Why I think that "A Song of Ice and Fire" is poorly written. *Warning, spoilers likely*

[spartan231490]

Ok, so it's not poorly written, but I really don't think that it's particularly well written either. And here's why:

1) It has way too many POV(Point of View) characters, and way too many POV changes, which is really just a cheap way of increasing dramatic tension at the expense of emotional attachment to the characters and the development of the main characters.

2) Virtually nothing happens in the story. In the first two books, like nothing happens. What I mean by that, is that Martin spends more time describing what the characters think is going to happen, than he spends describing what actually happens. At least it seems that way to me. Everything that really happens gets about 2 pages of time, and half of them don't even happen while the character reads them, but the characters will spend a whole chapter just thinking about what might happen and how to deal with it, and worse, much of what they're thinking is either obvious, or tedious.

Spoiler

The one big exception to that is Theon's actions in the second book, probably because the author wants him to seem stupid, but half of the schemers come across as far less intelligent because they act irrationally. Stannis, Eddard, and Cersei are the three obvious examples.

Edit: By this I mean that the author spends more time on characters thinking about an event then he does on actually having the event happen, even for seriously major events, which I find ridiculous. It's like, he builds up all this massive amount of suspense about something, and then it's over. It's just over. It kinda leaves me with this: "really? That was it?" type of feeling.

3) The characters change ?sides? too often. A character will undoubtedly be an enemy for half a book, and then suddenly we are reading chapters from that character's POV and Martin tries to make us like that character, after having spent the last half of a book trying to make us hate them.

Spoiler

Tyrion, and Jaime come to mind.

Edit: By this, I more so mean that the author seems to deceive us about the intentions of too many characters. It works well once or twice, but IMO Martin overuses it and that just builds a sense of distrust in what is happening, as well as creating very Jarring changes in the story, where we have built up a massive amount of hatred for a character, and then suddenly we are in that characters mind and the author tries to make us sympathize with that character.

4) Many of the characters are essentially one-dimensional, which is unsurprising since the books are split amongst so many different characters, but many of them are one-dimensional and annoying, if not outright whiny and pathetic.

Spoiler

Lysa, her son, Bran, Rickon,(ok, so those three are kids) Sansa,(she's a kid too, she has a second dimension, unfortunately it's stupid, and by that I mean that her second dimension is to be a stupid person, her first is being whiny and annoying) Hot Pie, Catelyn,(whose motivations seem to change seemingly every single chapter she shows up in, either that or she is just acting incredibly irrational right now) Viserys, Cersei,(who also acts in an incredibly irrational manner, now that I think about it, half the characters on this list or more do that, and some characters that aren't on the list do too) Brienne, Renly, Stannis, Theon, and there are 3 brothers of the night watch whose names I can't remember that are just as bad

16 of them, and those are just the ones that I can think of off the top of my head.

Edit: I DO NOT THINK that the characters are shallow because there are no good and bad guys. I think the characters are shallow because I rarely saw a character battle with conflicting motivations. They all seem to be completely driven by a single motivation. Davos is an incarnation of Loyalty to Stannis, Eddard is an incarnation of honor, Tywin is an incarnation of power-lust. Catelyn is driven entirely by the desire to save her children. They don't even seem to care about much else. Davos is only passingly interested in his children. Eddard has like one action that isn't driven by honor, it's randomly driven by compassion. Tywin acts out of hatred for his crippled son like once or twice. Catelyn has no interest in the outcome of the war, despite the fact that her life and the lives of her precious children likely depend on it.

Also, the majority of the characters are either shockingly short-sighted, horrifyingly irrational, or just plain stupid.

5) The two most interesting "Main" characters: Daenerys and Jon, get some of the least time in the book, seemingly they are almost afterthoughts. Some of the most interesting and most fleshed out characters: Sam Tarly, Ser Jorah, The Hound, Jojen, and Asha Greyjoy are small-part side characters. It's almost as if the more time Martin spends on a character, the more erratic and the less interesting they become. The one exception I can think of is Tyrion, he's literally the only character I can even tolerate anymore.

