This is topic A Song of Ice and Fire, The Prince of Nothing, and stories lacking protagonists in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
I read A Game of Thrones (George R. R. Martin) recently, and chief among the issues I had with it was the distinct lack of one clearly defined protagonist. It resulted mostly, I think, from the incessant perspective shifts that happened throughout the novel.
I'm not looking for clearly defined "good guys" and "bad guys," I just want to know who the MAIN CHARACTER is, please. I need to know how much to invest in a new character, and in A Game of Thrones I had no way of knowing if the current character would stay alive, let alone central to the story for any length of time. The perspective also shifted, frustratingly often, to unintelligent characters (Sansa most notably) who we already knew were simply being duped. It was irritating, because the end result was that I just didn't care about any of the characters. It was only at the very end of the story, when Daenerys finally did something with her eggs*, that I felt some interest in finding out what was going to happen next.
I had exactly the same problem with The Darkness that Comes Before (R. Scott Bakker, the first book of The Prince of Nothing). The perspective shifts were fewer in number, but still irksome because most of the principal characters were -- and again, the readers were privy to this -- being manipulated by others much of the time. Most annoying was the series' title character, who is utterly devoid of emotion and is simply using the other major characters to further his own ends (don't worry, you learn this right at the beginning). I don't care if he lives, because frankly I don't like him. I can become emotionally invested in evil characters, but not in soulless ones. And since he's the puppeteer directing the other major characters, I have trouble caring about them either.
In between these two books, I read both parts of The Sarantine Mosaic (Guy Gavriel Kay), which was a breath of fresh air. Thankfully, the two books in the series didn't introduce ten thousand incidental characters and didn't shift perspective every ten pages. There was a clear main character, who received sufficient attention and became quite complex over the course of the books. There were other major characters as well, fleshed out to varying degrees as merited by their role in the story.
If I can read more than a couple of hundred pages in a book (let alone more than five hundred, which was the case here) without being able to figure out who the main character is, I think there's something wrong with the book. Does anyone else find this as irritating as I do?
*And honestly, who hadn't seen that coming for three hundred pages?
[ May 17, 2004, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I'm not alone!
Oh, beautiful, wonderous day!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
After The Darkness that Comes Before, I've gone running back to Kay again (The Last Light of the Sun). And guess what? Chapter one is over, and I have myself at least one major character.
Edit: I'm glad I'm not the only one.
[ May 17, 2004, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
It may be just us two. Everyone I know loves Song of Ice and Fire and looks all confused when I express less than rabid enthusiasm over the 4th books possible publication.
I went running into the arms of Zelazny's Amber series (which I'd somehow managed to never read). There we go. Back to loving reading.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I sometimes enjoy not having clearly defined protagonists Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Good for you. Now get out this thread!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I borrowed A Game of Thrones from BtL, who claimed to have enjoyed it. So it may well be just the two of us.
Kay doesn't really count as fantasy, either (aside from his first trilogy, The Fionvar Tapestry, which is OK but nothing to rave about). His settings typically draw heavily on historical periods with some fantasy elements incorporated into them, rather than the other way around. There's nary a hint of Tolkien in his non-Fionvar work.
Edit:
>> I sometimes enjoy not having clearly defined protagonists << (PG)
I find I can't get into a story unless I know which characters merit emotional investment. If there are a billion characters of equal importance, chances are I just won't care about any of them rather than caring a little bit about all of them. I like to get to know a character, which takes time. A Game of Thrones didn't give me that time with any of the characters.
[ May 17, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
He's one I've been meaning to get around to, but that's a long list.
I was given the first three last year as a birthday gift. Bill enjoyed them. I'm going to keep putting off the second one.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
twink, evebtually two characters sort of emerge as the protagonists. I'll give you a hint, Ice and Fire.
Still, if you need to have a well defined good guy, then I feel sorry for you.
ASOIAF is one of the best series ever written in part BECAUSE of what you are complaining about.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
When you do get to Kay, The Sarantine Mosaic is a good place to start -- though I think those two books are now my favourites of his, supplanting even Tigana (which I loved).
After The Last Light of the Sun, though, I'm not sure what I'm going to read.
