Jump to content

Archived

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

thenedstark

Critics of ASOIAF

Recommended Posts

Reading the criticism has lead me to realise I do think George has kinda got lost in the GOT and that maybe he started with more just the intention of writing the FAI story.

I don't mind though. The GOT is awesome and in fairness it will probably all tie up much tighter than anyone is expecting.

Who ever sits the IT may well matter against the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people forget that characters who die are merely (most, the rest are meaningless) used as plot devices. One thing Martin does quite well is to make you forget they're plot devices. In a Dance with Dragons he is deteriorating in that area, some characters I knew were plot devices instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a strange review. I am not familiar with fantasy genre, so I can't talk about any criticisms he has w/GRRM vis a vis any other fantasy authors. Also, he did make some valid points about GRRM failing to advance the plot(s) in the latter two books. However, where the reviewer completely lost credibility with me is when he made this statement:

"In particular, one realizes that the characters can’t win any victory that won’t just be undone by further events two hundred pages later, so why bother rooting for them at all? When all is said and done, whoever is left standing in the ruins of Westeros will be swept aside by Daenerys and Jon Snow as they confront the evil out of the north, so isn’t this something of a waste of time?"

Basically, the reviewer criticizes GRRM for essentially wasting everyone's time by getting bogged down in sub-plots, such as the shocking deaths of Ned and Robb, and unnecessary characterizations, such as Brienne's, when it's obvious to him that Dany and Jon's struggle with the Others is what the story is really about.

So to me his criticism is essentially that GRRM should have stuck to the formulaic struggle of good (Dany and Jon) v. evil (the Others) and not bothered to have added any depth or layers to the story. I may be wrong, but the fact that GRRM didn't stick to the formula of good v. evil and instead created sub-plots with shocking twists and rich characterizations is what has made these books so much more enjoyable to me.

Also, maybe the guy should have taken his own advice and waited for the finished product before he offered a critique. I think GRRM will have some surprises in store for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came across this feminist rant while looking for ASOIAF pictures: http://www.lkrigel.com/2012/04/treatment-of-women-in-game-of-thrones/

It would be nice to critique this woman's absurd and extreme viewpoint. Man I despise feminists, or rather the ones that are misandric.

about this link, why do you say it is a feminist rant when feminism is nowhere mentioned? Also, why is it misandric? It seems a valid critique from an aesthetic viewpoint, though the author has not read the books. Not everyone can stomach the sex and violence in ASOIAF. We can't force everyone to like this series. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

about this link, why do you say it is a feminist rant when feminism is nowhere mentioned? Also, why is it misandric? It seems a valid critique from an aesthetic viewpoint, though the author has not read the books. Not everyone can stomach the sex and violence in ASOIAF. We can't force everyone to like this series. :(

The word feminism doesn't have to be mentioned. Her views are very biased. To her it's man vs. woman. Then she complains that there aren't dongs flapping around in the show, if there were she'd add that to her rap sheet as a negative if there were. Read the comments below the review, most despise the sex, but the violence doesn't bother them one bit!

But yes she has seen the show on HBO. She rightly sees many of the sex scenes as gratuitous because they are. Most Martin didn't write in the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

about this link, why do you say it is a feminist rant when feminism is nowhere mentioned? Also, why is it misandric? It seems a valid critique from an aesthetic viewpoint, though the author has not read the books. Not everyone can stomach the sex and violence in ASOIAF. We can't force everyone to like this series. :(

As to misandry I didn't mean she was, I was mentioning other feminist extremists. I'm more dissapointed with her denial of how things actually were in the Middle Ages towards females. She even denies things like that ever happened in a comment below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to misandry I didn't mean she was, I was mentioning other feminist extremists. I'm more dissapointed with her denial of how things actually were in the Middle Ages towards females. She even denies things like that ever happened in a comment below.

This whole argument is odd in my eyes, ASOIAF has some of the strongest female characters i've seen outside LoTR and it's even more impressive seeing as though they live in a world dominated by men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to misandry I didn't mean she was, I was mentioning other feminist extremists. I'm more dissapointed with her denial of how things actually were in the Middle Ages towards females. She even denies things like that ever happened in a comment below.

ASoIaF does exaggerate the horrors of the Middle Ages. It excludes the fact that noble women until the start of the Renaissance era received almost equal education with their brothers, including a grounding in combat and siege warfare as they would often end up defending their homes while their menfolk were away. It also exaggerates the age of noble brides-even back then it was recognised that the younger the mother, the riskier the pregnancy and even if the couple lived together, they would sleep separately until they were old enough (usually fifteen or sixteen). The droit du sengeour as mentioned by Bolton and practised by the Umbers is now considered a work of fiction and the commonfolk did have more rights than the books show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole argument is odd in my eyes, ASOIAF has some of the strongest female characters i've seen outside LoTR and it's even more impressive seeing as though they live in a world dominated by men.

