GRRM ruined a song of ice and fire by killing too many good characters

[Koopa]

I think he already has, with Grayscale being his version of it.

 

[Ursa major]

I think he already has, with Grayscale being his version of it.

Oddly enough, I was thinking that when I was writing my previous post.

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

Blimey this thread has got the hackles up on a fair few people it seems. I can't (being totally honest) be bothered to read the whole thread, but for my tuppence:

I think that, at the end of the day, an author ought to fulfill the expectations of his readers without wrong-footing them too much if he wants those readers to love his or her book. In the case of Agatha Christie, you expect to be surprised at the end of the book, so in that case its fine, you look forward to it. However, if she told you the butler did it half-way through, that wouldn't be okay. Its called meeting expectations. With GRRM's ASoIaF, I got that they were full of grittiness, and I understood there were some surprise deaths, and twists and turns in the plot, but I nonetheless thought I had the measure of his world, and what I might expect. Grand fantasy needs to wrap me in its world and give me the impression I understand it, for all its wierdness. You can't just trample on readers expectations for kicks. Unfortunately, when it came to the Red Wedding, it was revealed to me that GRRM and I were on completely different pages (so to speak). I didn't like the disappointment of those characters dying, I didn't think it was big and clever to unhorse me like that. Frankly it just pi#@ed me off, and for the first time in many years I wanted to hurl a book at the wall. So, yeah, I agree with he vocal minority: I think GRRM ruined it (regardless of whether its realistic or not, which I think is a complete red herring), and I'm not bothering to read beyond book 3. And I understand lots of other readers vehemently disagree with that, but that's subjectivity for you.

I will not try to persuade you to keep reading because I think that's a lost cause. I will however say that I don't get the impression that martin was "trampling on the readers expectations just for kicks". he has stated time and again that he is trying to write a story that doesn't adhere to the classic fantasy formula where the good guy always wins because he's the good guy and none of the good guys ever die. he has also demonstrated this in his writing many times before the red wedding.

martin isn't writing a story where bad things only happen to bad people. He is writing a story in which bad things happen to people.

but again, if you don't like the way this story is going, by all means, stop reading. it is no skin off my back.

 

[Bick]

he has stated time and again that he is trying to write a story that doesn't adhere to the classic fantasy formula where the good guy always wins because he's the good guy and none of the good guys ever die. he has also demonstrated this in his writing many times before the red wedding.

martin isn't writing a story where bad things only happen to bad people. He is writing a story in which bad things happen to people.

Yeah, that's fine and I quite understand that bad things happen to good people and he wanted to write a book that shows that, but it doesn't mean we have to like his end product. Your argument seems to run thus: Martin has repeatedly stated he wanted to plot his series in this manner, ergo, they are beyond reproach. I don't follow that argument at all. Personally I think he made a mistake in plotting them the way he did.

 

[JoanDrake]

he has stated time and again that he is trying to write a story that doesn't
adhere to the classic fantasy formula where the good guy always wins because
he's the good guy and none of the good guys ever die. he has also demonstrated
this in his writing many times before the red wedding.

martin isn't
writing a story where bad things only happen to bad people. He is writing
a story in which bad things happen to people.

He is, in other words, trying to apply modern realism to medieval fantasy. Nothing wrong with that.

My problem comes when he tries to keep all the general tropes of fantasy along with this. Why is everything at least a thousand years old, if not much older, and yet the world is inherently unstable? Why doesn't somebody do something about that? One constancy of human history is that very often terrible wars dragg on for years, BUT, they either became ritualized and a stable thing themselves, or grow into general conflagrations (like ASoIaF). And general conflagrations, by their nature, cause a reconfiguration and consequent restabilisation of a society, but usually a NEW society, not the old one. There are remnants, sure, but they very seldom have more than a peripheral influence

(Unless of course The Faceless Men are a sort of Illuminati Freemasons. Interesting trope, but not generally a realist one.)

You don't just survive in an environment after several thousand years. You learn to love it. People wouldn't just be working constantly during the summer to eke their way through the winter. They'd have developed institutions to take advantage of the cold. Many would be happy to see it coming, couldn't wait.

I may have already said this but "Winter is Coming" should be the overriding general mission and motto of this whole society, not just Winterfell. The witchfire that Tyrion used to burn the rebel fleet seems to be a fairly abundant thing, one way or the other, yet he didn't even know it existed. You'd think that somebody, while shivering through the last several winters, might have had the idea of , "Hey, why don't we burn this stuff in a furnace, like, to keep ourselves warm?"

