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

[digs]

Any author that can have me starting out hating characters such as Jaime Lannister and then have him become one of my favorites, or have me feeling sorry for Cersei and Theon when it was once my wish that both of them die slow and miserable deaths, that particular author is IMO a genius.

Agreed! I couldn't believe myself when I realised that I was sympathising with Cersei during ADWD.

 

[viZion]

joao, I've been thinking back over the last few years and I recall a few epic series that I started and did not finish. Four, immediately, come to mind... Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, Janny Wurts' The Wars of Light and Shadow, Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen, and Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time. These series all have loyal fans. All are epic in scope. Each are, or could be, considered the definitive works of their respective authors. Yet, I did not finish any of them. Why?

Ha! Wow, these are the exact same series that I've started and never finished. Williams because it's just too slow. Malazan because it's just too ridiculous and the big shocking surprise in MOI was so heavily foreshadowed that I actually laughed when it happened which was, I think, the opposite reaction I was supposed to have. Wurts because, well, I just couldn't get into it but I may try again. And Jordan because, man, Crossroads of Twilight was a painful read...3 chapters about one character taking a bath! So I actually did get pretty far in WOT.

Every time someone brings up Malazan I have to hold back my rants about it because it's generally off-topic here. Anyway, I made my points back on the first page of this thread.

 

[juleska]

SPOILER GOING BEYOND aSoS TO FOLLOW




Any author that can have me starting out hating characters such as Jaime Lannister and then have him become one of my favorites, or have me feeling sorry for Cersei and Theon when it was once my wish that both of them die slow and miserable deaths, that particular author is IMO a genius.

Just so.

 

[sin]

Hi Boaz,

Yeah, they're not an easy (nice) read. I mean, he's not even a "cool" anti-hero - he's just a damaged man, which is kind of depressing. I'm still glad I read them though...

 

[Stribog]

Hi Boaz,

Yeah, they're not an easy (nice) read. I mean, he's not even a "cool" anti-hero - he's just a damaged man, which is kind of depressing. I'm still glad I read them though...

Tomas Covenant, and all Domaia experience, is excellent "prequel" for aSoIAF. After that, GRRM seems like light reading

 

[Clansman]

I quit Wurts' TWOLAS because I disagreed with her story... and I think that's what you feel towards GRRM. Miss Wurts has a much better command of the english language than I do. She intrigued me with the opening of the story. She got me to connect with her characters. Then she did not take the story in the direction that I felt it should have gone. I don't remember any of the characters' names, except Lysaer. He was to be Aragorn, but she turned him into the Witch King... and I did not like it. I thought her develpment of Lysaer was way too heavy handed. Lysaer should have been tempted into forsaking his honor and not bewitched. If I remember correctly, Clansman (a prolific poster on the Chrons) urged me to give the second book in the series a serious look. And I never did. Are all the fans of The Wars of Light and Shadow just plain wrong while I am right? Mayhaps I should press on with the story... Mahaps Aragorn will come back... I dunno.

Aragorn coming back takes a while, actually. Lysaer gets pretty bad, but he was fundamentally flawed to begin with, never tempering his natural born sense of justice with mercy. The story is really about religious abuse and oppression, and how the 'winner' is the one that gets to write history. The whole point of Wurts' story is to turn the reader's preconceived notions on their heads.

Similar to GRRM, if you go in expecting Aragorn, you are going to be disappointed. Wurts' is writing the 10th book in the series now, and having just read the 9th, I think the seeds of Lysaer's redemption (after wading hip-deep in blood for 9 books) are sown. But how that will look is only known to Wurts, and she's not telling.

Anyway, Boaz, you make an excellent point. Do we give up on a story because we don't like what the author did, despite recognizing that it is well-written? It may be that we weren't ready to feel that particular emotion (being punched in the stomach by Gregor Clegane's mailed fist really, really hurts, and were I in a bad place emotionally, TRW would have made me stop reading, just as The Battle of Tal Quorin in Curse of the Mistwraith made my knees buckle). Sometimes, the place where the reader is does not allow that reader to enjoy the book. In the case of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, I agree, I was not ready to read that series, but I pressed on. I should have waited until I was in my 20s, because I could not sympathize with Thomas Covenant at the beginning of the story. sin makes very good points (interesting username for that particular address, btw).