6) The symbolism is all painfully obvious. The direwolf pups being the most painful example. The black hands of ?the others? being almost as bad. Most everything that happens is painfully obvious. I knew

Spoiler

that Daenerys was going to find a way to hatch the dragon eggs the minute she found them. I knew that Khal Drogo was going to die from the minute we first found out about him. I knew that Rob was going to be Crowned king in the north from the minute the war began. I knew that Eddard was going to die pretty much the minute he showed up in the capital. I knew that the royal children were pure Lannisters the minute that Eddard found out that the last Hand had been looking into Geneologies.

I mean, there is no subtlety at all, despite the fact that Martin seems to be trying to make the story more about political intrigue than anything else.


Disclaimer: I have only read 2 of the books, and I'm a few chapters into the third. It's really hard to get into, I just don't care enough about the characters or what's happening to read the books. Hell, even now I'm bored and I'm making this thread instead of reading it. I'm watching an episode of SG-1 that I've seen before. I think this is honestly the longest I've ever tried to read a book. I really don't think it's that bad, but I just can't get into it at all.

So, what are your thoughts? Do you agree or do you think that I'm a nutjob? Do they get better after the first 180 pages of the third book? Or should I just give up on it now?

Edit: Yes I like Sword of Truth. Yes, I know that most of you probably don't, most people on the internet don't seem to. I would love to argue with you about Sword of Truth for days and days, but this is not the thread for it. Maybe I'll do a why I think that Sword of Truth is well written thread when I get back from my vacation, but I definitely don't have time for it now. Suffice it to say, In no way was I comparing this series to Sword of Truth, I was well aware it was about political intrigue when i started reading it, and as different from SoT as a fantasy series can get.

Edit 2: Sword of Truth has nothing to do with A song of Ice and Fire. I posted the first edit because people were starting to comment on the fact that I enjoyed Sword of Truth more often than about A Song of Ice and Fire, and I am leaving on vacation tomorrow so I really don't have time to talk about Sword of Truth.

 

[spartan231490]

Wow, I really expected this thread to get a lot of traffic. Um, I've never seen a thread fail this hard, not even one response. I might not try posting another thread for a couple of months.

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

Hmm I disagree but that's just my opinion.

I'm quite tired so I'll just fail if I try and explain my thoughts so I'll book mark this and probably come back to it later.

 

[Dejanus]

I disagree with every point save the symbolism, but then a modern audience is so used to the rule of symbolism that I don't really count off for it.

You've certainly explained your opinion, but I really don't see the ground you are standing on. Its like Im watching a man atop a mountain speak of his transitory footing. I just can't see your side here.

I will say that your statement about the battles is rather silly, the focus of the series is not on any armed conflict, Martin is actually careful to not often give a viewpoint character a part in them, as it's not what he set out to write.

So yeah, I disagree rather strongly, though you have a right to your opinion. If you aren't enjoying it yet, you won't. So stop, and go read Sword of Truth or something. It seems likely to be more to your taste.

 

[spartan231490]

I disagree with every point save the symbolism, but then a modern audience is so used to the rule of symbolism that I don't really count off for it.

You've certainly explained your opinion, but I really don't see the ground you are standing on. Its like Im watching a man atop a mountain speak of his transitory footing. I just can't see your side here.

I will say that your statement about the battles is rather silly, the focus of the series is not on any armed conflict, Martin is actually careful to not often give a viewpoint character a part in them, as it's not what he set out to write.

So yeah, I disagree rather strongly, though you have a right to your opinion. If you aren't enjoying it yet, you won't. So stop, and go read Sword of Truth or something. It seems likely to be more to your taste.

I have read Sword of Truth, and I enjoyed it very much.

