Critiques of ASOIAF

[Jedi Exile]

On 9/22/2017 at 10:57 AM, TheWitch said:

What critiques do we all have of ASOIAF?

In terms of world-building, story arch, structure, plot etc

Not here to bash GRRM or the books, but we can all critique things we enjoy!

 

GOT/ASOIAF exaggerates the powers of the Great Houses by basically making them absolute monarchs in their lands who can do whatever they want with no repercussions. Tywin's "Reynes of Castamere" massacre and subsequent seizure of all the Reynes and Tarbecks assets for his own bank account would have gotten him executed in a remotely realistic context. So would him randomly massacre the inhabitants of several towns down to the last child with no provocation at the beginning of AGOT.

[Фейсал]

2 hours ago, Jedi Exile said:

GOT/ASOIAF exaggerates the powers of the Great Houses by basically making them absolute monarchs in their lands who can do whatever they want with no repercussions. Tywin's "Reynes of Castamere" massacre and subsequent seizure of all the Reynes and Tarbecks assets for his own bank account would have gotten him executed in a remotely realistic context. So would him randomly massacre the inhabitants of several towns down to the last child with no provocation at the beginning of AGOT.

I thought the point was to show us Lannisters; or rather Tywin basically was a monarch; Robert was basically a crony king who was so indebted to the Lannisters that he had no choice but to let them do as they bid. That and Catelyn did provoke conflict.

[Daenerys Targaryen's slave]

The world building is the most atrocious of any kind I have ever encountered among professional works.

 

 

[Spilledguts]

8 hours ago, Jedi Exile said:

GOT/ASOIAF exaggerates the powers of the Great Houses by basically making them absolute monarchs in their lands who can do whatever they want with no repercussions. Tywin's "Reynes of Castamere" massacre and subsequent seizure of all the Reynes and Tarbecks assets for his own bank account would have gotten him executed in a remotely realistic context. So would him randomly massacre the inhabitants of several towns down to the last child with no provocation at the beginning of AGOT.

The Reynes of Castamere, the Brackens fighting the Blackwoods, Lord Eustace versus the Red Widow, rebellions on Skagos each have a purpose. To show that power is not centralized and that the Iron Throne is really a soft power seat of prestige like a Pope or weak Holy Roman Emperor. The Lords play their games while the Iron Throne watches on. Each region has pretty much remained the same, laws, rulers, culture and blood feuds included.

Westeros has only been ''United'' once for the war of the Ninepenny Kings. Whenever an actual threat has arisen, either from within with the first civil wars or from without when the Golden Company attacked, the 7 Kingdoms were not united and each Lord chose a side. 

Let's take a character from a story that GRRM took a lot from: Rand from Wheel of Time. He conquered the Aiel, a warrior like society which the wildlings seem very strongly based on. He ended all the Blood Feuds and had mortal enemies speak and drink/eat together, forced them to do so. We do not hear of Aegon doing this, or any other Targ. instead, the Marcher Lords from each region still continue to hate and fight the other Marcher Lords. Historic enemies are still enemies. 

[Ashara_Stark]

On 08/10/2017 at 3:17 PM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

It's exactly the POV structure that made me think that he's showing not telling. There's no third-person omnipresent narrator, which would have sent the books spiraling into the telling category. In fact, the author's voice is totally absent. We see what the characters see, and we know what the characters think. We are supposed to put two and two together based on all that. That, for me, is showing not telling. And that's also what makes the books so immersive and feel so real. 

This isn't quite accurate though is it, not entirely. The text is a first person point of view wherein the subjects are regularly referred to in the third person.

Given the first person point of view, this regular third person tense should actually be a serious fault and something to be critiqued as it deviates from his chosen style of presentation.

Except the text physically features characters with the capabilities and cause to, for lack of a better term, step into any given character's mind as a second entity, one that is potentially hopping from mind to mind, trying to put the puzzle of the events together.

In the actual reading of the book it feels more like we are being relayed the story by this second entity sitting in the back of the head of the POV characters, seeing what they see, and being exposed to what they're thinking, but crucially not in the first person.

 

[Weirwood Ghost]

Positive: That with all the extra reads I've done of each book the complexity has made more sense. His Jaime, Brienne, Dany meanderings aren't for no good reason. Symbolism is rich and carries each chapter...lends to sleuthing the clues to the story as a whole.

Jaime - the most entertaining character. Entertaining always wins.

The consumption of alcohol has always been and will continue to be inspiring.

Negative: When I first read the books, the Battle on the Blackwater was h-aaaaaa-r-d going, I felt like I was lifting heavy dumbbells all day - exhausting

The characters with frozen snot below their nose.

Didn't enjoy the Aerys Oakheart chapter. I didn't feel I learned anything new.

[Adaneth]

On 24/9/2017 at 5:49 PM, SorcererOfAsshai said:

Gladly the famous theory of the three headed dragon requires three persons. I hope GRRM will break the cliches of fantasy literature & instead of choosing a male protagonist he will make Daenerys the savior of the world. Tyrion has more POV's, "book time" from both in any case. Plus Jaime seems like a potential AA. 

So your complain isn't really about use of the "chosen one", "The Mesiah story", but rather who's that Mesiah. It's not "boring fan service" as long as Dany is that Mesiah. Is that what you're saying?