Discussing the Children

[Miodrag]

well, that's up to debate.

We don't know that yet.

This notion that LS is just a "killing machine" is nothing but reading into story something that isn't there at all. She appears in only two chapters so far, and the unspoken idea of her is present in one more chapter (Jaime's chapter from ADWD). Between these three chapters, we have more than enough clues to conclude she's not just a killing machine: that would be, say, UnGregor - see, the books even offer you an example of what you're talking about, so all you have to do is think about what you read and compare LS with UnGregor, and realize she's really not a "silent murder machine". In fact, LS is someone who pursues a (very justifiable) revenge, which is hardly the same thing as a "murder machine", especially because Brienne's appearance in ADWD shows that LS is someone you can reason with on some level. Just like the very fact she is the de facto leader of BwB shows she's not just a mindless zombie.

You have to love this show apologia. It's always rooted in the most shallow reading of the books.

[Frey Pies]

^ Everyone knows that. Even shallow readers would get that, it's not as deep as you think. However, so far, all her actions have come down to murdering or attempting to murder people, and none of us know what she will amount to later on. It looks like, with Jaime and Brienne, it's all leading somewhere, but the pay-off with her can potentially just be something do with revenge against the Freys, which will be a very stupid reason to bring her back. I know that this is very, very unlikely, but after GRRM's Quentyn chapters, I wouldn't put it past him.

Once again, not everyone likes the character of LS, and the fact remains that, no matter how far you or anyone else analyze the books, D&D know more. They have their reasoning (if she is excluded). This isn't "show apologia", as you put it, it's just seeing their point of view, something a lot of people here are unable to do. I do have gripes with the show, but they are very, very petty, and I ultimately enjoy it a lot. I have just as many if not more gripes with the books, though, which aren't as good as you think they are (still love them, though!). No world-class writer would have paced and structured AFFC and ADWD the way Martin did.

[Miodrag]

^ Everyone knows that. Even shallow readers would get that, it's not as deep as you think.

If you got it, why didn't you say it?

However, so far, all her actions have come down to murdering or attempting to murder people, and none of us know what she will amount to later on.

Murdering those who contributed to the destruction of your entire family is what revenge is all about. It doesn't make her a "murder machine". And you still think you got it?

It looks like, with Jaime and Brienne, it's all leading somewhere, but the pay-off with her can potentially just be something do with revenge against the Freys, which will be a very stupid reason to bring her back.

Isn't this somewhat in contradiction with itself? Like, how is murdering Jaime - if we suppose that's what LS is after - connected to revenge against the Freys? How was her AFFC sentence of Brienne connected to revenge against the Freys? You just seem to be randomly reading this "revenge against the Freys" into LS' motives whenever you feel the need to downgrade her arc, even though the very examples you bring up speak that, quite the opposite, she goes way beyond "just the revenge against the Freys", so the payoff of her arc is already something more than that.

I know that this is very, very unlikely, but after GRRM's Quentyn chapters, I wouldn't put it past him.

Oh, you do know what was the ultimate purpose of Quentyn's arc? Or, more precisely, you are absolutely certain Quentyn's failed quest and his death can't possibly have any consequence whatsoever on future events? Care to share your time machine a little?

Once again, not everyone likes the character of LS

I can't overstate how irrelevant the supposed likeability of any character is for the possible importance of the said character. The fact that you or your friends dislike LS is an abstract one in the first place. What, you dislike her as in you wouldn't like her as a friend in real life? Or you think she's ruining the story? But OK, let's suppose it's the second option, that you dislike her role in the story so far. Well, let me tell you, how you've been analyzing her role so far, I'm not at all surprised you dislike her. I'm just surprised you manage to like anyone or anything that way.

and the fact remains that, no matter how far you or anyone else analyze the books, D&D know more.

This is a completely baseless assumption. They do know more about the endgame than we do. But they know way less about the endgame than GRRM knows. So the way they interpret GRRM is the most important thing here. And, seeing how they interpreted the first three books so far - LS included - it's very easy to conclude they're very bad at interpreting ASOIAF. In fact, that's the most logical conclusion, given the numerous plot-holes and inconsistencies of the show.

They have their reasoning (if she is excluded).

Nobody's disputing that. I'm sure they have their reasoning. It doesn't make that reasoning any less wrong, though.

