Has "A Song of Ice and Fire" ruined fantasy?
- Thread starter jademunky
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Most writers of fantasy epics seem to have no idea that horses need constant care and attention or that even super-badasses can die from a tiny infection from a relatively minor wound. Most will not spend 50 pages building up on the motivations and background of a character only to kill them off and cast them aside like they were nothing.Vault101 said:
So whats the difference? Well you said that you are a sci-fi fan right? So think of it as the difference between Robert Heinlein and L. Ron Hubbard. One of those men (for all his other faults) took time to research the kind of world he wanted to build and tried to minimize the logical leaps-of-faith needed for the world to work while the other guy just wrote because he was getting paid on a per-word basis.
thats a good example, thanksjademunky said:
I guess the question is a good book period. Since a "good/bad fantasy book" implies there are rules and if anything fantasy as a genre needs LESS rules
that said as you pointed out the genre has its own faults/oversights
The first book of the Mallorean was fucking hilarious, but it did start to fall apart after that. Though Silk's half brother ending up taking control of the Murgos was funny.J Tyran said:
Hmm, have you gotten to books 4 and 5 of the series yet? You may have to alter your high opinion of the series after that...if you've ever asked "I wonder how RR Martin's going to tie all these separate plot branches together," it seems like he's run into that exact problem. The cynic in me says that he'll probably just end a bunch of the plot branches by killing everyone off in some meaningless way, which might be "realistic" but is pretty terrible from a writer's point of view since it renders all that exposition irrelevant.
To be honest, I think fantasy is a pretty weak genre overall. I've read a number of series that some people hold in high regard (ASoIaF, Wheel of Time, Mistborn, Kingkiller Chronicle, Farseer Trilogy) and all of them suffer from poor writing/organization in one way or another. RR Martin is one of the better of the bunch, but he seriously needs an editor and a better grasp on whatever his central plot is supposed to be.
Of all the fantasy stuff I've read, I can really only recommend the Liveship Traders trilogy and the Gentleman Bastards series. Neither are perfect, but both are fairly strong, with good characters, solid plot, decent pacing, and lack the self-indulgence that a lot of fantasy authors tend to convey. I'm going to try the Black Company next, so we'll see how that goes.
To be honest, I think fantasy is a pretty weak genre overall. I've read a number of series that some people hold in high regard (ASoIaF, Wheel of Time, Mistborn, Kingkiller Chronicle, Farseer Trilogy) and all of them suffer from poor writing/organization in one way or another. RR Martin is one of the better of the bunch, but he seriously needs an editor and a better grasp on whatever his central plot is supposed to be.
Of all the fantasy stuff I've read, I can really only recommend the Liveship Traders trilogy and the Gentleman Bastards series. Neither are perfect, but both are fairly strong, with good characters, solid plot, decent pacing, and lack the self-indulgence that a lot of fantasy authors tend to convey. I'm going to try the Black Company next, so we'll see how that goes.
There are a lot of great fantasy books out there, there are also a ton of bad fantasy books. Are you getting recommendations or going in blind?
I used to think so. But I've found some really good stuff lately. Someone mentioned The Stormlight Archive... I second that, but pretty much all of Sanderson's stuff is pretty good. Jim Butcher, author of the Dresden Files (an urban fantasy setting) also has a romanic fantasy series finished that I really enjoyed called the Codex Alera. It starts a little slow but book 3 (just like in the Dresden Files... weird) is as good or better than anything GRRM has put out there. But rather than just the standard "Robert Jordan, Jim Butcher, Brandon Sanderson, Rothfuss, all the authors we all know" and suggest the Deryni books by Katherine Kurtz. I enjoy them because of the allegory of events that happened in the real world during the medieval period, which is commonly mirrored by "high fantasy" types of settings. And it contains a way better researched look at that "setting" than I've ever found in other fantasy. And it contains an interesting system of magic consisting of psycic manipulations for evocation and ritual magic based upon the Catholic and Islamic faiths. Plus the ending of the first book in the 3rd series is the only (out of hundreds) book that ever consistently makes me really "tear up" every time I read it. And I'm a cynical jerk. I was laughing so hard my first read of the "Red Wedding" that I actually did shoot milk out of my nose. But the end of Kurtz' "The Bishop's Heir..." Ahhhhh! My heart.
I don't believe so. I like to compare ASOIAF to the LOTR and The Hobbit but I don't see either of them cancelling the other out. If anything I see George R.R. Martin as the second coming of Tolkien in a way. Their names alone are similar enough and their writing styles are also kinda similar. Mainly in the sense that it took both of them a long time to get the plot moving.
The Silmarillion is a great book but it is really hard to get through just because of how boring it can be in some parts. The Council of Elrond was the same too. Great chapter but it goes on forever it seems.
In the end I find the ASOIAF books to be another great addition to the fantasy genre.
The Silmarillion is a great book but it is really hard to get through just because of how boring it can be in some parts. The Council of Elrond was the same too. Great chapter but it goes on forever it seems.
In the end I find the ASOIAF books to be another great addition to the fantasy genre.
Ha ha - Harry Potter is not really comparable!jademunky said:
I think you can enjoy different books on different levels and for different reasons. ASOIAF is great for moral ambiguity and depth of realisation of character and world, but in terms of plot it's not exactly a tightly structured thriller.
Harry Potter has great characters and plots, but it's a children's series and the writing is appropriately simple and straightforward.
I'm currently re-reading Stephen Donaldson's Mordant's Need two-parter and it's really great: tightly written, with good characters, a clever plot and an interesting take on magic. It's not as complex as ASOIAF by any means but it is at least a proper self-contained story.
