Malazan Vs. ASOIAF

[RedEyedGhost]

Jesus Wert! I hope you bought him dinner first.

In general, I find Martin far more ambiguous than Erikson. Take for example Eddard vs. Whiskeyjack. Erikson does not support alternative interpretations of Whiskeyjack. Whiskeyjack is an excellent swordsman, the best friend, the most caring commander, an awesome lover, and the most honorable man alive. He's the coolest dude in town and everyone loves him. Which creates a weird cognitive dissonance for me because I really don't think Whiskeyjack is all that. I mean Kalam and Quick Ben both think Sorry is being possessed by a god and they let Whiskeyjack know. His response? Yeah, sure she's a seventeen year old from a fishing village, with mad knife skills that puts Kalam to shame, whose personality bares no resemblance to a young fisher girl, but I'm sure there is nothing at all unusually about her. At this point, I labeled Whiskeyjack a moron. When one of the best assassin's in the world and one of the best wizards tells you someone is a possessed god you should pay attention. Of course, the book does not support my moron interpretation. Instead Whiskeyjack is awesome because he sees the best in people. :rolleyes:

Then we get to Memories of Ice. Where the immortal Korlat, who hasn't been stirred to passion in 100,000 years, gets all hot and bothered about Whiskeyjack and jumps his bones because he is the best thing ever. And then Anomander Rake, half a million year old demigod, is all like "I've never had any friends, and I've never cared about that..but you're so awesome Whiskeyjack that you can totally be my friend". And then Whiskeyjack dies. He dies protecting an innocent girl from an attack by the Kallor, the Hitler of Malazan world. But even though Hitler is 120,000 years old and has spent most of his life fighting wars he can't take Whiskeyjack (cause the Jack has mad skills). Whiskeyjack has him dead to rights but then are beloved Sergeant's leg breaks. Why does it break? Because Whiskeyjack has been so busy caring for his men that's he's never gotten it properly healed, he's just put up with the pain because he's awesome like that. Of course, later on we find out that the Death God was responsible for breaking the leg, because losing to Hitler only wouldn't befit Whiskeyjack's level of awesome so it must have been due to Hitler+Deathgod. But fear not, noble reader, thanks to Whiskeyjack's heroic sacrifice Hitler was unable to kill the girl. His death was not in vain.

:lmao:

These two paragraphs are so full of awesome, but not quite so much as WJ.

[Werthead]

I don't think I've ever been rendered as speechless by a post on the lit forum before.

I would really, really love to read these books you are reading Gormenghast, because from the sound of them they do not have much in common with the Malazan books on my shelves. At all. Not even after I finished Memories of Ice for the very first time and thought it was The Bomb.

I think I was okay up until the "Erikson doesn't waste words" bit. The enormity of that comment has shattered my sense of reality. It's like saying, "Martin writes way, way too fast" or "I really missed Jar-Jar in Revenge of the Sith." It's too much for the human mind to cope with at 4am.

[Guy Kilmore]

Okay, I'll keep this into consideration, but I also remember very well a blog of Abercrombie where he was discussing Martin and said that he thought that book 2 and 3 didn't add anything that book 1 didn't have already. A standard of quality that stays high through the books, but without any sharp turns.

I also never read anywhere that book 2 and 3 did something different. I read that book 3 is the fan favorite, but it was more about the plot being spectacular and moving more quickly than things being done differently or the books moving to a new, different levels. So while I expect the plot to continue to be well executed, I don't expect any shifts of styles or any significant evolutions. And this typical argument of "the best" being always beyond the next corner never convinced me.

You are now quoting people and I think a link or some kind of reference would apply here. I say this because you are offering summation of a series without having read the source material yourself. I usually am pro discussion, but I find alot of your statements in regards to both Mazalan and ASoIaF disingenous because you have not read the completed publish works, yet are willing to state conclusions based upon limited extropolation.

Extropolation is fine and all that, but it is lazy when the source material exists for your purusal.

I like Erikson, but he is not the James Joyce of the fantasy world.

[Errant Bard]

Okay, I'll keep this into consideration, but I also remember very well a blog of Abercrombie where he was discussing Martin and said that he thought that book 2 and 3 didn't add anything that book 1 didn't have already. A standard of quality that stays high through the books, but without any sharp turns.

