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

[Dejanus]

Mostly I agree with the OP, though not entirely for the same reasons.

The Story is diffused to a fine mist by all the constant changes of characters and points of view, the characters a stupid beyond all measure but I am meant to believe any of these people won battles? If you can't see obvious misdirection you would get the shit kick out of you in a war.


There is no pace and the jarring changes in the passage of time mean I never know how much time has passed or how long things have taken. The young children barely seem to age yet years have passed.

I don't resent anyone else Liking them, but telling me they are good is annoying.

Yes, people who disagree with you are annoying, that's a fine way to go through life. All of your complaints sound like either your failing as a reader or a generic strawman argument you pulled to throw your hat in with the OP.

And by the way, barely two years has passed since the opening of GoT to the end of ADWD. If you can't grasp the proper passage of time you weren't paying attention.

Give examples and let me prove you wrong, as is I have nothing to work with.

 

[drummond13]

I agree with 2, and a little of 3, but not the others. #1 is true, but I disagree that it hurts the story. It's a stylistic choice and, like most of these, it has pros and cons. The series couldn't be even remotely the same kind of story if it were told through only one or two characters.

But the one I disagree strongly with is 6. Is the symbolism obvious? Of course it is. Symbolism doesn't have to be obscure to be effective or interesting. this is a fantasy series, not Faulkner. Do you think any of us DIDN'T know those eggs would hatch? Of course we did. I for one didn't groan because it was "obvious" but found myself intrigued and wondered when and how it would happen and thought about how that would affect the story as a whole. As for Eddard dying, there were a plethora of hints that the author dropped in what I saw more as foreshadowing than anything else. An author successfully foreshadowing an event does not make him a weak writer.

For me, the writing style makes up for it. Even when a character is doing nothing, somehow it's still a good read for me. But point #2 has started to annoy me. I keep expecting the characters to develop and go somewhere, and they really haven't yet. If you don't like the series by the end of the first (or second) book, stop reading it. It doesn't change. Try a different series. Try 'The Dresden Files'. You won't have to worry about any of your above complaints, except for the "obvious symbolism".

 

[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.

Never heard of the book.

Until you mentioned "Sword of Truth" I didn't even know what author/series you were talking about.

Never read the series, but from what I've heard it spends some time wanking the "abstinence porn" angle before wandering off.

A Song of Ice and Fire has absolutely nothing to do with Sword of Truth. They are completely different series by different authors. A Song of Ice and Fire is written by George R.R. Martin and it starts with the book "Game of Thrones."

"Abstinence porn" angle? Wat is this I don't even . . .

 

[Doc Theta Sigma]

Seeing as a lot of people have summed up my points to counter your points I'll just respond with this. If you don't like the book or you can't see what's going on or what the point is really. I.E. Not many POV characters in battles and the first two books having nothing happening...

Then the series isn't for you.

 

[spartan231490]

cut

PoV

I think it's the best part of the book honestly, I know they keep changing every chapter but honestly reading about one person for a while is too much.
I'd hate a two chapter length Sansa section, it would drive me bat shit. The PoV swapping allows you to get to the good and the bad and learn all about the characters from another angle other than what you already know.
Your friend was right about Jaime Lannister becoming an interesting character, he's actually one of my favourites too.

Activity
I think given the setting of the book it's pretty decent, I mean not many books go out of their way like GoT does to tell you about how one person was raped by several people, how the king would happily take your head off and have your wife.
It's why I think thought is such a key part of this book, you can't just have one character say something that another would say and die for. It keeps continuity going, there's a beauty in the politics of it.
I love this book for that reason.

Personalities

Spoiler

Tyrion doesn't act like a Lannister because he is a different person all together, they make him that way because he can't do anything else. He's a small wretch of a man by all accounts and that's all he's ever been told.
He's not Jaime, he's not Cersei and he's not Tywin. He gets nothing in the grand scheme of things that's why he is as he is. They want to view him as not a Lannister but he's actually the most Lannister of them all.

I know why he doesn't act like a Lannister. I want to know why he is working for the betterment of house Lannister? In his situation, I would want my whole house to collapse, with just a few exceptions.