And the battles was just an example I picked because the whole world devolves into war around the main characters, it seems odd that there is so little exposure to battle, especially since it seems to focus on strategy so much. I expected a lot of battles to be shown from the commander's POV.

 

[Dejanus]

I disagree with every point save the symbolism, but then a modern audience is so used to the rule of symbolism that I don't really count off for it.

You've certainly explained your opinion, but I really don't see the ground you are standing on. Its like Im watching a man atop a mountain speak of his transitory footing. I just can't see your side here.

I will say that your statement about the battles is rather silly, the focus of the series is not on any armed conflict, Martin is actually careful to not often give a viewpoint character a part in them, as it's not what he set out to write.

So yeah, I disagree rather strongly, though you have a right to your opinion. If you aren't enjoying it yet, you won't. So stop, and go read Sword of Truth or something. It seems likely to be more to your taste.

I have read Sword of Truth, and I enjoyed it very much.

And the battles was just an example I picked because the whole world devolves into war around the main characters, it seems odd that there is so little exposure to battle, especially since it seems to focus on strategy so much. I expected a lot of battles to be shown from the commander's POV.

That's not the book he's writing. It seems to me that you don't enjoy ambiguity in characters and motivation. Sword of Truth, for example, is famously unambiguous in that regard.

You name one of the flaws as GRRM making a character both sympathetic and an antagonist, such as Jaime or Tyrion. I, and most others, would see that as a good thing. Its a realistic depiction of a multifaceted person. No man is wholly good or evil, a devil can do good, a saint can sin, and most of us are in between in the first place.

You don't seem to get that style of character and setting, which is fine. This just isn't the series for you in that case. Its not the Author's fault nor is it poor writing. You are just getting something that is antithetical to what you are expecting and thereby feeling disappointed by it.

 

[Necator15]

Haha, you think nothing happens in the first two books? Oh man, the next three are going to kill you. Especially the last two. The first two books, for me, were unbelievably interesting whereas the next three were rather lackluster :/

 

[Saltyk]

Wow, I really expected this thread to get a lot of traffic. Um, I've never seen a thread fail this hard, not even one response. I might not try posting another thread for a couple of months.

Yeah, it sucks when a thread that you put your heart and soul into fails miserably. I'm always writing threads with a little extra effort and so disheartened when they fall flat with barely any responses. Especially when I thought it was an interesting concept.

Anyway, I can't really add anything to your thoughts on the book(s) as I haven't read them. From what you describe, they sound almost like the author wanted you to hate his characters. Which makes no sense. Why would anyone read a book where they hate the people in it?

 

[Lyri]

text

Interesting point of view on the books, I'm actually up to the fourth book myself so I've read a little ways ahead of you.
Let's get to the meat of your post. Huzzah.

PoV changes
1) It has way too many POV(Point of View) characters, and way too many POV changes, which is really just a cheap way of increasing dramatic tension at the expense of emotional attachment to the characters and the development of the main characters.
Which is great in my opinion because this is what you expect from characters in a book, you're supposed to be invested in certain people. That's what keeps you reading, or at least I hope it does anyway.
I wouldn't have read the Drizzt saga if I didn't find the drow himself somewhat likeable.

The PoV shift is also pretty good because you get two sides to the story, a lot of what I have read others opinions are brought up, sometimes shoehorned in even in such a minor role under the main characters thoughts.
It's good to see the different opinions of the same situation, for instance

Spoiler: Dont read if you haven't read Game of Thrones book 1

Arya & Sansa's actions when they chased of Nymeria and killed lady
Edit: Better yet, the legit families opinion of Jon. Especially Eddard and Catelyn.

Nothing happens.
2) Virtually nothing happens in the story. In the first two books, like nothing happens. There are what, 3 battles? Only one of them actually occurs while the person reads it. Everything that really happens gets about 2 pages of time, and half of them don't even happen while the character reads them, but the characters will spend a whole chapter just thinking about what might happen and how to deal with it, and worse, much of what they're thinking is either obvious, or tedious.