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

Yeah, that's fine and I quite understand that bad things happen to good people and he wanted to write a book that shows that, but it doesn't mean we have to like his end product. Your argument seems to run thus: Martin has repeatedly stated he wanted to plot his series in this manner, ergo, they are beyond reproach. I don't follow that argument at all. Personally I think he made a mistake in plotting them the way he did.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head, but I am not saying martin is beyond reproach. I have said already that I take no issue with people disliking his story or being disappointed with it. what I am disagreeing with is the idea that martin ruined asoiaf, and I am taking the stance that no author can ruin their own work except deliberately. the fact that you, (and many other people) have no interest in Martin's work does not mean it is ruined.

When martin started writing asoiaf, the red wedding was already being planned. Martin knew he was going to have to write off those characters and when he was working on storm of swords he almost finnished the book before coming back to write the red wedding because he knew that it would be very hard to write and he didn't relish the thought of having to write it, but he had to for the story to go where it needed to go. The ripple effect of that event is still happening in book 5. it would be more accurate to say that if martin Hadn't included the red wedding asoiaf would be ruined. (more accurate, but not correct)

you will probably hate me for this, but your opinion that martin made a mistake in plotting his story the way he did is irrelevant. the fact is that he has written a hugely successful and critically acclaimed saga that is, unfortunately, going to dwarf the works of other great authors.

He is, in other words, trying to apply modern realism to medieval fantasy. Nothing wrong with that.

...

I may have already said this but "Winter is Coming" should be the overriding general mission and motto of this whole society, not just Winterfell. The witchfire that Tyrion used to burn the rebel fleet seems to be a fairly abundant thing, one way or the other, yet he didn't even know it existed. You'd think that somebody, while shivering through the last several winters, might have had the idea of , "Hey, why don't we burn this stuff in a furnace, like, to keep ourselves warm?"

Because wild fire would melt the furnace, then burn through the floor and melt the walls.

 

[Bick]

you will probably hate me for this,

Not at all, the more opinions the merrier, that's what the boards are all about.

but your opinion that martin made a mistake in plotting his story the way he did is irrelevant.

Not to me its not, it's highly relevant!

 

[JoanDrake]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head, but I am not saying martin is beyond reproach. I have said already that I take no issue with people disliking his story or being disappointed with it. what I am disagreeing with is the idea that martin ruined asoiaf, and I am taking the stance that no author can ruin their own work except deliberately. the fact that you, (and many other people) have no interest in Martin's work does not mean it is ruined.

When martin started writing asoiaf, the red wedding was already being planned. Martin knew he was going to have to write off those characters and when he was working on storm of swords he almost finnished the book before coming back to write the red wedding because he knew that it would be very hard to write and he didn't relish the thought of having to write it, but he had to for the story to go where it needed to go. The ripple effect of that event is still happening in book 5. it would be more accurate to say that if martin Hadn't included the red wedding asoiaf would be ruined. (more accurate, but not correct)

you will probably hate me for this, but your opinion that martin made a mistake in plotting his story the way he did is irrelevant. the fact is that he has written a hugely successful and critically acclaimed saga that is, unfortunately, going to dwarf the works of other great authors.




Because wild fire would melt the furnace, then burn through the floor and melt the walls.

Great stuff then, it can generate real heat and real heat is what you need to melt and forge exotic metals. SOMETHING will contain it. Ceramics, pure stone, how about quartz? There are substances, as I understand, that simply cannot burn, though they can melt. Besides, couldn't it be diluted?

OK, in a medieval world you're not likely to have lots of substance engineering. Wildfire ( I forgot what it was called, TY), however, or something very like it, was what saved Byzantium on numerous occasions, enough that it was called "Greek Fire" (as you no doubt remember, Bob.)

Let's belabor my point a little. You have a medieval world, with Medieval tech, however you also have THERMITE; and they're going to store it in the dungeon and forget it exists?

Face it, GRRM had written himself into a corner rather quickly by positing a Kingdom going so nuts that everyone else turned against it. The only thing he could do, and still not give the baddies their comeuppance, was to have a Wizard conjure up an AK-47, so he pulled Wildfire out of his ass, (godalmighty, writing IS painful sometimes.)

Seriously, my original complaint remains. If you have this impossible world with it's impossible seasons it's just not human nature (ants and grasshoppers in Disney movies maybe, but not real people) that the entire society would just forget about it and then sit freezing to death for several decades, over and over again, for millenia. Eventually, the entire society would, in one way or another, adapt, because you do that or die, and humanity's not dead yet.