Oh SNIP

I can agree to a certain extend to what you are getting at, but you have just read the first 2 books. I have read almost all 5 of them

That said, I disagree that the characters are shallow, I would rather say they are human. In real life there are no good or bad guys, there are just guys.
The Lanisters are a good example of this, they have their own agenda. Tyrion is not a bad guy at all in my mind, he is an outsider.

But to quote a character in book 3 "You know nothing, Jon Snow" Because this series changes fast, and what you thought you'd knew is not always what will happen.

Sure you can figure out a lot of what is going to happen, if you are paying attention, but to me that signals a good book.

Also the points of view I like, it helps broaden the story.

OK, I'm going to add an edit to the OP because it seems like a lot of people are misunderstanding what I said. 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.

Spoiler

I used Davos as an example before. he feels in his gut that the water battle at the capital is going to go badly, and he worries about having 4 sons in the battle, but he only worries about it for like 2 lines, and then he just moves on. He doesn't have an internal battle about trying to get his sons to not participate and then eventually decide that Stannis needs every able sailor to help him. He doesn't consider sending one of his sons home to his wife under the guise of delivering a message and then decide not to because it would offend the boys honor. He's just like: "if this goes badly, 4 of my sons will die along with me, oh noes!" It's unbelievable to me, it's the action of a shallow character because he exists purely to serve Stannis. He has no other goals in life. He doesn't dream about living long enough to see a grandchild. He doesn't bemoan the fact that he doesn't have a daughter. He doesn't hope to be able to gain acceptance for his family among the nobles through marriage. At least not that I saw, his only motivation is to serve Stannis. it should be his strongest motivation, but he should have others that sometimes conflict. Like, he decides to save Stannis by killing the Red Lady, but he doesn't even wait long enough to go give his son a hug when he learned that his son survived.

 

[spartan231490]

sorry double post. God I hate my internet.

 

[spartan231490]

1) Multiple Points of view is cheap and weak. It delays the resolution of the events that create drama in order to make that drama last longer. In exchange, it limits your conection to the main character, and makes it more difficult to characterize and explore the character, because they have less POV time. Now, if you use a small number of POV, the good outweighs the bad. it allows you to explore multiple characters from multiple angles, giving a better understanding, just like you said, assuming that you don't have so many POVs that you no longer have the page time necessary to give the character depth, and that you don't spend too many pages rehashing the very end of the last section where that character was POV. I love multiple POV, so long as it's within reason. Ice and Fire has well over 20 POV characters and changes POV every single chapter. That makes the story hard to follow and also continually breaks your immersion in the story and your attachment to the character, every single chapter.

Hah, oh dear you would hate Thomas Pynchon if you found something like Game of Thrones difficult to follow. It's quite an easy read and well structured, not to mention he pulls it off brilliantly. You say it breaks immersion, but it increases immersion in the world because you understand events from every character's perspective. The only time I found myself groaning was when I opened up a Bran chapter, and that was just because his first few chapters were dull.

I'm not sure that hard to follow is the right way to say. It makes it disjointed, and very staccato. It disrupts pace and just completely kills all my desire to keep reading. It's like: Oh cool, Jon was awesome, I really want to find out what happens next, but instead I have to read about Sansa being an idiot. Also, like this guy said:

The Story is diffused to a fine mist by all the constant changes of characters and points of view,
snip

To clarify, I think that this story could have been told just as well with 10-12 POV characters and a few small sections from the POV of just random characters. I know that the plot and type of story is completely different, but I'm going to use Wheel of Time as an example. the world is huge and the story is really complex as it follows the 5-10 "main" characters around the world and through their story. And Jordan manages that story without changing POV every single chapter, and without making every single important character have a massive amount of POV. Faile, Lan, Moraine, Alanna, and probably a dozen other important characters only have a handful of POV sections.

This site:
http://www.sfwa.org/members/bell/writingtips/spring10.html
talks about the advantages and disadvantages of "teeming horde" POV and I think that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages for Martin, at least the way I've seen it used so far. And changing POV every single chapter only makes it worse IMO, because it adds even more distance between the reader and the POV charavters than there would otherwise be, as well as destroying pace, and it doesn't really enhance the advantages of teeming horde POV. I also think that he really has a lot of POV sections and characters that aren't necessary, so you still suffer the disadvantages of a massive amount of POV, but you don't get any of the benefits.

Also, I'm going to amend my previous statment and say that I have seen well over 30 POV characters in the first two books, maybe a good deal more than that.