Edit:
Xav, I said in my first post that it's not a "good guy" that I need, just that I need a book to have some focus -- even if it's the first book of a series. Characters are what make me care about events. There can be lots of momentous events happening in a rich world, but I have a hard time caring unless the principal characters have been given enough time. In A Game of Thrones they definitely weren't given anywhere near enough time, because it isn't even clear who they are. Daenerys and Jon Snow were the closest, but neither was involved in any of the events that the book purported to be about.
[ May 17, 2004, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
But the alternative is:
This here is the good guy. Don't worry about him ever dying, hes the protagonist.
Heres the bad guy. He's going to stick around until the last book where the good guy kills him.
Not knowing who the "good" and "bad" guys are is a huge part of the genius of these books. You kind of have to figure that out by yourself.
There were, and still are, TONS of protagonists. Can't you be connected to more than one?
I personally routed for Robb, Ned, Bran, Cat, Arya, Dany, Davos, Jon, Tyrion, Sansa... All the ones I came to care about.
Seems to me that you aren't able to care about more than one protagonist at a time?
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Ugh. That isn't the only alternative. Plenty of other books manage to hold our interest without such clearly defined "good" and "evil" while not managing to be so ADD about it.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
ADD? What are you talking about?
You mean the switching between different characters POVs every chapter?
Yeah, shame on him .
God forbid he make me care about more than one character.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
God forbid he spend enough time on any character to make me interested.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
If you take the POVs of Jon and Dany over the three books so far, they both add up to at least a 200 page book each.
Really, they might not be for you, some people need to be spoonfed.
The rest of us will like them just fine.
(and for Val and anyone else watching, me and celia have known eachother long enough for a heated debate without taking it personally, at least I am pretty sure )
[ May 17, 2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Did I not already say that everyone else loves them?
Why the hell should I have to invest the time to read 3 substantial sized novels just to gain interest when I could spend, say, 3 pages on a book by (oh, off the top of my head) Jamie Taylor and already care about the characters?
It's just not worth my time.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I don't know celia, I cared about the Stark family by the end of the first chapter.
I cared about Dany on the first page she appeared on.
I cared about Tyrion on his first POV chapter.
Maybe its cause you are evil? Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I cared about Will on the first page and wondered for the rest of the book why Martin couldn't manage to write another character so well so briefly.
[ May 17, 2004, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Edit: Celia said it better in the post right above this one. I, too, cared about Will.
[ May 17, 2004, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
To me you two are basically complaining that you're complaining that your five star restaurant filet mignon doesn't taste nearly as good as your McDonalds hamburger.
[ May 17, 2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I thought you said it nicely as well.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What, because a series is long and complicated it's somehow better?
Pfft.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
More like we can't taste the fillet through the shitty sauce, and don't understand why we can't get just the steak done well without having to eat the rest.
edit: because i ruined teh steak
[ May 17, 2004, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Whatever.
The books suck because they aren't simple enough for you two.
I withdraw.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You'd realize how ridiculous that sounds if you'd read any Kay.
Convoluted plots do not good writing make.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Because we aren't simple enough for them, Xav. Our standards are just too high. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*snort* Celia, you can be very funny.
BTW, Xav, I'm not attacking you with any genuine malice. Just your atrocious taste.
This does, though, bring us to another (possibly related) issue -- gargantuan, sprawling, epic stories. Xav suggested that maybe I just don't like those, but my love for The Lord of the Rings shows that isn't true. Martin's epic, though, sprawls even more than Tolkien's; by the end of A Game of Thrones it isn't even clear what exactly the series is about. Kay's style is to show the movements behind the epic, small events that go on to have huge effects, rather than writing directly about the big things. That might be another part of what I like about his work.
But the issue of protagonists is still, I think, my biggest problem with Martin. It's either an issue of focus or, as Celia suggests, one of character.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:It may be just us two. Everyone I know loves Song of Ice and Fire and looks all confused when I express less than rabid enthusiasm over the 4th books possible publication.
*raises hand*
I didn't finish the first book. I was reading it last fall, and I got busy with finals and never got back around to it. The characters (notably the lack of a main one) was just one of the things that annoyed me, though.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
Apples and oranges.
