Book Five and Hindsight.

[Chirios]

George R. R. Martin: "Dragons are the nuclear deterrent, and only Dany has them, which in some ways makes her the most powerful person in the world. But is that sufficient? These are the kind of issues I'm trying to explore. The United States right now has the ability to destroy the world with our nuclear arsenal, but that doesn't mean we can achieve specific geopolitical goals.

Power is more subtle than that. You can have the power to destroy, but it doesn't give you the power to reform, or improve, or build."

"A well turned phrase means nothing." - Voltaire. And as for that quote by George, not to get too political but there is a significant difference between what America does and what his characters were trying to do in this book. The differences are so large that the analogy becomes meaningless.

You apparently don't care at all about anything other than the plot, fine, we all have different interests. I'm simply pointing out when you dismiss ADWD as "a bad book" because of its lack of plot movement,

Yeah, I never said that.

some of us disagree because we're interested in the difficult problems of power, leadership, and values that are in there. To deny that those themes even exist in the book is rather ridiculous

The themes are present, but they are poorly handled.

[The Lost Lord]

Look, you do it again… Essentially "ADWD is great and 'people' are too dumb to see it". But in the end, people actually are not that dumb and already know what you list.

I can't call the book complex and say I think people underrate it without hurting your feelings? When I first finished ADWD I was disappointed and pissed. After a reread I ended up loving it. Do you think I'm calling my July 2011 self a "dumb" "imbecile?" No, I'm saying there's a lot of stuff in the book that's not obvious on a first read or even a second read but that I've found incredibly interesting and rewarding. Maybe you have picked up on all this stuff and still hate the book, if so, then what I'm saying doesn't apply to you, so don't get mad about it.

It come triggered by a DEM letter on one hand

Let me say it again -- the Ramsay letter was a direct consequence of Jon's decision to send Mance to Winterfell. That's not a DEM! Jon chose to take the risk of secretly sending the wildling king to save his sister from the Lord of Winterfell. When he made that choice, there was a chance it could've gone well, and a chance it could've gone poorly. It went poorly and now he has to deal with the consequences. That's the opposite of a DEM.

and it is on the other hand exactly like when he deserted to join Robb and free Ned in AGOT, four books before. It's consistent with the character even in its early incarnations. What subtlety?

There's a huge difference, and that difference is power. When Jon was going to run off at the end of Book 1 he had no power to truly affect events. Nothing he did would really have made a difference to help Robb, as his friends argue.

But now things are different. Jon's plotline in ADWD is about him learning to use power -- it's about what he chooses to do with it, and what that power does to him. In the abstract it's easy to say he should single-mindedly adhere to his oath of non-interference. But when you have power, it is very difficult to restrain yourself from using it to get something you want. Jon wants to prepare the realm for the Others attack -- but he also wants Stannis to win the North, wants to save his sister, and would like it if Ramsay Bolton died a painful death. He devotes most of his time and energy toward the Others -- -- but when Alys Karstark shows up, pleading that her uncle is going to forcibly marry and rape her, he can't help himself. When Stannis outlines his dumbass plan to take the Dreadfort, he just can't help himself. When he is told to abandon 5,000 wildlings to die at Hardhome, he just can't help himself. When he's told there might kinda sorta be a way to save his sister from a life of constant rape and torture, and that he might be able to pull it off while still looking neutral, he can't help himself. When he finally has to face the prospect that Stannis has lost and a monster will rule the North, he can't help himself. Jon's not like Aemon, he's not a monk. He has power, he sees injustice or innocents in danger, and he wants to use his power to help them.

Then there's the darker side of what power does to Jon. He grows increasingly arrogant and insular, convinced of his own rightness and everyone else's stupidity. He grows increasingly comfortable with using violence and force to do what he thinks is right.

I should make his head a wedding gift for Lady Alys and her Magnar, Jon thought, but dare not take the risk. The Night’s Watch took no part in the quarrels of the realm; some would say he had already given Stannis too much help. Behead this fool, and they will claim I am killing northmen to give their lands to wildlings. Release him, and he will do his best to rip apart all I’ve done with Lady Alys and the Magnar.

"Make his head a wedding gift," dude sounds like Joffrey, can we imagine Book 1 Jon or even Book 3 Jon thinking such a thing?

