[ADwD Spoilers] A bitch to write – a bitch to read?

[Ran]

How in the world would all the plot complications in AFfC have not existed if Cersei didn't go on her power-trip? What does Cersei's story have to do with Samwell's, or Arya's, or Brienne's? How is Jaime's effort to sort out the riverlands hampered by what Cersei's doing? That makes no sense.

OTOH, I know for a fact that there are people who argue that all the problems of AGoT wouldn't have happened if Ned hadn't been a complete idiot. And, well, yes. But (BUT?) that's why things are more complicated than what any rule (even from a great critic, like Ebert) can really deal with and still remain pithy and quotable.

And...

"MULTITUDES OF WORLDS HAS GALACTUS DEVOURED. YOU WILL NOT STOP ME, NORIN RADD."

Can we drop the all-caps-eyesores, please? Outside of comics, or at least in forum conversations, it genuinely does nothing good for the legibility or intelligibility of what anyone's trying to say. If you're using the rich text editor, you can highlight and use the bold or italics buttons, or just insert them manually.

[Røyksopp]

Rockroi's got this by the ass, man!

Seriously, no... I would've much rather had a resolution to the arc, as in, the battle at Meereen and Winterfell, or at least one of them, than that goddamn letter. The book should've been 'sweated' a lot more in select chapters so things could resolve or, I dunno -- happen.

[banditry]

just because SOME people think a certain way does not make that opinion the norm (or, it should be added, valid)....

....when learned people continually state the same issues and well-thought of readers (who, one would expect would be predisposed TO LIKE the books) continue to explain those criticisms its not simply a random collection of complaints: it takes on the stark odor of “evidence.” And that evidence is telling; you ignore it at your peril.

oh, the hubris!! Hilarious.

I consider myself fairly well-learned. I have a BA in English; have written professionally. I suspect that the writers who expressed nothing but overwhelming superlatives over ADWD in major publication reviews are generally well-read as well.

Too many folks here making the mistake of equating their personal disappointment with a book with the book being faulty in some way. Your totally subjective opinion has been noted. A shame you didn't like it. Others - including those, shockingly enough, who are at least somewhat intelligent and "learned" - have the opposite viewpoint.

So ADWD has received near universal critical acclaim, has reached new sales heights for GRRM, and has been widely acclaimed by fans (although many fans also note certain disappointment). I'm sure GRRM can live with that. Based on his blog posting, he seems to be fairly satisfied with the result.

Whatever ADWD was, or did... whatever direction it went... some people would bitch. That's just the nature of the beast.

[Aegonmyface]

The fraction thing is kind of dorky. I love it.

Reek, it rhymes with Geek. You've got to know your name!

[Vympel]

Whilst I'm thoroughly enjoying the book (I don't groan at any certain POV chapters, but I do love the Reek/Theon chapters most of all, they're just wonderful) I do have a problem with the repetition.

My chief offender, and I'm surprised its not mentioned more:- "where do whores go".

Seriously, every damn Tyrion chapter. I'm so damn tired of it.

[L’Age d’or]

oh, the hubris!! Hilarious.

I consider myself fairly well-learned. I have a BA in English; have written professionally. I suspect that the writers who expressed nothing but overwhelming superlatives over ADWD in major publication reviews are generally well-read as well.

Too many folks here making the mistake of equating their personal disappointment with a book with the book being faulty in some way. Your totally subjective opinion has been noted. A shame you didn't like it. Others - including those, shockingly enough, who are at least somewhat intelligent and "learned" - have the opposite viewpoint.

So ADWD has received near universal critical acclaim, has reached new sales heights for GRRM, and has been widely acclaimed by fans (although many fans also note certain disappointment). I'm sure GRRM can live with that. Based on his blog posting, he seems to be fairly satisfied with the result.

Whatever ADWD was, or did... whatever direction it went... some people would bitch. That's just the nature of the beast.