I also never read anywhere that book 2 and 3 did something different. I read that book 3 is the fan favorite, but it was more about the plot being spectacular and moving more quickly than things being done differently or the books moving to a new, different levels. So while I expect the plot to continue to be well executed, I don't expect any shifts of styles or any significant evolutions. And this typical argument of "the best" being always beyond the next corner never convinced me.

That's probably because there is no real evolution in style or shifts at surface level, however, to reuse your own argument about Erikson and his readers, you fail as a reader for not noticing that there is already another level that will get more and more anviliciously propped up as the shows goes on. You feel manipulated, I feel presented with a biased recounting of events from which I know I have to be wary, to extract what can be the objective truth, like when you read any piece of history or news -news, historical and everything except mathematical accounts are always biased this way-. The strength of ASOIAF is that it is built to have this second level while still telling a (less and less) familiar story, to the contrary of most other books where if you stop to examine the situation from an objective/another point of view you realise it doesn't make sense or that the heroes are not really better than the villains (for example, take mass-murdering racist Belgarion & co from Eddings' Belgariad).

Knowing Abercrombie, he was probably talking about the general direction of the story, aka good guys going to defeat the dark lord, and he would probably say the same of Malazan, as it's exactly the same in that regard, but I'd like to have a link or a quote still.

I'm saying that Martin is always in control and that you won't have emotions or thoughts that he didn't plan you to have.

Considering the many many many threads in the book forums rooted in a divergence of thoughts or emotions about one thing or other in the series, I'm certain you are wrong. I cannot blame you for thinking that, though, after all it is harder to think for oneself when characterization is well done and the interactions approach closer from what you could have in reality than when the characters actually are dehumanized puppets and the plot simply a nonsensical string of themes the author wishes to explore but sets up so badly it it feels like giant strawmen.

Also, finish reading your books, dammit.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Personally I enjoy them both, but I enjoy them for very different reasons.

I like ASOIAF because, well, it's awesome. The characterization, the prose, the story... it's all truly excellent. A wonderful read that keeps me interested.

I like MBOTF because of the world and because of the ideas. Yes, I know that Erikson beats us over the head with his messages at times, especially in Midnight Tides, but I still enjoy it. I like the just kind of badassness of his characters. But, mostly, it's the world that keeps me coming back.

I do have a few things to say about some of the complaints I read in this thread. One - the many many storyline thing is intentional, and not because the writer lacks discipline. Erikson has stated in interviews that there are certain minor plots that he does not intend to resolve, and his reasoning is that history does not come to a nice neat stopping point. Look at the writer's background - he's a PhD who deals in archaeology, anthropology, and history. He's telling the story as a slice of his world's history at a particularly turbulent time. It does tend toward sloppy writing, but it is intentional. Whether or not it's gotten out of control is up for debate, and honestly remains to be seen - after all, we don't know what he will or won't wrap up in the last two books / the follow-up trilogy / ICE's books.

Second - as for his characterization, I'd disagree that it's black and white. I find his characters to be quite gray, especially in their justifications for killing. Some of them kill with regret, some do it for mercy, some relish it, and some do it for justice, but they are all soiled by the killing. Whiskeyjack's character exists as an archetype in a sea of bitter soldiers - he's the only real "hero" in the series, especially when you consider that Erikson shows every side of a conflict in more or less the same light. While I do think that Erikson went a bit over the top with WJ, he still serves as a contrast to the other characters in the books.

Edit - as for the person judging both series after a quarter of each, don't be stupid. Read further and revise your opinions, as you most certainly will, for both. I have yet to find even a Malazan apologist who will claim that the quality of each book is consistent, and the further you read into ASOIAF the further away from established fantasy conventions you will get. You're doing Erikson and GRRM both a disservice by judging them after having read so little of their work - especially Erikson, since you apparently actually have interest in finishing his series.

[Errant Bard]

Second - as for his characterization, I'd disagree that it's black and white. I find his characters to be quite gray, especially in their justifications for killing. Some of them kill with regret, some do it for mercy, some relish it, and some do it for justice, but they are all soiled by the killing. Whiskeyjack's character exists as an archetype in a sea of bitter soldiers - he's the only real "hero" in the series, especially when you consider that Erikson shows every side of a conflict in more or less the same light. While I do think that Erikson went a bit over the top with WJ, he still serves as a contrast to the other characters in the books.