Another change -- throughout the early part of the book Jon frequently thinks of his vows and of "the Watch takes no part," but as the book goes on he stops reflecting on these things and simply acts (see the passage above, he's not seriously questioning whether beheading Cregan would violate his vows, he's merely restraining himself because of what "some would say" and what "they will claim"). He is letting his vows fall by the wayside in favor of using his power to do what he thinks is right or just -- this is Jon having to choose between his values, and downplaying one in favor of another. Another sign of arrogance -- throughout ADWD he keeps himself in check by telling himself "You know nothing, Jon Snow." Then in the final chapter he tells himself, re: Selyse, "They know nothing, Ygritte, and never will." This is what I'm talking about with subtle character development. You might not like who Jon is becoming, but he certainly is changing, and it's coming in an organic way from his experience having and using power.

[RedBean]

I always liked Feast for Crows, probably because I actually liked the POV characters there. ADWD wasn't as interesting for me because I was only really interested in Tyrion's (somewhat disappointing) storyline, and Cersei's.That being said, I think both books were necessary, and I think people will be happy to have known of the background-setup events before Winds of Winter kicks in.

[Darth Rivers]

No, I don't think so. Crossroads of Twilight or Toll The Hound were never better liked after the next books were released and/or the series finished.

That's because they're simply shitty series. ASOIAF isn't shitty, it's only that people got pissed by the lack of earth shattering events in the two latest books. TWOW is going to feature 2 battles - Winterfell and Meereen - at the start, a new war in the south (Aegon's invasion) and the Others finally doing something. All thanks to what the past two books have done to set these events into motion.

IMO books that form parts of a huge series like ASOIAF shouldn't really be evaluated on their own. That's like making reviews of single chapters from one-book stories.

[Errant Bard]

There's a huge difference, and that difference is power. When Jon was going to run off at the end of Book 1 he had no power to truly affect events. Nothing he did would really have made a difference to help Robb, as his friends argue.

In short, only circumstances change, not Jon. Thanks for dynamiting your own argument.

Then there's the darker side of what power does to Jon. He grows increasingly arrogant and insular, convinced of his own rightness and everyone else's stupidity. He grows increasingly comfortable with using violence and force to do what he thinks is right.

"Make his head a wedding gift," dude sounds like Joffrey, can we imagine Book 1 Jon or even Book 3 Jon thinking such a thing?

The guy who sent Ghost on Tyrion for mocking him? Who saw everyone else as below him and almost got killed in his cell by his own comrades because of it before Noye gave him a talking to? Who screamed bloody murder when he was made a steward and needed all his friends reining him in? Yeah, I can.

That's because they're simply shitty series.

Yeah, no, even fans of these series hate those books, the quality difference is between installments, not from series to series, and it definitely doesn't diminish the dislike to have the series they're part of finished.

[The Lost Lord]

In short, only circumstances change, not Jon. Thanks for dynamiting your own argument… The guy who sent Ghost on Tyrion for mocking him? Who saw everyone else as below him and almost got killed in his cell by his own comrades because of it before Noye gave him a talking to? Who screamed bloody murder when he was made a steward and needed all his friends reining him in? Yeah, I can.

Are you referring to how I dynamited your argument that the Ramsay letter was a DEM? No? Well, yes Jon experienced a somewhat similar dilemma in the first book and had a somewhat similar impulse then. But he's previously always managed to restrain those impulses -- by being held back by his friends, or by his own choices (end of ASOS). He was arrogant in AGOT, but that trait has been submerged in Books 2-3. He made a serious effort to commit himself fully to the Watch. But by the end of ADWD he's got a taste of power and realized he doesn't want to restrain his impulses anymore, and he doesn't have anyone to hold him back from his arrogance anymore.

"Character development" is not "the sudden appearance of a trait that's never ever previously been evidenced by the character." We are all complicated and contradictory mixtures of personality traits, desires, impulses, etc. The question is, which of these traits will end up being most important in our day-to-day actions? What side of ourselves will we be dominated by? This is the story Martin has said he's interested in telling, "the human heart in conflict with itself."