This isn't "show apologia", as you put it, it's just seeing their point of view, something a lot of people here are unable to do.

Oh yeah, it very much is show apologia. Thinking that you're among the rare ones here able to see D&D's point of view is somewhat arrogant, I'd say, especially because - to paraphrase you a little - their point of view is not nearly as deep as you think. Their "point of view" boils down to: serve the needs of HBO, e.g. the company that finances the project. It was like that pretty much from the moment HBO executives persuaded them to re-shoot the pilot, in order for it to be more in accordance with perceived expectations of "an average viewer". It's really very easy to see D&D's point of view.

I do have gripes with the show, but they are very, very petty, and I ultimately enjoy it a lot. I have just as many if not more gripes with the books, though, which aren't as good as you think they are (still love them, though!). No world-class writer would have paced and structured AFFC and ADWD the way Martin did.

I agree that no world-class author would have paced and structured AFFC and ADWD the way Martin did. But, no bad writer would have, too. And also no average author. That is because ASOIAF is, for better or worse, pretty unique in those aspects. Even though it was obviously inspired by other books and stories and real historical events and persons, ASOIAF really looks like no other work of literature. That is especially true for AFFC and ADWD, which are not only the trickiest (middle) parts of a pretty unique saga, but also very different from the first three books. The pure fact that Martin paced and structured AFFC&ADWD in a very unusual way speaks nothing in itself. The sheer unusuality of it makes GRRM neither a good nor a bad writer. Actually, how unusual his choices often are - not only in regards to pace and structure - is a testament to his artistic integrity, which is one of the essential qualities of great writers. Luckily, that is not the only great-writers' quality GRRM possesses, which is why ASOIAF can rightfully be considered a great work of literature. And AFFC&ADWD, with their thematic strength and political/social/philosophical richness, are legitimate testaments to that.

I'm not at all surprised that for more shallow readers AFFC&ADWD may present the problem. Also, that they never hesitate to criticize the pace and the structure of those two books: as far as arguments go, that one is pretty easy to remember and randomly use in discussions, without ever having to explain what it really means. However, the pace of those two books is problematic only if you, say, manage to confuse LS' role in the story with "nothing more than a revenge against the Freys". Missing the relevance of entire sub-plots and ignoring entire aspects or themes can really harm one's enjoyment of a work of literature, and such a disappointment can lead to awkward conclusion about "problems" with "pace" and "structure", particularly if someone else already spelled the "conclusion" for you.

What is absolutely true, however, is that no world-class show would ever be paced and structured the way GoT is. For example, no respectable show-runners would ever design an episode 9 of their fourth season after an episode 9 of their second season only because of the acclaim the latter received. And yeah, they've said it themselves: because "Blackwater" was a huge success, they wanted to replicate it in this season. They even brought the same director back. But I wonder: what happened to "pervert side of the audience" this time around? Why were they left only with Jon&Sam talking about sex, and Sam's highly insufficient kiss with Gilly? Where's the actual sex? Why are naked prostitutes forgotten? Who represented the pervert side of the audience this time? I mean, speaking of world-class shows...

In the end, books are way better than you seem to realize, while the show is not nearly as good as you stubbornly continue to claim.

[Alex21]

We don't know that yet.

Why Martín resurrected her then? She surely has to play a key role

[Hath4]

the thing I think david and dan struggle with is simplification. I think sometimes they go overboard with it. an example of this would be the ramsay/ reek removed dynamic from season 2. is it a complicated plot yes, but not one if you are paying attention. without that dynamic there was a confusing payoff to a great arc. without the reek theon interaction the realtionship between ramsay and theon loses the depth it had in the books. Ramsay tempts theon into evil and punsihes him for it. If you had that plot in season 2, you could have removed the torture porn from season 3 and brought them back in season 4.

[Frey Pies]

@Midorag,

I, like yourself, am saying that, so far, her arc seems to be one of seeking vengeance upon those who have wronged her and her family. I'm not explicitly stating that she's a murder machine like you seem to be implying. I mentioned the Freys because they are a significant part of this; by no means are they the only ones who will probably suffer repercussions. Nowhere did I state that that is what will happen.