I don't think anyone said Erikson's characterization was black and white, but that it was simply bad and that in the case of WiskheyJack what the author told us (that WJ is godly at everything) did not match what he showed us (that WJ is a generic badass and a moron).

But then even Gormenghast agrees that characterization isn't Erikson's forte, so no need to dwell on it, heh?

[Gormenghast]

But then even Gormenghast agrees that characterization isn't Erikson's forte, so no need to dwell on it, heh?

Not exactly.

Martin passes a lot of time in the head of the characters. The story is told from their POV and the structure of the book is focused on that completely. In fact I wrote a while ago that Erikson's lack in characterization derives directly for a total absence of "slices of life". Nothing that isn't directly a plot point is being shown in the books (up to where I read). Example: Erikson shows nothing of the former life of Felisin, that would be indispensable to actually understand the evolution of the character. That characterization actually exists and is well done, but it just didn't get enough exposition.

Erikson's target is just different. He doesn't rely at all on the identification and characterization works better in the longer term since it follows the same pattern of the rest. It's pieces of a puzzle that you have to put together. Since the first book there is no character that Erikson has as a focus.

As in the example about the discussion between Karsa's father and grandfather Erikson offers plenty of great characterization, but it tends to be a quick dialogue rather than staying in one's head for long.

So I think you can't really compare the two writers just because they have a different intent. And what they write should be judged for what they want it to be (and accomplish) more than what the reader wants it to be.

As a personal preference I like much more Erikson's characterization because it's more "inferred". It's again something that the reader has to piece together. And I like A LOT more Erikson characters because he characterizes them and develops them in unconventional ways. My favorite character by far is Heboric.

I also agree that Erikson makes mistakes. Including characterization. But up to this point the mistakes are mostly limited to the first book, or originating there. WJ was a good character that wasn't executed to perfection (the part about the reaction to Sorry for example is explained, just not so well executed. The same with Korlat. You can argue it's not well done, but can't say it doesn't make sense).

This is also a case of trying to squeeze too much. Erikson has too many characters and tries to do too much with them. The pacing of the plot is different. His story written with the style of Martin just wouldn't work.

Again I like more seeing Erikson struggle than Martin perfection that tells me very little. Martin's characters have yet to surprise me. Once you understand their types they do not seem to hold surprises.

[Guy Kilmore]

Again I like more seeing Erikson struggle than Martin perfection that tells me very little. Martin's characters have yet to surprise me. Once you understand their types they do not seem to hold surprises.

Again, sweeping judgements without knowledge of the source material at hand. Anytime you have gotten specific about one of Martin's characters you have been wrong. (See the whole Aemon thing).

I am also waiting for a link or some kind of quote to back up what you said earlier, if not sir, you are frankly talking out of your butt.

[polishgenius]

Here you are plain wrong, and trying to polarize what I said.

To begin with, I don't think there's any need to read all the books to qualify for an opinion. If you look back to my comments when I was 160 pages into the book you'd see that they are the same now that I'm 700 pages into it. The thoughts are more defined, but they didn't change. In all the cases, no matter of the writer, I don't need more than 100 pages to have an idea of the style of a book and what are his strengths. Sometimes you need more to get used to it, but that's about it.

No-one's saying you can't hold an opinion on Martin, but you're commenting on both series as if you have a full knowledge of them when you don't. You're marking Martin down for being predictable and not escaping cliche when you haven't even read the first book to the end and it's precisely a strength of Martin. I mean for crying out loud you're complaining you know where a series is going when it's not finished and you haven't read a quarter of it yet. You're commenting on things about Erikson that you can't know, like the strengths and weaknesses of TtH and RG which you haven't read. I agree with the broad gist of some of your points (I prefer Erikson myself) but the way you're going about arguing is ludicrous. And you're also constantly saying that we shouldn't compare the authors and you're not intending to slate Martin, but the tone of your posts is doing precisely the opposite.

