What I hate about A Song of Ice and Fire (Spoilers Ahead)

[Son_of_Thunder]

Greetings all,

I was prompted to start this thread by the many "What Good Fantasy Book Should I Read Next" threads I've seen on these boards every few months or so. Recently it was "What You Hate About Dragonlance". Now, I don't mind you expressing your opinion on whether or not you liked a book, what bothers me is posters who don't give valid reasons. "Dragonlance was too immature and childish" is not a reason to me. Why was it immature and childish? Too many arguments are just that, meaningless arguments. The threads quickly turn into an author and book bashing. So I'm going to give specific reasons why I don't like George R. R. Martin's 'A Song of Fire and Ice', Terry Goodkind's 'Sword of Truth' and Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time'.

First, I have read the three books that have been published so far. I was taken in by 'A Game of Thrones' because of Mr. Martins storytelling skills. He is a good storyteller. I didn't get lost with his big cast of characters nor his style of writing from a different persons viewpoint with each chapter. However, by the end of 'A Storm of Swords' I was just wishing every character would die. Why? It's been said by proponents of the books that there is no clear good versus evil, that there were just shades of grey. This is one of the things I despised about the books. Every character with the exception of Bran, Rikon, Hodor and those two swamp kids (Only because they were still innocent) were morally bankrupt, degenerates all of them. In my opinion no character had faith in anything, just damn everyone and I'll take care of myself. Even the most "valiant", and I use the term loosely, Ser Barristan Selmy, served a degenerate king, allowed him to be killed and took off to find the daughter of mad kings. Take for example Catelyn Stark, we think she's a sweet lady until the red wedding when she slits the throat of a helpless handicapped man. I liked Theon Greyjoy, at first, until he showed no loyalty to anyone except himself by taking Winterfell and murdering the innocent millers children. Jon Snow is a contemptable bastard, literally, for killing a fellow brother (I don't care if it was to further the story), taking up with a wild woman when his order forbids it (again I don't care if it was to build the story further), and watching an innocent old man get murdered by that same wild woman. Heck, just about every major character was guilty of murder, including little horse faced Arya when she killed the sentry. Eddard Stark had it good by getting killed in the first book. Moral ambiguity is one thing I hate in modern fantasy. It's why I couldn't make it past 'The Black Company' by Mr. Cook.

Next, I despised the use of descriptive scenes of gore and the use of offensive language. My favorite authors such as Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, Jeff Grubb, R. A. Salvatore, Terry Brooks and David Eddings don't have to use such filth to get me to imagine the worst. In my opinion, the mark of a great author is the use of minimal descriptive text which causes the imagination of the reader to imagine far worse. By the end of the third book, I was physically, yes physically sick. Such things do not need to be in the written word. Terry Goodkind suffers from this same malady and from what I've heard of Steven Erikson's Malazan series, the same applies to him. I don't care how finely crafted the story is. If it has these elements I ain't going to read it. I don't care if you like the stuff, but I hate the way it makes me feel and refuse to read it no matter how well crafted the story. In 'Wizard's First Rule' I was offended by the scene of one of the bad guys getting his genitals cut off, fed to him then having his head bashed in by a mace. Did the character deserve it? Certainly, but the scene didn't need to be described thus. George R. R. Martin's use of profanity, sexual situations and bloody scenes don't add to the story in my opinion. For example, when Bran and Rikon escaped Winterfell, Martin described the sentries that were killed by the dire wolves. Didn't need to be so descriptive. Martin simply could have told us that the wolves got to them and they were no longer alive. It sickened me. Another example is the use of the for unlawful carnal knowledge word. I don't want to hear it in real life and I certainly don't need to read it when I'm reading for escape and entertainment. In short I didn't like the way the books made me feel. Sure, you can get emotionally into books, I cried when Flint died in 'Dragons of Spring Dawning' but when all I feel, throughout the whole series, is disgust, then it's time I stopped reading. So why did I finish the books you ask, if all I felt was disgust? Well I was hoping things would start getting better. Like I said, he's a good author and storyteller. I loved the concept of The Others but it wasn't enough to keep me interested.

Alright you ask, what's wrong with 'Wheel of Time'? END IT.

If you want to read excellent entertaining books, read Dragonlance Chronicles, read the Shanara series, read the Dark Elf books. Don't pass up David Eddings stuff or Tad Williams 'Memory, Sorrow and Thorn'. Excellent reads all of them.

Cheers,

Son of Thunder

 

[Utrecht]

An interesting and fair assessment.

However based off of the types of books that you recommended, I am not surprised that you do not like Martin. You like the Good guys wearing white.

Weis, Hickman, Eddings, Salvatore (and to a lesser extent Williams, but his Otherworld series was definately grey) provide this.

I liked the book precicely for the reasons that you hated them - IMO when subjecated to tough/difficult choices, there are no virtuous men (or women). The charcters are faced with difficult decisions and unlike much of high fantasy (Tolkien included) they make mistakes - and pay for them.........

