you read Marquez? He's a much more detailed in his descriptions than Martin is. What about Tolstoy? Same thing. Or Orhan Pamuk and his "My Name is Red", which is a brilliant book, but full of descriptions of even the tiniest details. Or Umberto Eco and his "The Name of the Rose". These are examples just from the top of my head, of widely beloved and acclaimed authors and books that are more detailed than GRRM is. Not that being detailed is something bad. On the contrary, details may provide a precious insight into the world and the setting and the culture, and I'd say GRRM's descriptions are seldom gratuitous. About queenmaker, Dorne is probably the least favorite part of the saga for me, because I still see no purpose for it in the story (apart from Oberyn, who made a great impact in a lot of ways). And yet, I still didn't find that subplot ridiculous. The plan was not very realistic, but its very realistic to have people follow some unrealistic plans. It happens in real life all the time, it happened in actual history time and again, and it happened in ASOIAF. And sometimes even unrealistic plans succeed, like Cersei's coup - which is also a realistic possibility, because out of so unrealistic scenarios, some will have to be realized. And truth be told, Arianne's plan wasn't so unrealistic. With The North in such a mess, Riverlands and other parts of the realm devastated by war, and Iron Island in open rebellion, the Dorne is, along with The Vale, by far the strongest province, Had Doran backed her plan, it would create a great headache for whoever sits on the Iron Throne, and especially for more and more delusional Cersei. The weakest part of Arianne's plan is that she lacks Doran's support, but, given their family's dynamics, that was also not suprorising. As for the travelogue, I assume you're talking about Brienne's chapters. Again, that is where I disagree with the general fandom. Those chapters are not about Brienne, but about the destruction that came with the war. Pre-modern wars and their aftermaths were rarely depicted, and possibly never so strongly as here. If Martin wanted to show what the realm looks like after such a gigantic carnage that was The War of the Five Kings - and I happen to think that was precisely his intention - then he has done a very good job in AFFC, especially with Brienne's chapters, not the least because of her idealistic and naive personality that stands in stark contrast with what she sees.

^^ Taste is always a personal matter and subjective, of course. But you hold Martin against a very high standard if you compare him to Kafka, Joyce and especially Dostoevsky, which is a refreshing approach, because I think his work can only benefit from such a comparison. Now, first, I was never fascinated with Joyce, though his importance and influence are undeniable. Kinda respect him, but don't love him. The way I see him, he was experimenting, and it was a welcomed effort, but it was never meant to be a standard, and sadly it became precisely that in postmodernism, though, unfortunately, usually in the hands of lesser writers than Joyce himself was. Of all the writers he influenced, he was surpassed only by Faulkner in my opinion. Kafka is much closer to me, but the thing is, he wrote short books and stories, and mostly modernistic ones (high on themes and symbols, but not so on realism, if well developed and rounded characters are the basis of realism). All in all, I think a writer can be way different than Joyce and Kafka, and still be great. In fact, if a writer obviously resembles them, or anyone else for that matter, he certainly isn't great. Dostoevsky is an interesting case, because he's my favorite writer of all times. The one quality his books possess over great many other works, is the characters. Not only that they're so well developed and realistic, but, even more important, they're infinitely passionate. For what they love and crave, they're willing to do anything (or almost anything), which enables a phenomenal dramatic potential. And in that regard, he's way different than many modernist and postmodernist authors (Joyce and Kafka included), whose characters are always more cerebral&intellectual, and therefore static, than they're passionate. Martin's characters are passionate, and that is among the crucial qualities of ASOIAF. A lesser writer wouldn't be able to create characters that are as passionate as these are. And the way Martin uses them is nothing but brilliant in my eyes. Because, opposite to what some fans think, he uses his characters to not only to shock readers and keep us at the edge of our seats, but also to deliver bigger themes, among which possibly the biggest one is: various forms of individualism in a world/culture/society that is endlessly dependent on collectivism. It wouldn't be possible to achieve that with characters that aren't as passionate. I wouldn't be surprised to find out Martin is a big fan of Dostoevsky, not the least because of Davos' resistance to Stannis over Edric, which does resemble famous Dostoevsky's quote that all the happiness in the world is not worth one tear of a baby. Besides Martin, my favorite contemporary authors Coetzee and Llosa. While Coetzee firmly belongs to the postmodernist camp, Llosa is, like Martin, closer to romanticism and very skilled at creating passionate characters and obviously influenced by Dostoevsky. Anyway, I see nothing amateurish about ASOIAF. Admittedly, in a 5.000 pages story, not every line is going to be great or brilliant, but nothing strikes me as amateurish. Especially not in regards to pacing or narration. How much in-story time he manages to cover in each chapter is nothing short of fascinating. His dialogues are almost always perfect, which is one of the things I particularly respect. And the themes ASOIAF explores are not a bit less serious or important than themes that are usually associated with high literature. In fact, one of the reasons I dislike the show as much as I do, is that they neglected/dropped almost all the themes from the books and focused only on shocking twists and developments. I keep repeating it, but, whatever you think of Martin as a writer, it's obvious his influences for ASOIAF are Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Goethe, and possibly Dostoevsky. This was never meant to be just another genre work. Would like to know what you find amateurish about Martin's pacing or narration. Don't get me wrong, I'm never "insulted" because of someone's honest opinion about my favorite author, no matter how strongly you dislike him. And it does look like you really dislike Martin, because you did say he's "far from a great writer", and that certain aspects of his writing is amateurish. That's why I'd be interested to find out about particular complaints of yours.

