Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ran

[Poll] How would you rate episode 507?

How would you rate episode 507?  

641 members have voted

  1. 1. What's your rating from 1-10, with 10 being the highest/best

    • 1
      16
    • 2
      12
    • 3
      18
    • 4
      22
    • 5
      34
    • 6
      40
    • 7
      86
    • 8
      144
    • 9
      178
    • 10
      91


Recommended Posts

One-dimensional boring characters, but otherwise yes - D&D have already improved upon the source material of Feast and Dance. And significantly so. Regarding the rating, I gave this episode a 9, it was very good once again. How did you rate it?

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me like you just don't have the attention span for a longer story. Feast and Dance? That stuff is the plot now. There is stuff to criticise about them but when you're just fundamentally disliking the main plot, it's probably time to stop reading.

It's not a matter of having the attention span for a longer story, it is a matter of expecting story not going backwards in tone, pace, or complexity. Once the standard has been set, allowing for minor hiccups, a story should continue to live up to itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of having the attention span for a longer story, it is a matter of expecting story not going backwards in tone, pace, or complexity. Once the standard has been set, allowing for minor hiccups, a story should continue to live up to itself.

How exactly is it going backwards in any of those things? Feast and Dance are slower yes. Are series' not allowed to have slower parts? I think that Feast and Dance are minor hiccups because though flawed, they are still very good books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly is it going backwards in any of those things? Feast and Dance are slower yes. Are series' not allowed to have slower parts? I think that Feast and Dance are minor hiccups because though flawed, they are still very good books.

If they are slower then it means either the pace or complexity must have decreased. This does not mean they are bad books but it does mean there is 'less' story in them then the books that came before.

If fans get used to a series of books delivering a certain amount, it is fair that fans continue to expect it and are disappointed with half being delivered in twice the time. The same is also true for the show, if you get used to a certain level of political complexity, internal logic and cleverness of dialogue, it's fair enough for a show fan to notice these things are absent or changed.

What is most important here, I think, is that the books started to deliver less first. The show would have been better than the books if it continued to deliver on a standard set by the first 4 seasons, but it hasn't and has effectively followed suit, if not in exactly the same way - boring vs stupid.

Another thing, of course, is that the joint minds of fans on forum like this have probably come up with better options to push the narrative in the books and show forward than what either GRRM or D&D have. Once you read, or even think of, some of those options, you can be disappointed with less. The issue I find with this is that the fans on forums are just doing it out of interest, it's not their job - but if they can come up with better narrative options and resolutions to the story than GRRM or D&D, you gotta wonder if either of them are worth their acclaim.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feast was my least favourite book admittedly, but even that is a great piece of literature.

:lmao:

I did not think by any stretch of the imagination that Feast would ever be considered a great piece of literature in anybody's mind. Actually I do not think any of this can be considered great literature. The first book is a really good set up book, but after that it is hit and miss. I did like ACoK and I liked ASoS, but I still do not think they could possibly be considered great literature. Obviously I was wrong.

There is no shame in reading something that is not great literature. Hey give me a good murder mystery and I am as happy as a clam, even though I do not consider them great literature. I like lots of books. I must like them considering how many I read in a year, but I do not make the mistake of thinking they are great literature, just because I happen to enjoy them. I mean GRRM is a lot of fun at times. He keeps you guessing, and he does lots of surprising things, but the writing is not great literature.

Still you did make me smile today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Ummester seems to just be complaining about the fact that AFFC/DWD introduced new major characters. Plenty of stories introduce new characters and plots late on, often integral elements. That isn't poor writing. If you want a more compact story then ASOIAF isn't for you. That's your subjective opinion, not a valid criticism of the novels.

Yes, I've read stories that introduced new characters in its late stages, but I've never read a story like AFFC that puts the main characters on the back burner and make the new characters the center of the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lmao:

I did not think by any stretch of the imagination that Feast would ever be considered a great piece of literature in anybody's mind. Actually I do not think any of this can be considered great literature. The first book is a really good set up book, but after that it is hit and miss. I did like ACoK and I liked ASoS, but I still do not think they could possibly be considered great literature. Obviously I was wrong.

There is no shame in reading something that is not great literature. Hey give me a good murder mystery and I am as happy as a clam, even though I do not consider them great literature. I like lots of books. I must like them considering how many I read in a year, but I do not make the mistake of thinking they are great literature, just because I happen to enjoy them. I mean GRRM is a lot of fun at times. He keeps you guessing, and he does lots of surprising things, but the writing is not great literature.

Still you did make me smile today.

It seems to me that the dividing line in viewing this series is between book readers who believe the books, every last one of them are "great literature" and therefore that they should be more or less inviolable, and those whose liked, even loved, the books as a whole [ but shared the general disappointment with the last 2], but don't view them as great literature and are therefore more sanguine about revision, especially the weaker the source material.

Adaptation is never painless. Hell, how many adaptations of undisputed great literature are 100% "faithful". But you know, the books go on...