Fantasy gains verisimilitude for its outlandish world by having the people within it act in a fashion almost rigidly consistent with what "real" people would do in those strange surroundings. I think Martin violates this rule and then hopes there's enough blood and boobies we won't notice. More power to him, I guess, as I really like blood and boobies, but I still notice.

 

[Ursa major]

A number of points:

1. I didn't think it was common knowledge - though this might be because my memory's playing up - that the usurped king had planned to destroy King's Landing in a cataclysm of fire. Jaime knew, of course, as did the loon in charge of making the wildfire. I'm not sure who Jaime told. Yes, some people knew that there was wildfire being stored, but did they know how much?
2. The wildfire to be used in the mad king's Strop of Fire was merely intended to burn the city. I don't recall it being mentioned that he wanted the city melted down in any way. And he wouldn't have been able to anyway, because:
3. The wildfire's power is far greater than it was at the time of the Baratheon Rebellion. (I think it was Tyrion who was told this in ACoK.) Its enhanced capability is one of the side effects of the return of magic: ordinary wildfire is chemical; new improved (well, old improved) wildfire is chemical and magic.

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

Great stuff then, it can generate real heat and real heat is what you need to melt and forge exotic metals. SOMETHING will contain it. Ceramics, pure stone, how about quartz? There are substances, as I understand, that simply cannot burn, though they can melt. Besides, couldn't it be diluted?

OK, in a medieval world you're not likely to have lots of substance engineering. Wildfire ( I forgot what it was called, TY), however, or something very like it, was what saved Byzantium on numerous occasions, enough that it was called "Greek Fire" (as you no doubt remember, Bob.)

Let's belabor my point a little. You have a medieval world, with Medieval tech, however you also have THERMITE; and they're going to store it in the dungeon and forget it exists?

Face it, GRRM had written himself into a corner rather quickly by positing a Kingdom going so nuts that everyone else turned against it. The only thing he could do, and still not give the baddies their comeuppance, was to have a Wizard conjure up an AK-47, so he pulled Wildfire out of his ass, (godalmighty, writing IS painful sometimes.)

Seriously, my original complaint remains. If you have this impossible world with it's impossible seasons it's just not human nature (ants and grasshoppers in Disney movies maybe, but not real people) that the entire society would just forget about it and then sit freezing to death for several decades, over and over again, for millenia. Eventually, the entire society would, in one way or another, adapt, because you do that or die, and humanity's not dead yet.

Fantasy gains verisimilitude for its outlandish world by having the people within it act in a fashion almost rigidly consistent with what "real" people would do in those strange surroundings. I think Martin violates this rule and then hopes there's enough blood and boobies we won't notice. More power to him, I guess, as I really like blood and boobies, but I still notice.

even in the real world people freeze to death in the winter. even in modern times in developed countries, there will always be poor people who freeze to death. I think for the most part, the people of westeros have adapted to their environment as much as can be expected. the problem is that their seasons are inconsistant. It's not like every winter is 6 years long. Some might be only a few months, some might be 10 years. the people of westeros, particularly in the north, have adapted to it. they have their rituals and customs and traditions that get them through the winter however long it is, and the richest people, as always, survive just fine. think of winterfel with its hot water flowing through the walls warming the castle. that seems like a pretty good example of utilizing what they have to adapt to their inconsistant climate.

 

[Reivax26]

To be honest I really like Martin's writing style. Too often in a series it gets to the point where you know none of the good guys are going to die. It was something that actually amazed me in Lord of the Rings.

Some series can pull it off well though, the climactic death scene. The one that jumps to my mind is **SPOILERS**

Spoiler

Sturm Brightblade's death in the 2nd Dragonlance book. It was a heroic death in the true sense of the definition of it really

. My beef with Martin is that I honestly only care about a few of the characters. If the rest die it really doesn't bother me at all.

I like Jon Snow because he is the classic hero. He is trying to overcome something that is beyond his ability to control: the fact that he's a *******. I really do hope that Martin doesn't kill him off or that he at least dies saving the world.

I like Daenerys because she is one of the best written female characters anywhere. Martin really does transition her well from being the timid little girl at the beginning into a true Queen on the brink of becoming a great ruler.

I like Tyrion because he is deep down a good and decent man. Yes he has his flaws. He likes women and alcohol, which is pretty common even in todays society. He is trying to do right even while surrounded by the most selfish greedy bastards in the history of Westeros.