You can't tell me that there's no "character development" and no difference between Jon getting mad at Tyrion once back in Book 1, and Jon anointing himself the leader of a wildling army so he can go kick Ramsay's ass in Book 5. One is a brief flash of temper, the other is a massive, epochal choice to assert himself in Northern politics and abandon the Wall from which there's no going back. This is development! This is change! Yet you assert:

Now if he had decided to abandon "Arya" without a talking to from friends or colleagues (like was the case for Robb and Ned) or had decided to compromise with his Watch and not try to save everyone at the risk of killing everyone, that would have been change.

In effect, you're saying that it's only character development if Jon goes in the direction you want. This is, frankly, silly. Jon has always had both sides to him -- the side of him that wants to commit to the Watch, and the side that drives him to want other things. If he decides to fully commit to the Watch, that is change. If he decides to ditch the Watch in favor of marching south with a wildling army to depose the Lord of Winterfell, that is also change.

[Errant Bard]

Are you referring to how I dynamited your argument that the Ramsay letter was a DEM?

The letter was a DEM, your argument relied on basically saying "No it's not" in italic, and recapping why Ramsay could be pissed, and wasn't worthy of discussing... and I don't see the relevance to what you're responding to.

In effect, you're saying that it's only character development if Jon goes in the direction you want. This is, frankly, silly.

Yes, it is silly and it's not what I said, you came up with that yourself, probably because what you argue is a reflection of what you want, I guess. (you don't like that argument? Then think about it and consider not using it against those you disagree with.)

What I said is that ditching the Watch is not change, he's done it before, for the same reasons, and only the circumstances changed (for one thing, this time it's not friends who stopped him but knives). You said it yourself, the difference is power, that is, an external attribute, but the decisions he makes stay consistently similar.

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

The letter was a DEM, your argument relied on basically saying "No it's not" in italic, and recapping why Ramsay could be pissed, and wasn't worthy of discussing... and I don't see the relevance to what you're responding to.

Are you thinking of another poster as far as the "no it's not" is concerned? The Lost Lord clearly described how the whole deal with the letter is pure cause and effect, not something that came out of the blue. Might have been too subtle for you, and that's certainly a valid opinion. Personally, though, I thought "uh-oh, how will this work out then" when it became clear that Jon had agreed to Mel's proposal, and "oh, that's how" when the letter arrived (I didn't question that Ramsay might not have written the letter, and I still think he's the most likely candidate).

What I said is that ditching the Watch is not change, he's done it before, for the same reasons, and only the circumstances changed (for one thing, this time it's not friends who stopped him but knives). You said it yourself, the difference is power, that is, an external attribute, but the decisions he makes stay consistently similar.

Oh, come now. Does character development really have to come in leaps and bounds for it to be valid? Again, you might think it's too subtle (or non-existent) but it worked for me. I like the slightly increasing arrogance, him itching more and more to do something, and the way he wanted, and started, to take advantage of his power (for relatively altruistic, and highly personal, matters alike).

[The Lost Lord]

The letter was a DEM, your argument relied on basically saying "No it's not" in italic, and recapping why Ramsay could be pissed, and wasn't worthy of discussing...

When a character makes a choice, and is later presented with the consequences of that choice, that's not DEM. Jon made the affirmative choice to send Mance in a highly provocative action that is absolutely not what the Lord Commander should be involved with. He took that risk, hoped he could get away with it, but it blew up in his face in an entirely foreseeable way. So where's the DEM?

What I said is that ditching the Watch is not change, he's done it before, for the same reasons, and only the circumstances changed (for one thing, this time it's not friends who stopped him but knives). You said it yourself, the difference is power, that is, an external attribute, but the decisions he makes stay consistently similar.

It's very strange how you erase from history that Jon chose to take his friends' advice at the end of AGOT and that he chose to reject Stannis' offer at the end of ASOS. For some reason you don't think those count as choices by Jon. To you, only Jon's brief impulse at the end of AGOT to leave counts as a choice. Therefore you say Jon's decisions "stay consistently similar," somehow ignoring three books' worth of decisions where Jon chose to commit to the Watch and stick with it. Weird interpretation.

You overrate the importance of his friends' intervention -- when they confronted him in AGOT, Jon still had the choice to accept or reject their advice. He accepted it. If Samwell and Grenn had been in the Shieldhall at the end of ADWD, it seems clear to me that the person who Jon has become would have rejected their advice and forged ahead with his course regardless. This is change!

