GRRM is a bad writer?

[Carey Snow]

I am not saying women are bad writers! Lol.

I am simply saying that only a woman could build a battle up for 2 books and have the whole thing basically blow over. She very easily, being a woman, could have wrote a killer ending too.

So what if theothers never attack, and Sansa finds love and marries to unite the seven kingdoms. We you say that only a woman could write that?

[Carey Snow]

So what if theothers never attack, and Sansa finds love and marries to unite the seven kingdoms. Would you say that only a woman could write that?

[JonisHenryTudor]

(It's REINED in. A common and understandable error.) </grammar police>

The reason that he can't work his way out of things is the 'gardener' method.

He really needed to have plotted things out very early on, created a solid structure and then continue writing by hanging things on to that structure.

That would still have allowed for plenty of 'gardening.' (It could have been like building the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, heh.)

Quite. I would think that the first thing an author learns is that A story has a beginning, a middle and an end.

He LOVES to write beginnings, is OK at writing middles, but shirks at drawing anything to a resolution.

So he kills off the character, saving himself the trouble of resolving that particular arc then writes in a new character.

..Which means that instead of furthering the plot, he's back to Square One, establishing the new character's background and motivations, allegiances, whatever other characters they have issues with, etc. That takes a lot of effort and tons of space on the page, but doesn't really push the plot towards a conclusion.

It's incredibly inefficient.

And you could have said that he "Lost" the story - as in the TV show Lost.

Gawd, that was a piece of shite for the same reason - all sorts of plots and subplots with beginnings and middles, but no proper resolution.

I agree with your frustration, and I share many of the same sentiments. My complaint is that many new characters are just not interesting arcs...

BUT let's not forget what Martin said in the early 90s.

If television doesn't want me, I am going to create a story so big that it can never be put on television. Well he was wrong on one part, but he has held fast to the other.....

[JonisHenryTudor]

I personally like it. Do I really need to be kept in the dark about the Clegane Brothers being alive or not? Not really. Just have somebody state it in the books to make it obvious. There are enough mysteries about the White Walkers and the history of Westeros that these subplots being a mystery for a few books just makes it overkill.

But to each their own. I can easily see why the show would ruin that experience from the books.

I like the show, but I would rather see where things are going via Martin, not D&D.

[BastardlyRock]

I agree with your frustration, and I share many of the same sentiments. My complaint is that many new characters are just not interesting arcs...

BUT let's not forget what Martin said in the early 90s.

If television doesn't want me, I am going to create a story so big that is can never be put on television. Well he was wrong on one part, but he has held fast to the other.....

One of the many reasons I feel ASOIAF is still meant for literary consumption. I don't think many people hold to the idea that it ever could have effectively worked as film adaptations, and (sadly) despite the hype and the early excitement, now many of us have come to realize it doesn't quite work as a tv series either :dunno: just my opinion. There's a lot of "well they're two different things, and you shouldn't compare them" but I don't recall hearing any of that in season one, which was an accurate enough adaptation for me... it's only since they started botching (nearly) everything that we've had to resort to such excuses.

[GERM]

The reason that he can't work his way out of things is the 'gardener' method.

He really needed to have plotted things out very early on, created a solid structure and then continue writing by hanging things on to that structure.

He had a plan. It included a 5 year gap and flashbacks. It was obviously a good plan if we use AFFC and a ADWD as a judgment tool.

[The One And Only]

One of the many reasons I feel ASOIAF is still meant for literary consumption. I don't think many people hold to the idea that it ever could have effectively worked as film adaptations, and (sadly) despite the hype and the early excitement, now many of us have come to realize it doesn't quite work as a tv series either :dunno: just my opinion. There's a lot of "well they're two different things, and you shouldn't compare them" but I don't recall hearing any of that in season one, which was an accurate enough adaptation for me... it's only since they started botching (nearly) everything that we've had to resort to such excuses.

Season 1 took 5 or 6 episodes to get going. This is the best adapation from book to screen so far in the history of film/television. While the show can't produce as much history into their episodes, they have trimmed the fat of the books and in many instances made things more interesting (Arya/Tywin and Hound/Brienne come to mind).

[tyrell19]

I'm reading Dune at the moment which I am really enjoying but for me a comparison with Asoiaf shows its weakness. Despite being more focused the chapters somehow feel very disconnected, I don't particularly think dune is very well structured. When a character dies in Dune its never satisfying, it feels like Herbert just decided to cut them off as opposed to their function being fulfilled. However I appreciate that Dune is very self contained. I don't believe I will go further than the first novel.