As for Quentyn's arc, I understand that it will undoubtedly have ramifications. However, I'm questioning GRRM's need to put the chapters into the book. There was no need at all to waste the chapters that he did on Quentyn, since all he ultimately needed to Quentyn to do was to free the dragons. Wasting four chapters on this is not good storytelling. World building is good, but too much world building can be detrimental to the quality of a book- ASOIAF and The Wheel of Time (admittedly an inferior series) both suffer(ed) from this.

They do know less than GRRM does, but do you really think they would omit something that appears so major (if they have omitted her) without knowing GRRM's intentions? You are the one being baseless here. While I love GRRM's work and consider the first three books of the series some of the best I have read, I believe that even average writers would be better at pacing and structuring the last two books. As far as why I didn't elaborate upon them because I thought it was extremely clear. The brisk pace of the first three is completely gone, and everything moves at a snail's pace. While I understand and appreciate thematic exploration and world building, it was done to the point of redundancy. I never said that the show is better than the books (I think both have their strengths and weaknesses), but I think that the world building was handled better in the show through Arya's story- Brienne's went on and on repeating itself, while Arya's was much more concise yet offered a similar view (in a more entertaining way) at the plight of the small folk. At the end of the day, entertainment value is also extremely important. As for structuring, cliffhangers were utilised way too often to the point that they just served to be irritating. They could have been great books but turned out to be just good due to lack of resolution in individual character arcs.

Look, even I can resort to insults and such, but it doesn't benefit anyone. We both have our views, and they are probably not going to change. I bow out :)

[Ran]

Quentyn's chapters are actually quite a nice, semi-selfcontained narrative that touches various thematic points of the novels, moreso than world-building (though there's some of that there). As some have said, it's a fairy tale narrative -- a "frog prince" and all -- but the turn comes when the fairy tale goes awry; he doesn't get the princess, he doesn't get the dragon, and he fails.

"The Dragontamer" is amazingly atmospheric, and that couldn't be done by just throwing it in there without the preceding chapters to give a context.

I'd compare the chapters to Davos's in ACoK. You don't need Davos for anything at all in that book. He provides no plot movement intrinsic to himself; he's a witness more than an actor. If you wanted a POV of a Stannis supporter at the Blackwater, just have that last ACoK chapter and leave it at that in ACoK... but obviously, that's not the point. He's an important way to both bring attention to aspects of the story that otherwise might not get that attention, and his narrative background provides greater depth to his environment.

[Cas Stark]

Quentyn's chapters are actually quite a nice, semi-selfcontained narrative that touches various thematic points of the novels, moreso than world-building (though there's some of that there). As some have said, it's a fairy tale narrative -- a "frog prince" and all -- but the turn comes when the fairy tale goes awry; he doesn't get the princess, he doesn't get the dragon, and he fails.

"The Dragontamer" is amazingly atmospheric, and that couldn't be done by just throwing it in there without the preceding chapters to give a context.

I'd compare the chapters to Davos's in ACoK. You don't need Davos for anything at all in that book. He provides no plot movement intrinsic to himself; he's a witness more than an actor. If you wanted a POV of a Stannis supporter at the Blackwater, just have that last ACoK chapter and leave it at that in ACoK... but obviously, that's not the point. He's an important way to both bring attention to aspects of the story that otherwise might not get that attention, and his narrative background provides greater depth to his environment.

I have to say I thought Quentyn's POV were a misstep and gave me a strong sense of the author losing control of his story and not being able to excise secondary story lines. The same goes for the proliferation of Greyjoys and Martells and the various "one off" POVs. Just because something is kind of interesting as background or is well written doesn't necessarily mean it should not have been edited out of the final novel.

[Ran]

Fair enough. I've heard people who've also disliked Theon's ACoK chapters, and Davos's, and Sam's in ASoS, too. :)

[tyrell19]

I thought Quentyn's arc was really good. As much as I love A Feast for Crows I think the problem for a lot of people were the lack of arcs for new characters. The Greyjoys only appeared in the first half of the novel and in Dorne we got 3 pov's and only 4 chapters. I love all these chapters but I can understand how out of place they feel when we compare the book to the structure of previous books. That being said for me the problems disappeared when one reads Dance.