[Gormenghast]

You are now quoting people and I think a link or some kind of reference would apply here. I say this because you are offering summation of a series without having read the source material yourself. I usually am pro discussion, but I find alot of your statements in regards to both Mazalan and ASoIaF disingenous because you have not read the completed publish works, yet are willing to state conclusions based upon limited extropolation.

Because I read A LOT of opinions on various forums and a lot of reviews. In my experience the impressions I got match very closely the actual experience when I read the book myself. I don't consider "this book is good" or "this book is bad", I look for motivations and I usually have a very good idea about what the book is going to be about.

The consensus about Martin's series is just that. Now you want to deny that book 3 isn't usually fan favorite? Or that book 4 was for many a disappointment with most of the story going nowhere? I've read many, many opinions and while everyone may have a different opinion there are still some basic motivations.

Everyone will say that Toll the Hounds moved slowly. I doubt that some is going to read it and tell that the pacing was fast in that one and the plot moved a lot. By reading reviews and comments you can have a decent opinion on a book. You like Erikson's introspection? Nope. Then it is likely that you'll hate TTH. It's a different book. Consistently, those who like Midnight Tides seem to love TTH the most, and those that are more attached to the plot and main characters considered it disappointing.

This is the quote from Abercrombie:

I must confess I haven't read A Feast for Crows yet. I'm waiting on the next and will probably read them both together. Though there was still a load of brilliant stuff in the third book, A Storm of Swords, it seemed more spread out than A Game of Thrones had been. I know a lot of readers love that sense of scale, but I was frustrated by the apparent loss of focus - the adding and divergence of the points of view, the steady increase in the simple spine size of the books without a matching growth in overall narrative movement. The books seemed to get fatter, if you like, but not taller. The story expanded sideways but shrunk lengthways. Maybe I'd been expecting a trilogy, or maybe I was just disappointed as it became clearer and clearer there'd be no final resolution any time soon. Probably there was an element of diminishing returns, in that the first book was, for me, so smack-mouth amazing that it was near impossible to turn me upside down in the same way afterwards. They were great, don't get me wrong, just not as great. I imagine I'm not the only one who's keen to see whether Martin can pull it all together in the long run...

I didn't find the first book so smack-mouth amazing, and I seriously doubt that reading more of Martin will revolution my opinion.

I'll see. Right now reading book 2 isn't my priority. I'm a slow reader, these 1000 pages book can keep me busy for the better part of three months. I only read in complete silence and when I'm not tired, paying maximum attention no matter what I read. In the last year I've read Glen Cook, Donaldson, Abercrombie, Jordan, KJ Parker, Goodkind, Gene Wolfe, Erikson, JM Harrison, Richard Morgan, Stephenson and Gemmel. Outside the genre I've read some of Ayn Rand, Cormac McCarthy, Philip Roth and Dickens.

Now do you think that I have to read all ten books of Goodkind before I can have an opinion on his writing? Nope, I value my time and prefer to read better stuff.

Next is House of Chains, then I need to finish Dickens, then I want to start with Scott Bakker and then I really need to go back to Abercrombie.

I'll likely read more Martin in the future, but there are other writers that interest me more right now (hell, I'd read more gladly the sequel to The Steel Remains right now).

[Gormenghast]

And you're also constantly saying that we shouldn't compare the authors and you're not intending to slate Martin, but the tone of your posts is doing precisely the opposite.

That's the kind of polarizing.

There's a difference between me and everyone else here. Everyone else here is ready to state that Martin is a much better writer and that Erikson couldn't even remotely pretend to be considered in the same league. More, most would say that this isn't an opinion, but a pretense of objectivity: there's evidence that Martin ranks higher and denying it is foolish.

My position isn't specular to that one. I'm not saying that Erikson is superior. I'm not even saying that they are equal.

What I said was that they do different stuff and that my preference is for Erikson, for various reasons. I also say that I clearly see Martin's qualities, it's just that those qualities don't move me, the characters leave me rather indifferent and the plot followed a well codified and honed pattern. Then I started to comment on the specific points that are usually used to attack Erikson, like characterization and deus ex machina.

There are facts and opinions, text analysis and preferences. I said that Erikson doesn't waste words. Why? Because that's the style of writing. The POVs switch quickly, Erikson never linger describing "slices of life", every page has a plot point or a massage to carry though. The pacing is unrelenting. In fact in some cases it feels rushed and this is a flaw.