Care to elaborate a little? Like, why is he such a bad writer in your opinion? Why do you find these books so bad? I'm genuinely curious, hope you won't flame me for it.

Show-lovers' frustration is understandable to a certain extent, because it is an unusual for a show this popular to receive this much criticism, especially on fan sites. With other shows, people who criticize them aren't too interested in posting their criticism, and, on top of that, sooner or later that do loose an interest in watching the show. That's why discussions about other shows are, probably, way different than discussions about GoT, and why GoT-lovers are encountering a sort of criticism fans of other shows usually don't. This is a completely different case, however, because of the source material. If not for the books, I'd quite watching the show long time ago (and, if I may add, nothing in the world would force me to read them, because I'd have no reason to think they're any better than the show that is often described as a "faithful adaptation"). But I did read them, which naturally inspires my interest in the show, even though I thoroughly dislike it. And honestly, show-lovers' frustration, however understandable, should never be an excuse for blatant apologia of D&D. Labeling any book vs. show comparison as "nitpicking" or "book-purism" is a very poor taste. Familiarity with the source material should be a blessing, not a curse. Of course that omission of Tysha is going to be discussed, and it should be. Why not? Even if you like the show version, what's wrong in questioning would it be even better with Tysha as a background story that sets Tyrion's fury in motion? Why the hell would any book reader ignore Tysha, who happens to be an integral part of ASOIAF universe? Because D&D failed to realize her importance?! Because D&D didn't know how to include her in the final episode, I'm supposed not to talk or think about her?! That stance is pure D&D apologia. Also, have to add that the show suffers from many things that have nothing to do with a comparison to the books, but with a comparison to other shows. Brienne and Sandor never meet in the books. I mean, they possibly do, but she doesn't recognize him and the two of them never speak. So when they meet and have an exchange in the show, it's not some book scene I'm going to compare that exchange with, but exchanges of that kind in other shows and movies. And, have to say, Brienne/Sandor is way more similar to those moronic Lost or Prison Break scenes, in which characters look like they are actually trying to misunderstand each other (which is the most frequent Hollywood cliche for building the "tension" in a way the plot demands it), than to anything in The Wire or The Sopranos. For what it's worth, I don't post on show-centered sites a la WiC. They made it clear very early on that the show is their main focus and primary concern, while the books are a distant second. Regardless of how much I disagree with what people post there, and I couldn't disagree more, I respect their general interest in the show and feel no need to disturb it in any way. But Westeros is something completely different. Expecting the books to be ignored here is simply disingenuous - not to mention that, even on its own, the show is a very disappointing one and bellow HBO standards from several years ago.