[Miodrag]

@Frey Pies

You seem intent on this notion that GRRM doesn't know what he's doing ("he lost control over the story in AFFC&ADWD"), while D&D absolutely do know what they're doing ("they have their reasons for doing this or that"). Sorry if you're insulted, but I honestly find that notion completely ridiculous, because every single thing suggests the opposite: it is GRRM who's firmly in control of the story, while D&D obviously bit much more than they could ever chew.

About LS, we can't have it both ways. She either has no real purpose in the story, or she does. If she doesn't, then Martin just wasted space+time+energy on her without a good enough reason. If she does, D&D are about to cut out yet another important part&aspect of the story. Admittedly, with at least two books still unfinished, we can't be certain about anything, but I'm infinitely more willing to trust GRRM than two highly incompetent writers.

About Quentyn, for years now I'm reading this argumentation that his arc is utterly pointless. However, among the complainers, nobody seems to think about a very possible future clash between Dany and Aegon. Chances are, they can't both take the Iron Throne, so if they end up fighting one another, Quentyn's entire arc becomes very important for the allegiance Dorne chooses. If Doran wants to blame someone for the death of his son, it's probably going to be Dany. Now, that's just one possible scenario, and the one I came up with. Considering GRRM managed - every time - to surprise me with highly logical ways in which he took the story and I didn't foresaw them, I'm quite confident Quentyn's chapters were not written just because GRRM wanted a fatter book. Not to mention that, all in all, we're talking about four Quentyn's chapters. Is that really some insufferable amount of text?!

Now, no to this quote of yours about AFFC&ADWD:

The brisk pace of the first three is completely gone, and everything moves at a snail's pace.

Let's look at ADWD, for example. The two biggest transformations that happen in ASOIAF are Dany's revolution in Slaver's Bay, and Jon letting the wildlings through the Wall. In both cases, millenniums old traditions were broken. Nothing that happened inside 7K (the dynastic war included) is as big as these two events. No other peoples in the series changed literally everything, like wildlings and slaves did. Removal of one dynasty in favor of another is a huge change, of course, especially if it resulted from a civil war, but it doesn't even begin to compare with the changes the wildlings and slaves went through in ADWD. Vast majority of writers I've read wouldn't be able to handle in a satisfying manner a single change of that magnitude in one book. GRRM, on the other hand, managed to depict both, and along with that, in the same book he put brilliant Theon's chapters, a very eventful arc that speaks of a "revolution" on an individual level. If all that is the sign of a "snail's pace", I don't know what pace would satisfy you then.

AFFC is, admittedly, somewhat slower, but given the destruction of the realm GRRM depicts there, along with a rapid slide into a religious fanaticism (highly realistic outcome after such a devastating war), it was very appropriate. Potentially, Westeros' change toward religious fanaticism can be as big as revolutions Dany and Jon undertook in ADWD, not to mention all the dramatic potential it carries ahead of the continuation of Stannis' quest and possible siding of The North with him. And AFFC was never slow to begin with. Somewhat slower than ASOS is still quite paced.

About TV Arya and world building... I'll try to be as polite as possible: WHAT WORLD-BUILDING???!!!

[Cas Stark]

Theon was there from the very beginning. He is in the first chapter of GOT. Everything he does is directly relevant to the characters and action we start with.

Sam is in GOT as well, though I admit, that I personally thought that we got too much Sam and not enough resolution as time went on and started to seem like a lot of excess for not much payoff.

Without Davos, we don't see Stannis or Dragonstone, so he seems critical and Stannis has been considered a major force also from GOT...though we don't see him at the beginning.

The same cannot be said for Quentyn, Oakheart, Hotah, or even Brienne, who got a lot of space to do not very much.

This is, allegedly a story whose genesis was the finding of the direwolves, and where the author considered only having Stark children and Dany as POVs. If that is the story he intended to tell, then he has indeed lost the main thread of it in the last two books and D&D are not interested in that thread at all, because the Stark family is only nominally in the show and only because Arya/Maise is a fan favorite and so is Sansa and the direwolves are almost totally absent from the show, either visually or thematically. Lady Stoneheart, while she may not be a critical piece for the final resolution, and could easily be one of the author's self contained secondary plotlines, in the show....she serves as a reminder of the Stark family and the losses they suffered and that there are in fact actually other people in Westeros who care about the Starks and revenging the wrongs done to them. Rant over.