The Fire and Ice series is not about the characters, but about how the society radically changes because of the events. To show all the events, Martin had decided on multiple characters, who can be in multiple locations and so can witness the multiple significant events.
It is like doing a novel about World War II. If you have only one significant character, you have greatly limited your scope.
Of course, the drawback is that you can't closely identify with any one particular character. (And let me assure you, if you hate seeing your character die, don't.) It is far more like a soap opera in that respect, with almost as much sex, but way more nasty violence.
But he does populate his novels with (IMHO) interesting characters, so the lack of any one to identify with is not that big of a drawback. Also, all the nasty things he does to his characters may make it an advantage!
So if a grand-scale series is not for you, that is OK. But understand that it is because Martin is working on a grand scale, and so cannot be limited to a single main protagonist. There is just way too much going on.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Jonathon, *gasps* I didn't know. I'm in good company after all. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I was also annoyed by his inconsistent and obnoxious quasi-archaisms. What's up with "maester" and "ser"? Why use "gaoler" instead of "jailer"? And why does everybody need to say "would that I could" every other page?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I am SO glad we have a Song of Ice and Fire bashing thread now.
Excuse me while I vomit all over your nice bashing thread.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
But bashing other series—say, for instance, Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn—is okay, right?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I'm not going to bash Ice and Fire, because I like the series. I like it a lot.
But I don't gush about it to the extent that others do. It's not the greatest thing since sliced bread, or even since LOTR. And it really isn't THAT much better than Robert Jordan, either.
And I agree with Twinky, Celia and Jon Boy in that characterization has been one thing that has bothered me. I've already written at least one post on Hatrack expressing my confusion about the "main character(s)" in the series. I don't think it's as serious a flaw as Twinky does, but it could be better.
Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
Just to annoy you - love this series - for the reason you don't.
mini spoiler if you haven't read first book
But I must admit that I was horrified towards the end of the first book when the father died - but I've loved getting to know lots of characters in a lot more depth than normal. I thought it was interesting to see how they develop - especially the shallow ones like Sansa - its like real life - some people are shallow or naive until life throws them a curve ball and drags them into reality.
I've also enjoyed seeing the same event from various perspectives - it really makes things multi-dimensional. But I think you need to read more than the first book to fully get this.
I've really come to like the main characters - I know what you're saying about the first book but main characters do emerge - it just takes longer than most other writers I know.
And yes I'm excited about the next one coming out - I was horrified last week when I went into the bookshop to find out its not being published until June - it was originally scheduled for February and I was hoping to get the paperback in June. Damn writers can't keep to schedule - disgusting - I'm gonna have to buy it in hardback now.
[ May 17, 2004, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: cochick ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"by the end of A Game of Thrones it isn't even clear what exactly the series is about."
You know, that's one of the beautiful things about it.
Some people like to have their jigsaw puzzles come pre-assembled, I suppose. Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
my major gripe was the extent of the sex and violence - I'm such a prude
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I have a gripe about the sex, but I was shouted down when I talked about it here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There's remarkably little sex in the book, and it's not explicit at all. While not as sexless as, say, LotR, it's considerably less sexy than the Iliad. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm a prude too. I stopped reading the second book in the middle of a scene that was describing oral sex with more detail than I was comfortable with.
Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
It didn't stop me reading the books - I just skimmed over the worst bits - I'm one of those people who has to finish a book once I start reading it - even if I'm struggling.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
*drums fingers*
The more twink and I recommend books to each other the more we're going to discover how much our tastes differ. I really enjoy Martin because of all the characters and how well they illustrate the ripples one event can cause. I love how complicated his characters are, even though I admit it took more than the first book to totally warm up to them. I also like that I'm afraid when bad things are going on because I don't know if everyone's going to make it out unscathed. I like reading about bad things happening to good people
But I totally understand where Raja's coming from, that's fine. I got a kick out of how he said in an E-mail that it plods and suffers from the same symptomes as Tolkein's Fellowship where I thought that was the only one of the Rings books worth reading
As for [i]Tigana[/i,] it's on my list of books that are enjoyable despite the author's best efforts to ruin it. Frankly, I loathe how Kay develops characters and finds it necessary to beat me over the head with the same sentiment every other line. Apparently Raja has a poor short term memory and needs to be reminded that a character is sad over and over and over again (using almost the exact same words) I was ready for it to end when it finally did, but the idea behind it is so original that I'd still recommend it to most people.