The rest of them really don't mean anything to me. I hope that Jaime kills Cersei at the end though. Also I don't really care what happens to Sansa or Arya as I have grown to despise both characters. Their chapters are so boring I almost fall asleep reading them.

 

[JoanDrake]

I think he already has, with Grayscale being his version of it.

Does Grayscale kill 1/3 to 1/2 the population? Does Grayscale cause a chronic labor shortage that lasts for generations and pretty much changes all the old class distinctions?

Because wild fire would melt the furnace, then burn through the floor and melt the walls.

Dragonbone could probably contain it.

even in the real world people freeze to death in the winter. even in modern times in developed countries, there will always be poor people who freeze to death. I think for the most part, the people of westeros have adapted to their environment as much as can be expected. the problem is that their seasons are inconsistant. It's not like every winter is 6 years long. Some might be only a few months, some might be 10 years. the people of westeros, particularly in the north, have adapted to it. they have their rituals and customs and traditions that get them through the winter however long it is, and the richest people, as always, survive just fine. think of winterfel with its hot water flowing through the walls warming the castle. that seems like a pretty good example of utilizing what they have to adapt to their inconsistant climate.

Maybe for a century, possibly two. Hell, certain aspects could hang on for a millennia, but Martin wants us to believe this has been the situation for EIGHT THOUSAND YEARS.

Sorry, no, I don't agree environmental problems can hold a people at the Medieval level for twice the length of recorded civilization. They would die first. (Of course Martin may be depicting a dying world, but I'm going to think not, I see no overall indication of such) Medieval means Middle and that implies it's a transitional period

One of the hallmarks of Fantasies is that they are timeless worlds, where little changes. Great events go on, but, in the end, order is restored and everything is as it was and always will be. The real world doesn't operate that way, and if Martin wants to be realistic he should be so in all aspects, not just those that make a story easy to write.

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

Does Grayscale kill 1/3 to 1/2 the population? Does Grayscale cause a chronic labor shortage that lasts for generations and pretty much changes all the old class distinctions?



Dragonbone could probably contain it.



Maybe for a century, possibly two. Hell, certain aspects could hang on for a millennia, but Martin wants us to believe this has been the situation for EIGHT THOUSAND YEARS.

Sorry, no, I don't agree environmental problems can hold a people at the Medieval level for twice the length of recorded civilization. They would die first. (Of course Martin may be depicting a dying world, but I'm going to think not, I see no overall indication of such) Medieval means Middle and that implies it's a transitional period

One of the hallmarks of Fantasies is that they are timeless worlds, where little changes. Great events go on, but, in the end, order is restored and everything is as it was and always will be. The real world doesn't operate that way, and if Martin wants to be realistic he should be so in all aspects, not just those that make a story easy to write.

now I understand your point. I was distracted by your idea about wildfire being used to heat homes.

If I understand your opinion correctly, you are taking fault with the fact that there have been no major technological advances in 8,000 years. you have a very valid point here i must admit. I can't really think of any reason why a society would not have developed beyond the "medieval" stages for thousands of year. the only argument for this that I could make is that, until rather recently, (a couple hundred years before asoiaf) their society was pretty highly developed in magic. if things can be done easily by magic, why bother trying to invent things like elctricity? I know this is a weak argument but it's all I can do.

now, just to get back to your point abour dragon bone fireplaces for wildfire heating. Dragon-bone is fairly rare and most people would not be able to get enough to make a fireplace. frankly, wildfire itself is hard to come by and i doubt many people would be willing to get into the wildfire tranport business being that a bumpy road could kill them all.

 

[JoanDrake]

now I understand your point. I was distracted by your idea about wildfire being used to heat homes.

If I understand your opinion correctly, you are taking fault with the fact that there have been no major technological advances in 8,000 years. you have a very valid point here i must admit. I can't really think of any reason why a society would not have developed beyond the "medieval" stages for thousands of year. the only argument for this that I could make is that, until rather recently, (a couple hundred years before asoiaf) their society was pretty highly developed in magic. if things can be done easily by magic, why bother trying to invent things like elctricity? I know this is a weak argument but it's all I can do.

now, just to get back to your point abour dragon bone fireplaces for wildfire heating. Dragon-bone is fairly rare and most people would not be able to get enough to make a fireplace. frankly, wildfire itself is hard to come by and i doubt many people would be willing to get into the wildfire tranport business being that a bumpy road could kill them all.