[Frey Pies]

@Frey Pies

You seem intent on this notion that GRRM doesn't know what he's doing ("he lost control over the story in AFFC&ADWD"), while D&D absolutely do know what they're doing ("they have their reasons for doing this or that"). Sorry if you're insulted, but I honestly find that notion completely ridiculous, because every single thing suggests the opposite: it is GRRM who's firmly in control of the story, while D&D obviously bit much more than they could ever chew.

About LS, we can't have it both ways. She either has no real purpose in the story, or she does. If she doesn't, then Martin just wasted space+time+energy on her without a good enough reason. If she does, D&D are about to cut out yet another important part&aspect of the story. Admittedly, with at least two books still unfinished, we can't be certain about anything, but I'm infinitely more willing to trust GRRM than two highly incompetent writers.

About Quentyn, for years now I'm reading this argumentation that his arc is utterly pointless. However, among the complainers, nobody seems to think about a very possible future clash between Dany and Aegon. Chances are, they can't both take the Iron Throne, so if they end up fighting one another, Quentyn's entire arc becomes very important for the allegiance Dorne chooses. If Doran wants to blame someone for the death of his son, it's probably going to be Dany. Now, that's just one possible scenario, and the one I came up with. Considering GRRM managed - every time - to surprise me with highly logical ways in which he took the story and I didn't foresaw them, I'm quite confident Quentyn's chapters were not written just because GRRM wanted a fatter book. Not to mention that, all in all, we're talking about four Quentyn's chapters. Is that really some insufferable amount of text?!

Now, no to this quote of yours about AFFC&ADWD:

Let's look at ADWD, for example. The two biggest transformations that happen in ASOIAF are Dany's revolution in Slaver's Bay, and Jon letting the wildlings through the Wall. In both cases, millenniums old traditions were broken. Nothing that happened inside 7K (the dynastic war included) is as big as these two events. No other peoples in the series changed literally everything, like wildlings and slaves did. Removal of one dynasty in favor of another is a huge change, of course, especially if it resulted from a civil war, but it doesn't even begin to compare with the changes the wildlings and slaves went through in ADWD. Vast majority of writers I've read wouldn't be able to handle in a satisfying manner a single change of that magnitude in one book. GRRM, on the other hand, managed to depict both, and along with that, in the same book he put brilliant Theon's chapters, a very eventful arc that speaks of a "revolution" on an individual level. If all that is the sign of a "snail's pace", I don't know what pace would satisfy you then.

AFFC is, admittedly, somewhat slower, but given the destruction of the realm GRRM depicts there, along with a rapid slide into a religious fanaticism (highly realistic outcome after such a devastating war), it was very appropriate. Potentially, Westeros' change toward religious fanaticism can be as big as revolutions Dany and Jon undertook in ADWD, not to mention all the dramatic potential it carries ahead of the continuation of Stannis' quest and possible siding of The North with him. And AFFC was never slow to begin with. Somewhat slower than ASOS is still quite paced.

About TV Arya and world building... I'll try to be as polite as possible: WHAT WORLD-BUILDING???!!!

Oh I think he knows what he's doing- I just don't think he's doing it in as enjoyable a way as before :)

As for Arya, I'm surprised that you didn't see the world-building, since you are one of the most acute analysers of the book. Her scenes fleshed out the lives of the small folk in Westeros. The scene in the old man's house showed us how the weak are exploited in these times of war by whoever is stronger, and the one with the dying old further enforced this, while delving into topics such as mercy killings, suffering, etc. The scene at the inn also showed this, although it was overshadowed by the violence, and the subsequent shot with the burning Westeros highlighted the deterioration of the continent. While the Arya scenes didn't explore Westeros' common folk as in-depth as Brienne's chapter, they were succinct and only showed as much as needed to. In both, the suffering was highlighted really well, but the Arya scenes did this without feeling redundant and dragged out.

[Miodrag]

^^

D&D probably think it is a world-building what they're doing with Arya, but it actually isn't. It's just senseless and tiring repetition of "This world is full of darkness" notion, which they happen to repeat quite often in those "Inside the episode" videos, too. In reality, no world that is only bleak and dark is sustainable. Every world has to offer something for its subjects. Otherwise, they're just going to revolt or make a different world some other way. That is how things function in reality, e.g. in history and nowadays. Those offerings may be strange, as it was the case with slavery, both in real history and in Esoss: that's why, in ADWD, some slaves are uncomfortable with their freedom, just like Xaro tells openly when discusses the matter with Dany. Just like, for comparison, Samuel L. Jackson's character in Django Unchained is what keeps that entire household together. That is why slavery, with all its horror and immorality, managed to endure for centuries and centuries in real history. (That is one of the aspects the show at least attempted to convey, through that scene with a former slave who asks to be allowed to serve his former master again, but it was a poor compensation for what could've been done with that theme.)