Thank you. And tank you as well. Perhaps it is an age thing then, though I do know quite a few very young posters here (say, 18 to 25 years old) that are very passionate in discussions, but never insulting or infuriating or aggressive. But yeah, you're spot on, it's impossible to have any sort of discussion, regardless of opinions, if people start blaming other people for different opinions. By the way, see how cool we are: we're talking about our age as if it's a good thing not to be young any more!

Gave it a solid 2. After all, it is visibly better than the rest of the season. And I mean visibly. Like, visuals in this episode were given much more space than usual. And there was no Gilly, which is always a plus, considering how skillfully she's adapted. This site is the only social network I'm a member of. I'm an old school, middle-aged guy, so social networking is not really my thing. Hence, if posts like yours are normal and usual around the web, I wouldn't know. Now, having said that, I have never, absolutely never, seen any people as touchy as fans of this show. It is totally unbelievable what sort of unhealthy, spoiled, aggressive fanaticism this show is inspiring. I've heard of similar fanaticism: two years ago, a reviewer who dared to criticize Dark Knight Rises was receiving death threats, for example. But, until GoT, I've never encountered anything like that myself. And the most shocking thing is how ready show fanatics are to discuss anything and anyone, just not the actual show. You're always ready to share with the world how amazed you were by this scene or that one and how much the show means to you and how invested you are in it. You never hesitate to remind us that all the critics and all the viewers and all the universe loves your favorite show. But, you never seem ready to discuss the show. If you feel that you absolutely must reply to criticism, you always choose to attack posters who disagree with you. You never even try to discuss actual complaints. I imagine it'd be the easiest thing to do, if our complaints don't make sense. For example, for me it's very easy to answer criticism of ASOIAF books, because in most cases those complaints are not so well thought-out. I never attack those who complain about the books, because I have absolutely no reason for it. If their complaints are petty and illogical, as they usually are, I just point to it. If their complaints happen to make sense, I happily enter the discussion, using the opportunity to exchange ideas with someone who possibly saw something I missed, or generally sees things differently than I do. But attacking the complainer is never an option. With this show its completely the opposite. Anyone who dares to criticize it, gets attacked. I'm not talking Westeros only. Other ASOIAF/GoT sites are even worse in that regard. Literally everyone who brings any complaint gets insulted from all directions. In short, you show lovers are always personal, regardless of do you talk about how much you love the show, or about how much you hate us who dislike the show. Here's the news: I really don't care why is GoT so important to you. And I don't expect you to care about the reasons why I like or dislike something. And I couldn't care less about the professional reviewers that week in, week out, fail to mention at least one legitimate complaint out of hundreds that are heavily discussed on this site. So stop worrying about us who criticize the show and our motives. Instead, start addressing the things we point to. Or don't - but then don't go around accusing someone else of inane babbling.

What is the most pathetic thing here is being disheartened by someone else's opinion of the show you say you like. If the show is as good as you think, why is your love for it so fragile? Where's the confidence in the stuff you like? I really dislike the show very much, but if I loved it, my opinion would never be disturbed or shaken by the ratings that 46 watchers gave to it. I adore the books, on the other hand, and on book sites like goodreads.com there are always people who heavily criticize ASOIAF and call it pure rubbish, but my love and respect for the books is never disturbed nor shaken by that.

If it was directed to me, I'm afraid I lost interest very early on.