AWOT, one of my personal favorite fantasy series has a few books in between that are absolutely sub-par and weak and dont offer much to the reader but I can assure you they have their own share of positive reviews received from major publications.

[L’Age d’or]

TBH,

The dates I think relate to when people first logged their plan to read the book, and then must have updated with ratings/reviews after the book was published. As to 5-stars-with-criticism, if that's how they feel, well, that's how they feel.

Thats true, but one can not give that rating much merit. Don't you agree?

[Ran]

I suppose just the same as one can't give much weight to 1-2 star reviews that talk about how they'd rate it higher but they're angry that it took 6 years and so that's the rating?

Rather than try and play the game of cherrypicking the GoodReads ratings we like or don't like, why not just accept them as a very large sample -- approaching 3,000 -- and that outliers like the weird 5's and weird 1's are just a bit of noise that don't really detract from the overall proportions?

[TheReader]

I consider myself fairly well-learned. I have a BA in English; have written professionally. I suspect that the writers who expressed nothing but overwhelming superlatives over ADWD in major publication reviews are generally well-read as well.

Not clear to me how this isn't the truly hubristic position in these debates, man. I have a PhD in English and teach it at the university level, have published two scholarly books and am working on my third this summer, and etc, and I am in the definitely disappointed camp. Yes, that's my subjective opinion, as I'm well aware. But all of the hubris I've encountered has been from the folks here saying "if you don't like it, don't read it" and/or "if you don't like it you just don't get Martin's style/the point" and the like. Not buying.

[L’Age d’or]

I suppose just the same as one can't give much weight to 1-2 star reviews that talk about how they'd rate it higher but they're angry that it took 6 years and so that's the rating?

Rather than try and play the game of cherrypicking the GoodReads ratings we like or don't like, why not just accept them as a very large sample -- approaching 3,000 -- and that outliers like the weird 5's and weird 1's are just a bit of noise that don't really detract from the overall proportions?

Exactly! Hell I rate ADWD 3.5/5

[banditry]

Not clear to me how this isn't the truly hubristic position in these debates, man. I have a PhD in English and teach it at the university level, have published two scholarly books and am working on my third this summer, and etc, and I am in the definitely disappointed camp. Yes, that's my subjective opinion, as I'm well aware. But all of the hubris I've encountered has been from the folks here saying "if you don't like it, don't read it" and/or "if you don't like it you just don't get Martin's style/the point" and the like. Not buying.

If you scroll through and read carefully, you may note the quote to which I was responding. Here it is again if you missed it:

just because SOME people think a certain way does not make that opinion the norm (or, it should be added, valid)....

....when learned people continually state the same issues and well-thought of readers (who, one would expect would be predisposed TO LIKE the books) continue to explain those criticisms its not simply a random collection of complaints: it takes on the stark odor of “evidence.” And that evidence is telling; you ignore it at your peril.

2 key points in this:

1 - not all opinions are valid / some opinions hold more value than others

2 - a collection of well-read individuals who hold serious criticisms of the book is sufficient "evidence"... Evidence of what exactly, it's not clear. Presumably that ADWD is a deeply flawed book. No mention of any "evidence" provided by the multitude of well-read individuals who rate the book highly; no mention of the glowing professional reviews.

So yeah... hubris.

Unlike others, I'm not claiming my opinion is more or less valid than anyone else, which - given your exalted level of education - you should have realized. The point is to rebut the notion that cumulative opinion of the truly "learned" is that the book is deeply flawed. That's simply not the case. Opinion is split.

[TheReader]

Unlike others, I'm not claiming my opinion is more or less valid than anyone else, which - given your exalted level of education - you should have realized. The point is to rebut the notion that cumulative opinion of the truly "learned" is that the book is deeply flawed. That's simply not the case. Opinion is split.

Fair enough, and I apologize for not focusing on that prior quote in my response to yours. I certainly think that split opinions are always likely to some extent, and don't presume to judge among the different readers and perspectives in any sense.