One question this begs is WHY the "Magic Went Away". It's one of the things that keeps me reading, despite the fact that I find the books have serious flaws

Of course, all books of any really well-developed scope will have flaws. Sometimes I think the study of how various writers deal with their shortcomings is actually more important than how they write in general. We can't (or shouldn't) successfully copy another writer's style, but we can steal their method of covering up a plot hole or an inconsistency and very few will say anything about it.

Oh, and nitroglycerin was transported, even though it did blow up, for several years before dynamite was invented. Also, you could transport just the ingredients. Dragonbone is used for knife handles, (like the one that almost killed Bran) so it is apparently possible to work and reasonably abundant, though rare, so crucibles of it would not be out of the question.

You have to excuse me here. I find GoT to be so very well written overall that I just have to pick what holes I can in it, just to make myself feel better

 

[joshrackley]

There are civilizations in existence today that haven't developed past certain technological stages (generally much more primitive than medieval but whatever) so while I did notice that about the story, it's never really bothered me.

Edit: And also the pyromancers tell Tyrion, while he's commissioning the wildfire, that it's gotten easier to craft than it was previously and that it's more powerful; the message to the reader is that dragons returning to the world has brought back the magic (glass candle is another proof of this) ... but then there's the question "did dragons bring magic or did magic bring dragons?"

 

[Ursa major]

One question this begs is WHY the "Magic Went Away". It's one of the things that keeps me reading, despite the fact that I find the books have serious flaws

We don't know, but we can work out (okay, speculate) about why it has returned and suggest that has a connection to its disappearance.

So what might have brought magic back?

We know the Others are back, and they appeared before anything else relevant happened (unless there's something in the Dunk & Egg stories). However, we don't know if their return depended on magic.

There's a good argument that the return of the dragons heralds the return of magic. Many might argue that magic was required to hatch Dany's eggs - and we know that magic was probably used to (half-)restore Drogo, but they would only be an issue if we looking for why there is now magic, rather than why its strength has returned.

These are the two big possibilities, but I would like to argue that the process is more complicated, that magic begets magic, and that magic depends on the presence of magical creatures.

So one possible scenario might be that the Others have awoken - for whatever reason - and their return allowed magic's power to increase enough to hatch the eggs. The dragons then add to the power of magic, allowing other effects - more powerful wildfire, Thoros' resurections of Beric, Mel's magic - to work.

Getting to why the magic went away, we could argue that the Others departed (to their hibernation, resting place), which meant that the magic available to the earlier dragons was lessened, leading to them dying out. And with them gone, magic dropped to its lowest power, enough to keep, say, "Bloodraven" going, but little more.


Or maybe not.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I just presumed that magic ebbed and flowed in a natural cycle, much like the seasons. As it returns, more magical things happen, and it draws back, less magical things happen.

It's interesting to note the dragons have been gone a few centuries, and the last few were quite diminished. My take from this is that the magical cycle works on a longer frame of time than the actual seasons.

 

[Ursa major]

The only problem with that, Brian, is that we don't have any information about the ebb and flow of magic further in the past. I get no sense that the dragons were ever absent in the period leading up to the Doom, when only the Targaryens were left owning some (which they used to conquer most of Westeros).

 

[Koopa]

@grayscale thingie, you're right it will not have the same effects as the plague did, but with magic returning and people carrying the decease, it can liven things up. I never said it was exactly as the plague in medieval times, i'm just saying it could be grrm's lesser devastating version of it.

Though now that i think longer on it, it probably isn't, and whilst a decease that already influences the story (Connington, Shireen), and probably will continue to influence the story, it probably isn't GRRM version of the plague after all. Methinks the plague that terrorized westeros during the false Spring (whilst Dunk and Egg lived) is probably RRM's version of the plague.

@Magic, my take on that, is that magic has returned because healthy dragons have returned. The reasons the last dragons where smaller and malformed was becuase they where born in bondage, and because the maesters of the citadel where poisoning them.

 

[LightBringer]

I've said most of what I wanted to say, but I'll add a few more points.

but maybe I just have less faith in humanity than you.

Yes, that seems to be the main difference between us. Nothing wrong with that. George R.R. Martin's view on humanity is closer to yours than mine (he might have even less faith).