@ExBruinsFan @Teardrops @Tywin's bastard You've been rather busy for the last few hours, and I just came back home, so I'll read the rest of your posts little later on, but for now I'll just answer few earliest and explain why I find Talisa's line that I quote to be an utter disaster. It's wrong on so many ways, but I'll do my best to go through all of them. ("Winter In My Heart", if I repeat some of the things you already wrote in the discussion, it's not on purpose, but it also not a miracle, since we're obviously in total agreement over Talisa.) First, "You're fighting to overthrow the king and yet you have no plan for what comes after" implies that she doesn't know that The North declared independence, and that "what comes after" is really of no concern for Robb nor anyone of his soldiers. Which is funny, because she's treating the wounded of that army, so it's a stretch to assume that she's so uninterested in their war goals that she manages to have absolutely no knowledge of them. A person that is familiar with The North's recently proclaimed independence wouldn't have to ask what's Robb going to do with the Iron Throne once he kills Joffrey. Second, she does have interest after all, because she's asking in a way that implies she's trying to mock Robb for his lack of strategic vision. Which is either hypocrisy, if she's interested in his war goals only for the sake of argument, or terrible inconsistency in writing if she suddenly became genuinely interested. Third, how can she expect an answer to that question at all? Why the hell would any battle commander - let alone a king - explain his ultimate war goals to a girl he just met and who just a moment ago proudly distanced herself from his army? Asking that question in that circumstances means that she's either stupid to the bone, or that she somehow sensed that Robb's stupid enough to give her an honest answer. If later, it's yet another inconsistency in writing, because from the previous two remarks it's clear that we're not dealing with a woman of some high intelligence. Fourth, and the biggest one, is that the whole conversation is terribly contrived so she can end up appearing smart. And in order to accomplish that, writers managed to portrait Robb as a damned fool, who's a) discussing his war goals with a chick he just met and who shows no loyalty to his cause whatsoever, and b ) he's even unable to articulate his war goals, though they are of the most simple kind. All he had to say to that stupid question - if he wanted to answer it at all, which is, once again, utter nonsense - is: "I couldn't care less for the Iron Throne". But no, he was so impressed with her pacifistic spirit, that he totally forgot about the brains he inherited from Ned and Cat (both of considerable IQ). Honestly, the only person I can imagine asking that kind of question to a king on the battlefield just after the encounter with an enemy, would be a psychologist conducting a survey among kings. You know, a scientific research of the mental conditions of nations' leaders under stressful circumstances on their job, which is a tough one in wartime. Anonymity guaranteed and all. That I'd might buy. A nurse questioning a king she just met - not in a lifetime.

Well, Talisa is trying to be naive (in an artificial way) and she truly is an idiot (in a very real way). It just happens she's also a pacifist, but with her lines she'd be an idiot as a warmonger, too. "You're fighting to overthrow the king and yet you have no plan for what comes after" doesn't have to be an exclusively pacifistic stand. A Robb supporter could utter the same line, for example. But it wouldn't sound any less ridiculous in that case, either. With Talisa's lines, it would be impossible for anyone to look and sound credible, be it pacifist or something else.

Just to add: Not only that Robb lost the will to fight a war against Iron Throne, he also seemed to me as he was ready to give up on everything except producing an heir to his family. After executing Karstark, he was all like: "Why would anyone want to be a king at all?!" And by writing his will down, he showed his possible death was on his mind. Which is why I believe he gave up on everything other than producing the heir to Winterfell and someone who can carry the Stark name. I'd even say that he wanted Jeyne to be pregnant from that first intercourse they had, and he certainly didn't want that child to be a bastard.

He didn't want to fight the Lannisters any more, is what I meant. Yeah, his campaign was going all right at the time, but he probably started realizing how big are the advantages Lannisters have over him and that he's going to need much more than pure field victories to crush them. And then news from Winterfell arrive, and he sees that he lost his home to the man he considered a brother. At that moment, I'm pretty sure Lannisters weren't in his mind any longer, along with the word he gave to Frey. (With Cat, I think the same thing happened even sooner, when she saw Renly's death. While she and Brienne were running from Renly's camp, all she was thinking was Stannis' line that Robb's time to answer for treason will came, too.)