Does it have to be all about fighting and killing one another, the story is the political intrigue and how they keep their thrones or plot to take it.
I like it for that fact mostly, books about battles are all well and good but a book that is so painstakingly written to give several opinions on the same court meeting is rare.

I think your problem with one and two are different sides of the same coin, nothing happens and the PoV shifts annoy you. You seem to be reading the wrong book if you can't stand something a little slower paced.

Changing sides.
3) The characters change "sides" too often. A character will undoubtedly be a bad-guy for half a book, and then suddenly we are reading chapters from that character's POV and Martin tries to make us like that character, after having spent the last half of a book trying to make us hate them.

Spoiler: Dont read if you haven't read Game of Thrones.

Tyrion does that, he's a small deformed dwarf who is looked down upon by everyone. He can't use a blade against any foe so he tries his wits and his pockets. That is all he has to stay alive, he is a side swapper from time to time because that's what he's going to do to live.
However, none of them really change sides because both of those characters specifically are Lannisters. I don't really understand at which part you are really citing here.
Go further into detail please

Interesting main characters.
5) The two most interesting "Main" characters: Daenerys and Jon, get some of the least time in the book, seemingly they are almost afterthoughts. Some of the most interesting and most fleshed out characters: Sam Tarly, Ser Jorah, The Hound, Jojen, and Asha Greyjoy are small-part side characters. It's almost as if the more time Martin spends on a character, the more erratic and the less interesting they become. The one exception I can think of is Tyrion, he's literally the only character I can even tolerate any more.

Well that's because they're interesting and their stories aren't really tied up with the other main factions of the series.
Jon and Daeny are completely separate entities with their own stories to tell that basically give you a break from the main story and to keep it fresh.
Daeny is a favourite of mine and I always look forward to reading her chapters, she's in Book five a tonne I believe and Jon is got really interesting in book 3 part 1 and 2, keep reading.

The small side part characters are there to link you to others really, it's always good to see their interaction with the main characters.
You should keep reading though if you like those characters as they all stick around for a while with the exception of Asha she wasn't really a character to begin with, just a small part of Theons storyline.

Symbolism.
The symbolism is all painfully obvious. The direwolf pups being the most painful example. The black hands of "the others" being almost as bad. Most everything that happens is painfully obvious. I knew

Something I'm missing then and you can feel free to PM it to me if you want but I've not really clicked onto that if I'm truthful.

Spoiler: Dont read if you haven't finished Game of Thrones

It's obvious to tell that Daenys story will be, yes the dragons hatch and Drogo dies.
She grew to love him even though she was sold to him, it was painfully obvious that now she has accepted her place and grown to like it she will receive a kick to bring her down a peg or two.
Eddards death was something you could also see coming but I'll be honest I missed the incestuous cuckolding by a mile, of course we knew they did it because of Bran catching them but I never click that Roberts children were Jaimes.
I thought it was pretty subtle.

You should keep reading though, especially if you like Jon as you're really into his moment in the series so far. I grew to like him more and Daeny too as it happens.
Book 3 part 1 and 2 both are really good, book 2 was just an introduction to some new characters and places in order to get you ready for the roller coaster that is the next book.
Keep reading.

 

[spartan231490]

I disagree with every point save the symbolism, but then a modern audience is so used to the rule of symbolism that I don't really count off for it.

You've certainly explained your opinion, but I really don't see the ground you are standing on. Its like Im watching a man atop a mountain speak of his transitory footing. I just can't see your side here.

I will say that your statement about the battles is rather silly, the focus of the series is not on any armed conflict, Martin is actually careful to not often give a viewpoint character a part in them, as it's not what he set out to write.

So yeah, I disagree rather strongly, though you have a right to your opinion. If you aren't enjoying it yet, you won't. So stop, and go read Sword of Truth or something. It seems likely to be more to your taste.