This is why the kerfuffle (and the yawning gap in ratings and perception between booksnobs and the general public) to me betrays an insecurity on the part of the booksnobs that somehow revisions in adaptation diminish the "great literature" status of ASOIAF. That or an immaturity on the nature of adaptation.

Edited by God-Emperor of Yi Ti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've read stories that introduced new characters in its late stages, but I've never read a story like AFFC that puts the main characters on the back burner and make the new characters the center of the book.

Indeed, Main characters go somewhere else, meet new people, plot continues- Fine [ eg Gondor and Rohan in LOTR]

Main characters just f'ing disappear and some randomers pop up in Book 4 and 5 of a "7" book series - a) he's just making it up as he goes along and b. WTF has this got to do with the folks we have become interested in?

Edited by God-Emperor of Yi Ti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 the episode I've most enjoyed so far this season by a mile though dorne is still crap it mean they cut the river lands/isles for that. and it's all just a little underwhelming like Tyron meeting dany but not really going through anything on the way there. Kingslanding scenes I enjoyed bar lady of thrones large iq drop with empty threats and weird modern homophobic slurs no issue with her saying Loras is gay and adding an insult but sword swallower and pillow biter kind of take me away from the fake middle age setting. Ghost saving gilly from rape also annoyed then having that be the reason for her and Sam I mean Jon is going on a dangerous mission to hard home and says better leave my 4 foot tall wolf at home it might bite someone wtf and the shared grief over aemon could have been used like in the books rather than the threat of rape. Still first episode of this season I actually liked can't wait to be disappointed tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8


Might have been a 9,


until the word Shag was spoken.


I was yanked out of the show, as the Austen Powers theme played cheerfully in my brain..


So I docked it a point. Petty, I know.



Otherwise, no complaints. The show was packed with peanuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are slower then it means either the pace or complexity must have decreased. This does not mean they are bad books but it does mean there is 'less' story in them then the books that came before.

If fans get used to a series of books delivering a certain amount, it is fair that fans continue to expect it and are disappointed with half being delivered in twice the time. The same is also true for the show, if you get used to a certain level of political complexity, internal logic and cleverness of dialogue, it's fair enough for a show fan to notice these things are absent or changed.

What is most important here, I think, is that the books started to deliver less first. The show would have been better than the books if it continued to deliver on a standard set by the first 4 seasons, but it hasn't and has effectively followed suit, if not in exactly the same way - boring vs stupid.

Another thing, of course, is that the joint minds of fans on forum like this have probably come up with better options to push the narrative in the books and show forward than what either GRRM or D&D have. Once you read, or even think of, some of those options, you can be disappointed with less. The issue I find with this is that the fans on forums are just doing it out of interest, it's not their job - but if they can come up with better narrative options and resolutions to the story than GRRM or D&D, you gotta wonder if either of them are worth their acclaim.

I do not think it is fair for fans to expect each book to be just as fast and packed full as say, Storm of Swords. Some parts of the story are going to be slower. Feast probably takes it too far more my personal tastes, but there is nothing wrong with a couple of books in a series being slower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




:lmao:



I did not think by any stretch of the imagination that Feast would ever be considered a great piece of literature in anybody's mind. Actually I do not think any of this can be considered great literature. The first book is a really good set up book, but after that it is hit and miss. I did like ACoK and I liked ASoS, but I still do not think they could possibly be considered great literature. Obviously I was wrong.



There is no shame in reading something that is not great literature. Hey give me a good murder mystery and I am as happy as a clam, even though I do not consider them great literature. I like lots of books. I must like them considering how many I read in a year, but I do not make the mistake of thinking they are great literature, just because I happen to enjoy them. I mean GRRM is a lot of fun at times. He keeps you guessing, and he does lots of surprising things, but the writing is not great literature.



Still you did make me smile today.





I don't understand this mindset. If I enjoy a book or a series of books a lot, and it holds up under scrutiny then it is great literature. That is all it needs to be. I don't get this position where people can absolutely love a book series (often writing thousands of posts on a forum about it) but because it doesn't fit some nebulous criteria of a "classic" or "great literature" they will refuse to call it anything more than pulpy fun.



ASOIAF has an engaging story, which is rich enough to sustain multiple rereads. Hell, you could write a dissertation on each of the main characters. So far as I'm concerned that's enough to put it in the category of great literature. I've gotten far more enjoyment and introspection out of ASOIAF then I could ever get out of Of Mice and Men. What do you consider great literature?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've read stories that introduced new characters in its late stages, but I've never read a story like AFFC that puts the main characters on the back burner and make the new characters the center of the book.

Well first of all I completely agree that Feast could have done with more familiar faces. Second of all Wheel of Time does it (Rand appears in all books but in at least one only barely). Third of all it's an exaggeration to say that Feast makes the Ironborn and Dornish the centre of the book: It has Cersei, Jaime, Sansa, Arya, Sam, Brienne (and Asha) as POVs. 4th of all if it bothers you that much there are several combined Feast/Dance reading orders out there.

Edited by protar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think it is fair for fans to expect each book to be just as fast and packed full as say, Storm of Swords. Some parts of the story are going to be slower. Feast probably takes it too far more my personal tastes, but there is nothing wrong with a couple of books in a series being slower.

