Review of GOT

[genisis2]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AR3RAD2DPXBRN/002-7920460-3398457

This review is found in the middle of the page.

This reviewer makes an assertion that GRRM has ripped off Dune and War & Peace then compares GOT to Donaldson's Mirror of Her Dreams and Gap series. Last the reviewer claimes this is a plotless book and just an 800 page introduction to Westros. I wasnt sure if there were any legalities involved in copying the review so I pasted the link.

I have not read War & Peace, Dune nor the Gap series would be interested to read your thoughts on this caustic critisism and see if this guy is way off base.Be prepared this review was a nasty 1 out of 5 stars and he pulls no punches.

I have read Mirror of Her Dreams and would say that GRRM has fleshed out better characters.

 

[Aegon the Unworthy]

Dont sweat it bub. While I have read Dune and War and Peace (stopped reading the chauvinistic Donaldson a long time ago) the characters did not stand out as being similar to the ones he mentioned. Yeah I can see most of his comparisons but I wouldnt have made em. Personally Ive always felt there are very few original ideas anymore, unless an author has a claw wielding mutant named Wulferine I usually let derivative work slide. Name any character in any work and Im sure I can find one from an earlier piece (albeit obscure) that has similar motivations and back story.

The reviewer also complains its impossible to make RPG characters "distinctive" in D&D, obviously focusing on mechanics more than the building of characters.

And lastly the comparison of Catelyn to Jessica is harsh....just havent figured out which character its an insult to

 

[genisis2]

thanks. I was hoping the guy was spouting a lot of nothing. I have read some minor critisms in these posts but nothing compared to the review.

 

[Dolorous Edd]

To be honest I stopped reading that review the moment he mentioned Donaldson. I've only read the first Thomas covenant book so I can't judge the rest of his work, but it was without question the worst fantasy novel I’ve ever finished reading. unimaginative, uninteresting drivel from start to finish - and coma-inducingly dull. In fact I hypothesis that if you travel far enough back in the evolutionary chain you will discover that the sea creatures that pre-dated the sloth probably got hold of the complete works of mr Donaldson, and have been in a near vegetative state ever since.

I have the rest of the series (I bought the 2 omnibus editions) but needless to say they're just gathering dust, occasionally filling in as impromptu anti-spider devices in the absence of a conveniently available shoe or magazine.

ignore the reviewer. He's clearly talking out of his bottom.

 

[williamjm]

I'm vaugely amused by this bit of the review:
"George R R Martin has taken about 8 plots, none of which would amount to even a novella on its own"
In fact, I thought one of the plotlines (Dany's) *was* published as a seperate novella ("Blood Of The Dragon") and then went on to win the Hugo Award for best novella.

It does seem his basic complaint is that it is long and incomplete, which is a fair enough complaint. I don't mind that it is the first book in the series, but I can sort of understand why some people would dislike A Game Of Thrones being an incomplete story.

 

[YOSSARIAN]

I get the feeling this guy doesn't realize AGOT isn't a stand-alone work. Not exactly a scathing review-I wish someone could find a really bad review and post it.

 

[red_temple]

You must consider the source. It was an Amazon review, afterall. Don't get me wrong - there are a lot of good reviewers on Amazon, but they get watered down by being thrown into the same mix with other reviews that state things like, "Don't read this book. It was crap. If you want some real fantasy, then read the best author alive today - Robert Stanek."

 

[the smiling weirwood]

He obviously ignored the fact that it was not a stand alone book. His claim that all of George's characters are derivative and unoriginal is just a lie. I don't know what book he was reading but I for one found all of his characters fresh and interesting, but you would have to be an alien to write something that wasn't slightly familiar because every story is drawn from human experience and the characters that inhabit them are as well, and we are all humans, supposedly. Anyway, he sounds like a wannabe critic who just wants to impress people with his loud negative squawking. I think he's a self-important idiot. At this point I am not a happy tree.