Press on, OP! You won't regret it. Same to you, Boaz. The Wars of Light and Shadow has so bloody much to offer, but you won't always like the course that it takes. I sure didn't, but I appreciate it now. Keep an eye out for a guy named Sulfin Evend. You will like him, and what happens with him.

 

[dragomort]

dragomort and Rolynd, Welcome. I don't recall seeing you both here before, but I'm not known for my powers of observation. Good posts, both of you.

Thanks! I joined relatively recently in my random jaunts across the web-zones and quite like a lot about the place thus far. Not around all that much it seems for obvious reasons, as I do 99% of my surfing at work but I try!

And I did think that my post might've sounded a bit more confrontational the next time I read it which wasn't my intent at all, so I'm glad it didn't seem to come off that way for at least some people

Anyhow, personal preference at the time can make or break a book and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I just think we should try to understand the 'why' so that we can then either avoid similar stories or develop a better palate to appreciate what's on the plate. In this case I think it was just a misconceived perception of the central focus of the overarching story - and I think it gets harder to control that as an author amongst the readers the longer a series goes on. People are so invested now on certain theories or opinions that they care little for the artistic merit of the choices, but will denounce it or praise it simply for how everything conforms to their speculations. It's a curious thing

At any rate, my appreciation (well, my TRUE appreciation, perhaps I should qualify it as ) didn't take root until the second or so time I read it and started picking up a lot of the subtlety that GRRM put in there. This was pre-going on the internet to delve into things in those halcyon days of the late 90s and there's little that's come close to that level of depth that I've seen since or prior and he's kept it going fairly well. That said, it's most definitely not for everyone, like any artistic endeavor.

 

[chongjasmine]

I agree with TS. The deaths of many 'good people' made me stop caring for the series. I now read the rest of the series without having my emotions tied down to it. My current favourite is Dany, but I am prepared that she may die at any point in the story.

 

[Tywin]

My chief complaint is that there are still too many characters alive.

The only ending that will be worthy of the series is if Podrick Payne is crowned King of Westeros by right of his being the only survivor.

 

[Stribog]

My chief complaint is that there are still too many characters alive.

The only ending that will be worthy of the series is if Podrick Payne is crowned King of Westeros by right of his being the only survivor.

Wait a little longer, as things are unfolding now, you may get your wish granted.

 

[Mesanna]

My chief complaint is that there are still too many characters alive.

The only ending that will be worthy of the series is if Podrick Payne is crowned King of Westeros by right of his being the only survivor.

And I hope with Brienne as his Queen?

 

[wonkishere]

Some time ago, I had an argument with someone who was doing their own writing. They got ready to 'apparently' kill a character, but the return them magically to life, and I told her not to do it, to have the guts to kill someone off. Or if not, don't even begin the storyline in the first place.
Most of the time, authors have a difficult time killing off characters they've spent a lot of time on, well-developed people, and they usually commit the sin of only pretending to kill them, or having them coast through life and survive things they shouldn't have been able to.
I do think the author may have struggled against that, and he essentially went, well, a little bit too far.
It's good for the story to take unexpected turns, and for it to be realistic. Unfortunately, he's massacred so many of his characters you rather expect it.
Worse still, it gets more difficult to have a perspective on what is going on in the story, or stay connected to what's going on.
I wouldn't say it completely ruined my enjoyment of the books, but I do think the author should have restrained himself a little.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I have a couple of characters in my first book who are killed, early on. Most people who've read it doubt that they're dead. I couldn't have done it more clearly; they were blown up in a spacecrash, the psychic link to them knows they're dead, and it defines their life, yet it still is a plot that seems survivable to readers, even though it was written so there could be no doubt. I think, sometimes, authors do stretch realism, and if we want to add genuine "will they won't they die?" then sometimes they need to. Even big characters, and I haven't shied away from that. But, possibly, GRRM makes me look a bit leery in the death stakes.....

