George RR martin faults...

[The Pita]

AHHH!

Now I realise why my eyes weren't scorched with divine light whenever I read the series!

All because of a lack of Patchface!

Blood on the king and blood on the maiden's thigh but chains for the guests and chains for the bridegroom.

[Vintertroll]

This has probably been mentioned, but I didn't bother to read the entire thread, so... The only major fault I find in mr. Martin's writings, is that some of the children are way too mature. Easpecially Bran act way beyond his age. Now, I get the point about children having to grow up faster because Westeros is such a brutal place, but still, Martin writes about humans the same as us, only in a different environment, and so, the rules for normal human behaviour should still count. Of course he had to give them some maturity to make them able to deal with their situations. But sometimes I wonder why he chose to make them all so young.

[Innominandum]

This has probably been mentioned, but I didn't bother to read the entire thread, so... The only major fault I find in mr. Martin's writings, is that some of the children are way too mature. Easpecially Bran act way beyond his age. Now, I get the point about children having to grow up faster because Westeros is such a brutal place, but still, Martin writes about humans the same as us, only in a different environment, and so, the rules for normal human behaviour should still count. Of course he had to give them some maturity to make them able to deal with their situations. But sometimes I wonder why he chose to make them all so young.

I could understand for Arya, but Bran? He's very childish, could you give examples where you think he's too mature?

[The Pita]

Arya is not mature for her age, she's just insane.

I think she acts accodingly to her age except for the fact that human life has no value to her.

She's like a 10 year old with no morals.

She is a 10 year old with no morals.

[Vintertroll]

I could understand for Arya, but Bran? He's very childish, could you give examples where you think he's too mature?

I think all of the children are too mature, not just Bran. I don't know, I can't recall any passage in particular where Bran was acting mature, but it's not necessarily about what they do, it's the way they think, talk, react. Bran's only 8-9 years old, but he goes through some pretty traumatic stuff, and I think he deals with it in a way a 8 year-old would not.

For example, Jon Snow is 14 in AGoT, but you can clearly see how he's been marked by his past by his sometimes irrational behaviour - which makes him realistic. But I think Bran, even though he's only half the age of Jon, reacts more calmly to things than Jon do (even though they of course differ in personality). After Bran is thrown out a window, he doesn't complain half as much as Jon do when he comes to the Wall. Bran keeps most of his emotions inside, even though almost all of his family are taken from him and he has to run into the woods with a four-year-old, a halfwit and a women who tries to kill him. He takes responsibility. I think it would be more natural if he would just... break down and cry from times to times...

Edit: I just remembered someone who act way more mature than Bran; Dany. She is 13 when married off to a man at 30, and two years later she is in command, controlling everyone, building up an army, while trying to raise dragons she herself gave birth to? I understand she's the blood of the dragon, but that doesn't give her super powers!

[Guarneri]

Maturity is one of those things that varies greatly between different people. It is by no means impossible or irrational for Dany to command any army at 15. She is forced into a life-style in a way, and thus acts as she has to for her certain goals. She had many friends to teach her how to act, and has shown herself to be fairly intelligent herself. Are most 15 year olds this way? No, but Westeros is not America. Dany doesn't have a job, she doesn't have school, she doesn't have many concerns on her mind other than command. Her whole life IS command-and-conquer. That's her life quest and drive, and she's fully devoted to it, I'd say, so it's not by any means unresonable that she is good at what she does.

Bran I think is portrayed as a mature 8 year old. He's influenced by immaturity, but he can still face things bravely. He models himself after those he admired and wanted to be, like his dad, and knights. In the first chapter of GoT we get shown how he wants to be seen as brave, and those qualities of not breaking down are something he admires very strongly.

[Grim Tavis]

Funny no one has mentioned this problem:

SCALE!

The scale of some things is just crazy! The Wall is 700 feet high. Ok. I don't have a problem with that per se, but the fact that people can stand at the top and communicate with people on the ground? Not possible. Also, there is no way an arrow could shoot that high (for example, when the wildlings were shooting at Jon and the rest of the men in Black).

Also, the many massive castles. Again, not a problem but it is when people are walking the ramparts and able to talk to others on the ground or if they have heads on spikes and people can recognize them.

Anyone have other examples of such crazy proportions?

[Craigopogo]

I think Bran is pretty mature for his age, but he lacks experience so he comes off as naive, which he of course is. His lack of interaction with the normal Westeros life will probably play into whatever he'll get up to in the North. Something will happen to him that'll set him apart even farther from "normal" people, but I doubt he'll have a terribly hard time adapting. Most of his family is dead or scattered, his only friends are the ones ushering him toward his destiny.

One thing that's bugged me, and kind of fits with the problem of scale, is that so many characters are so big. Robert, the Hound, Gregor, the Umbers, Vicatrion and Euron and on and on. Nutrition probably isn't that great, even amongst the aristocracy, it just seems unlikely that so many people who be so bloody huge. Of course, in saying this I realize that this people are probably the exceptions, and as such would go far in the world of combat. And I'm also reminded of Mr Burns going over his list of ringers and saying to Smithers how unlikely 9 misfortunes would be, so maybe it's not weird after all. It still bugs me though...

[mormont]

The scale of some things is just crazy! The Wall is 700 feet high. Ok. I don't have a problem with that per se, but the fact that people can stand at the top and communicate with people on the ground? Not possible.

Unless I've forgotten something, this doesn't actually happen.