Further, I believe (based off of extensive reading) that Martin does an admirable job of reflecting the morality of the Dark/Middle Ages - which most certainly existed - and thrived for a long period - LG and CG type of heros simply do not exist - except in the paragon of our mid.

Again - and always - YMMV (and likely will)

 

[DwarvenBrew]

Well thought out thread!

Son_of_Thunder, for the most part I totally agree with you. By the time I reached Goodkind's third book, I actually had to put it down and took a 2 month break from it (the treatment of very young women and children are what got to me). I finished the book eventually, mostly because I can't stand leaving one unfinished.

However, most of these authors also tell a great story, even if they had left out the more "explicit" parts. Now, I usually follow an author such as Goodkind with something lighter (recently it's been Robin Hobb and Elizabeth Haydon).

IMO, you really hit the nail on the head when said the mark of great writer is one that gives you just enough to spark your own imagination to fill in the details. This really the makes the book become "your own".

 

[Kestrel]

To each thier own...

I loved the moral ambiguity in Song of Ice and Fire. I thought the books were some of the best fantasy writing around.

I do have a request Son of Thunder, could you put a Spoiler warning in your post? If I had read that before I finished the series, I would have been pretty upset.

Thanks.

 

[Razuur]

Well Thunder Son. I respect your opinion entirely. I also disagree with it entirely as well That is the beauty of opinion and choice. So as I rebut your comments know that I am not saying that you are wrong for thinking so, only know that I am defending work(s) that I love and giving you my opinions in return.

Firstly Dragonlance. I agree. I read the thread. As for it being "immature and childish", I disagree with the premise, as it had a different purpose than your standard novel or series. The original Dragonlance served the following purposes at the very least: create a series of novels + introduce readers to DnD by showing them what is possible + create a believeable game setting that complies with the AD&D rules + attach it to a series of adventures that could be run with DnD + make it accessible to possible new AD&D players of all ages. Your typical fantasy series has none of that baggage, it is just trying to create a believeable world and chronicle unique experiences within it. I agree with the poster in that thread that stated that Dragonlance revolutionized gaming at the time. I believe it did. It was the first to create a truly immersive setting that anyone who read the books could play. I also agree that the advendures being connected to the game had never been done and was a good move.

Now onto the other comments:

On Martin: (SPOILERS)

I am a fan of the new direction of Fantasy storytelling that Mr. Martin is exploring so deftly. I love the scope, the depth, and the events. I believe the character are very realistic because humanity is morally ambiguous. Since I believe that humanity is such, these novels come alive and feel real. I am not approaching them from 20th century mentality. I am approaching it from the cultures mentality (a perspective I had to learn well reading Chung Kuo by David Wingrove, and based on your post I suggest you NOT read that series because you will not like them).

Morally bankrupt is a 20th century modern perspective that simply was not present in a true middle age society. The nobles played their power games, and 99% of the peasants were swept up, soldiered, conquered or slaughtered. If you read any histoy you know that is the way it was. This style of fantasy shows us that perspective. if it is something you are uncomfortable with, you are right, you shouldn't read it. Good and Bad are perspectives in this work, and my belief system. From your post it seems that you beleive that there is a hard right and wrong and good and bad. That is okay, I respect that belief, but these books do not use that reality paradigm.

As for the characters, that supports this perspective.

Bran could be called good by our standards, I suppose. Rickon is just a spoilt child with spoilt child sensibilities. Hodor is mentally challenged and I cannot label him good or bad, but merely loyal like a dog but not as reliable. As for Selmy, valiant men have served and died by depots throughout history. Life events change us, the death of his king changed him. Catelyn Stark? i never EVER thought she was a sweet lady. She was a noble woman with a good head for the game of thrones, but she would have done anything... ANYTHING if it benefited her kids. Her ill treatment of Jon showed her true colors long ago. She was never good, merely smart and cunning. Theon is a perfect example of a morally ambiguos character. he was Robbs freind, but he always had an arrogance to him. What did one expect him to do and be when he returned home to such a welcome. He was a Greyjoy, NOT a Stark. As for jon... he is 15 or 16 for gods sake. I don't know about you, but I was doing some reckless things in life at that age and beyond. I finally didn't start getting my act together until 25. He is ahead of the game to me. The death of Qhorin was neccessary and ORDERED by him, otherwise they were both dead. His giving into his hormones and need for love and affection (especially with a distant cold mother figure like Catelyn) is more than understandable, espicially considering his age. In the end he returned to what was true within him. Arya? She is eight and ahs had her whole life yanked from her. She has seen freinds father, and brothers perish around her. Ya ever wonder why the way she is? And Eddard was noble, true, but we don't know everything about his life. he did rise up against his own king.... And Tyrion, how much abuse and rejection can a man take before he breaks....?

Next language. yes those authors you mentioned do not use such language. They also write High fantasy, which you like. Since this sub genre of fantasy is more dark fantasy, it uses realistic terminology. People swear. People swear everywhere all of the time. Another touch that made it real to me. I love Eddings, and I haven't read weis and hickman for years, or brooks. I recently read some Salvatore and really did not care for him for a variety of reasons I won't go into unless asked because this topic isn't about him. I too love Eddings and High fantasy, it has its place in my heart. Darker gritty fantasy has another that I love too. I do not believe that they can be mutually exclusive. I can love Martin AND Jorden AND Eddings. I have and do.