Fans become fans because something delivers what they want and fans generally know exactly what they want, which is more of the same. Changing something dramatically 4/7 the of the way in is not in line with delivering fans what they want.

And I have clarified this before - it's not about the speed, or even missing the characters that fans have gotten used to (but that can be a deal breaker for many) - it's about the narrative becoming less connected, which makes it feel less intelligent. Books 1-3 were tightly woven narratives, where every little thing mattered to another little thing. Even if books 4 & 5 prove to be tightly woven with books 6 & 7 by the time they come out, they are still less tightly woven with books 1-3. The narrative is not structured consistently across all books, or all seasons of the show and, even if fans don't quite know why things stop feeling the same because of this, they will recognize that things feel different and become less involved as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why the kerfuffle (and the yawning gap in ratings and perception between booksnobs and the general public) to me betrays an insecurity on the part of the booksnobs that somehow revisions in adaptation diminish the "great literature" status of ASOIAF. That or an immaturity on the nature of adaptation.

I'm pretty sure you've got that backwards.

I'm a "book snob" and I'd never call ASOIAF great literature. I do have a lot of arguments why the show is vastly inferior though.

I also enjoy trashier things. I enjoy the walking dead nore than GoT at this point and I'd never call that a masterpiece of television.

What you accuse the "book snobs" of, however, is exactly what the show apologists do. And you're right, it's rooted in insecurity. They enjoy it, so it must be the greatest show ever. If you criticize it you're criticizing them, and you're a pretentious pedant who thinks his shit don't smell. I mean, all book snobs do is offer criticism of the show. Which gets answered with... criticism of the book snobs. As you just did. Who's defensive again?

The thing that I find really baffling is all the slating of the author. Does it make you feel better if your TV show is crap because of George than if it's crap because of D&D??? Is that why you have to tell yourself that, since GRRM is clearly not a modern classic, his writing must totally be just as bad (or even worse) as the utter piece of garbage that is the ShowDorne plot... or really any original D&D material?

Edited by Facebookless Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fans become fans because something delivers what they want and fans generally know exactly what they want, which is more of the same. Changing something dramatically 4/7 the of the way in is not in line with delivering fans what they want.

And I have clarified this before - it's not about the speed, or even missing the characters that fans have gotten used to (but that can be a deal breaker for many) - it's about the narrative becoming less connected, which makes it feel less intelligent. Books 1-3 were tightly woven narratives, where every little thing mattered to another little thing. Even if books 4 & 5 prove to be tightly woven with books 6 & 7 by the time they come out, they are still less tightly woven with books 1-3. The narrative is not structured consistently across all books, or all seasons of the show and, even if fans don't quite know why things stop feeling the same because of this, they will recognize that things feel different and become less involved as a result.

I disagree here as well. The narrative threads throughout Clash and Storm are often very disparate. If anything Dance is the most closely interwoven book since A Game of Thrones n my view. As for how connected the books are with each other, I still think Feast and Dance are closely interwoven with the previous books. They have a different tone yes - that is entirely deliberate imo, they are supposed to be the aftermath of the war. But those two tones complement each other very well.

Edited by protar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree here as well. The narrative threads throughout Clash and Storm are often very disparate. If anything Dance is the most closely interwoven book since A Game of Thrones n my view. As for how connected the books are with each other, I still think Feast and Dance are closely interwoven with the previous books. They have a different tone yes - that is entirely deliberate imo, they are supposed to be the aftermath of the war. But those two tones complement each other very well.

Other than the obvious split of POV characters, i fail to see what's so technically different about books 1-3 and books 4-5, in terms of pace, narrative, introspection, etc. That he introduced the expression "nipples on a breastplate", possibly after one night that he caught Batman and Robin on TV?

Books 4-5 failed to deliver their fix of action and shocks that they were accustomed to, failed to give them their favorite characters at the same time, had too many cliffhangers and last but not least, they took too long to be published. Ok, i get all of that. But all the jibber-jabber that some come up with to criticize the books spells "self-indulgence" to me. We don't resort to jibber-jabber to criticize the show: the flaws are there on the surface for all to grasp.

Ummester, why have you suddenly changed your tune? Before, you were perfectly content with criticizing the books to put the show on a better light. Now you criticize the books for failing to provide the show with the necessary ingredients so as not to suck. Have some consistency man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing: I'm no authority on literature to stick my neck out for George, but y'all should remember that some of the books we call "classics" now were deemed "pulp" when they were published by the coeval people. OTOH, i have plenty of reason to suspect that GoT will be seen as the "TV show that could've been the GOAT, but wasted itself".


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing: I'm no authority on literature to stick my neck out for George, but y'all should remember that some of the books we call "classics" now were deemed "pulp" when they were published by the coeval people. OTOH, i have plenty of reason to suspect that GoT will be seen as the "TV show that could've been the GOAT, but wasted itself".

I have no doubt that if ASOIAF had been written 50 years ago, and didn't have any magic, it's position as a literary classic would not be in dispute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...