I got A Feast for Crows for Christmas, and begun reading it...
...but I have to say I'm feeling very disappointed so far.
George is a very talented writer, but as with my criticisms of Peter F Hamilton (and probably other people's criticisms of Robert Jordan) it seems that George is failing to tell a story, and instead allowing an undisciplined exploration of peripheral characters and sub-plot elements which are not essential to the main thrust of the story.
Opening chapter - a rush of introductions of unfamilar characters from a new point of view; next, a new point of view from the Iron Lands; then a new character from Dorne - a guardsman; then Cersei; followed by Brienne.
I've flicked through to see what point of view characters are used, and it seems that the only consistent ones from the beginning of the series are Sansa and Arya, along with the more recent Jaime.
Yes, I know he's split the character viewpoints between two books - but what is the actual point of the story in A Feast for Crows?
I want a story to have a story to tell - to me, ASoFaI was telling a story about conflict between Winterfell and Kings Landing, and how that would be overshaowed by the emergence of Dragons and Others.
But so far looking at A Feast for Crows, it's not going to tell me that - instead, it's going to be a self-indulgent exploration of the surrounding politics and from peripheral perspectives.
The Iron Lands should not be a focus for the story - the events in Dorne should not be the focus for the story - Cersei's first scene does nothing but recap what we've seen, and god knows why Brienne suddenly has to take a center stage - if the main Point of View characters cannot tell the story, then surely there is no story to tell?
Even Sansa and Arya have not been major figures in the series plot so far - Sansa is simply an observer of events to us, and Arya is living in her own little novel and failing to engage on the main plot events we've been introduced to.
The whole things feels undisciplined and irrelevant to the story George originally introduced to us in a Game of Thrones.
Surely a good story is pushed forward by clear protagonists we can follow, along with their crises and accomplishments?
I'm looking at the book now and feeling like giving up on it - I really hate the way there's a movement in modern SFF to focus on otherwise peripheral characters and actions in lieu of a main plot.
I realise that my opinion isn't necessarily going to be a majority one - but my feeling is that ASoFaI is an exercise in world building, not storytelling. In this, I think it encourages a gulf between mainstream literature and science ficiton/fantasy literature, the latter is going to be focused so much on providing a surrogate world to escape to, rather than focus on storytelling.
I really don't subscribe to the idea that if you tell a story, you have to use peripheral character viewpoints in equal (or greater amount) to the protagonist Points of View - to me it simply shows a lack of discipline on the part of the writers and editors to keep focused.
It's great that George can make his scenes real, but I don't want to read irrelevance, and looking at A Feast for Crows, it feels like that's what I'm going to be faced with reading.
What's worse is that if George has to keep throwing new peripheral characters on use, how is he going to be able to finish the series within his original projections? It feels like a series coming apart, and all for the similar criticisms I've read people throw at Robert Jordan.
Is this what is going to happen to A Song of Fire and Ice?
...but I have to say I'm feeling very disappointed so far.
George is a very talented writer, but as with my criticisms of Peter F Hamilton (and probably other people's criticisms of Robert Jordan) it seems that George is failing to tell a story, and instead allowing an undisciplined exploration of peripheral characters and sub-plot elements which are not essential to the main thrust of the story.
Opening chapter - a rush of introductions of unfamilar characters from a new point of view; next, a new point of view from the Iron Lands; then a new character from Dorne - a guardsman; then Cersei; followed by Brienne.
I've flicked through to see what point of view characters are used, and it seems that the only consistent ones from the beginning of the series are Sansa and Arya, along with the more recent Jaime.
Yes, I know he's split the character viewpoints between two books - but what is the actual point of the story in A Feast for Crows?
I want a story to have a story to tell - to me, ASoFaI was telling a story about conflict between Winterfell and Kings Landing, and how that would be overshaowed by the emergence of Dragons and Others.
But so far looking at A Feast for Crows, it's not going to tell me that - instead, it's going to be a self-indulgent exploration of the surrounding politics and from peripheral perspectives.
The Iron Lands should not be a focus for the story - the events in Dorne should not be the focus for the story - Cersei's first scene does nothing but recap what we've seen, and god knows why Brienne suddenly has to take a center stage - if the main Point of View characters cannot tell the story, then surely there is no story to tell?
Even Sansa and Arya have not been major figures in the series plot so far - Sansa is simply an observer of events to us, and Arya is living in her own little novel and failing to engage on the main plot events we've been introduced to.
The whole things feels undisciplined and irrelevant to the story George originally introduced to us in a Game of Thrones.
Surely a good story is pushed forward by clear protagonists we can follow, along with their crises and accomplishments?
I'm looking at the book now and feeling like giving up on it - I really hate the way there's a movement in modern SFF to focus on otherwise peripheral characters and actions in lieu of a main plot.
I realise that my opinion isn't necessarily going to be a majority one - but my feeling is that ASoFaI is an exercise in world building, not storytelling. In this, I think it encourages a gulf between mainstream literature and science ficiton/fantasy literature, the latter is going to be focused so much on providing a surrogate world to escape to, rather than focus on storytelling.
I really don't subscribe to the idea that if you tell a story, you have to use peripheral character viewpoints in equal (or greater amount) to the protagonist Points of View - to me it simply shows a lack of discipline on the part of the writers and editors to keep focused.
It's great that George can make his scenes real, but I don't want to read irrelevance, and looking at A Feast for Crows, it feels like that's what I'm going to be faced with reading.
What's worse is that if George has to keep throwing new peripheral characters on use, how is he going to be able to finish the series within his original projections? It feels like a series coming apart, and all for the similar criticisms I've read people throw at Robert Jordan.
Is this what is going to happen to A Song of Fire and Ice?