I think that, at the end of the day, an author ought to fulfill the expectations of his readers without wrong-footing them too much if he wants those readers to love his or her book. In the case of Agatha Christie, you expect to be surprised at the end of the book, so in that case its fine, you look forward to it. However, if she told you the butler did it half-way through, that wouldn't be okay. Its called meeting expectations. With GRRM's ASoIaF, I got that they were full of grittiness, and I understood there were some surprise deaths, and twists and turns in the plot, but I nonetheless thought I had the measure of his world, and what I might expect. Grand fantasy needs to wrap me in its world and give me the impression I understand it, for all its wierdness. You can't just trample on readers expectations for kicks. Unfortunately, when it came to the Red Wedding, it was revealed to me that GRRM and I were on completely different pages (so to speak). I didn't like the disappointment of those characters dying, I didn't think it was big and clever to unhorse me like that. Frankly it just pi#@ed me off, and for the first time in many years I wanted to hurl a book at the wall.

You make some very good points here. It has a lot to do with the expectations which are set both by the author and the genre itself. Like you say, although it's shocking (though I feared something like it would happen), it's not a clever way to do it. It's cheap. What's worse is that Martin does it for the sole purpose of shocking his readers. His agenda is to attract attention to his own 'originality' and 'ingenuity', no matter if he decapitates the story in the process. Well, he has certainly succeeded in attracting attention to his work, no doubt about that. So I guess he's quite pleased with himself.

By the way, for those of you who don't believe that Martin primarily wants to surprise – if anyone can doubt that - there's an interview where he explains why he wrote the Red Wedding. I'll sum it up. Basically he says that in the first book Ned is expected to get in to some problems, but in the end get away from it with his head still on his shoulders. So that doesn't happen. Then, it is expected that his oldest son will avenge him. Well, that means that can't happen either. There you have it, the author's entire reason for writing the way he does. Just writing a story to shock people and throw them curveballs like this is a pretty weak motivation in my opinion. But of course, he's the author, he can do what he wants with his story. Once again, it's not how I like a story to be.

(regardless of whether its realistic or not, which I think is a complete red herring)

I've said everything I'm going to say on whether the Red Wedding is realistic. The reason I went into such detail is that a lot of people had a different opinion on the matter so I wanted to clarify what I based my opinion on. Another reason was that some claim Martin writes this event in the book because it's realistic. This I disagreed with.

My problem with GRRM, and the whole grimdark phenomena, is that it more than often (like most of the 20th century view of medievalism) goes the other way. Medieval times were tough, no question, but the idea that everything was filthy, disease ridden and miserable is also something of a myth.

Precisely. Somewhere between these two extremes would have been nice. I've read plenty of books and seen plenty of movies where the hero win way to easily. Everything is resolved almost without obstacles. This is in no way satisfying, there has to be some buildup, some challenge, but for it to be satisfying to me it also has to have some kind of release, some kind of conclusion. Martin makes terrible things happen, then let you believe that there might be some justice, and then something even worse happens.

As for Daenerys, I honestly don't understand why so many people like her. It must be her dragons. She's the most annoying character in the whole series as far as I'm concerned. She's entitled, ignorant, she's so superficial it's ridiculous and despite thinking herself wise she does the most obvious mistakes. And still she lives! This does not fit with how he kills off the other characters when they make mistakes. It seems he has decided that Daenerys will be the hero, and no matter what obstacles she encounters, she will overcome them. Realistic indeed.

Yeah, that's fine and I quite understand that bad things happen to good people and he wanted to write a book that shows that, but it doesn't mean we have to like his end product. Your argument seems to run thus: Martin has repeatedly stated he wanted to plot his series in this manner, ergo, they are beyond reproach. I don't follow that argument at all. Personally I think he made a mistake in plotting them the way he did.

I agree. It was a mistake. And the fact that he wanted it that way from the beginning does not mean it's beyond reproach. So many people say that it's brilliant just because it doesn't follow the conventions. I find that to be ridiculous, it has to work as well, it can't just be some new twist for the sake of originality. It's desperate. And to me it ends up being deeply unsatisfying.

what I am disagreeing with is the idea that martin ruined asoiaf, and I am taking the stance that no author can ruin their own work except deliberately. the fact that you, (and many other people) have no interest in Martin's work does not mean it is ruined.

Deliberately or not, it doesn't really matter. If an author completely disappoints all his readers, it's safe to say he ruined the story. Now, this doesn't seem to be the case with ASoIaF, because there are plenty who don't mind the direction the story has taken. But it's absolutely possible to screw up a story. However, I doubt there are many authors who do this just for the sake of it.

you will probably hate me for this, but your opinion that martin made a mistake in plotting his story the way he did is irrelevant.

Of course it's not irrelevant as long as he has something to back it up with. After all, this is a matter of opinion.

By the way, I had some trouble posting, that's why I'm replying to something this old, while the rest of you are discussing something else (perhaps a sign from above that my posts aren't welcome ).