 

[Boaz]

Forget making the NY Times best seller list... It is when people turn your dead characters into party snacks, post the pics online, and have people complain that there was not a spoiler alert... then you know you've arrived as a writer.

SPOILER ALERT for AGOT!!!

Cake heads on spikes.

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

I respectfully disagree that GRRM killed too many good characters. I find it refreshing, surprising, "truthful", well set up, and needful to the plot.

I respectfully point out that this series is inspired by the Wars of the Roses and includes many dark (and reasonalby invocative) historical scenarios. It is written by a conscientious objecter--to the Viet Nam war. I object to being labelled glaze eyed, (hardly) because I enjoy grey characters and the dark side of wars, because I see that as more complex, touching, satisfying and truthful.

It is a little like going for sushi, then, and complaining that the fish is raw! This series is dark. This series is nuanced. This series is informed by "real" history. If you want lighter fare, or Mary Sue characters--why read it, indeed. (and take a pass on biographies and politics) Now you know. The fish is raw. A lot of us like it that way. It is not a crime not to like it, however.

I also happen to like the prose, the poetic discriptions of setting, the character developments, the wit, the cliff hangers and even the easter eggs.

Here here!

And I personally love the descriptions of all the food. Allot of the time I dont even know what it is, but it sounds amazing!

As for TRW, I had read summaries for the books before reading the books (because I don't really care about spoilers, but Im all caught up now) and when reading through that part of the story, I would agree with Imp in that it felt like I had been punched in the stomach. It wasn't so much that it happened, (which I was prepared for) it was the how and why's of it. I know many of you found it to be a waste of story building and plot development, not to mention characters, but I respectfully disagree. There was enough going on at this point that it didn't slow the story down or ruin it in any way for me. If anything, the ramifications of TRW were so widely felt that it enhanced the story IMO.

I appreciate other people's opinions and i get that not everyone loved the story, but people will always want to stand up for their beliefs, so I don't think anyone should be surprised when people get defensive of this series, or defend their opinion of it, good or bad. Not only are we all entitled to oir opinions, but we are all entitles to defend them

In short, this series is awesome and if you don't like it, you're wrong

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think if he'd continued the quality of the first 2 (possibly the third, too) this would all be absolutely justified... but ADWD was, to my mind, padded to the extreme. There were some lovely parts of description - the foodstuff's as Tyrion travelled in the covered carriage stood out(forgive me if that's a poor description of where he was, I was skimming by then, purely because it no longer pulled me in, but it was the bit just before Penny) were excellent, and I enjoyed that.

In general, though, it left me for dead and I'd struggle to recommend the series. (the first two, absolutely, the series, no...), but this wasn't because of the death rate, nor the realism. I like my reading fairly dark, my writing also verges to that territory from time to time, and I do like a good dose of realism, but I really, don't like padding.

So, shall I start a new thread (lord, no, I'm still reeling from my last GRRM thread), but did he kill it by excessive padding. Incendiary, non?.

Ps, happy to be wrong. and no writer can appeal to everyone, or why would there be so many diverse books out there?

 

[Warren_Paul]

So, shall I start a new thread (lord, no, I'm still reeling from my last GRRM thread), but did he kill it by excessive padding. Incendiary, non?.

Ps, happy to be wrong. and no writer can appeal to everyone, or why would there be so many diverse books out there?

Hey Springs, you know where I'm going with this... no.

That's definitely a personal taste thing, I like padding in books - I guess that's the reason I liked The Wheel of Time. I believe it makes the world and characters deeper (when done right) - of course I wouldn't say any of the female characters in WoT are deep, but we aren't talking about WoT here.

I like the vivid detail that comes from padding, but we've always been on opposite sides of the fence with this.

When it comes to padding I think there is two sides and we as readers are split evenly. There are the people who want to have all that detail and imagination, then there is the other side which just wants to get to the point and find out what happens.

