The use of the term 'Nuncle' bothers me

[msheafer33]

"You are not wrong" and "You are right" do not necessarily mean the same thing.

They do when they mean anything at all. If it is a commentary on a meaningless statement (which is neither right nor wrong), then GRRM should leave out the meaningless statement as well.

The whore references I'll give you, but the bit about Littlefinger is unfair. All those "useless family details" were important to add depth and realism and are a part of LF's character. He loves the sound of his own voice and loves feeling that he is more intelligent than everyone else in the room.

He sure does! But by this time, I already knew full well that LF was full of himself. But you are merely proving that no matter what GRRM writes you will justify it, because everything is its own justification.

You cannot write a story of this scope and scale, and finish it, without making hard choices. You cannot leave in everything imaginable, for every justification imaginable. There is simply no excuse for spending 2 pages on LF's little speech.

If it had been Stannis, for instance, then it probably would have been described in a couple of sentences.

I'm sure if I looked, I could find inefficient writing of Stannis too.

The same is true for his "prophesy is treacherous" story. LF is a mouthy little arsehole. It's not bad writing, it's part of the character.

Sorry. Wrong character. The "prophesy is treacherous" story does not come from LF. I guess its just GRRM, then.

[msheafer33]

I think you've got a disconnect there, if you're talking about J.R.R "Could happily spend half a chapter talking about a forest" Tolkein as a shining example of brevity in writing.

Tolkein loved doing the sort of thing you complained about above, the spending pages on "useless family details", because he liked to give the impression that Middle Earth is a world of it's own, it's a world with history, a world that has been lived in and a world that, as best I can describe it, would carry on with or without the protagonists.

Tolkien managed to include alot of details, and still finish his story BECAUSE he wrote efficiently. If you cannot see the difference, then you are just not seeing.

Please provide a passage from "The Lord of the Rings", about family details, that is even remotely as overblown and unnecessary as LF's 2-page speech.

Tolkien was especially efficient in the middle portion of his novel, where the heros were scattered, and the threads were divided.

[UKS]

Whilst GRRM is no Tolkien, claiming that Tolkien wrote 'efficently' is hilarious.

Two words. Tom Bombadil.

Tolkien rambled. Hugely. In all his work. GRRM is going for a Tolkien vibe.

[msheafer33]

Whilst GRRM is no Tolkien, claiming that Tolkien wrote 'efficently' is hilarious.

Not at all. Tolkien's use of language is VERY efficient. The fact that you may not have been interested in certain things he chose to write about is beside the point.

Two words. Tom Bombadil.

The Tom Bombadil chapter is efficiently written. It is an episodic chapter somewhat disconnected from the rest of the story, and usually left out of adaptations. It is a chapter that not everyone likes. But that does not mean it is not efficiently written.

The Hobbit is also a very episodic novel, in the sense that the encounter with the Trolls has minimal connection to the rest of the narrative.

Jack Vance, the other example I mentioned, is a very episodic writer, especially in his fantasy. He is still efficient in his use of language.

Tolkien rambled. Hugely. In all his work. GRRM is going for a Tolkien vibe.

Tolkien finished the entirety of The Lord of the Rings approximately the same number of pages as A Dance with Dragons. Tolkien's "rambling" and GRRM's rambling are on different orders of magnitude.

Edit: Here are some word counts for comparison, appendices omitted:

Lord of the Rings - J. R. R. Tolkien

The Fellowship of the Ring: 187k

The Two Towers: 155k

The Return of the King: 131k

Total: 473k

A Song of Ice And Fire - George R. R. Martin

A Game of Thrones: 298k

A Clash of kings: 326k

A Storm of Swords: 424k

A Feast for Crows: 300k

A Dance with Dragons: 422k

Total: 1,770k

But feel free to argue that GRRM accomplished almost 3.75 times as much as Tolkien did, using 3.75 times as many words, and they are therefore at a par in terms of narrative efficiency.

[SerGrahamando ofUttershill]

Not at all. Tolkien's use of language is VERY efficient. The fact that you may not have been interested in certain things he chose to write about is beside the point.

The Tom Bombadil chapter is efficiently written. It is an episodic chapter somewhat disconnected from the rest of the story, and usually left out of adaptations. It is a chapter that not everyone likes. But that does not mean it is not efficiently written.

The Hobbit is also a very episodic novel, in the sense that the encounter with the Trolls has minimal connection to the rest of the narrative.

Jack Vance, the other example I mentioned, is a very episodic writer, especially in his fantasy. He is still efficient in his use of language.

Tolkien finished the entirety of The Lord of the Rings approximately the same number of pages as A Dance with Dragons. Tolkien's "rambling" and GRRM's rambling are on different orders of magnitude.