 

[genisis2]

He obviously ignored the fact that it was not a stand alone book. His claim that all of George's characters are derivative and unoriginal is just a lie. I don't know what book he was reading but I for one found all of his characters fresh and interesting, but you would have to be an alien to write something that wasn't slightly familiar because every story is drawn from human experience and the characters that inhabit them are as well, and we are all humans, supposedly. Anyway, he sounds like a wannabe critic who just wants to impress people with his loud negative squawking. I think he's a self-important idiot. At this point I am not a happy tree.

Ha ha ha or LOL.

 

[Prefx]

I notice he gave Martin and King both crappy scores, and Stephen Donaldson not one, but two perfect 5s? I tried picking up Donaldson's original series (heard it was the best he had to offer) and I finished it a month later with sores on my brain (Sorry towards any SD fans )

 

[genisis2]

I notice he gave Martin and King both crappy scores, and Stephen Donaldson not one, but two perfect 5s? I tried picking up Donaldson's original series (heard it was the best he had to offer) and I finished it a month later with sores on my brain (Sorry towards any SD fans )

I like Donaldson,I like King and obviously Martin I have no problem with someone not being into an author and really who cares. I shelled out my money and I was entertained but my biggest fear was the suggestion that Martin blatantly stole characters from authors mentioned in the review, that he appropriated ideas and was either to stupid or ballsy to hide it. That hes fleshed out his plot and characters with someone elses voice. Its also frustrating having not read War & Peace, the Gap series nor Dune and to be tricked into thinking that the only creative thing Martin can do is steal someone elses ideas and according to the critic end up writing a half-assed novel. Whew - that felt good. I am now a happy tree.

 

[Dolorous Edd]

Seriosuly, I wouldn't give a toss if martin decided to write a fantasy novel based around the intriguing idea of a man suffering with leprosy, who constantly has to assess and question his surroundings and who, finding himself transported into a mystical land of elves and fairies, can't trust his own senses to tell him whether or not it's actually real. At least then it'd be a near certainty that it would be enjoyable to read.


To be honest there is no such thing as an entirely original concept. Human's just don't have the capacity of thought to have a truly unique imagination. All we can really do is warp, alter and merge what already exists in the world around us. No matter how twisted the result, everything we think of has some basis in reality. that's just the way it is. And even if someone could conjure up something really, truly original, it wouldn't make any sense to us. Our whole thought process turns upon our language (I think in english) which in turn is based upon OUR world, OUR reality. Novels are written in our own language(s), not elvish or whatever, and so no matter what the author imagines, he/she has to "translate" their ideas into english/french/etc. to be able to put them onto paper. Every time some warrior in a fantasy novel rides off into battle on a fearsome Blob-Thing (TM) our minds think "[read as: horse]", etc. Novel's are written by humans, for humans. It's why the main protagonists in books are always human or humanoid, because for one the author can't put themselves into the mindset of something so divergently alien to write the characters convincingly, but also because we'd never understand the end result. Even the "wacky" species you see in books/films are all mutated forms of real animals. they're always lizard men or cute little furry monkey/bear hybrids, insectoid species that live in gigantic hive-cities answering the call of their queen etc. And you nearly never Get POV's from them, or if you do they’re short and usually along the lines of:


"Trrrrrrrrrzaaaak scanned the unsuspecting enemy below him, his multifaceted eye's picking out every detail of the layout of their camp, every weak point and gap. His scouting mission over, he sent a pulse-thought back to the hive mind, informing the queen of the enemies position.

What he himself thought of this mission, this war, it would be impossible for any human to understand, his alien mind closed and incomprehensible.

Sensing an acknowledgement from the hive-mind, Trrrrrrrrrzaaaak turned and melted back into the forest, the humans below mercilessly unaware of the doom that even now drew ever nearer." etc. - little or no attempt to go into a detailed attempt to explore how it thinks.

Books/films/music - they're all going to be influenced by what came before them, they'll all contain some portions of past works. No artist can avoid being influenced by the very subject matter that inspired them to try and create something in the first place!

And that's a good thing. Don't get me wrong, I like interesting and new experiences in books, just as in life. I like reading books that make me think "WOW, I didn't see that coming!" and even more "Cool! I've never seen that done before". But in the same way that chicken vindaloo tastes dramatically different to roast chicken, they are, at their heart cooked poultry. And that's the way I like it, I can cope with that. I'm never going to start eating tree bark for instance, no matter how much woodlice may seem to enjoy it. I’m human. Each to their own and all that.