[GERM]

I'm reading Dune at the moment which I am really enjoying but for me a comparison with Asoiaf shows its weakness. Despite being more focused the chapters somehow feel very disconnected, I don't particularly think dune is very well structured. When a character dies in Dune its never satisfying, it feels like Herbert just decided to cut them off as opposed to their function being fulfilled. However I appreciate that Dune is very self contained. I don't believe I will go further than the first novel.

I wouldn't. The first novel is the best. Going further ruins the story, lol.

[Wellcraines]

Isn't it all subjective in the end?

[James Arryn]

I wouldn't. The first novel is the best. Going further ruins the story, lol.

Second was ok, but a far cry from the first. I didn't get far into the third.

[James Arryn]

Isn't it all subjective in the end?

Someone else's truths are always subjective.

Someone quote Anselm's Ontological Argument, quick! And then something about mediums being messages or massages or w/e. We can do this, people!

[Jasta11]

I'm not a Literature major or anything of the sort, and English ain't my first language anyway, but to me if George isn't as good as the classic masters, he's pretty close. His prose can get pretty good (he's good at making speeches), he weaves a pretty tight story most of the time, and is genius at creating characters. His world building is hit or miss, with some parts (Ironborn, Dothraki, slavers) coming across as a bit too cartoonish and exaggerated to me, but otherwise it's solid. He's also really, really good at writing characters that aren't 20-30 something males, which a lot of male authors have difficulty doing.

His weakness is that he does get repetitive and some patterns in his writing are obvious. Almost every time trees are described it's about bloody soldier pines. His descriptions of food are (to me) almost more nauseating than appetizing. He almost always has characters repeat a mantra to themselves over and over again; Fear cuts deeper than swords, if I look back I am lost, You know nothing Jon Snow, Reek Reek it rhymes with X, She's fucked Lancel and Kettleback and Moon Boy for all I know, and some characters even have more than one. His sex scenes are almost always bad (albeit I've never read an author that does them right personally sooo) with the sole exception of the Arianne-Arys one. His use of prophecy or visions for foreshadowing is getting out of hand.

And to be quite frank, I could do a similar list about almost every single ''classic'' author deemed untouchable by some, not necessarily in this thread. Ray Bradbury is a bit ham-fisted with his central themes/messages, and George Orwell is even worse in some ways. Alexandre Dumas sometimes has slightly implausible plots. Tolstoy goes off into wild, pointless tangents. Hemingway is a phenomenal writers but his plots drag on sometimes. I could go on and on. No author is ever perfect, and I've never seen any work of creation (book, TV, film, video game...) that is above criticism. Doesn't mean I cannot enjoy it, Alexandre Dumas is my favorite author of all time and I blew through the Count of Monte Cristo in five days. And there are still several things I could list against him.

[Carey Snow]

I'm not a Literature major or anything of the sort, and English ain't my first language anyway, but to me if George isn't as good as the classic masters, he's pretty close. His prose can get pretty good (he's good at making speeches), he weaves a pretty tight story most of the time, and is genius at creating characters. His world building is hit or miss, with some parts (Ironborn, Dothraki, slavers) coming across as a bit too cartoonish and exaggerated to me, but otherwise it's solid. He's also really, really good at writing characters that aren't 20-30 something males, which a lot of male authors have difficulty doing.

His weakness is that he does get repetitive and some patterns in his writing are obvious. Almost every time trees are described it's about bloody soldier pines. His descriptions of food are (to me) almost more nauseating than appetizing. He almost always has characters repeat a mantra to themselves over and over again; Fear cuts deeper than swords, if I look back I am lost, You know nothing Jon Snow, Reek Reek it rhymes with X, She's fucked Lancel and Kettleback and Moon Boy for all I know, and some characters even have more than one. His sex scenes are almost always bad (albeit I've never read an author that does them right personally sooo) with the sole exception of the Arianne-Arys one. His use of prophecy or visions for foreshadowing is getting out of hand.

And to be quite frank, I could do a similar list about almost every single ''classic'' author deemed untouchable by some, not necessarily in this thread. Ray Bradbury is a bit ham-fisted with his central themes/messages, and George Orwell is even worse in some ways. Alexandre Dumas sometimes has slightly implausible plots. Tolstoy goes off into wild, pointless tangents. Hemingway is a phenomenal writers but his plots drag on sometimes. I could go on and on. No author is ever perfect, and I've never seen any work of creation (book, TV, film, video game...) that is above criticism. Doesn't mean I cannot enjoy it, Alexandre Dumas is my favorite author of all time and I blew through the Count of Monte Cristo in five days. And there are still several things I could list against him.