If Martin moves the plot at 1x, Erikson moves it 10x at the very least. This isn't good or bad per se, but it's undeniable. Martin passes A LOT more time describing characters in what they do, describing their lives, expectations and so on. I don't think that Martin wastes words either. All I read in the first book was functional with what he was trying to do. I didn't see anything wrong or long winded, but it's undeniable that the pacing is slower.

Erikson has a particular style of dialogue with short exchanges, in general discussions are quickly resolved and there's little redundancy. His style of prose is rather dry. He doesn't write scenes that aren't essential in a way or another. He would rather not show than show too much.

Martin has a prose that flows much better. I understand why many say he's the better writer. Even Jordan would rank above Erikson if you liked a well flowing prose where you can lose yourself and keep turning pages. Erikson instead pretends you weigh what he says, expect you to put the book down and think a little. You read quickly and will likely miss certain aspects, because a lot is just implied.

So I say Erikson doesn't waste words. Dry prose, short dialogues, plot moving fast and certain parts that feel too rushed or not perfectly executed. You could CUT entire parts, tell the story differently, but within those pages you wouldn't find wasted words, you would just find words that you aren't interested to read. The same happens to me with Martin.

[kuenjato]

Storm of Swords isn't just a "fan favorite", it climaxes and (relatively) concludes the momentum built over the previous two books. I disagree with Abercrombie's statement, as far as opinions go -- despite its size, SoS is the fastest and most satisfying read of the series, probably due to its intensity.

As far as Erikson goes, I threw in the towel after book four and yet another annoying deus ex machina coupled with characters I found boring, redundant and two-dimensional (including Fiddler, Kalam and Felisin's sister). My biggest problem was probably the world-building, which comes off very mid-80's D&D and structurally suspect.

Gorm., it'll be interesting to see your reaction to the first 100 or so pages of Prince of Nothing. Bakker is "experimental" and can actually craft excellent prose.

[Errant Bard]

That characterization actually exists and is well done, but it just didn't get enough exposition.

plot moving fast

Wait, what?

What is your definition of characterization, if it's something that is not written? Are you the author to know what's not written and judge it? What plot moving fast? Do you even know what is the plot? Are you aware that the part of that Abercrombie quote about the narrative could apply to Malazan, squared or cubed? Seriously, the plot moving fast in Malazan? That just blows my mind, and I read seven book in that serie. Does anyone agree with Gormenghast here? I... just cannot comprehend the concept.

ETA: I kinda agree with Abercrombie though, with the widening of the world, when it comes to the surface story, Martin did lose the cohesiveness he had in aGoT and what I perceive as the main plot (the Others) did not move much while even the political scheming slowed because he wanted to show everything. Makes for great characterization and consistency, but it's far from streamlined, and he gets actually worse at focusing on a limited number of parts with AFFC. It could get better once PoV converge, after ADWD, though.

SPOILER: ASOS, hidden for Gormenghast

Robb and Cat dying, for example, is a minor part of the plot, it just caps off the "call to adventure" for the young heroes, removes the mentor figures and powerbase and casts them from the usual position of underdog that has to get back what's his. It's Frodo leaving the Shire/Rivendell, it's Rand leaving two Rivers, it's Cnaïur at Kiyuth, Otah leaving the poet school. Doing it in the third book is bloody late if the narrative is ever intended to go past setting and follow what they really do instead of what put them there. It does highlight, in my eyes, what made the series grow from trilogy to seven books (currently planned), and matches exactly what Abercrombie says. Having pyrotechnics in a book is not synonymous with having the actual plot move, see WoT or Malazan for reference.

[kungtotte]

This thread hasn't made much sense since Gormenghast entered it, no. The only way I can describe it is someone who picks up the square peg, is able to explain that it is indeed a square peg and contrast it to the shapes of the holes and still manages to try and shove the square peg into the round hole.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Martin passes a lot of time in the head of the characters. The story is told from their POV and the structure of the book is focused on that completely. In fact I wrote a while ago that Erikson's lack in characterization derives directly for a total absence of "slices of life". Nothing that isn't directly a plot point is being shown in the books (up to where I read). Example: Erikson shows nothing of the former life of Felisin, that would be indispensable to actually understand the evolution of the character. That characterization actually exists and is well done, but it just didn't get enough exposition.

