Jump to content

Fire and Blood any good?


urrutiap
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, urrutiap said:

Just wondering if the Fire and Blood novel that's still in stores especially even at the grocery store, is the book any good for a prequel?  

You ever read Princess and the Queen or the Rogue Prince? Cause its largely just like those books, with those books even being part of Fire and Blood. Its not quite a novel or prequel. More of a history book about the early Targaryen Kings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was much better than I accepted . ( I expected something like the world book) but you got to like the Targaryens and their dragons to like this one. 

5 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

My opinion, is that the Jaehaerys section is the best part but learning more about Aegon and Maegor was alright. For me though, Aegon the Conqueror is kind of a let down. That's just me though

the first half of Jaeherys part was good (particualrly for Rhaena's story) but when it got to his children , it wasn't just as good . I agree the Conqueror part was somewhat of a let down . I also wished to read more about Targaryens before the conquest . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was just "alright".

Some parts were really good, other parts really dragged on. The Dance of the Dragons was my favorite part, though most of it was taken right from the Princess and the Queen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the audiobook, and...it's just not for me. I'm not interested enough in the Targaryen dynasty to dig into their individual stories, aside from a few like Jaehaerys. Admittedly, the Targaryen Kings chapter was my least favorite chapter in TWOIAF (which is probably an unpopular opinion), and I quite like that book.

In fact, I still haven't finished the F&B audiobook!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2022 at 1:57 PM, Lord Lannister said:

It just feels like the equivalent of Tolkien publishing parts of the Simarllion when we're all waiting for Return of the King. 

It's neat, it's good, but it's a side dish and not the main course we're craving.

There were chances to tie at least some of the kings like Aegon and Jaehaerys to the greater narrative of Asoiaf and the struggle to do with the Children of the Forest, the Others, and the Wall. Yet he didn't, and he even retconned possible connections. 

Like in TWOIAF its stated that Jaehaerys tells his grandkids of a battle at the Wall with Giants and Dragons that could easily have been connected into the greater novel. With hints of "Queen's Crown" being a  place where Alysanne could've birthed an illegitimate child like Gael, the Winter Child. 

Yet, he retconned this.

Alysanne is still a possible cheat, but with Strong now, not Stark. Which does possible connect the "The Seed is Strong" line from AGOT though.

 

Aegon was the biggest let down in this regard. The idea that he invaded with no knowledge or care about the Wall, Others, or the legends of Westeros and the fact they ride dragons. The very things White Walkers would possibly fear. Nope, nada. No connection to the God's Eye either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mixed feelings about it. It reads like a history book, not a novel. There are no points of view, except for that of the old maester who wrote it. So it doesn't engage the reader emotionally the way a novel would. However, I'm currently re-reading it, and I'm finding it more enjoyable this time. It may be a history book, but Westeros has one heck of a history, full of colorful characters and bizarre incidents, both for House Targaryen and people of other houses as well. The Martin is an awesome world builder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2022 at 12:32 AM, Foot_Of_The_King said:

I got the audiobook. I enjoyed it more than I ever thought I would. 

I wish they’d hire Simon Vance to re-record the audiobooks for the first five books. No disrespect to Roy Dotrice (RIP) but his narration drives me crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fire & Blood is one of my favorite books of all time. Part of that is undoubtedly because most of what I read normally are histories, so that should be taken into account.

I wish there were more fictional history books out there. The Silmarillion is the only other one I’ve heard of. The closest after that is something like The Princess Bride, in that it’s a real writer writing as if he were a fictional writer who is adapting the work of another fictional writer—but even that is hugely different from FnB. I’m reading an Alison Weir book right now, and she’s a very accomplished historian but not a great fictional writer (all tell and no show) so in a weird way her books do read like fictional history books haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quite liked it but then I spend a great deal of time reading history so the format wasn’t new and I got a lot of his jokes at history/historians’ expense. I would say it’s less accessible for most than ASOIAF or Dunk, for example my wife likes/read those but quickly passed on F&B. 
 

i also think it kinda depends on how into that world you are, tough you’re being here probably suggests you’d enjoy it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Fire & Blood is one of my favorite books of all time. Part of that is undoubtedly because most of what I read normally are histories, so that should be taken into account.

I wish there were more fictional history books out there. The Silmarillion is the only other one I’ve heard of. The closest after that is something like The Princess Bride, in that it’s a real writer writing as if he were a fictional writer who is adapting the work of another fictional writer—but even that is hugely different from FnB. I’m reading an Alison Weir book right now, and she’s a very accomplished historian but not a great fictional writer (all tell and no show) so in a weird way her books do read like fictional history books haha.

The Silmarillion isn't a history book in the same way. The Silmarillion is a collection of legends that sometimes crisscross with those of other notable figures, like the Norse Sagas. Hardly a proper history though in the same context that Martin is going for. This is why there wouldn't be much contradiction in accounts in Tolkiens works as Martins, as they are presumably coming from a select few people. Namely Elves who live  for a long time and have good memory. What ever religion the men had that worshipped Melkor would have contradicting text, but we are never given the information that they state. Presumably that Melkor is the creator and that the Ainur are evil. This again though is due to Silmarillion coming from a few people who are elves and didn't likely care what the humans worshiped in depth. 

 

Having said that. This is why Martin's work has an intriguing prose. His lack of connecting things though is aggravating though. Much of the legends of Middle Earth were either bound up in the Silmarills or the Rings of Power. So even when you tell the tale of Numenor, it connects to both the ancient past of the flat world, and to the more recent past of Sauron rather than Morgoth. Sauron though having a deeper history as a servant of Morgoth. Thus connecting the legends in not all things or similar ways, but enough that the inclusion of the tale isn't irrelevant. Martin is beginning to border on meaningless side tales that are irrelevant to the overall struggle of Westeros. The Others and the Children of the Forest. Who sits upon the Iron Throne is really not the most interesting plot thread as proven by the shows conclusion and massive disappointment in how the Others were handled.

People fighting over a throne isn't a unique story or struggle. People fighting for Rings of Power, magical Silmarils made from ancient trees of light, White Walkers who live beyond a Magical wall in the lands of the Children of the Forest/elves are interesting and unique stories. 

Who ever told GRRM to include the dragons had the right idea. Other wise itd just be a normal story about normal people squabbling over a chair. Like the worse game of duck duck goose ever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2022 at 4:59 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

I wish they’d hire Simon Vance to re-record the audiobooks for the first five books. No disrespect to Roy Dotrice (RIP) but his narration drives me crazy.

Narrator styles for audiobooks can be hit or miss. I enjoyed Dotrice's style and he really got into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

Narrator styles for audiobooks can be hit or miss. I enjoyed Dotrice's style and he really got into it.

I wish I could get into his style because I love audiobooks, but I just can’t. I also have a bit of a hard time understanding what he’s saying.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...