 

[Spacewolf]

I really carnt see some of your points making sense you complain that there is no characterisation but then also complain when someone does something in character,

Stannis belives in the word of the law and doing it to the letter he is fighting because he is the lawful king not because hes right for kingship or even wants is.

Davos doesnt send his children away because while he has his doubts he just thinks hes an upjumped sailor and obviously to him the born lords have already thought of every posiblility better than him and its not his place to argue.

Tyron wants to be accepted as a important member of his family see his realtions with cersi in kings landing he should of cut off her from joffery and he even knows it but ocasionally she shows him some kindness which he clearly enjoys, however he keeps getting in her way because he wants to impress his father. His realtions to Sansa also show him as someone who simply wants to be loved/respected etc. As for you saying he was treated at a villan in the first book yes he was but that was simply because of whose POV it was after all all he did wrong in that book was look ugly.

If you carnt see depth with the chacters maybe read between rather than waiting for the author to go heres a 200 page book detailing all the characters motivations (updated for every book obviously).

 

[Dyme]

I just finished the first book, I am German (and obviously read it in English).

I like it. It is no Shakespeare but I kinda expected and hoped that would be the case.
It is quite simple, easy to read, and I feel like there is a lot happening. Great experience for me.

I also like how you get different POV's. And I like the short "chapters".

 

[drummond13]

Spartan, I think you've gotten as much of an answer as you can reasonably expect. I personally love the vast numbers of POVs, just as I love stories from the perspective of a single character for different reasons. But if the style of the books doesn't work for you, no problem. Read a different book. There's not going to be anything in any form of media that can please everyone. I for one am waiting for someone to explain to me why "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" isn't regarded as one of the worst books ever written, let alone an international sensation with two movie adaptations.

 

[Aurgelmir]

I know why he doesn't act like a Lannister. I want to know why he is working for the betterment of house Lannister? In his situation, I would want my whole house to collapse, with just a few exceptions.

It's called daddy issues. He is a Lannister at heart, and he wants to be accepted by his father, is that really so hard to see? I guess you aren't far enough into book 3 yet?

Oh SNIP

I can agree to a certain extend to what you are getting at, but you have just read the first 2 books. I have read almost all 5 of them

That said, I disagree that the characters are shallow, I would rather say they are human. In real life there are no good or bad guys, there are just guys.
The Lanisters are a good example of this, they have their own agenda. Tyrion is not a bad guy at all in my mind, he is an outsider.

But to quote a character in book 3 "You know nothing, Jon Snow" Because this series changes fast, and what you thought you'd knew is not always what will happen.

Sure you can figure out a lot of what is going to happen, if you are paying attention, but to me that signals a good book.

Also the points of view I like, it helps broaden the story.

OK, I'm going to add an edit to the OP because it seems like a lot of people are misunderstanding what I said. 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.

Spoiler

I used Davos as an example before. he feels in his gut that the water battle at the capital is going to go badly, and he worries about having 4 sons in the battle, but he only worries about it for like 2 lines, and then he just moves on. He doesn't have an internal battle about trying to get his sons to not participate and then eventually decide that Stannis needs every able sailor to help him. He doesn't consider sending one of his sons home to his wife under the guise of delivering a message and then decide not to because it would offend the boys honor. He's just like: "if this goes badly, 4 of my sons will die along with me, oh noes!" It's unbelievable to me, it's the action of a shallow character because he exists purely to serve Stannis. He has no other goals in life. He doesn't dream about living long enough to see a grandchild. He doesn't bemoan the fact that he doesn't have a daughter. He doesn't hope to be able to gain acceptance for his family among the nobles through marriage. At least not that I saw, his only motivation is to serve Stannis. it should be his strongest motivation, but he should have others that sometimes conflict. Like, he decides to save Stannis by killing the Red Lady, but he doesn't even wait long enough to go give his son a hug when he learned that his son survived.

I don't agree, sure Davos doesn't contemplate it much in the written text, but he does worry about them, but he feels he owes his life to Stannis.


All in all you know nothing Jon Snow. By the end of book 3 we can talk again

 

[Dejanus]

Also, I'm going to amend my previous statment and say that I have seen well over 30 POV characters in the first two books, maybe a good deal more than that.

Okay, that's a damn lie.

