New GRRM Interview

[Bushido]

i like how he slightly implied arya was going to dodge the FM,

I always assumed she would not 100% commit to them and escape and use what they taught her to meet her own agenda instead of being this impartial judge who kills for money.

u can see this a little how she hides her sword and how she cheats warging into the cat

He doesn't imply anything. He formulated the sentence with precision in order to dodge implications given by the journalist.

Also, just because Natalie plays a more experienced, politically active and savvy Margaery and is mirroring the book Margaery 10 years from present moment it doesn’t mean that GRRM said Margaery is safe from death.

[jentario]

Me too. That was interesting.

Whats interesting is that he mentions Jon and Dany simultaneously when talking about rulers. :idea:

Maybe it's, bare with me here, because Jon was a Lord Commander for the last three books. Shocking, I know.

Seriously, GRRM isn't hinting at anything there. Don't manipulate quotes to make your dreams come true. Side note: I believe Jon will be the king in the end, don't get me wrong.

[Nami]

Jon becoming king in the end will be one of the cheesiest moves ever

And Jon is one of my faves, but just...no

[~DarkHorse~]

I will not necessarily be open to returning to tell more stories about the ones who survived.

I'm not sure if I'm thrilled that there will be survivors or scared at the tone which suggests lots more are going to die. :uhoh:

[aceluby]

Man, it seriously must be tough for this guy. He's a slow writer, he has impatient readers, and every interview is analyzed like crazy. He has to constantly be on his toes and choose every word carefully whenever he speaks in public. I don't envy him, that's for sure.

[mormont]

[mod] Let's stick to the topic, please. The topic is not your personal ranking of the books, GRRM's writing speed, or the weaknesses of ADWD. [/mod]

[Jasta11]

I get what he says about Feast, but I still think that it's not a dychotomy. You can advance the plot AND advance characters at the same time; he does it quite well in every other book. In Feast, only Cercei, Sam and the Ironborn get chapters that move the plot, and the Greyjoys I don't give a fig about anyway. The rest of the plot comes to a grinding halt as all those new characters and PoV need to crammed in. And the Brienne chapters, oh lord. Yes, world building is fine, but not at the cost of a giant waste of time in terms of plot. And many of the main plots of the series (the Wall, the North, Dany, Tyrion) are simply completely forgotten. I still think dividing the timeline in two books was a mistake by GRRM.

[Steve Moss II]

There are many discussions about the age of people in ASOIAF. No point clattering this thread.

. . .

Edward IV is who Robert seems to be based on. Still he was not 17 when he started in earnest an age many other great military leaders started to make a name for themselves, not 15.

Young people being promoted into leadership positions occurred in even early modern times. The youngest Union brigadier general was Pennypacker, age 20. He was promoted in 1865, after having enlisted as a sergeant in 1861 at age 16. Alexander the Great was fighting in Thrace at 15 and Greece at 16. Henry V was fighting in Wales as a very young man, leading army wings at 15 and had control of independent armies at 16 (and received a face wound that almost killed him). There are many other examples.

[aedalia]

Love this about Arya:

"Well she's not an assassin yet. You are assuming she is going to become one. She's an apprentice."

I have long thought Arya will be a Faceless dropout.

[SeanF]

He doesn't imply anything. He formulated the sentence with precision in order to dodge implications given by the journalist.

Also, just because Natalie plays a more experienced, politically active and savvy Margaery and is mirroring the book Margaery 10 years from present moment it doesn't mean that GRRM said Margaery is safe from death.

I think of book Margaery as being more subtle than show Margaery, because she doesn't give very much away. Book Margaery is a dangerous and shrewd player of the Game, whereas show Margaery is much more open and obvious about her motivations.

[Free Northman]

Love this about Arya:

"Well she's not an assassin yet. You are assuming she is going to become one. She's an apprentice."

I have long thought Arya will be a Faceless dropout.

Dropout - no.

Frankenstein's monster that breaks free during training, going all warg-ballistic in the temple, killing a bunch of evil Faceless Priests? Now that's what I'm keeping open as an option.

[Kienn]

The most significant part of this interview, for me, was Martin all but confirming the potential need for an 8th book. Previously this was not even on the table as a possible discussion point, at least from his side. Now he is starting down the "who knows" thread.

We all of course know that there's no way it can be wrapped up in 7 books. So 8 books it is. Which makes the show situation one huge dillemma.