Here you've crossed from generalization into being wrong. Felisin's life is shown in very small part during Paran's chapters in Unta during GotM, and hinted at throughout DG. Odd that you've chosen for your example one of the characters that critics generally agree is one of the most fully-fleshed. And besides, her life before being taken as a prisoner is not important to her character. She was a rich girl with an easy life - this much can be inferred from her station in life and her youth. With this, I actually agree with you, in some sense - Erikson doesn't have a sentence that says, "Felisin is a spoiled rich girl before she is taken prisoner," but we can infer that such is the case.

There are facts and opinions, text analysis and preferences. I said that Erikson doesn't waste words. Why? Because that's the style of writing. The POVs switch quickly, Erikson never linger describing "slices of life", every page has a plot point or a massage to carry though. The pacing is unrelenting. In fact in some cases it feels rushed and this is a flaw.

At this point your analysis fails because you have not read particularly far into the series. I won't comment on whether Erikson wastes words - most think so, although he writes so floridly because that is his style and he is trying to make a point - but the part about slices of life is wrong. Look at the beginning of Midnight Tides - hell, the whole book. Much of the time is spent in the heads of just a few characters, who are just essentially living their lives.

SPOILER: Midnight Tides plot big spoiler

Granted, Tehol is living with an Elder God and is actively trying to bring down the Lether Empire, and Trull is not only preparing for war but is also dealing with an increasingly insane younger brother and his random and violent control of his society.

So, not exactly everyday situations, but still them trying to live their lives from day-to-day. Not to mention some of the other characters, who actually are just living their lives in a relatively normal manner. Even more so we have TtH, which is almost nothing but slice-of-life for some characters and almost nothing but travelogues for others.

If Martin moves the plot at 1x, Erikson moves it 10x at the very least. This isn't good or bad per se, but it's undeniable. Martin passes A LOT more time describing characters in what they do, describing their lives, expectations and so on.

See above...

[Errant Bard]

See above...

There is a point to be made, though, that slice of life isn't necessarily synonymous with plot stagnation, the same way battles and other "action sequences" do not necessarily move the plot at all. Just look at the Malazan battles, how many would you say are moving the plot, and how many exist only because the author wants to show that about 90% of history is futility that has no point except for the participants (who prove to be irrelevant and die)?

[Humble Asskicker]

Perhaps it's just a personal quirk of mine, but I find it slightly bizarre and more than a little crazy to argue with someone who initially based his opinions not on the books themselves but on the opinions he read of the books.

It gets even weirder when the majority of the opinions found here directly conflict with what the guy has deduced, and he ignores that.

Gormenghast formed his opinion before proceeding with the books, and he is only reading the books to confirm that opinion. Regardless of what transpires in either series, Gormenghast will only view them in the light of his initial estimation.

He's like those kids you see who declare Shakespeare to be a hack without having read a single play by him. They think it sounds intelligently subversive when they talk out of their ass, I suppose.

I cannot believe I'm the only one here who sees how ridiculous it is for there to have been an extended, multi-page debate with someone who relied exclusively on the opinion of others to form his own.

[Zach H]

Seriously, the plot moving fast in Malazan? That just blows my mind, and I read seven book in that serie. Does anyone agree with Gormenghast here? I... just cannot comprehend the concept.

I agree with him if I'm understanding him correctly. Ice and Fire builds the narrative in a more precise, steady manner, thus allowing for what Gorm calls the "slice of life" type of storytelling. Thus in Game of Throne we get a healthy chunk of the book that actively shows Sansa and Arya living their rich girl's lives. Erikson, on the other hand, tends to ditch the careful buildups in favor of dumping his characters into an arc that is relatively self-contained per book. Thus we only catch a few glimpses of Felisin's comfortable rich girl's life before things take a turn for the worse and she's thrown into the trademark Malazan plot of being devoured by the machinations of war. Of course, those are just a couple of examples, and I'm not saying that Martin always does one thing while Erikson always does another, but from the four Ice and Fire and the five Malazan books I've read I think it's a fair statement to say that Erikson is a plot/theme mover, while Martin prefers to let the characters guide the story first and foremost.