I have read Sword of Truth, and I enjoyed it very much.

And the battles was just an example I picked because the whole world devolves into war around the main characters, it seems odd that there is so little exposure to battle, especially since it seems to focus on strategy so much. I expected a lot of battles to be shown from the commander's POV.

That's not the book he's writing. It seems to me that you don't enjoy ambiguity in characters and motivation. Sword of Truth, for example, is famously unambiguous in that regard.

You name one of the flaws as GRRM making a character both sympathetic and an antagonist, such as Jaime or Tyrion. I, and most others, would see that as a good thing. Its a realistic depiction of a multifaceted person. No man is wholly good or evil, a devil can do good, a saint can sin, and most of us are in between in the first place.

You don't seem to get that style of character and setting, which is fine. This just isn't the series for you in that case. Its not the Author's fault nor is it poor writing. You are just getting something that is antithetical to what you are expecting and thereby feeling disappointed by it.

I don't have a problem with characters that have ambiguous characters and motivations, I just dislike when a character switches from apparent villain to apparent hero. That's not that realistic, a villain might perform heroic actions, and a hero might perform villainous actions, but it's not often that people change from one to the other completely(at least in my experience. Certainly not in a few months)

and what do you mean by I don't like the style of setting or characters. I made no mention of the setting, which I thought was very well done, and what I dislike about the characters is the lack of depth and consistency. I don't even really know what you mean when you say "style of characters". I'm not a literary student, I'm just a very avid reader, so I don't recognize the term. All that comes to mind would be characters with similar personalities, and that can't be right.

 

[Rems]

I completely disagree with you but i'm not going to get all rabid (which i was expecting to be honest, A Song of Ice and Fire seems to have a very large fanbase. )

I like that the characters are shades of grey, which makes sense. No one consciously thinks they are evil and are going to do evil deeds, its all a matter of perspective. I thought in the third book when we saw Jaime's perspective on killing the Anerys was a good example of this. For so long we had seen the kingslayer as this man with no honour, who killed the kign to save his skin. However we see he actually did it to save the city, which Anerys was going to burn to the ground.

Nor is a lack of battlescenes a bad thing for me. Everything that's in the books is something that is necessary to advance the plot or develop the characters,no more and no less. Numerous pages long battle scenes would be pointless and do nothing to advance the plot or develop characters.

Also i truly despise the Sword of Truth books. They are so boring and repetitive. Everyone after the third follows the same pattern. We have some new enemy, only richard can defeat it, the confessor woman does something stupid or doesnt trust him in some way (despite richard being the Seeker or truth and right nearly every time) and mucks it up. Then richard and her kiss and make up and the enemy is defeated or postponed till the next book. That is literally the formula for all of them past the first three. Goodkind also seems to have some kind of torture fetish and The confessor is also nearly raped in just about every book. And that hilarious scene with the evil chicken.

 

[Dejanus]

I disagree with every point save the symbolism, but then a modern audience is so used to the rule of symbolism that I don't really count off for it.

You've certainly explained your opinion, but I really don't see the ground you are standing on. Its like Im watching a man atop a mountain speak of his transitory footing. I just can't see your side here.

I will say that your statement about the battles is rather silly, the focus of the series is not on any armed conflict, Martin is actually careful to not often give a viewpoint character a part in them, as it's not what he set out to write.

So yeah, I disagree rather strongly, though you have a right to your opinion. If you aren't enjoying it yet, you won't. So stop, and go read Sword of Truth or something. It seems likely to be more to your taste.

I have read Sword of Truth, and I enjoyed it very much.

And the battles was just an example I picked because the whole world devolves into war around the main characters, it seems odd that there is so little exposure to battle, especially since it seems to focus on strategy so much. I expected a lot of battles to be shown from the commander's POV.