Including the odd one-off throwaway characters, which I normally would not, there are exactly twelve. In the interest of bolstering your flagging claim, it seems you have just started making things up.

 

[Hoplon]

Mostly I agree with the OP, though not entirely for the same reasons.

The Story is diffused to a fine mist by all the constant changes of characters and points of view, the characters a stupid beyond all measure but I am meant to believe any of these people won battles? If you can't see obvious misdirection you would get the shit kick out of you in a war.


There is no pace and the jarring changes in the passage of time mean I never know how much time has passed or how long things have taken. The young children barely seem to age yet years have passed.

I don't resent anyone else Liking them, but telling me they are good is annoying.

Yes, people who disagree with you are annoying, that's a fine way to go through life. All of your complaints sound like either your failing as a reader or a generic strawman argument you pulled to throw your hat in with the OP.

And by the way, barely two years has passed since the opening of GoT to the end of ADWD. If you can't grasp the proper passage of time you weren't paying attention.

Give examples and let me prove you wrong, as is I have nothing to work with.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Pretty sure I didn't comment on anyone's position other than my own on the basis I don't think the books are written that well thanks to the terrible caricaturisation, impossibly bad rendering of the passage of time and frankly a story will more pointless characters who are only in it so some one can be killed off every so often.

Examples of a tactically stupid mistake; not taking a load of soldiers with him to meet Cersi, since if she refused waiting around to imprison her would be a error on the scale of the charge of the light brigade. Honourable is offering to let her run home to daddy, stupid is thinking she wouldn't fuck you over given half an inch.

The clumsy obviousness of littlefinger double crossing everyone is pathetic.

The fact that if it was anyone else falling from the tower at winterfell they would have mangled their brains on the cobbles but Bran clearly has some other stuff to do so he survives, way to telegraph a temporary invincible character there George.

The endless descriptions of what people are eating at feasts, Jesus Christ like the story isn't dragged out enough already.

Those enough for you?

 

[Lyri]

I know why he doesn't act like a Lannister. I want to know why he is working for the betterment of house Lannister? In his situation, I would want my whole house to collapse, with just a few exceptions.

I've just said the exact opposite to you, he is the most Lannister of all the Lannisters and yet they view him as a less so, all of his deeds and accomplishments go unnoticed because of his deformity.
However he is a Lannister, he wants to be part of his family and accepted. The reason he doesn't work against the Lannisters is because Lannisters don't do that.

From that question alone I really don't think you have a grasp on Tyrion's character.

 

[Dejanus]

Mostly I agree with the OP, though not entirely for the same reasons.

The Story is diffused to a fine mist by all the constant changes of characters and points of view, the characters a stupid beyond all measure but I am meant to believe any of these people won battles? If you can't see obvious misdirection you would get the shit kick out of you in a war.


There is no pace and the jarring changes in the passage of time mean I never know how much time has passed or how long things have taken. The young children barely seem to age yet years have passed.

I don't resent anyone else Liking them, but telling me they are good is annoying.

Yes, people who disagree with you are annoying, that's a fine way to go through life. All of your complaints sound like either your failing as a reader or a generic strawman argument you pulled to throw your hat in with the OP.

And by the way, barely two years has passed since the opening of GoT to the end of ADWD. If you can't grasp the proper passage of time you weren't paying attention.

Give examples and let me prove you wrong, as is I have nothing to work with.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Pretty sure I didn't comment on anyone's position other than my own on the basis I don't think the books are written that well thanks to the terrible caricaturisation, impossibly bad rendering of the passage of time and frankly a story will more pointless characters who are only in it so some one can be killed off every so often.

Examples of a tactically stupid mistake; not taking a load of soldiers with him to meet Cersi, since if she refused waiting around to imprison her would be a error on the scale of the charge of the light brigade. Honourable is offering to let her run home to daddy, stupid is thinking she wouldn't fuck you over given half an inch.

The clumsy obviousness of littlefinger double crossing everyone is pathetic.

The fact that if it was anyone else falling from the tower at winterfell they would have mangled their brains on the cobbles but Bran clearly has some other stuff to do so he survives, way to telegraph a temporary invincible character there George.

The endless descriptions of what people are eating at feasts, Jesus Christ like the story isn't dragged out enough already.

Those enough for you?