Nice, and to give GRRM credit, here we all are discussing his works. Many authors are very jealous of this.

[Bran17]

My opinion: he's a great writer who has self-discipline problems. As a comment I saw recently in another venue had it, his lack of focus on ASoIaF has caused him to stray off whatever his intended path may have been. This is the inevitable consequence of his 'gardener, not architect' approach.

If he had buckled down and completed the fourth and fifth novels more quickly, he'd have done a better job. (so said the comment I read, and I agree.) He doesn't work from extensive notes or an elaborate plan; it's all 'in his head.' So if he takes weeks in a row off to edit an anthology attend Every. Damned. ComicCon. On. The. Planet., when he returns to ASoIaF, he's lost some good ideas and has to make up for that. My perception is that if you work like that and take 4 weeks off, you've actually put yourself 5 weeks behind. Especially with everything in this series being so complex.

It is of course a highly controversial thing to discuss his work ethic, especially with the "GRRM is not your bitch" and "To my detractors" floating out there.

My apologies in advance to anyone who feels he should take as long as he likes.

I would prefer that he finishes the series before either he or I (I'm 61, and have some health issues) dies.

Arya's chapters in aSoS, Brienne's chapters in AFFC and Tyrion's chapters in ADWD really prove that point.

He has a complex world to explore, but he still does things only because he wants, for no good reason.

And :agree: about AFFC/ADWD. If they weren't divided in two books, they would have been out sooner and most of the pointless chapters would have been cut.

[Bran17]

:agree: In his attempt to maintain a strong sense of realism, it seems that before too long we are going to get a few pages on the problems relating to really bad chest congestion once winter hit westeros fully. My guess is that while theon is hanging around, in Reek's mind we will have a difficult time remembering who he is because the phlegm in his chest and nasal passages is making his brain muddled.....two pages of that and the chapter ends and another POV - someone named dirty steve of the cave.......

A bit of an exaggeration, but it does seem at times that George is trying to bring everything to life. I get his push towards a more "realistic" story, but at the same time it can create for a very mundane story.

BUT PLEASE George.....don't cross the threshold into excessive BS that Robin Hobb pulled in book 3 of the Farseer Trilogy...... Right now it isn't at that level of stupidity, and I think the next two volumes will pull a u-turn on the pace....I hope... IMO I don't get how a series that began so well in book 1 (Assassin's Apprentice) could end so poorly.....

LMAO AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHA

Yeah, and it's kind of contradictory, since if he really wants to be realistic, how are Tyrion, Arya and a few other characters still alive(it's just an example to prove my point)?

It's not realistic at all! :rofl:

They've faced death a million times and someway have always escaped with life. Specially Arya, who is a child, but conveniently always happened to be with an unknown adult by her side to die for her(Yoren, BWB, Sandor). :dunno:

[JonisHenryTudor]

One of the many reasons I feel ASOIAF is still meant for literary consumption. I don't think many people hold to the idea that it ever could have effectively worked as film adaptations, and (sadly) despite the hype and the early excitement, now many of us have come to realize it doesn't quite work as a tv series either :dunno: just my opinion. There's a lot of "well they're two different things, and you shouldn't compare them" but I don't recall hearing any of that in season one, which was an accurate enough adaptation for me... it's only since they started botching (nearly) everything that we've had to resort to such excuses.

:agree:

They are two different things, because the mediums are different... But that doesn't mean stuff from books 6&7 are not showing up in the recent seasons.... D&D have the same story, they have just cut things out to get to the point, which also means instead of drawn out story-lines, things that might happen to certain characters seem to be happening earlier...i.e. Gendry. I agree with the S1 comment.

[JonisHenryTudor]

LMAO AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHA

Yeah, and it's kind of contradictory, since if he really wants to be realistic, how are Tyrion, Arya and a few other characters still alive(it's just an example to prove my point)?

It's not realistic at all! :rofl:

They've faced death a million times and someway have always escaped with life. Specially Arya, who is a child, but conveniently always happened to be with an unknown adult by her side to die for her(Yoren, BWB, Sandor). :dunno:

Cats have nine lives, apparently some of the characters in aSoIaF do as well.....