Oh, and I agree that complicated plots don't make good stories by default, but needlessly complicated sentances don't make for good writing either!
/my author is better than your author and my dad can beat up your dad.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> You know, that's one of the beautiful things about it. << (Tom)
In that case, where's the draw to keep reading it? I guess if you just want to read about big events as seen through the eyes of whoever happens to be closest to each one, that's fine. But then why do you care about the events? Why does what's happening matter? I'd much rather care about the people involved.
>> Some people like to have their jigsaw puzzles come pre-assembled, I suppose. <<
A plot that focuses on a relatively small number of detailed characters doesn't have to be simple as a result; it just means that the focus is on the characters rather than on the events... or on how the events affect the characters rather than how the characters influence the events.
That, I suppose, is the crux of the difference between people who liked A Game of Thrones and people who didn't... between people like me and people like BtL, it seems.
BtL,
Pfft. Needlessly complicated senteces, my ass. Actually, another reason I like him is that I write like he does -- commas, semicolons, parentheses, hyphens...
Our tastes must differ. You read The Wheel of Time.
However, if you really do like Martin, I'll bring The Darkness that Comes Before back to Toronto with me. It isn't bad, though it wasn't what I was hoping for (which was Lovecraft).
Speaking of which... *goes off to start a thread about Lovecraft*
[ May 17, 2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, I guess I am even stranger than most, as Martin AND Kay are two of my all-time fav authors.
But the are very different in their approaches to writing, that is for sure. I LOVED Tigana, (BTW, how is Tigana NOT fantasy?) and loved how the characters enjoyed music the same way I do, and I loved the Italian feel of the whole setting. I loved the Summer Tree, as it is one of the few books where I had a real connection to the characters. I loved Paul, and I felt he surprised me with the resolution of both the Fionavar series and Tigana.
I like Martin mostly because his series seems real to me, and he infuriates me. I do care about the characters, both the good and the bad ones, and I like his character development. I hate the deaths, and it does make it hard to become emotionally invested in the books. After all, why bother caring if they will die so easily. But the deaths provide something that is usually missing in most fantasy series...actual consequences. If a character messe up, he pays for it, possibly with his life. In most series, the main protagonist is invulnerable to death, at least until the last book. After all, is he dies, who will be in the next book? (think Harry Potter here)
[ May 17, 2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You leave the Wheel of Time out of this! *ashamed* It's like cotton candy, only not as yummy and worse for me.
But I think I should defend my point on his sentence structure. I got the impression that he's intentionally writing so it sounds like a bard's tale. And that's fine, I don't even mind losing some clarity for the sake of prose here and there, heck, I'm a fan of Ondaatje after all. But the problem with writing so stylistically is that when you drop the ball it jars the reader and reminds them that they're reading a book, not listening to a story being told. Kay drops the ball several times. The first few times I thought he was just trying to draw attention to the sentence (though I couldn't imagine why) but then I realized it was just his failing as a writer.
As opposed to my failings as the reader, which clearly isn't possible
And, come on, The Night's Guard? What the hell was up with that? Even by the end of the book I hadn't forgiven him for that mangled section of the book.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But then why do you care about the events?"
I find it odd that it's necessary for you to focus on a single character in order to care about him. Martin's viewpoint chapters are as long as a typical short story and generally as self-contained; are you saying that you don't normally wind up caring about the protagonist in any short story? Or is it that, when you're reading, you like a clear neon finger pointing down from the sky at somebody, saying, "This is our hero. Do not skim pages in which he appears?"
Even now, Martin's readers don't yet know whether we should care about the new lord of the Iron Islands, or whether we're ever going to see a confrontation with beasties north of the Wall, or even if Tyrion is a hero or a villain. And the great thing about this, as far as I'm concerned, is that it means you CAN'T be lazy; you absolutely CANNOT pigeonhole Tyrion, or write off some minor character simply because he seems like he's there to provide a bit of color, because Martin comes back and hangs a whole subplot on him three hundred pages later.