David Eddings' Belgariad series is a fast-moving romp and he has a great ear for dialogue, particularly among large groups of characters. The morality aspect doesn't work for shit and the whole thing falls to bits as soon as you think about it for more than a few minutes, but if you sit back and let yourself go along with it it's good fun.
Lord of the Rings is great on adventure and world-building, but it's a bit fol-de-rol and, although it did pretty much invent the genre, as a consequence these days it feels a bit old hat.
Probably the closest thing to ASOIAF I've read is Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. It's much more focused around a single character but it's got proper depth and moral ambiguity to it (although the writing style is dreadful and it takes a bit of effort to get around Donaldson's tendency towards awful character names)
So in conclusion - no, nothing is perfect.
The 3rd book in the series has blown my mind. Non-stop action. Some are writing its all down hill from here. Too bad.Tayh said:
I understand TCs point. There are a number of series on TV now that are reminiscent of A Song of Fire and Ice and so far, all that I've given a chance have fallen far short of Game of Thrones.
I listen to the books on tape during my 2.5 hour round trip commute each day. What the heck am I going to listen to when this is over :-(
I think you've fallen into a trap of "I think this is good so if everything else is not this, it's not worth my attention (or it's straight up bad)" This leads to a negative mindset of confirmation bias. I'm not saying it's your cognitive thought, but rather a subconscious state that everyone tends to fall into. Same shit happened to me for dota vs mobas, mtg vs card games, battlefield vs fps...jademunky said:
Although they fit into the same genre, that's simply the "setting". Authors have different styles, and I'm not talking about just their language but also their focus and the topics or ideas they bring into their work as well as their method of expression. It is my assumption that you have found something you enjoy and simply subconsciously demand all other of the same genre to be George RR Martin's style. I could be wrong but that's my guess.
Well they're okay, but they're certainly much bigger than the sum of their parts. JK Rowling isn't a bad writer by any means; for a "childrens" book series, her world building is fantastic, but she's not great. Most of the characters (aside from Snape, who is actually a work of brilliance unto himself), are pretty flat, changing as the story needs them to be, plot holes a mile wide, there's a lot of fluff (not that Martin isn't guilty of that himself, but the rest of the time he's gold), and god DAMN IT The Power of Love is a main plot point. If you've watched the films, stick with them, they're a lot better than the books.jademunky said:
I still maintain the character of Harry Potter is ripped off from Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic though. Which is what you /should/ be reading.
Ah I was hoping someone might mention Eddings, the Belgariad was great stuff, certainly need to read it again at some point. The Elenium series was really enjoyable too, not /quite/ as goood as the Belgardiad, but good none the less.Soviet Heavy said:
I've accidentally let stuff slip a few times. Other times I've been outright chatting about the books with other people only for others nearby to whinge about it.tippy2k2 said:
Now, I can understand not spoiling the TV show for people, and for people being a bit miffed when it happens, but I do think it takes the piss a little bit when it comes to Game of Thrones - people treat the plot like it's a state secret, the revelation of which causes the world as we know it to come crashing down.
To be honest, some peoples reactions to GoT spoilers almost make me WANT to ruin it for them out of spite.
I'm a **** like that.
i wouldn't worry, book 5 was split into two parts, the first deals with the characters not in book 4 (parallel storylines if you didn't already know, one book deals more with kings landing, the other goes elsewhere, no spoilers from me though). basically, it'll last ages. i listened to them for about 20 hours a week (night shifts) and they lasted for quite a long time. that said, book 4 is rather dull, i disliked half of the characters which made it a bit of a chore to get through.Gorfias said:
i've gotta disagree here, the books have got nothing on the films as far as i'm concerned. however once again, snape ends up being one of the best played characters in the films too. funny how it works out like that.elvor0 said:
but the books just do so much more than the films, and they enrich the world much better. it can be overlooked in the first few films because the books were pretty short anyway, but around goblet of fire you could see that they were struggling to fit as much of the material as they could in. This was rectified by the last film, but half blood prince probably needed two films as well, they missed out so much of the backstory and actual explanation for everything that happened.
also some of the changes that were made were awful. the fucking lame scene near the end of half blood prince where
dumbledore dies and they all put their wands in the air
also, having stephen fry narrate the books on audiobook is just incredible, he really does them justice, even the voices of the characters just seem right
I've never really gotten into the A Song of Ice and Fire series.
Usually I enjoy a lot of world building in a story but at times with this series I find myself thinking "oh for ****'s sake. Get on with it."
The only reason I'm continuing with the books is so I can annoy people I know who are into the TV show with spoilers. >
Usually I enjoy a lot of world building in a story but at times with this series I find myself thinking "oh for ****'s sake. Get on with it."
The only reason I'm continuing with the books is so I can annoy people I know who are into the TV show with spoilers. >
Yes, it pretty much was, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter(if you want to count it) are really the rare exceptions that managed to set up our standards. While Sci-fi, ironically, has a long and prestigious history, fantasy has pretty much been a cesspool of cheap low quality rip-offs and has only gotten marginally better in the twentieth century after Peter Jackson showed the world the genre didn't have to suck.jademunky said:
I'll admit I've only read the first book, but so far ASOIAF seems more like a drama that happens to be set in a fantasy setting than an epic fantasy. Lots of talking, plotting, politics, betrayal, sex, it's a soap opera in a medieval setting. Where's the adventure? The magical McGuffin? The big scary monsters? There's more to the fantasy genre than just being set in a fictional land with pre-industrial technology.