Edit: Here are some word counts for comparison, appendices omitted:

Lord of the Rings - J. R. R. Tolkien

The Fellowship of the Ring: 187k

The Two Towers: 155k

The Return of the King: 131k

Total: 473k

A Song of Ice And Fire - George R. R. Martin

A Game of Thrones: 298k

A Clash of kings: 326k

A Storm of Swords: 424k

A Feast for Crows: 300k

A Dance with Dragons: 422k

Total: 1,770k

But feel free to argue that GRRM accomplished almost 3.75 times as much as Tolkien did, using 3.75 times as many words, and they are therefore at a par in terms of narrative efficiency.

Having recently re-read The Hobbit, I would say it is a pointless comparison here. THe Hobbit is virtually a childrens book, with a very simple plot, mostly 2-dimensional characters and plenty of inefficient passages (Gandalf's tale to Beorn for example). That is if you are meaning pointless, overlong and repetative by inefficient. The Lord of the Rings is a bit better, but it was only written as one book, which was split into a trilogy by the publishers. It is also quite a simplistic single story, with a predictable outcome. And it could have been a LOT shorter.

You seem to be equating shorter with better. Sometimes this is true, but it is not a general rule.

As to saying that I will justify anything GRRM writes, what are you basing this on? The fact that I disagreed with you over one point? I have enjoyed every chapter of ASOIAF so far, but of course there are parts that I agree could be shorter or have been omitted (such as Brienne's little jont out to Crackclaw Point or Quentyn Martel). Those episodes were not badly or inefficiently written in my opinion, but they had little overall effect on any of the main stories.

[msheafer33]

(Gandalf's tale to Beorn for example).

There is nothing inefficient about the tale of how Gandalf introduces the dwarves to Beorn.

I guess (unlike me) you did not enjoy that episode, but there is nothing inefficient about the method of its telling.

The Lord of the Rings [...] could have been a LOT shorter.

Sure. If you cut out bits you personally were not interested in, it would be shorter. Same is true of ASOIAF. But none of those parts are inefficiently written. In ASOIAF, many are.

You seem to be equating shorter with better. Sometimes this is true, but it is not a general rule.

Your assumption is incorrect. I am not saying that short stories are better than long stories, but that efficient writing is better than inefficient writing.

As to saying that I will justify anything GRRM writes, what are you basing this on?

Upon the fact that you justify the 2 pages it takes for Littlefinger to explain that Harry is Lord Robert's heir and not Lady Wainwright's heir, as written by a man who once made a firm promise to paying customers that he would finish the story in 6 volumes. If you can justify that, you can justify anything.

[Be26]

This thread is weird. I don't think I can debate against somebody who seems to believe efficient writing and good writing are one and the same thing.

[Lord Joker Of FunLand]

Upon the fact that you justify the 2 pages it takes for Littlefinger to explain that Harry is Lord Robert's heir and not Lady Wainwright's heir, as written by a man who once made a firm promise to paying customers that he would finish the story in 6 volumes. If you can justify that, you can justify anything.

Lol what the heck are you talking about...if you hate the writting that much, stop reading. See? Efficient solution.

I'm GLAD that he will write more than the original 3 books, and i'm glad he takes time to describe everything, so we have a more vivid image of the past/present of the ASOIAF world.

Complaining about LF talking too much is like complaining about the sun being too hot...what did you expect? LF loves to talk, it fits with his chartacter.

And who knows, maybe some of that info will become important in Sansa's story.

[msheafer33]

This thread is weird. I don't think I can debate against somebody who seems to believe efficient writing and good writing are one and the same thing.

Don't debate me then. But I stand by what I said. A writer should aim for the twin goals of clarity and efficiency.

[msheafer33]

Lol what the heck are you talking about...if you hate the writting that much, stop reading.

I never said I hated the writing. I said it was inefficient.

See? Efficient solution.

If you don't like my posts, stop reading them. See? Efficient solution.

I'm GLAD that he will write more than the original 3 books, and i'm glad he takes time to describe everything, so we have a more vivid image of the past/present of the ASOIAF world.

(1) it is impossible to "describe everything"

(2) with efficient writing, you can describe more, in less space.

And who knows, maybe some of that info will become important in Sansa's story.

If it does, the reader can learn of it when it becomes relevant. That's more efficient. Because no-one is going to remember the details of LF's little speech.

[Lord Joker Of FunLand]

I never said I hated the writing. I said it was inefficient.

If you don't like my posts, stop reading them. See? Efficient solution.

(1) it is impossible to "describe everything"

(2) with efficient writing, you can describe more, in less space.

If it does, the reader can learn of it when it becomes relevant.

1. So the book is longer...i have no problem with that at all.

2. Never said i didn't like your post, i just don't agree with it.

3. He describes everything we need to know. He has always described stuff this way...so i'm surprised you continued reading all 5 books.

4. I, for one, loved to hear about the family story and get all the info instead of just 2 sentences.

[Arkantos]

I must say, I do find it a bit annoying when he changes from saying five-and-sixty to sixty-five within the same chapter, but other than that, I like his writing.

[Lord Joker Of FunLand]

I must say, I do find it a bit annoying when he changes from saying five-and-sixty to sixty-five within the same chapter, but other than that, I like his writing.

This i agree with...never understood that.