That's not the book he's writing. It seems to me that you don't enjoy ambiguity in characters and motivation. Sword of Truth, for example, is famously unambiguous in that regard.

You name one of the flaws as GRRM making a character both sympathetic and an antagonist, such as Jaime or Tyrion. I, and most others, would see that as a good thing. Its a realistic depiction of a multifaceted person. No man is wholly good or evil, a devil can do good, a saint can sin, and most of us are in between in the first place.

You don't seem to get that style of character and setting, which is fine. This just isn't the series for you in that case. Its not the Author's fault nor is it poor writing. You are just getting something that is antithetical to what you are expecting and thereby feeling disappointed by it.

I don't have a problem with characters that have ambiguous characters and motivations, I just dislike when a character switches from apparent villain to apparent hero. That's not that realistic, a villain might perform heroic actions, and a hero might perform villainous actions, but it's not often that people change from one to the other completely(at least in my experience. Certainly not in a few months)

and what do you mean by I don't like the style of setting or characters. I made no mention of the setting, which I thought was very well done, and what I dislike about the characters is the lack of depth and consistency. I don't even really know what you mean when you say "style of characters". I'm not a literary student, I'm just a very avid reader, so I don't recognize the term. All that comes to mind would be characters with similar personalities, and that can't be right.

Okay, you lost me. I fail to see what you mean now. Ill use Jaime as an example. He is a man who has done both villainous and heroic things. You seem to think that this is contradictory. I ask: why? Its not unrealistic to have him do both, he doesn't become a hero overnight, and he didn't get to where he was on page 86 of GoT overnight either. The characters are internally consistent, and I ask you to remember that the view espoused in each chapter of a character is that of the current point of view, which is subject to their personality and lack of overall perspective.

As for style of characters, what I meant is this:

In series such as Sword of Truth, or Inheritance, or even Star Wars, most everyone is pretty one-sided when it comes to morality. They are, as I said, unambiguous. ASOIAF is a moral abyss, and intentionally so. No character is clearly on one side of the moral line or another, and anyone can cross to the other side at any time. Its a different style of writing characters. As for setting, I meant less lore, and more feeling and atmosphere. ASOIAF's historic details are as dark and twisted as many of it's characters, and they are a reflection of it. If you don't deal with ambiguity well, and from everything you said you don't seem to, then this series is targeted at a completely different type of reader from the one you seem to be.

 

[voetballeeuw]

Wait? Nothing happens in the first book? It ends with Robb Stark fighting against the newly proclaimed King, after his father's imprisonment and execution.The first book set up everything. And you say that nothing happens, because only one battle occurs?

And plenty happens in the second. Robb Stark continues to wage war against the Lannisters. The Greyjoys rebel, and invade the North. Tyrion becomes the Hand of the King, and prepares King's Landing for Stannis's attack. The books are not all about fighting. The Night's Watch head past the wall, and begin to investigate the wildlings.

I think the amount of narrators is necessary for the book. The scope of the story is massive, and each character is necessary to learn about the recent events.

Tyrion was never a bad guy. His father has ignored him for most of his life. Why should he owe his loyalty to the Lannisters? Tyrion is more concerned with doing the right thing. In fact Martin mentions in the first book during the king's feast in Winterfell, that Tyrion is basically a good man. I can't remember the exact quote, but it involves Jon Snow watching Tyrion enter the hall, and his shadow looked almost like a normal man.

Concerning Jamie, he obviously starts off entirely loyal to his house, but he soon realizes the flaws. This occurs later in the third book. He realizes that he has wronged, and does act to rectify it.

Theon is not stupid. He's young, and arrogant. He wants to show him that he's a true Ironman.

I'm gonna stop rambling for now. I read the books this summer and didn't put them down until two weeks later. If you're looking for books full of battles, you should look elsewhere.

 

[spartan231490]

text

Interesting point of view on the books, I'm actually up to the fourth book myself so I've read a little ways ahead of you.
Let's get to the meat of your post. Huzzah.