It confirms that your arguments are petty and unfounded, yes. Each one of those is completely in character and, while not the correct decision, is a believable one under the circumstances. Ned took his personal guard with him, it wasn't enough, but he hardly went alone.

While no one fully trusts Littlefinger, he is both too careful to be caught and too useful to be ignored. This means everyone is forced to work with him, increasing his power. The only person who ever gave him trust was Ned, because he believed that his wife's beloved friend wouldn't screw over her husband. He completely misjudged that situation, but that makes him human, not an idiot. Its easy for you as the reader to judge these actions, but you must remember the limited perspectives of the characters and their own internal thought processes.

Yeah Bran survived his fall. You know, that happens sometimes. In fact, I've heard of people surviving falls from airplanes, so its hardly the flaw you put it out to be. Especially as this is an author with no fear of killing off main characters.

Everything else you stated was poorly constructed hearsay that seems to largely come from your own ignorant head, you just applied it to the series as if it were an indelible part of it. That is why I used to term strawman argument, you are levying a common crtitizism of the series you undoubtedly heard in some hate-ridden blog post and claiming it as your own. Its pathetically transparent.

 

[Hoplon]

Everything else you stated was poorly constructed hearsay that seems to largely come from your own ignorant head, you just applied it to the series as if it were an indelible part of it. That is why I used to term strawman argument, you are levying a common crtitizism of the series you undoubtedly heard in some hate-ridden blog post and claiming it as your own. Its pathetically transparent.

Except I have read them all, well not the most recent one since I had already given up.

But thanks for just attacking my opinion with an ad hominem attack that has no basis other than you don't agree with my position.

I didn't like them, nothing I have said doesn't happen in the books. strangely enough though you say it fine because you said so.

Great! but I have no reason to agree with you since it is not the characters actions I am attacking but the writers depiction, yes I realise why the characters don't do something but that doesn't mean it wasn't telegraphed so far off that it makes the characters feel like they are utter morons for not spotting it, which in turn says "this is shitty writing if you are going for subtle" since what should be subtle and uncertain is obvious and laboured.

 

[spartan231490]

Also, I'm going to amend my previous statment and say that I have seen well over 30 POV characters in the first two books, maybe a good deal more than that.

Okay, that's a damn lie.

Including the odd one-off throwaway characters, which I normally would not, there are exactly twelve. In the interest of bolstering your flagging claim, it seems you have just started making things up.

I haven't counted, so it's probably not over 30, although it feels like it. I seriously doubt that it's under 20, and I know it's over 12. I can think of at least 13 off the top of my head.

Spoiler

Eddard, Catelyn, Jon, Robb, Arya, Sansa, Bran, Rickon, Sam Tarley, Daenerys, Jaime, Tyrion, and Davos.

That's 13, right off the top of my head. Maybe you shouldn't make things up.

 

[spartan231490]

I know why he doesn't act like a Lannister. I want to know why he is working for the betterment of house Lannister? In his situation, I would want my whole house to collapse, with just a few exceptions.

I've just said the exact opposite to you, he is the most Lannister of all the Lannisters and yet they view him as a less so, all of his deeds and accomplishments go unnoticed because of his deformity.
However he is a Lannister, he wants to be part of his family and accepted. The reason he doesn't work against the Lannisters is because Lannisters don't do that.

From that question alone I really don't think you have a grasp on Tyrion's character.

Maybe he changes later on, but at the point I'm at, he is definitely very different from his family, as different as night and day.

Spoiler

Tyrion puts a lot of effort into protecting the people who are loyal to him, when Tywin learned that they would have to give Sandor Clegane up to someone's justice(I forget who, it's relatively early in the 3rd book), Tywin's only complaint is that he will lose his "dog" but he then immediately admits that he can find another, without any prompting. Tyrion feels a certain contempt for the nobility(at least I got that impression when the city was starving, he makes a lot of sarcastic comments and has even more sarcastic thoughts about the nobility), whereas the other Lannisters have a strong belief in the superiority of the nobility. Tyrion attempts to protect the innocent, like Alaya(I think I'm misspelling her name. The whore he used to cover his visits to Shae, whereas Tywin and Jaime both ordered the wholesale slaughter of individuals whose only crime was living in the wrong lord's lands. Maybe he changes later on, but right now, he is very very different from the rest of his family.