My Feelings for Goodkind went from like to dislike. For a number of reasons, that if you wnat more detail on I will go into. I have only read the first 2 books, however. Richard annoys me though. For being such a huge Hero, he sure is a whus! Plus there are a variety of other issues.

I have not read Steven Erikson's Malazan series, I am in America and I don't think they are here yet. But I think I will like them based on the comparison to Martin. I understand why you do not.

As for George R. R. Martin's use of profanity, sexual situations and bloody scenes... they add to the realism that I love. I understand why you don't enjoy them though becuse you are a fan of high fantasy, and such things are fopa. In the end a guard dying in either high or dark fantasy is till the end of a life, and I don't beleive it is so simple. The focus on these items, profanity, sex, and the like make it a realistic fantasy setting. You prefer more escapist high fantasy. I understand why it doesn't appeal.

Wheel of Time: I recently finished the second book, and so far I never wnat it to end. I will keep reading despite someones warnings because I am intrigued by the story.

Dragonlance, Shannara... they have very nostalgic places in my memory, but recent rereads have left me unsatisfied. That does not mean I think them crap, my tastes are different. I LOVED the Shannara DRAGON insert. I will probably buy the Dragonlance setting book, because my memories of it are glorious - it is a cool setting. My reading tastes are just different now. That does not make them bad, in fact it makes them really good, because they introduced a young boy/man to the wonders of fantasy and I am still there years later. How many movies live up to viewing them years later. Star Wars anyone? The original is getting pretty dated, but we still love it for the nostalgic reasons. If feel the same for dragonlance, shannara, etc.

I am currently reading the first Memory sorrow and thorn and am not sure what I think, I am only 200 pages in.

The only thing about your post that irked me was actually that there was no spoiler warning. i just recently finished the thrid ASoIaF book and I would have been crushed pretty early on due to the spoilers if I was not upt to date.

Thanks for your opinions. I add mine respectively.

Razuur

 

[alaric]

I think you could have condensed your rant down to "i don't like gritty fantasy". Personally i feel the opposite, i'm tired of reading fantasy with clearly defined good and evil, the bad guys are all "puppy kickers" and the good guys are all paladins. After awhile it gets plain boring.

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

Sorry about that spoiler thing

Greetings all,

I offer my huzzahs for the type of discussion this is so far. No flaming (yet!) and well thought out replies. This is the type of thread I was going for instead of you suck type of thing.

Thank you,

Son_of_Thunder

 

[King_Stannis]

I think you could have condensed your rant down to "i don't like gritty fantasy". Personally i feel the opposite, i'm tired of reading fantasy with clearly defined good and evil, the bad guys are all "puppy kickers" and the good guys are all paladins. After awhile it gets plain boring.

alric summed up what i was going to say very well. if you don't like martin's style, where almost everyone has damning/redeeming qualities, go read the other 10,000 shlock novels on the shelf at barnes & noble. as for me, i'll gladly read one that dares to be different - and does so in such a masterful way.

 

[Avantgeek]

Realism

(edited to fix typos)

Razuur stole a good deal of my thunder (no pun intended, Son of Thunder), so I'll just expand on that a bit...

In commenting on the lack of a moral center exhibited by the characters in Martin's books Son of Thunder said, "I don't believe that that kind of society would survive very long in real life."

The history of our world is cluttered with the type of behavior you decry. A simple example is Henry VIII and his adherence to his marital vows.

As to the degree (and nature) of violence, I can see where that might bother some people. I'm currently reading "The Monks of War" by Desmond Seward (a history of military religious orders), and I can say that there is nothing I've read in Martin's fiction that doesn't have some real world historical analogue.

The Middle Ages were not a nice time to be alive. People were treated (from a modern perspective) horribly, people did horrible things, and they did this (very frequently) to promote their own selfish goals.

I'm straying from my point, which, simply, is that history refutes the claim I quoted previously.

Now, then, on to the books...

The thing I hate about them (and Brooks with Shannara, and Jordan's Wheel of Time, and just about any other fantasy series) is that they just go on and on. I like beginnings, middles and endings. It seems to me that commercial considerations (which, undeniably, have to be taken into account) have had altogether too much impact on modern fiction. Specifically, it seems as though the success of soap opera-esque series of novels has resulted in an epidemic of Writer's Diarrhea.

Anywho...

 

[Desdichado]

I don't much like some of the authors you mentioned as recommended either. Eddings, at least, is a bad author. His first series of five books was alright -- and I'd probably still enjoy them today. His next three series, however, were horribly derivative of the first series. Not only that, his tongue-in-cheek treatment of the material is grating. When the "party" travels along, laughing it up at every full stop -- despite the serious tone of the books as a whole, the tone goes all to pot. Not only that, I get extremely tired of the "race = personality" issue that Eddings struggles with.