I also don't think that Jon has been "stopped" from abandoning the Watch by being stabbed. He made a choice from which there's no going back from. After he's revived, he will be headed toward the wildlings and/or Northern politics. Again, this is development. This is change.

[skins7778]

For me Dance has improved, immediately following the first read I'll admit i was banging the outrage drum, but I have softened on it. On first read I think I wanted movement of the plot in Essos, and Dany posed to be leaving for Westeros by the conclusion of the book. Prior to the release the holdup was due to GRR's "Meerenese Knot", I assumed wrongly that this referred to sorting out how all the characters would come together in Mereen with Dany to figure out how to proceed to Westeros. That didnt happen, that being said the Essos chapters became a travelogue of characters out of whom I really enjoyed Tyrion and Griff, and Victarion on my rereads. That being said Danys Mereen chapters were awful, and did nothing for me and the worst part is there was no movement for her to go to Westeros at all. The problem moving forward is Ill find it hard to believe she will just abandon Mereen now that shes spent so much time there, does anyone believe she'll just actually pick up stakes and leave?

[BoldAsYouPlease]

With the fifth installment of A Song of Ice and Fire having been out for nearly a year now, I've had plenty of time to read and re-read the book, as have many others. Still I'm surprised by how divisive the book has been in terms of reader reviews and opinions (the book is actually rated worse than A Feast for Crows on Amazon). My question is this: do you think that fans' opinions of book five - and four, I suppose, since they're essentially two parts of the same novel - will be more positive once The Winds of Winter is released or when the series is finished?

No. No matter how TWoW turns out, ADwD was released as a separate novel and must be judged on it's own merits. In "The Lord Of The Rings", the second volume ("The Two Towers") could make an even better case for being a transitional work rather than a stand-alone novel, but quite frankly it was more coherent and more satisfying as a stand-alone work than either AFfC or ADwD.

ADwD is definitely a better book than a AFfC. It's a mix of good and bad, with the Westeros chapters of Reek, Jon, Davos, Asha and the all-too-brief glimpse of Bran being the good. The Reek chapters are among the best writing Martin has done in this series, with some horrifying, fascinating and quite moving scenes.

The Essos chapters exhibited a meandering writing style, an enormous number of words lavished on trivia (food, Dany's mannerisms and affectations, Selmy's bottomless introspection) and a lack of purpose that to me indicates an author struggling to overcome writer's-block and meet a word-count, and uncertain over how to get his characters where he needs them to be.

That said, I still find the book worth re-reading, but I usually skip the Essos chapters.

[skins7778]

No. No matter how TWoW turns out, ADwD was released as a separate novel and must be judged on it's own merits. In "The Lord Of The Rings", the second volume ("The Two Towers") could make an even better case for being a transitional work rather than a stand-alone novel, but quite frankly it was more coherent and more satisfying as a stand-alone work than either AFfC or ADwD.

ADwD is definitely a better book than a AFfC. It's a mix of good and bad, with the Westeros chapters of Reek, Jon, Davos, Asha and the all-too-brief glimpse of Bran being the good. The Reek chapters are among the best writing Martin has done in this series, with some horrifying, fascinating and quite moving scenes.

The Essos chapters exhibited a meandering writing style, an enormous number of words lavished on trivia (food, Dany's mannerisms and affectations, Selmy's bottomless introspection) and a lack of purpose that to me indicates an author struggling to overcome writer's-block and meet a word-count, and uncertain over how to get his characters where he needs them to be.

That said, I still find the book worth re-reading, but I usually skip the Essos chapters.

I agree completely on the Dany part, but you didnt like any of Victarion? I enjoyed him and Tyrion prior to meeting Jorah, i loved the river trip with Griff and Aegon. Yhe rest of his story along with Quentyn was useless like Danys, and what happened to Marwyn?

[Brucolac]

Marwyn leaves at the very end of feast and doesn't even have a sure route when he decides to go to Dany, unlike Tyrion who leaves at the beginning and Victarion who leaves somewhere in the middle but has his own ship. He would be pretty far behind their arrivals.

[BoldAsYouPlease]

I agree completely on the Dany part, but you didnt like any of Victarion? I enjoyed him and Tyrion prior to meeting Jorah, i loved the river trip with Griff and Aegon. Yhe rest of his story along with Quentyn was useless like Danys, and what happened to Marwyn?