PoV changes
1) It has way too many POV(Point of View) characters, and way too many POV changes, which is really just a cheap way of increasing dramatic tension at the expense of emotional attachment to the characters and the development of the main characters.
Which is great in my opinion because this is what you expect from characters in a book, you're supposed to be invested in certain people. That's what keeps you reading, or at least I hope it does anyway.
I wouldn't have read the Drizzt saga if I didn't find the drow himself somewhat likeable.

The PoV shift is also pretty good because you get two sides to the story, a lot of what I have read others opinions are brought up, sometimes shoehorned in even in such a minor role under the main characters thoughts.
It's good to see the different opinions of the same situation, for instance

Spoiler: Dont read if you haven't read Game of Thrones book 1

Arya & Sansa's actions when they chased of Nymeria and killed lady
Edit: Better yet, the legit families opinion of Jon. Especially Eddard and Catelyn.

Nothing happens.
2) Virtually nothing happens in the story. In the first two books, like nothing happens. There are what, 3 battles? Only one of them actually occurs while the person reads it. Everything that really happens gets about 2 pages of time, and half of them don't even happen while the character reads them, but the characters will spend a whole chapter just thinking about what might happen and how to deal with it, and worse, much of what they're thinking is either obvious, or tedious.

Does it have to be all about fighting and killing one another, the story is the political intrigue and how they keep their thrones or plot to take it.
I like it for that fact mostly, books about battles are all well and good but a book that is so painstakingly written to give several opinions on the same court meeting is rare.

I think your problem with one and two are different sides of the same coin, nothing happens and the PoV shifts annoy you. You seem to be reading the wrong book if you can't stand something a little slower paced.

Changing sides.
3) The characters change "sides" too often. A character will undoubtedly be a bad-guy for half a book, and then suddenly we are reading chapters from that character's POV and Martin tries to make us like that character, after having spent the last half of a book trying to make us hate them.

Spoiler: Dont read if you haven't read Game of Thrones.

Tyrion does that, he's a small deformed dwarf who is looked down upon by everyone. He can't use a blade against any foe so he tries his wits and his pockets. That is all he has to stay alive, he is a side swapper from time to time because that's what he's going to do to live.
However, none of them really change sides because both of those characters specifically are Lannisters. I don't really understand at which part you are really citing here.
Go further into detail please

Interesting main characters.
5) The two most interesting "Main" characters: Daenerys and Jon, get some of the least time in the book, seemingly they are almost afterthoughts. Some of the most interesting and most fleshed out characters: Sam Tarly, Ser Jorah, The Hound, Jojen, and Asha Greyjoy are small-part side characters. It's almost as if the more time Martin spends on a character, the more erratic and the less interesting they become. The one exception I can think of is Tyrion, he's literally the only character I can even tolerate any more.

Well that's because they're interesting and their stories aren't really tied up with the other main factions of the series.
Jon and Daeny are completely separate entities with their own stories to tell that basically give you a break from the main story and to keep it fresh.
Daeny is a favourite of mine and I always look forward to reading her chapters, she's in Book five a tonne I believe and Jon is got really interesting in book 3 part 1 and 2, keep reading.

The small side part characters are there to link you to others really, it's always good to see their interaction with the main characters.
You should keep reading though if you like those characters as they all stick around for a while with the exception of Asha she wasn't really a character to begin with, just a small part of Theons storyline.

Symbolism.
The symbolism is all painfully obvious. The direwolf pups being the most painful example. The black hands of "the others" being almost as bad. Most everything that happens is painfully obvious. I knew

Something I'm missing then and you can feel free to PM it to me if you want but I've not really clicked onto that if I'm truthful.

