Jump to content

Critics of ASOIAF


thenedstark

Recommended Posts

In that case, she failed miserably. Not only that I, for one, saw nothing amusing or funny there, and not only that so many posters here saw nothing amusing or funny there, but the comment section under her piece clearly suggests that even her readers didn't take it as humorous.

I thought it was funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case, she failed miserably. Not only that I, for one, saw nothing amusing or funny there, and not only that so many posters here saw nothing amusing or funny there, but the comment section under her piece clearly suggests that even her readers didn't take it as humorous.

she be trolling. And that one lady who wrote the review for ASOIAF being creepy was trolling as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

she be trolling. And that one lady who wrote the review for ASOIAF being creepy was trolling as well.

I'm a bit more skeptical on that based on the reviewer's subsequent comments in the comment section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was impressed by her dedication in reading thousands of pages of a series that she detests. Apart from that, I thought the review was pretty poor, and not at all funny (if that's what she intended). I think it's very difficult to write a good review of something that you hate, and she didn't succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doyle responded to Alyssa Rosenberg for having the temerity to criticize some of her points with insults, going so far as (IIRC) suggesting Rosenberg was a "pretend feminist" or something of the sort, and suggesting her defense of the series was insincere.

Her views on ASoIaF are preserved in amber, and nothing anyone will say can change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point about the game of thrones potentially being irrelevant to the main plot of the book series has always been in the back of my mind. I'm glad I'm not the only one who is worried about it.

The fact that I enjoyed reading about the game of thrones at the time will not matter to me when it turns out it had little to no impact on the actual conflict as established in the very first pages of the first book. If that happens I cannot say that I enjoyed the book series on the whole, but only that part of the story which was irrelevant to the end result. To say anything like this is usually not to give a good review of a story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sady's piece was written in a humourous vein, with the prologue referencing the backlash she received over a previous article on Harry Potter. She is specifically poking fun at people who react like that to people making fun of their stuff.

What I found funny about it is that she went through five thousand pages of what she considered to be a mysogynistic celebration of rape and paid close enough attention to pick up some details that are rather oblique for casual readers. That would lead to the conclusion that she is either dedicated to her work to the point of obsession, or that she in fact liked it and therefore can only share the desire to experience rape fantasies, which is what, according to her, ASOIAF fullfills for its readers.

And of course why would anyone be offended by an attempt to be spanked into moral rectitude about one's taste in literature and made to realize that only a prejudiced individual with profound psychological issues can have that taste, through pompous, baseless, vitriolic generalizations?

Her worst offense, however, is that she dissed Cat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point about the game of thrones potentially being irrelevant to the main plot of the book series has always been in the back of my mind. I'm glad I'm not the only one who is worried about it.

The fact that I enjoyed reading about the game of thrones at the time will not matter to me when it turns out it had little to no impact on the actual conflict as established in the very first pages of the first book. If that happens I cannot say that I enjoyed the book series on the whole, but only that part of the story which was irrelevant to the end result. To say anything this is usually not to give a good review of a story.

How can the game of thrones be irrelevant to the main plot of the books, when it is clearly a part - and a rather big one, at that - of the main plot of the books? Is it really that big a stretch to see all the groundwork the game did lay for the coming conclusion, even if the game itself is - in a hypothetical, highly unrealistic case - never mentioned again? Not to mention the bigger picture of a deconstruction of a society, and of a family as the basic unit of a society, that was presented to readers exactly through the game of thrones: was it really that unworthy and unrewarding to read through that?

And how come you're so certain you won't enjoy the rest of the story, even if it does lack the game of thrones? Cause if you aren't certain, your statement may seem somewhat contradicting. Like, if you happen to enjoy and like the rest of the story - what's the problem then? Would that make you like the game of thrones any less, especially since you're saying you did enjoy it?

And do you actually think that 'the actual conflict' was ESTABLISHED in the very first pages of the first book? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the word 'established', but I'd say the conflict you're talking about was founded in the first chapter, while it is still to be properly established (as in - developed to a significant potential), because, at this point, we know next to nothing about The Others, to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously The Song of Ice and Fire series is not only about the great threat of others and the impending doom of mankind.

When I read only few chapters of AGOT, I knew this wasn't Sauron coming to take over middle earth.

We could have a book where Robert Baratheon doesnt die, and Eddard Stays a hand and Nobody ever rebels and Illyrio doesnt sell Dany to the horselords.

And when the others come, we see the Westeros rallying behind their fat king and his somber hand leading the charge in a Tolkien style to defeat the long night thats coming.

but wheres the fun in that? and with all the people plotting it was never going to happen.

But we will mistake if we think its a story told by a narrator. its not, To me the series is all about the characters. I experience the world as them, I understand the universe of the book

through them, I suffer their mistakes and I laugh at their japes. Its not just about stopping winter that will last a lifetime.

Its about character living and scheming in a world where no body is safe.

We cant look it as a fairy tale to tell our child in their bed at night.

and Total 1402, yes the old bear maybe be right that it doesn't matter who sits on the Iron throne when winter comes, but you dont know that do you?

You seriously think the result is the same no matter who is on the throne? the fate of the world is connected to what happens to the major houses or Westeros and to all the characters we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doyle responded to Alyssa Rosenberg for having the temerity to criticize some of her points with insults, going so far as (IIRC) suggesting Rosenberg was a "pretend feminist" or something of the sort, and suggesting her defense of the series was insincere.

Her views on ASoIaF are preserved in amber, and nothing anyone will say can change it.

I was struck by Alyssa Rosenberg's opinion of Melisandre. I doubt if even 1% of readers would agree with her, but I wonder if that's what Martin means when he describes her as his most misunderstood character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was struck by Alyssa Rosenberg's opinion of Melisandre. I doubt if even 1% of readers would agree with her, but I wonder if that's what Martin means when he describes her as his most misunderstood character.

Well, if Stannis was Arthur, Melisandre would definitely be his Merlin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He means that most fans view her as a villain, when she's actually devoted her life to saving the world and has no selfish desire for power or riches at all.

That's true enough, although the methods she employs to try to save the world are sometimes appalling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true enough, although the methods she employs to try to save the world are sometimes appalling.

Obviously I don't think burning people is a particularly nice way to spend one's time, but I admire Melisandre for devoting her life to benefiting the world, at no gain for herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does Sandy Dolye think Jane Austine is creepy because the only possible 'good' outcome for 15 year old Lydia is marriage to her seducer - a marriage enforced by a rich male in order to both prevent her and her families disgrace and Lydia is such a fool as to completely fail to notice that...

On as side note note its interesting that if you follow the whole web of critiques that follow out of the Dolye post even many who disagree with here are bothered by the fact Brienne is called ugly. Yet the Books are filled with other women who fight who are called (conventionally) attractive but at a cost the extreme being Ayra who is easily overwhelmed by men. To have the prowess she does in fighting style that favors strength and wearing armor Brienne must almost by definition be not conventionally attractive in a casual way ulsee we are going down the high fantasy road and say she is a (insert fantasy creature here) where females are cute and sexy as men but also uber strong and quick etc.

Now everyone has there own perception of attractive but its fair to say these women do not grace the cover of playboy with regularity

http://www.oddee.com/item_97013.aspx

Is that sexist I suppose so but it also a reality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...