In this respect, it's considerably more like, well, life.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Umm... I like Kay and Martin. While Martin does have more characters I always feel like Kay has you at least invested at 4 at any given time. And you can't say you want to know that a character suddenly isn't going to die and then say you like Kay. I mean.... that's why he's so great.
I can see how it would be harder to grow attatched to to Martin's characters. Although I find that some of them are still easy to grow attatched to. I love his complex world in the same way I love Kay's complex characters and relationships.
I think I'm running out of stuff of Kay's to read though. I just need to get my hands on the newest one. Oh and as far as favorite Kay, definately Lions of Al Rassan. Although, that was also the first one I read.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> I find it odd that it's necessary for you to focus on a single character in order to care about him. Martin's viewpoint chapters are as long as a typical short story and generally as self-contained; are you saying that you don't normally wind up caring about the protagonist in any short story? Or is it that, when you're reading, you like a clear neon finger pointing down from the sky at somebody, saying, "This is our hero. Do not skim pages in which he appears?" <<
It doesn't have to be one single character, but less than ten thousand at once would be nice. When I read a short story I know that this is all the time I'm going to have with this character, so it's possible to become emotionally invested. But with Martin's style, I wind up more focused on what is happening than on who is doing it and why I should care about them.
Take Tyrion, who you mention in your post. He could be a real, compelling character if Martin would just spend more time writing from his perspective, showing us more of his thoughts and what motivates him to do the things that he does. Instead, we only stay with him long enough for some key event to happen, then we're off with someone else where some other key event is happening. Tyrion isn't a "good guy" or a "bad guy," he's just a person, but he could be a terrific main character.
IMO, the reader doesn't have to witness every single event in every single plot line in the story. In fact, I'd much rather see what happens when an important character hears about an event (in terms of how that character reacts and is affected) than see the event happen through the eyes of a minor character.
This reminds me of how Leto and I differ with regard to Ender's Game and the Shadow series. He likes the Shadow series because of the politics and wars and manipulation of events; I dislike the Shadow series because I don't find any of the characters as compelling as Ender. He finds Ender whiny and overly introspective, agonizing over every little thing... while this introspection is precisely why I like Ender so much.
>> Even now, Martin's readers don't yet know whether we should care about the new lord of the Iron Islands, or whether we're ever going to see a confrontation with beasties north of the Wall, or even if Tyrion is a hero or a villain. And the great thing about this, as far as I'm concerned, is that it means you CAN'T be lazy; you absolutely CANNOT pigeonhole Tyrion, or write off some minor character simply because he seems like he's there to provide a bit of color, because Martin comes back and hangs a whole subplot on him three hundred pages later. <<
[spoilers]
If, for example, Martin had spent more time with Ned Stark, his exectuion would have affected me emotionally. It would have hurt, and I would have been very impressed with him for making me feel something. Instead, I thought "well, I guess now the kid gets to sit on the throne for at least a while longer... oh, and too bad for Arya, I suppose."
[/spoilers]
I don't need the story to necessarily focus on the "good guys," I just need time to get to know the characters. Jumping back and forth between them in short-story-sized excerpts when your book is some 800 pages long just means that by the time you get back to someone you may well have forgotten the last thing they did. If the jumps were less frequent and/or between fewer characters... honestly, if he'd just linger for once, I might be more interested in finding out what happens next. Daenerys came close, but the gaps between her segments got to be so long that by the time we came back to her I felt like I was reading a different book.
>> In this respect, it's considerably more like, well, life. <<
I am my life's protagonist. I know myself very well. If I want history -- a dispassionate discussion of events unfolding in a world -- I may as well read about the history of the real world. I go to fiction for compelling stories, and compelling characters are IMO what makes compelling stories.
_________________________
BtL, if you think about Tigana* for a sec, you'll realize why I found it so deeply compelling. Think about my background for a moment.
I actually found the Night Walkers of Certando to be fascinatingly original. The whole Ember Days sequence, actually -- Devin's night with Alienor, Baerd and the Night Walkers -- struck me as outright beautiful because of the dreamlike feel Kay achieves with his prose. One of my favourite parts of the book.
__________________________
I didn't think A Game of Thrones was bad (nor The Darkness that Comes Before), and I don't think Kay is the greatest author ever to write anything; it just so happened that I read these four books one after the other and was struck by my reaction to the different writing. Sarahdipity summed it up pretty well; I just like Martin less than she does.