Anyway, GRRM's world is bleak and dark in some aspects, but in other aspects it really isn't. There's a lot of humanity there. People sacrifice themselves for other people, or for ideas and ideals they believe in - it wouldn't be possible in a world that is nothing but bleak and dark. People almost always keep their word in ASOIAF, which is why you believe your prisoner when he swears he's going to return to you as soon as he fulfills the task you're sending him on. All that would be impossible in a world that resents the very idea of honor, as D&D's world looks like too often. All they know is to repeat again and again how bleak and dark and terrible and miserable their world is. That is why practically every smalltalk in the show is about sex or violence or about someone insulting and mocking someone else. The world D&D seem to be building would be utterly unsustainable. And that is one of the most important reasons I actually do think they greatly misunderstood ASOIAF. In a recent interview, Martin was very harsh in his reply about his alleged nihilism. "I find that notion moronic, I'm anything but nihilistic" is what he said. It was a much harsher wording than his usual. I'd say he's more and more annoyed with how is the world he created perceived. You know, the Red Wedding is so devastating because it happened to good people. And good people, especially in prominent positions, just can't exist in a world without honor and nobleness and generosity and humanity. The fact that some people abuse those ideals is realistic, of course, and it's great that ASOIAF has a fair number of such opportunists, but it's senseless if you leave out those who do embrace and pursue ideals.

About TV Arya, some of the most ridiculous scenes in the show were written for her. Like Amory's death. Like BwB capturing her and Gendry and Hotpie. Like "nothing is nothing". The writing in those scenes was a blasphemy. Can't see a single advantage her TV story has over her book story. On the contrary, book Arya's arc is one of the most ruined arcs in this "adaptation".

[tyrell19]

Tbf we got multiple chapters of the bwb in book three which got the same message across. I loved them and found them really interesting and imo Aryas arc in s4 was kind of an apology they had to glaze over that in s3. When I heard the inn scene was ep I thought what are they going to do all season but we actually got nice little scenes which felt like chapters. Arya with the farmers. Water dancing and trying to stab the hound. Rorge biter and wound scene. I also had no problem with them going to the Bloody gate. If I was Donnell Waynwood and saw the Hound try to pass off a crazy little girl as Arya I wouldn't want to inform my Lords and incur their wrath if it turned out to be wrong. Brienne v Hound was a great adaption choice. I didn't know to root for. The whole thing felt so unfair and unjust and unneccesary which I guess is the feeling of Aryas book 2 and 3 chapters when we see the horrors of war.

[PatrickStormborn]

I have to say I thought Quentyn's POV were a misstep and gave me a strong sense of the author losing control of his story and not being able to excise secondary story lines. The same goes for the proliferation of Greyjoys and Martells and the various "one off" POVs. Just because something is kind of interesting as background or is well written doesn't necessarily mean it should not have been edited out of the final novel.

I think it was probably as much as GRRM thinking we'd want to see him facing the dragons, so he gave him a short narrative. But I also think the Quentyn chapters were hugely important as a contrast with Arianne... It's my theory that she'll have Dorne join Aegon before she learns of Quentyn's death because of the threat she feels he poses towards her. Without his chapters, there's a lot less tragedy there, because we couldn't be certain just how wrong she is.

At the end of the day, we didn't lose anything from ADwD because of Quentyn's chapters. The battles were not included because they were not completed (well, according to GRRM's editor, at least), and the other chapters were pushed back because they worked better at the beginning of the next book.

The only problem I really have is having three separate POVs in Dorne. I understand why, but I just don't think it worked out. And I'd also prefer no Victarion chapters, but I know that many readers found them enjoyable, so I don't begrudge their inclusion.