Also, there is no way an arrow could shoot that high (for example, when the wildlings were shooting at Jon and the rest of the men in Black).

This does, OTOH, and even with generous allowances made, you're right, it's a problem.

Also, the many massive castles. Again, not a problem but it is when people are walking the ramparts and able to talk to others on the ground or if they have heads on spikes and people can recognize them.

I think this only happens with the castles with a more normal wall height, ie Riverrun rather than Storm's End.

[Raff the Sweetling]

I dont know why everyone is so bonered up over the language? It is a fantasy novel you know. Tolkein made up elvish and he's a genuis, but someone else says nuncle, and everyone goes ape shit. Im glad he uses english phrases, I would rather have my characters say "fuck" instead of some made up curse like "blood and bloody ashes". I also would rather have my names pronouncable like "Robb" and "Jaime" istead of a cluster of constanants that are impossible to say, like alot of fantasy. Familiar language and names are what make it more realistic to me. I mean if the name "Robb" is bothersome to readers, where are all the Frodo haters. What kind of name is that? It is Martins story to imagine how he wishes. He can use whatever dialect he wants. (it is only pretend after all)

I'm sure there are things about his writing that are'nt perfect, but until someone comes along with a better series, I'll give him the benifit of the doubt.

[Raff the Sweetling]

By the way, everyone's complaining about the physics of buildings or weapons...well I dont hear anyone complaining about the physics of dragons or wildfire. You know why? BECAUSE ITS ALL FAKE!!!!

[mormont]

By the way, everyone's complaining about the physics of buildings or weapons...well I dont hear anyone complaining about the physics of dragons or wildfire. You know why? BECAUSE ITS ALL FAKE!!!!

Well, yeah... but there is such a thing as internal consistency.

[Lady Blackfish]

I don't think people are complaining in the "These books are trash and must be burned!" way. Just for something to talk about. It's a long wait between installments

[strongboar]

By the way, everyone's complaining about the physics of buildings or weapons...well I dont hear anyone complaining about the physics of dragons or wildfire. You know why? BECAUSE ITS ALL FAKE!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Fire

[Aerys]

I almost am getting annoyed by the fact that people can write off the impractibilites by just saying "its a fantasy novel-what do you expect" kinda thing. To an extent i agree with this. But its more of a statement, rather than an argument. Bya good statement nonetheless. By making ASOIAF into an extensive fantasy, GRRM has unleashed the problem of "problems about his books".

He does try to make it as accurate as possible so it doesnt sound too cheesy. He changes Greek Fire or Naptha into wildfire and doesnt go for the typical great big giant dragons from the beginning. Instead, he describes them as more spindly creatures, all tail and neck when they are born. Another good reason explaining the physics of Dragons is the good old statement "they're magic." Magic helps dragons stay alive, while magic itself seems to prosper when dragons are alive. Chicken or egg situation. Is it the magic that helps makes the dragons or the dragons that helps make the magic?you decide.

[Raff the Sweetling]

I understand that a person might ask some of these questions to themselves, but over annalizing every single nuance of a book takes all the enjoyment out of it. I like to think about what Martin is imagining and read into it, but it seems like its never good enough for fans. There is never enough answers and never enough detail to satisfy people. I know alot of this over annalizing is due to down time between books, but I think because we are all fans, we hold Martin to a higher standard and he will never be able to live up to it for this exact reason. His books are FULL of detail and explainations much more than other authors, so maybe its best to accept the story as it is, and not kill it with irrelevent questions. I never asked why hobbits eat so much, or how Gandalf keeps his robes so white. Thats just the way it is, and it was still a good story.

[Rimmer]

I dont know why everyone is so bonered up over the language? It is a fantasy novel you know. Tolkein made up elvish and he's a genuis, but someone else says nuncle, and everyone goes ape shit.

The issue's not about the word itself at all, it's about the word suddenly being wedged into the language in the fourth book.

About the arrows, I'm definitely no physicist, but couldn't the gravitational constant be different on Westeros or something? Or would that mean that people would be leaping ten feet in the air as well?

[lee1026]

It would mean that people would be leaping 10 feet in the air, yes. If G is different, the number of things that would change would be simply mind boggling. For example, ship building would be wildly different.

[Raff the Sweetling]

As far as the language thing, how many people use Nuncle other than Asha or Greyjoys for that matter who are only featured in AFFC.

As far as shooting at a 700ft wall. Well here is a few studys on a typical medieval yew longbow (over 4 ft long).

"A bow of the strength described by Stayner and Paterson would project a war arrow a long distance. But here again, no one is sure how far: Stayner believes the war arrow had an effective range of 180 yards;11 Paterson maintains a slightly further distance of 200 yards;12 and Bartelot estimates a useful range of 249 yards.13 Captain George Burnet, Secretary to the Royal Scottish Archers, notes that the members of the Queen's Body Guard for Scotland, who still shoot, use six foot long self yew bows of 55 to 60 pounds draw weight. The range of these modern bows is 180-200 yards shooting light target shafts."

So if this "actual" weapon can shoot roughly 200 YARDS, that is 600 FEET. That 700 ft wall doesnt seem so far fetched now does it?

[lee1026]

Very funny, shooting 600 feet across flat land is not quite the same as shooting 600 feet upwards. Shooting 600 feet upwards would require a exit velocity of 6270 feet per second. That is pretty fast. (By comparison, the muzzle velocity of the AK-47 is barely a third of that)