I did enjoy the Victarion chapters, but there were so few (two, I think?). I also found the Tyrion chapters with Griff and Young Griff interesting and enjoyed the speculation they open up about Young Griff and Lemore.

The retcon of the two dwarves from Joffrey's wedding into Penny and her brother was both pointless and weird - when we last saw them in ASoS, one was pretending (hopefully) to bugger the other. Penny is cloyingly sweet and completely unnecessary as far as I can see. Again, the Penny character struck me as the product of a blocked author cudgeling his brain for an idea, any idea at all.

[skins7778]

Marwyn leaves at the very end of feast and doesn't even have a sure route when he decides to go to Dany, unlike Tyrion who leaves at the beginning and Victarion who leaves somewhere in the middle but has his own ship. He would be pretty far behind their arrivals.

Thats kind of what I figured but I still would have liked to see him because he seems so interesting.

Penny is awful, sweet character who most likely will die horribly for it, but completley pointless to the story.

Most people Ive spoken with and the posts I see that dont like the Essos stuff mainly comes down to the fact that noone cares about Essos/Mereen. I dont care about these oddly dressed dog and bug eating morons Hizdar Mo Krazz Shavepate or his buddy Harpy Green Grace the Wise Master, I care about Westeros.

[Harrad]

That is what he did, it got him stabbed. I don't think you understand what being a leader entails: it entails people following your lead, and they only follow you so far when their only motivation is respect of hierarchy.

Ridiculous. How many US presidents have been assassinated, not to mention other world leaders...Indira Gandhi and Yithak Rabin come to mind. Is is because they did not add to the motivation of their assassins besides respect of hierarchy? No. Its because the world is full of nutcases and others who do not respect the results of elections-- they try to nullify them or at worst violently remove the winners. The US, not-even-arguably the best representative democracy in world history, is particularly afflicted by these issues. That's why they have the Secret Service. And they are far from infallible. Jon was somewhat less protected...and thought himself safer than he should. The Starks suffer from that, usually fatally.

[Caligula_K2]

I'm rereading ADWD now for the first time, and what strikes me (only 250 pages in) is how much of this book should have been cut, especially in the Essos sections (though occasionally this happens in the North chapters as well). Davos' second chapter provides an example: He starts the chapter by arriving at White Harbour, wanders around, recaps events mentally that he's already recapped/experienced in Davos I, goes and talks to people who report things we already know and have heard many times this book (such as that Tywin is dead), and then goes to see Lord Manderly. There's no reason this chapter has to exist- it doesn't add to Davos' characterization, we don't learn anything new. It could have been summarized in one page at the beginning of Davos III or at the end of Davos I. And the fact that Davos III and IV are very good chapters doesn't justify Davos II's existence. Similarly, we have Tyrion IV, in which he thinks about how much he wants to fuck Septa Lemara, watches for sea turtles, and plays cyvasse with the Halfmaester (learning Young Griff's secret as a result, though it is not revealed to the audience yet). Only the latter is relevant to Tyrion and the plot, and could have easily been put in another chapter.

I have to agree with BoldAsYouPlease that in many cases this is Martin not having any idea where to go with the story and so just writing anything. The contrast with the pacing in Bran's chapters, for example, is extremely jarring. Bran II precedes Tyrion IV- in it, Bran quickly recaps the past twelve days of traveling, we learn a bit more about Coldhands, the wights attack our travelers, Bran meets a child of the forest (!!!) and finally encounters the three eyed crow. It's a real pity, because there's so much like this that's great in this book- Bran's and Reek's and Asha's and most of Davos' and Jon's chapters, some of the early Tyrion chapters. What could have been a fantastic book is weighed down by so much fluff and meandering and becomes only a good, but pretty average, book. I'll see if further rereading changes my opinion, but I kind of doubt it- if anything, this reread has lowered my opinion of the things I didn't like in my first read.

Which brings me to this thread's question. Is all this fluff and meandering justified as "set up" and will it retroactively become great if The Winds of Winter is awesome? Hell no. I think about it this way: Game of Thrones had tons to set up. Martin had to set up all of his characters and get them all over the map to set up the War of the Five Kings, Robert's death and Ned's downfall (not to mention Dany's storyline and the reasons for Jon's journey north of the Wall). Yet he did all this concisely. Each chapter provides information about the POV characters and secondary characters who are important, moves the plot forward and builds up the setting. And despite the need to set up everything and for characters to move around, a lot happens. And characters get to where they need to go without meandering.