[Mr Fixit]

I think it was probably as much as GRRM thinking we'd want to see him facing the dragons, so he gave him a short narrative. But I also think the Quentyn chapters were hugely important as a contrast with Arianne... It's my theory that she'll have Dorne join Aegon before she learns of Quentyn's death because of the threat she feels he poses towards her. Without his chapters, there's a lot less tragedy there, because we couldn't be certain just how wrong she is.

Well, think of it this way: wouldn't it be great if we had Oberyn's PoV? I'm certain Martin would've done a great job, yet... ASoS functions just as well as is. I don't think anyone says that Quentyn's chapters are badly written, just that there's no need to spend so many pages on a secondary character. I'm talking about elegance and concise writing where certain passages, however well written they may be, don't flow all that well and/or damage the pace when one considers the entirety of the books.

The battles were not included because they were not completed (well, according to GRRM's editor, at least)

If I remember correctly, one battle wasn't completed - Meereen, if I had to guess. The other one was finished.

The only problem I really have is having three separate POVs in Dorne. I understand why, but I just don't think it worked out. And I'd also prefer no Victarion chapters, but I know that many readers found them enjoyable, so I don't begrudge their inclusion.

Agreed. Three PoVs for Dorne and Iroborn each is overkill, a leftover from when that part of Feast was intended as a huge multi-PoV prologue. Story would be much better served if only one PoV was retained from each region - Arianne and Asha.

[Beric175]

ok, then she's a revenge machine. Either way the resurrection always bothered me because it undermined the impact of the Red Wedding and the idea of the finality of death in the conflict for the Iron Throne. I don't have anything against one character like Beric Dondarrion coming back to life but when Jon Snow, catelyn, possibly benjen as Coldhands, etc. all get resurrected it takes away the punch in the gut that I felt whilst reading about those characters dying and then death has no consequence potentially.

It's not just that she's just about revenge either, it's that all she does is kill nameless, tertiary characters that the viewers, if they decide to include her, won't know anything about and if you want to present us with the horror of what she's doing have her kill a young Frey child that was totally innocent of anything that was happening at the RW but that's not what we're getting, even in the books and I'm not sure the show would go in that direction either. In the end, what she does does not amlount to much so far and I'm going to ask a legitimate question now: what if when Jaime shows up he takes out Stoneheart and she's never heard from again? How would you feel about that part of the book then? Fact is, we don't know for sure whether or not she's just a nice bit of worldbuilding or whether she's going to be crucial to the overarching story and as long as we don't know, I'm fine with them leaving that bit out.

[PatrickStormborn]

Well, think of it this way: wouldn't it be great if we had Oberyn's PoV? I'm certain Martin would've done a great job, yet... ASoS functions just as well as is. I don't think anyone says that Quentyn's chapters are badly written, just that there's no need to spend so many pages on a secondary character. I'm talking about elegance and concise writing where certain passages, however well written they may be, don't flow all that well and/or damage the pace when one considers the entirety of the books.

If I remember correctly, one battle wasn't completed - Meereen, if I had to guess. The other one was finished.

Everything Oberyn did was told through the perspectives of the characters in King's Landing. But neither Daenerys nor Barristan could witness Quentyn facing the dragons, for obvious reasons.

And perhaps you're right, but I was under the impression that neither of the battles were completed, which is why neither was included.

[Mr Fixit]

Everything Oberyn did was told through the perspectives of the characters in King's Landing. But neither Daenerys nor Barristan could witness Quentyn facing the dragons, for obvious reasons.

You're operating under the assumption that the way his story unfolded is the only possible way for it to unfold. It wouldn't be too difficult to have a window into Quentyn from other PoVs. For example, his introduction could've been handled via Arianne in Feast, which would give us an early view into who Quent is and what he's all about. Then in Dance he'd obviously appear in Dany's chapters, and I don't see why, with some tweaking, Barristan couldn't be present when Quentyn tries to tame a dragon. Maybe he somehow learns of Quent's plans, there's a ticking clock scenario to stop him before it's too late, and he arrives just in time to witness some epic facemelt. This is just a suggestion, I'm sure Martin could come up with any number of plausible scenarios on how and why Barristan got there just a minute too late.

If all this "screentime" isn't enough, maybe Quentyn could even show up in Tyrion's chapter in Volantis, though timelines could be a bit problematic here.

When all is said and done, I don't see why we needed to see 4 chapters of a secondary (tertiary even) character who accomplishes pretty much nothing.