[msheafer33]

I must say, I do find it a bit annoying when he changes from saying five-and-sixty to sixty-five within the same chapter, but other than that, I like his writing.

You'd like it better if he did his "sweat" and edited down his chapters.

Take any random page, and you could probably eliminate several lines without any actual loss of information.

More stuff per page, is more stuff for your time and money.

[Arkantos]

You'd like it better if he did his "sweat" and edited down his chapters.

Take any random page, and you could probably eliminate several lines without any actual loss of information.

More stuff per page, is more stuff for your time and money.

I like it when a writer takes his time, it's fantasy, i'm not here to read something that's akin to non-fiction. Those chapters are supposed to represent the THOUGHTS of people, they aren't robots.

[msheafer33]

I like it when a writer takes his time, it's fantasy, i'm not here to read something that's akin to non-fiction. Those chapters are supposed to represent the THOUGHTS of people, they aren't robots.

Except for "I like it when a writer takes his time", these comments have nothing to do with my criticisms. The rest of your comments are non-sequitur.

[Arkantos]

Except for "I like it when a writer takes his time", these comments have nothing to do with my criticisms.

Yes they do, you want writers to cut out all the fluff that makes their works enjoyable for the sake of efficiency, which isn't necessarily desirable in novels. Tbh, I think GRRM is as efficient as you can be when trying to represent actual characters who could exist, the way you would have him write would make Westeros' inhabitants look like drones, and then you'd be complaining about something else entirely.

Take any random page, and you could probably eliminate several lines without any actual loss of information.

Stories aren't about information, they're about characters.

[msheafer33]

Yes they do, you want writers to cut out all the fluff that makes their works enjoyable for the sake of efficiency,

No I don't want that. I never said anything even remotely like that.

These stories exist to be enjoyed. That is their purpose. More-efficient writing is easier, and more enjoyable to read. That is one of the goals of efficient writing: Easy reading; Fun reading.

I think GRRM is as efficient as you can be [...]

I don't think even GRRM agrees with you. Even GRRM has said that his writing is improved when he does what he calls his "sweat". I just wish he had time to do more of it.

the way you would have him write would make Westeros' inhabitants look like drones, and then you'd be complaining about something else entirely.

I never said so. Why are you telling all these lies about me?

Stories aren't about information, they're about characters.

Okay, let me rephrase. Take any random page, and you could probably eliminate several lines without any actual loss of information, OR CHARACTER, OR FUN, OR ENJOYMENT.

The only thing eliminated would be the extra work of reading several extra lines for the benefits obtained.

[Dragonreaver]

Wow. I came into this thread to agree with the person who said the term "nuncle" annoyed them after a while, but then I lost my will to live.

It seems the last page and a half of argument is very inefficiently written, it bored me to death. ¬_¬

Personally, I don't give a rat's testes about efficiency in writing. I love it when characters ramble on, and locations are built up. I don't care if GRRM could've used a few words less here, or removed this, or changed that. He wrote what he wanted to write, I read it and liked it. Job done, mission accomplished.

Anyway, back to 'nuncle'. It was cute when Asha said it. It fit her character. I know that it comes, originally, from "mine uncle", but it was a cute little character trait that Asha referred to Rodrik as 'nuncle' to display her affection for him.

But then it was almost as if GRRM thought "hey, that's a cool word" and started using it everywhere else. Check if you're willing, but I'm pretty sure Jaime and Cersei never used it for any of their uncles BEFORE Asha's first POV chapter. But both seemed to use it extensively AFTER. That's what bothered me (especially in Cersei's case, as she doesn't have a genuinely affectionate bone in her body, other than occasionally Jaime's).

I've noticed he does this a lot with certain other phrases. "My sweet sister" was Jaime's rather overused way of referring to Cersei (which later became a rather bitter sarcastic reference after The Thing That Happened). Then Tyrion started using it as well, even though he never had before and I'm pretty sure he was never in Jaime's presence on any of the few occasions Jaime used it out loud.

Things like that, as well as soldier pines (rarely are there any other type of pines in Westeros, and they've even invaded Essos in the later books!) and tallow candles begin to grate on me after a while. To be fair on the latter, 'tallow' is a pretty cool word even if it does just mean 'beef fat'. GRRM just seems to like certain words a lot. I guess I can't hold that against him. Maybe sometimes he's just in his cups much and more often. He's only an old man (of an age with time itself, or near enough to make no matter), he knows little of war and is as useful as nipples on a breastplate. ¬_¬

Actually, though that last sentence was obviously sarcasm, I do have to commend him on his usage of those little quirky old regional English phrases ('much and more', 'as near as makes no matter', even the apparently unpopular 'you're not wrong'. and just the way certain characters speak (the Kettleblacks, for instance)). Either they were popular in old America too, or he's extremely well read/travelled/versed. Unlike most other American-authored fantasy I've read, his character's dialogue is - all joking aside - really great to read, in my personal opinion.

[Hill]

This i agree with...never understood that.

Never noticed it myself. Blatantly will now though. Damnit.