In the space of one book, Tyrion travels from King's Landing to Winterfell, from Winterfell to the Wall, from the Wall to the Riverlands, from the Riverlands to the Eyrie, and from the Eyrie back to the Riverlands. After this, he is sent to King's Landing, to which he arrives in the first chapter of the next book. This doesn't mean that I think Martin needs to always be this concise- a travellogue can help develop characters (as it does for Jaime in ASoS) and show us different aspects of the plot/world we wouldn't see otherwise (Arya in ACoK and ASoS, though Martin could definitely have cut some stuff here). But if a character is meandering just so that we can read about sea turtles and find out how horny he is... That's not set up. It's just pointless. And won't be validated when something awesome does happen in Tyrion's storyline. So if A Game of Thrones could pay off all that set up... Why can't A Feast For Crows and A Dance With Dragons together?

The more I read of epic fantasy, the more I think that the idea of a setup book is bullshit. Two setup books is even worse. There's no real reason why Tyrion couldn't have gotten to Meereen halfway through this book, why Victarion and Marwyn are still traveling there, and why we need so many POVs to eat up so much page space (Quentyn, hello). There's no reason why the battles for Winterfell and Meereen and Cersei's trial couldn't have happened by the end of AFFC/ADWD. AFFC and ADWD are good books, overall, but The Winds of Winter (and whatever comes after that) can't save the self indulgence and meandering which characterizes way too much of both of them.

[Harrad]

The more I read of epic fantasy, the more I think that the idea of a setup book is bullshit. Two setup books is even worse. There's no real reason why Tyrion couldn't have gotten to Meereen halfway through this book, why Victarion and Marwyn are still traveling there, and why we need so many POVs to eat up so much page space (Quentyn, hello). There's no reason why the battles for Winterfell and Meereen and Cersei's trial couldn't have happened by the end of AFFC/ADWD. AFFC and ADWD are good books, overall, but The Winds of Winter (and whatever comes after that) can't save the self indulgence and meandering which characterizes way too much of both of them.

I agree. There are lots of room for compression in HBO based upon these principles. Maybe instead they will lay out the important issues using sufficient time instead of rushing all the pointless backs and forths. If people argue that this proliferation of words is needed for character development--think of the acknowledged literary masterpieces who could do it without using 10s of thousands of pages. War and Peace was long, but not this long.

[NickSnow]

First, as someone who came to the books after watching season 1, I read all five books back to back, and I have to say that Dance with Dragons was a lot better for me than a lot of people on here say. I think it has to do with expectations. After six (!) years of waiting, I can imagine the dissapointement in the fifth book for long time fans. But for me, it just felt like a continuation of the story. I loved it. We have to remember that while the fourth and fifth book are maybe lower quality than the first three, (although for me I liked DwD more than CoK), they are still VASTLY superiour to most other books. The characters and themes present here are so real and complex. My breath is taken away with every chapter of this series, even is a (supposed) boring chapter.

Second, we have to remember that books four and five were not originally suppossed to written. He planned to skip them entirely when he first stated the series. But imagine how bad WoW would have been if we had 400 pages of flashbacks of people remembering events that happened in FFC and DWD. IT would have been horrible. That being said, I think we have had enough travelogue and character development now and we need to start moving again. WoW needs to have a much faster pace than the last two. I am expecting SoS level action in the next two books, and Ill be dissapointed if its as slow as FFC and DWD were. Knowing that all the characters are in the positions GRRM wanted them to be at the start of WoW, I am sure he will deliver.

[Chirios]

That's because they're simply shitty series.

Not to derail the thread, but seriously? I can get Erikson's series wouldn't be for everyone but I wouldn't call it shitty.

ASOIAF isn't shitty, it's only that people got pissed by the lack of earth shattering events in the two latest books.

No. It. Isn't.

IMO books that form parts of a huge series like ASOIAF shouldn't really be evaluated on their own. That's like making reviews of single chapters from one-book stories.

Yeah they should. Especially when we're talking about books like Dance and AFFC which are over two thousand pages long hardback. It's less like reviewing a chapter than it is reviewing an episode of a tv series.