Again, though, I'm a big fan of both. I agree that Martin-style "slice of life" writing does not equal a stagnating, boring, or by the numbers story, and I also agree that even though Erikson does not truly excel at deep characterization like Martin, his characters still feel a lot more authentic to me than those developed by many other writers of epic fantasy that I've read.

[Prince Who Was Promised]

Martin has a perfect execution, but he's also rather predictable, not so original and a use of characters that is comparable to Erikson's deux ex machina (meaning that, instead of plot-bending, Martin simply creates and places characters exactly where he needs them, and it feels all a bit too carefully placed and convenient, and without misdirection you can see too clearly where it all is going if you are a bit aware of this type of plotting. Hint: hollywood).

So...you call ASOIAF predictable after not even reading the whole first book...?

Ok, ok.

Tell me...what are the Others? How do you defeat them? Who is Jon's mother? Why is Bran having these dreams? Who's the Three Eyed Crow? WHAT is the Three Eyed Crow? Who/What/Where is Azor Ahai (but, you havn't read the later books...so I doubt you even KNOW the name Azor Ahai)? Based off of the characters being "predictable/unorigonal", who dies? Why does Cersi hate Tyrion?

Answer me these, and then maybe, MAYBE, you can call him predictable.

Martin creates characters that are ambiguous and well defined, but he leaves absolutely nothing to the reader. Nothing is open to interpretation.

That made me laugh. Hard. Nothing open to interpretation? So...I guess R + L = ?

Whether Tyrion is bad or not isn't open to interpretation?

Who the hell the Prince Who Was Promised is (no, not THIS Prince, the Prince in the series) isn't open to interpretation?

Whether Dany would be a good ruler isn't open to interpretation?

The nature of the seasons, the nature of the prophecy, the morals and intentions of the characters, "supernatural" events, Bran's dreams, the supernatural characters (Others/possibly Crow) and etc. arn't open to interpretation??

OK. If you say so... :rolleyes:

There's nothing that requires the reader to think and makes his own opinion because the writer has already planned with exact precision what the reader should think and feel.

Did you pull that outta your ass?

You can say shit when you READ the books.

The existence of the board directly contradicts what you're saying.

So, going with what you just said, there is abosolutely NO reason why there are so many dissagreement about the deaths of Ned and other-people-whoose-names-I-won't-say. What I mean is, when Ned dies, should we feel sorry because he was honorable and stuff, or should we say "he had it comin'" because he stood up to Cersi, called her out, fucked with the King's will (kinda), and was a bit TOO honorable?

I would use other examples, but seeing as you have not *cough cough* READ THE BOOKS *cough* (sorry, I have a...cold...), I won't. Read the books.

Take Tyrion as the most obvious example. He starts as ambiguous and arrogant. But then he also provokes pity due to his condition, then he is accused unjustly and becomes a victim, says only the truth in a world of lies. At every step Martin writes the character to draw very specific emotions. He know exactly the way you should feel at a specific point.

For me, the obvious example would be...oh wait...nevermind...haven't read the books....well...ummm....lets go with Tyrion, because he's a good example.

Tyrion, the "scheming dwarf", unloved by daddy, loved by whores, surrounded by intrigue, and very arrogant, a dreamer, and a thinker. I rather like Tyrion. He actually reminds me a bit of myself (sarcasm would just by one example, as you might have noticed). However, others HATE him. He draws emotions of pity, but also those of contempt.

One's veiw of him depends entirely on the interpretation of the reader. It's about what THEY think. So, while Martin does draw those certain emotions told the characters, the conclusion is left to the reader.

----------------

While I haven't read Erikson (and plan not to anytime soon), I can still say I'd rather read a series with characters you care about, and a plot that makes sense than something where it doesn't matter whether the characters die or not because they'll be back in a few books.

[kuenjato]

I cannot believe I'm the only one here who sees how ridiculous it is for there to have been an extended, multi-page debate with someone who relied exclusively on the opinion of others to form his own.

It's an amusing debate, I suppose. Certainly amusing to read, if nothing else.

That said, for the amount of time Gormanghast has spent arguing his points, he probably could have knocked out ACoK and part of SoS.