Personally, I'm overjoyed. This means an extra 1000 pages of Ice and Fire enjoyment. Even if I have to wait another 5 years after Book 7. Sweet.

Every quote I've heard in the past 3 years he's indicated the same thing - that he's done "guessing" how many books it will take.

[Groat]

What a terrific interview. I really enjoyed and could relate to Martin discussing how he kind of gets infatuated from idea to idea and it was pivotal for him when he finally started finishing his works. He seems like such an awesome person.

[Kahl Trollo]

Strange that it seems news for people that show!Marg is not book!Marg. D&D pretty much said that they didn't like book!Marg at all and made some shit up they liked better (like with Jeyne W. just without the stupid renaming). Probably also the reason they pretty much "forbade" Nat Dormer to read the books.

http://collider.com/game-of-thrones-season-3-sophie-turner-natalie-dormer-interview/

DORMER: Because I joined the party later, I asked David and Dan, when I started, if I should read them. I was straight-forward about it. And David and Dan said to me, “Hell, read them, if you want to read them. Of course, read them for recreation and to know what everyone else is doing. But, don’t necessarily read them, per se, for you and for Margaery because we’re fleshing her out in a slightly different way.” Not different, but they’re enhancing her, and doing it faster. So for that reason, I will probably read them, but I think I’m going to enjoy reading them retrospectively. But, every actor makes their own decision. Not everyone has read them.

'Forbade?'

[Lonin]

There was some illuminating things in that interview. Things i figured were the case, but now are just confirmed. Nice read!

:agree: Although, our suppositions are probably different.

I noticed his original plan/method of aging the characters didn't work out... The story was meant to cover more time, and it hasn't worked out that way..

In all, a great interview - thanks for posting/linking

[Werthead]

So what?

Your point was that Robb was hyper competent for his age - whilst Daenerys was not - because of Robb's military victories. I was pointing out that that didn't matter because he was shit at politics and diplomacy (far worse than Daenerys, and Dany's not great so far) and that killed him, so your comparison did not work.

Edward IV is who Robert seems to be based on. Still he was not 17 when he started in earnest an age many other great military leaders started to make a name for themselves, not 15.

Robert is based on a mixture of Edward IV, Henry VIII and the fictional Richard IV (from BlackAdder). Robb is very clearly partially based on Edward IV as well. There are no one-to-one correlations in the world of ASoIaF between historical characters and the fictional characters, most of them are composites (and with a lot of originality sprinkled in as well). For example, Richard Neville doesn't have a direct story correlation, but vague echoes of him can be seen in Tywin, Mace Tyrell and Ser Criston Cole (the 'Kingmaker' of the Dance of Dragons).

Previously this was not even on the table as a possible discussion point, at least from his side

I think GRRM's been saying, "Seven, but maybe eight," since not long after AFFC brought the count up to seven. He's been saying, "Maybe eight," a bit more than previously recently, though, which is concerning.

But it ruins the beautiful symbolism of 7 books for 7 kingdoms

There are actually 8 kingdoms, so it does work out :) Plus there's 9 regions/provinces if you include the Crownlands, so he even has that covered :D

[MRHD]

There are actually 8 kingdoms, so it does work out :) Plus there's 9 regions/provinces if you include the Crownlands, so he even has that covered :D

I'll be happy just so long as we don't start having to rationalize the number of books in terms of the hundred kingdoms of the First Men.;)

[Hound Dog]

The story I set out to tell in 1991 is still not done. I think if I finally finish these seven books, or however many it takes, I will be tired of them.

Yurgh. Yes.

When I read that my heart sunk to my toes.

[TepidHands]

And there is always this presumption that if you are a good man, you will be a good king. [Like] Tolkien — in Return of the King, Aragorn comes back and becomes king, and then [we read that] "he ruled wisely for three hundred years." Okay, fine. It is easy to write that sentence, “He ruled wisely”'

Ok, what does that even mean? Tolkien spent three whole books getting Aragorn TO the throne. The book wasn't titled "Return of the King and Then The History of How He Ruled." That line was simply part of a denouement/epilogue before the last of the Elves and Frodo skeedaddled.

While he's a hell of a writer, sometimes I wish GRRM didn't produce like he was paid by the word. Even Leonardo Da Vinci didn't paint every single hair on the Mona Lisa's head.

[Pliskin]

He's only saying that the topics that interested him (politics, the problems faced by the characters while ruling) didn't interest Tolkien that much.

I don't understand what bothers you in his quote.