But I would also push back a bit on the final point from your prior post, about how there'd just always be some bitching. Maybe, but I think we need to be clear here: this book, like AFFC, is by every measure I can think of (and I've been part of discussions like this from at least ACOK on other sites and in other arenas), much more divisive than the first three were. And that, to me, says that it is at least less clearly a masterpiece than they were, more of a mixed bag in the responses it produces. Fair to say?

[banditry]

But I would also push back a bit on the final point from your prior post, about how there'd just always be some bitching. Maybe, but I think we need to be clear here: this book, like AFFC, is by every measure I can think of (and I've been part of discussions like this from at least ACOK on other sites and in other arenas), much more divisive than the first three were. And that, to me, says that it is at least less clearly a masterpiece than they were, more of a mixed bag in the responses it produces. Fair to say?

I will agree that it is more divisive; no question.

That said, some of the most widely respected works of art have been divisive. Dylan plugging in his guitar was divisive ;)

We're in the midst of an incredible series - otherwise nobody would care about how good ADWD is and get so passionate about it. When it's all said and done, I think we'll have a clearer picture of the relative worth of each volume.

I think much of this angst would have been avoided if there were more complete resolutions at the end rather than the multiple cliffhangers. Time will tell... we'll all be back here arguing about the next one, no doubt.

[Grell]

Exactly - Opinion is split.

Was opinion split over ASOS? I wasnt active in this forum back when it was released but I would be very suprised if there was such a split in opinion as there is with ADWD. The obvious reason is because ADWD is lacking.

The point is to rebut the notion that cumulative opinion of the truly "learned" is that the book is deeply flawed. That's simply not the case. Opinion is split.

[banditry]

oops double post

[Toe]

One possible explanation for the difference between "professional" and "fan" opinion may be that many fans will have read the earlier books recently. They will compare ADWD with the earlier books and many seem to find ADWD not as good.

"Professionals" read many books and sometimes not out of free will. They will read a lot of crap. Compared to most of what they read ADWD is an exceptional book.

[Raksha the Demon]

I'm not sure why anyone should object to the voicing of criticism and/or praise for the book, unless there is flaming involved. As far as statistics on how many readers found ADWD to be less satisfying than the first book, I doubt there's a scientifically accurate way of measuring them at this time. Maybe, if one wants to spend the time, wait a year and then count ratings on Goodreads, Librarything, and Amazon?

While ADWD was largely readable, and quite intense in spots, it certainly did not hold my attention with much constancy; and I found the book the weakest of the five. ADWD is still better-written than most of the fantasy out there. I may be in the minority in that I do not consider ASoIaF to be GRRM's finest work.

I really don't care if the literary critics of various magazines and newspapers and other entities like or love or dislike ADWD; they don't influence my opinion of the book. Also, I suspect that at least some of the critics evaluate the book with different criteria, or at least a different hierarchy of priorities, than I do.

[Rockroi]

Exactly - Opinion is split.

Was opinion split over ASOS? I wasnt active in this forum back when it was released but I would be very suprised if there was such a split in opinion as there is with ADWD. The obvious reason is because ADWD is lacking.

Obviously, I agree with what this poster stated.

And in here lies the rub, oh ye English major, professional writer (and this person is lecturing me on Hubris... amazing that that actually happened, but it did). Nobody complained about much of anything in the first three books. Sure, Dany was not in CoK; there was too much Cat in SoS, etc. But the reality was those books were so amazing that any criticisms were minor bumps in a great road. But now? The criticism is rolling; its specific and its detailed (ie: its not some 9th grader saying "I wanted me more Splosions!). Its reasoned, logical criticism that appears to be generally uniform (not all of it, criticism police; yes, I know you THINK that if the book had been written in 2 years instead of 6 [Dare. To. Dream] people would have loved it, but my "Hypothetical Time Machine" was busted this week, so I guess we'll never know). But that criticism is not random and ill-defined, but has all the semblance of ... justified and legitimate criticism. Hence, why I used the terms "learned"; ie: not ignorant babbling of the ill-informed. Sorry that threw you.