LotR does not have strong female characters. Hell it barely has female characters and what it does have are not exactly the strongest I've seen, even if we restrict our discussions to fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to misandry I didn't mean she was, I was mentioning other feminist extremists. I'm more dissapointed with her denial of how things actually were in the Middle Ages towards females. She even denies things like that ever happened in a comment below.

The point about the middle ages is that they are irrelevant.

ASOIAF is a fantasy. Everything that exists in the world is there because GRRM decided that it should be there, not because it has to be there or that he owes some obligation to be true to some reality or other.

It is perfectly reasonable for people to be outraged about the sex, violence, treatment of women or dwarfs. The strength of the story in the end will depend on how satisfied those readers are that the sex, violence, treatment of women and dwarfs was meaningful in the context of the narrative and not simply gratuitous.

In anycase the criticisms seem to be about the TV series, the blogger doesn't seem to have read the books, and frankly I don't recognise the books from many descriptions of the TV series. We have to accept that the reader's perspective is very different from that of the TV viewer because of the ways in which TV and a book differ as mediums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about the middle ages is that they are irrelevant.

ASOIAF is a fantasy. Everything that exists in the world is there because GRRM decided that it should be there, not because it has to be there or that he owes some obligation to be true to some reality or other.

It is perfectly reasonable for people to be outraged about the sex, violence, treatment of women or dwarfs. The strength of the story in the end will depend on how satisfied those readers are that the sex, violence, treatment of women and dwarfs was meaningful in the context of the narrative and not simply gratuitous.

In anycase the criticisms seem to be about the TV series, the blogger doesn't seem to have read the books, and frankly I don't recognise the books from many descriptions of the TV series. We have to accept that the reader's perspective is very different from that of the TV viewer because of the ways in which TV and a book differ as mediums.

Most people are overwhelmingly upset when it comes to sex, but violence most of the time is no problem. I've never understood it.

It acts as a reminder of how cruel the world and society can be. Most of the time, people bitch and moan about the sex, I'm talking about the consensual sex or nudity not rape... over the act of someone cutting a man to pieces while he's alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ASoIaF does exaggerate the horrors of the Middle Ages. It excludes the fact that noble women until the start of the Renaissance era received almost equal education with their brothers, including a grounding in combat and siege warfare as they would often end up defending their homes while their menfolk were away. It also exaggerates the age of noble brides-even back then it was recognised that the younger the mother, the riskier the pregnancy and even if the couple lived together, they would sleep separately until they were old enough (usually fifteen or sixteen). The droit du sengeour as mentioned by Bolton and practised by the Umbers is now considered a work of fiction and the commonfolk did have more rights than the books show.

But those weren't the issues I mentioned that women had to face. Women simply had fewer rights during that time period. Abuse towards women was seen as more acceptable too, that or it went unsaid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LotR does not have strong female characters. Hell it barely has female characters and what it does have are not exactly the strongest I've seen, even if we restrict our discussions to fantasy.

That's your opinion and I respect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Martin is writing a story about the impending doom. However he has put off even introducing them as a threat beyond the one time they show up at the Fist of the First Men. In Wheel of Time you don't get the last Battle till the final book or even see many trollocs but they are still a present force that influences the plot and events to a huge degree; sometimes more subtly. In ASOIAF the Others have been imminently waiting to attack now for five novels and twenty years.... There needs to be a point to the game beyond musical chairs for the poisoned chalice. Society will end once the Others invade and Winter fully covers the land. It doesn't matter who sits the Iron Throne when the apocalypse comes so why bother investing so much time into an irrelevant detail.

If Martin has put off introducing them as a threat, how do you know that the Others are an end of the world doom scenario? Why must they be the 'big bad evil of all evil that must be defeated.'? Well, if your opinion is that you feel they must be opposed at all cost, then yes, they must be defeated, but here is a question for you: Did the invasion of the First Men represent an end of civilization to the CotF? I think they did, but the story didn't end there. Just because the Others exist doesn't mean that they must be considered a facsimile of a nihilistic JRPG villain.

It might even be interesting to see what would happen if the two forces fought to a stalemate at the neck don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read literature critics, I like to read what I live and I don't like to see it criticized.

AFFC/ADWD are pointless?

Lots of interesting things happened in those books, I just didn't like the geography separation, but the stuff that happens is really good in my opinion and we see lots of characters developments in those two books

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read literature critics, I like to read what I live and I don't like to see it criticized.

AFFC/ADWD are pointless?

Lots of interesting things happened in those books, I just didn't like the geography separation, but the stuff that happens is really good in my opinion and we see lots of characters developments in those two books

Yeah you can tell from the review that the guy is woefully uneducated on the subject he is critiquing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×