I wonder if it comes back to the instant gratification that many people seem to want these days? Almost to the point that they read the synopsis because they can't be bothered spending the time to read the actual book. Personally I think that's a shame, as the reader is missing out on such vivid worlds with an attitude like that - by skimming through it rather than trying to imagine what the writer intended. Of course fair enough if you're all imagined out and too tired to do so any more.

Could ADWD have been edited down a bit? Yes. ADWD was definitely padded, I'm not denying that, but I don't consider it bad padding - I don't think he needed to edit it down. Just because it can be edited to be slimmer doesn't mean it should be. IMO, tightening sentences and cutting fat can also cut out all the feeling, imagination and depth of the characters/world.

 

[The Procrastinator]

You have to add at least a third side to that, Warren. Readers who are discerning about their padding because they are aware that it is possible to write in a spare manner and still evoke feeling, imagination and depth. That takes real skill though, a certain artistry with words - and it seems to be out of fashion. One thing is for certain, its very tricky to do well, which may be why its not often attempted. But there is definitely a group of readers out there who love the slimline approach and find gratuitous padding irritating, and find a real difference between genuinely evocative padding and faffing about. I have to say my major reason for irritation with GRRM is the lax manner of his writing in the latter two books especially. When you compare it with the first two (or three? been a while since a reread) the difference is "stark".

 

[Jo Zebedee]

And there's what's meant by padding. If padding is well written, evocative descriptions that heighten the experience and add depth, I'm all for it. If padding is for the sake of keeping a series going, without adding to the richness I struggle. And this is where I think (only me, I can't, and don't speak for any one else, but I did read the lot and am entitiled to an opinion, even if its not universally positive, or supported by fans) GRRM both gets it right and very wrong.
The first two books are very nicely edited (the third starts to struggle, but he manages it.) They build the world and characters in depth, pulled me in, made me care, did everything a good writer should. They were strong and some of the best fantasy books - I am a sci fi girl, to be fair - I've read in a long time. Yay! said I, he's as good as people said.

IMHO the last two were padding for the worst reason; to build sales, not the series, and I felt - let me be honest - taken for granted.... and let down cos his writing was pretty damn good in the early books.

Padding as a term doesn't add richness, it adds superfluous stuff that can, and should be edited. Richness is completely different, and is to be applauded, but - in my opinion, and mine only, as a reader - he didn't add richness, he added superfluous storylines, and characters, that an editor would stamp on any new writer and tell them to ditch....

I think, and i know as WP does, we like veryyy different things in books, they should still be tight, and that's what it seemed to me to lose, and why, as a reader, I was left very disenchanted by ADWD in particular.

 

[viZion]

And there's what's meant by padding. If padding is well written, evocative descriptions that heighten the experience and add depth, I'm all for it. If padding is for the sake of keeping a series going, without adding to the richness I struggle. And this is where I think (only me, I can't, and don't speak for any one else, but I did read the lot and am entitiled to an opinion, even if its not universally positive, or supported by fans) GRRM both gets it right and very wrong.

Don't worry, I post plenty of opinions on here that aren't exactly supportive of GRRM and they still let me post. I agree with you about the "padding". ADWD had way too much extraneous details. I'm talking about the endless descriptions of food and clothing. That's not world-building; that's boring. Some of the long-winded passages about the history of this area or that area were technically world-building but also boring. They would have been perfect in a companion novel about the world (which is coming soon) but could definitely have been edited out in the actual series. Finally, there was one Tyrion chapter and one Daenerys chapter in which absolutely zero happened and could have been cut with no effect whatsoever on the story.

GRRM seriously needs an editor but unfortunately, he's at that certain stature that many celebrities reach where you can't really tell them anything AND no one *wants* to tell them anything because they make too much money for everyone (hello, George Lucas!). That's just the reality of the situation so be prepared for many more passages about dudes wearing blue-dyed supple leather doublets while eating suckled pig seasoned with saffron and chopped onions. Hooray for "world building"!




P.S. I know this is cliche by now, but see Lord of the Rings for an excellent example of a ridiculous amount of world-building in a very small package. If I remember the entire series is shorter than AGOT?