This is why when people express this criticism and say, "The Tyrion chapters provided no story advancement, appeared to be filler and I was very bored with them WHILE I was reading and very disappointing AFTER I was reading," at least one person answered by saying, "Well, SOME people LOVED Tyrion's Chapters! Thus, YOU NOT LIKING THEM does not matter!?!?!" No, it does matter. Its not simply a "Well, I guess we all agree to disagree." No. It's, "Hey, why do certain people love these chapters and why do others dislike them?" Its not like one or two isolated cases of people clearly playing the Contrarian (which people do endlessly).This was what I meant by an intellectually barren argument (complete with the totally condescending "*shrugs" afterwards); it equates and attempts to mollify criticism by saying "Well, other people (who knows the number; who knows the level of critical thinking involved, etc- just a blanket statement about an amorphous "others" who liked something that many people thought was ... really bad...) liked something so, no need to have a discussion about the criticisms- I'll just say "others" liked it and we're done here. And then my compatriuot will point to some message board where some people rate ADwD high or higher than we think and BAM! ITs clear that ADwD was great!"

That's not a discussion; its not an argument and it certainly is not a debate on the issue at hand, namely whether the Tyrion chapters were lacking. Instead, its a ham-handed desire to re-frame the debate and let it "die on the vine" instead of promoting actual discussion.

Because, that's what we do here: we discuss what we liked and what we did not like about these books and how they make us think and react.

Hubris it ain't.

[Pandabearparade]

Here is an example of how to very poorly argue your point of view:

I consider myself fairly well-learned. I have a BA in English; have written professionally. I suspect that the writers who expressed nothing but overwhelming superlatives over ADWD in major publication reviews are generally well-read as well.

Oh yeah? Well I'm a former US president (not Bush, one of the good ones), astronaut, and the foremost expert on panda bear breeding. See? Arguments from authority aren't very impressive, especially over the internet where your authority is something we just have to take your word for.

Too many folks here making the mistake of equating their personal disappointment with a book with the book being faulty in some way. Your totally subjective opinion has been noted. A shame you didn't like it. Others - including those, shockingly enough, who are at least somewhat intelligent and "learned" - have the opposite viewpoint.

Argument from authority again. "Smarter people than you loved the book!", great, why? Give their smart arguments, not just the fact that they did. I've seen some really well-reasoned critiques of the book; dismissing criticism altogether is just moronic. No book is perfect, and you considering it a holy text to be revered is just ridiculous.

Whatever ADWD was, or did... whatever direction it went... some people would bitch. That's just the nature of the beast.

That could be used as a defense for literally anything, be it Citizen Kane or Star Wars Episode I.

Regarding the original post, I found A Dance With Dragons to be a mixed bag. I thoroughly enjoyed the Theon, Jon, Arya, and Asha chapters. The thing that dragged the book down from great to merely 'okay' to me was the poor pacing that was largely present in the Tyrion and Dany chapters. The entire book just had Tyrion waddling around pointlessly, doing nothing of interest. Dany just did a complete character shift and went from a strong, intelligent woman to a moron in a blink.

Quentyn should have just been cut entirely as a point-of-view. Seeing him travelling to her was redundant, uninteresting, and pointless. He could have just as easily been introduced from Dany's POV. It isn't as though the time spent with him was sufficient to make it resonate at all emotionally when he died. Quentyn wasn't a very memorable or likable character, and it was pretty obvious his stupid plan wasn't going to work.

The worst part of the book was the cliffhangers. Almost every major character had one, and that's just poor form considering the long spans of time from book to book.

[Aegonmyface]

I've been giggling about the "I have 15 PHDs in English and invented the Mad-Lib, ergo my opinions count the mostest" arguments here for awhile now.

To be fair, I think I've seen it done by both elephants and tigers, though I shall not put in the effort to establish that observation.