Spoiler: Dont read if you haven't finished Game of Thrones

It's obvious to tell that Daenys story will be, yes the dragons hatch and Drogo dies.
She grew to love him even though she was sold to him, it was painfully obvious that now she has accepted her place and grown to like it she will receive a kick to bring her down a peg or two.
Eddards death was something you could also see coming but I'll be honest I missed the incestuous cuckolding by a mile, of course we knew they did it because of Bran catching them but I never click that Roberts children were Jaimes.
I thought it was pretty subtle.

You should keep reading though, especially if you like Jon as you're really into his moment in the series so far. I grew to like him more and Daeny too as it happens.
Book 3 part 1 and 2 both are really good, book 2 was just an introduction to some new characters and places in order to get you ready for the roller coaster that is the next book.
Keep reading.

1) I love POV changes, I just think that it's overused in Game of Thrones. With the POV changing every single chapter, it's very hard for me to be invested in anything that is happening. You are definitely right about how many good things a POV change can do for a story, but it also tends to distance me from the characters and what's going on in the story.

2) I never said it had to be all about fighting and killing each other. I generally like political intrigue sections in other books, they are some of my favorite sections in many of my favorite novels. I just don't like how the characters seem to spend 10 pages thinking about what is about to happen, and then it only takes 2 pages to actually happen. The battles was a poor example and more or less irrelevant to what I was trying to say. I just think that the emphasis of a story should be the actual events, not the planning of those events. Does that make it any more clear?

3)

Spoiler: Dont read if you haven't read Game of Thrones.

Tyrion doesn't act like a Lannister though. He acts almost like a more cunning Eddard stark. He has loyalty to his friends, to the people, he recognizes that Joffrey is a lunatic that shouldn't be allowed to do as he pleases. The other Lannisters, on the other hand, have no feelings towards their "friends" other than what uses they may be to the house of Lannister. The other Lannisters encourage Joffrey to abuse his power, so long as he doesn't do so in a way that threatens his rule, if they limit him at all. In the beginning, he is demonized as Bran's assassin, and then suddenly you learn that he didn't do it, and then you learn that he is actually a good guy, using his influence to help the people and control his family.I actually have no idea about Jaime, one of my friends that convinced me to try the series told me that Jaime becomes one of his favorite characters, and if that's true I can only assume that he becomes somewhat less of a total douche-bag. but to the point that I've read, I think he's a monster. He certainly has his redeeming qualities, but I see no way that i could come to "root for him" as a main character.

5) I approve of the side characters being so good, i just wish the main characters were just as interesting and in depth, or more so since they have so much time on page.
(stupid touchpad. I was typing, not clicking on the post button)
subtlety I may be biased on this one, I see most plot twists coming, but it just seemed incredibly obvious to me.

I'll probably keep reading them, I am kinda curious about a few things, but it's not pulling me in like most books tend to.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Spoiler: Sean Bean/Ned

I think it is a very safe bet that nearly any action role Sean Bean is in that he will probably die at some point in it so that isn't a very good prediction to be honest.

3)

Spoiler: Dont read if you haven't read Game of Thrones

Tyrion doesn't act like a Lannister though. He acts almost like a more cunning Eddard stark. He has loyalty to his friends, to the people, he recognizes that Joffrey is a lunatic that shouldn't be allowed to do as he pleases. The other Lannisters, on the other hand, have no feelings towards their "friends" other than what uses they may be to the house of Lannister. The other Lannisters encourage Joffrey to abuse his power, so long as he doesn't do so in a way that threatens his rule, if they limit him at all. In the beginning, he is demonized as Bran's assassin, and then suddenly you learn that he didn't do it, and then you learn that he is actually a good guy, using his influence to help the people and control his family.

I actually have no idea about Jaime, one of my friends that convinced me to try the series told me that Jaime becomes one of his favorite characters, and if that's true I can only assume that he becomes somewhat less of a total douche-bag. but to the point that I've read, I think he's a monster. He certainly has his redeeming qualities, but I see no way that i could come to "root for him" as a main character.

You fucked up the spoiler tag to let you know.