 

[the smiling weirwood]

THAT is exactly what I was trying to say, in a very small nutshell, but my outrage stimming from my offended cultist loyalty to GRRM only allowed me enough cohesive thought to write what little I could before dissolving into ranting, raving fits.

 

[Boaz]

The expression of art and the appreciation of art are both inherently subjective. I don't mean to say this to let everyone off the hook... but I like what I like and others may like what they like.

I read the review by Christopher Farrell and I've come to the conclusion that his pleasure is my poison and vice versa.

I read the Thomas Covenant series when I was fourteen. In fact, I probably read around 100 fantasy/sci-fi books while I was fourteen and fifteen. It was all new to me and Donaldson's books were some of the first I read after Tolkien. I'd never read of an anti-hero like Covenant, but I was both intrigued and repulsed by him. I've never felt the urge to reread the series. And twenty-five years later, I do not look back on the series with fondness... in fact I remember a story painted in gross generalizations with a simplified story of a tragic savior against the ultimate evil, yada, yada, yada.

I've not read the specific story that Farrell mentioned, but if Donaldson's other work is similar to what I have read, count me out.

Farrell also compared ASOIAF to War and Peace. I confess I cannot read Russian, so if my reading of Tolstoy in English is inaccurate, I beg your forgiveness. I found the story tedious. I never identified with Pierre and Natasha (I think they ended up being the protagonists, iirc) at all. Natasha was hopelessly in over her head and Pierre was a moron. The assassination attempt on Napoleon was horribly written... Pierre's incompetence saves him?!?! Was he the hero or Inspector Clouseau? Clouseau was Socrates compared to Pierre.

I was not living in Russia two hundred years ago, but did people really act like that? Unrealistic portrayals of characters left me frustrated... I only finished it so that I could say "I've read War and Peace." I thought The Brothers Karamazov much more riveting and realistic.

But the comparison of scale is accurate. W&P and ASOIAF are both epics. Though, I find Westeros more realistic.

To me, ASOIAF is very comparable to Shogun by James Clavell. Both are epic stories in feudal kingdoms. Both tell their story's by different POVs. The reader enjoys the insights into the characters motivations and thought processes, not just actions. Both are full of intrigue, subterfuge, love, lust, murder, catastrophe, survival and triumph. Just like Martin starts off with the Stark POVs painting terrible pictures of the Lannister brothers, Clavell starts off with Blackthorne's POV condenming the scheming Catholic Church, Spanish greed and Japansese barbarity. Then Martin starts giving Tyrion's and Jaime's perspectives on issues and events... and Clavell starts giving his readers the perspectives of Mariko, Alvito, Yabu, Omi, and Toranaga... and by the end Toranaga was my favorite character. If you read Samurai William by Giles Milton, you'll find that Shogun is almost as fictional as ASOIAF.

And concerning his critics, Tolkien once wrote, "Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer."

 

[Aegon the Unworthy]

"And concerning his critics, Tolkien once wrote, "Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer."

And that my friend, is the best response to a critic Ive ever heard and only proves that Tolkien truly was a brilliant man.

 

[genisis2]

And concerning his critics, Tolkien once wrote, "Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer."


Excellent response.

 

[dyffeg]

HIya,
I have read quite a few Donaldson books, as well as Dune and ? 6 related Dune books, and they seem strange books to link to GRRM. Dune has been well and truly ripped off by Jordan with his major groups of characters. I can't remember if I read the Mirror book listed. I did read a couple about Mirrors (title) by Donaldson years ago which were excellent.

I would describe these as more in the fantasy "mainstream" than Thomas Covenant (which I still enjoy reading). From memory there was castles and the same "medievalist feel" as GRRM, demented king who was only pretending (King Joyce from memory), Princesses, and magic associated with mirrors. There were also some good females roles and some bad baddies (without the complexity of GRRMs)

Oh well, one man's meat, etc,etc

Dyffeg