I have been checking up on this series and a lot of people say they loved AGOT but ACOK is just terrible, even some of the chrons mentioned that this book has more aimless wanderings of characters and there is even more dialogue with less action and less of a story. Why do the opinions differ so much?
I think that sums up ASOFAI pretty well after AGOT.
I think the problem is that a lot of modern sff fiction is less concerned about story, as much as just padding out as much "character experience" as possible.
The result is big thick chunky reads where a plot that would have spanned a short novel ends up spread across a thick trilogy.
I see this in other writers, such as Tad Williams and Peter F Hamilton, both of which are both otherwise accomplished and successful, but also prone to the same issue.
With ASOFAI, instead of remaining focused on the major story players, we are instead given an in-depth narrative of every corner of Westeros through a range of minor and frankly irrelevant characters.
I know some people enjoy the detail and the experience of the narrative, not least because GRRM covers a huge amount of information and holds it together very well.
But so far I am left very frustrated. I recently reread the series and missed out huge chunks, not because I didn't like certain characters - that should be irrelevant to a story - but simply because those characters no longer have any real impact on the story and have therefore become irrelevant.
However, I remain hopeful that A Dance with Dragons is going to start bringing everything together again in some semlance of an ordered story - so many pieces have been set up that he has to do something with them now. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen when it's published next month.