__________________________
*As an aside, Tigana is definitely fantasy, but Kay's subsequent writing is really a sort of "historical fantasy;" the fantasy elements are much less pronounced.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
We're coming at this from different angles, Raja. The reasons why you like Tigana aren't lost on me. That doesn't change the fact that I found the writing to be awkward in places. So much so that reading it irritated me and I became more concerned about the writing than I was about the characters. And like I said earlier, he repeats things over, and over, and over, and over again over 3 or 4 pages. I understand using repetition to drive a point home, but he goes way overboard with it.
The Night's Guard was interesting and hadn't been done before but it felt more like a separate idea Kay had that he was looking to fit into a story somehow and for whatever reason he picked Tigana. While it was necessary for Baerd to change (and that's really the only reason the sequence was necessary) I found it an incredibly awkward way to go about doing it.
Of course, this isn't supposed to be a thread about Tigana is it?
Edit for clarity
Oh, and edited for this:
On an unrelated note, I bought Absolution the other day and love it. So I guess we can still be friends.
[ May 18, 2004, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You know, that's weird, because I didn't find that at all.
Edit:
I also liked the Night Walkers because they gave me a hint of a larger world beyond the scope of what's directly in the main thrust of the story, and I appreciated that.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe our difference is stylistic rather than related to focus. I like Kay's prose more than Martin's, while you dislike Kay's prose... and that's before we even get to the issue of focus on characters versus focus on events.
Glad you like Absolution, though. What a great record...
[ May 18, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
On Ned's death, yeah, maybe if I had had any interest in him as a character, it would have been engaging or even suprising. After the scene where he told the queen what he knew, I figured he had to die, otherwise, what intrige did exist would vanish. My reaction was sort of, "it's about time."
Twinky, I agree with the entire post (with the spoilers) up to, obviously, the stuff I haven't read. Feel free to recommend books at me.
And I think Xav is over reacting. I didn't hate the book, man, I just didn't get into it at all. If you want to talk about books I actually hated, you'll have to start a thread about...actually, last time it came up, I ended up writing a long apology to someone who took my hatred of that disgusting peice of crap personally, so I'll just not mention it again.
Tom, I have to agree that knowing what the series is about isn't a requirement. I still don't know what The Wasp Factory was about, but I certainly enjoyed reading it. (aside from the last chapter, which where he assumed his readers were idiots)
quote: I stopped reading the second book in the middle of a scene that was describing oral sex with more detail than I was comfortable with.
hmm...maybe I should read the second one.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I don't think there's anything wrong with celia and twinky's opinion here. I mean, not everyone gets into every book. It's just a fact of life, doesn't mean there's necessarily a flaw in the book or a flaw in the reader. Even if you think you're writing the greatest epic ever known to mankind (and I nominate A Song of Ice and Fire for precisely that honor), you must assume that a good thirty percent of the people in the world will detest it, and an even larger percentage won't care.
But, twinky and celia, I think you're getting the reactions you're getting because you're trying to cite specific features of these books as flaws, when for many of us, those exact features are the things we like the most. Like Ned Stark, for instance. You keep saying that George R. R. Martin didn't spend enough time with him to make you care when he died. Personally, I got really involved with his character the first time I spent time in his head. He's the kind of character that I am naturally drawn to, and it was my connection to his story that pulled me through the first section of the book.
So, what does that mean? That I'm a sucker and a dupe? That Martin didn't bother to develop the character, but I fell for it anyway? See, when you say, absolutely, that Martin failed to develop good characters, it makes me wonder what you must think of me
You don't always need to blame the author when you don't like a book, especially when you just don't like the KIND of book he's writing. That's like saying, I don't know, that Vienna Teng is a terrible songwriter when all you listen to is hip-hop. Well, duh, of course you don't like Vienna, then. Doesn't mean that she sucks or that she failed to write a good song. It just means that you're not in her audience.
But, that said, Xavier, they weren't actually going that far when this thread began. They were just saying that they didn't enjoy the books, and they were trying to articulate why. You know, reading a book because you like to get deeply involved with a single character doesn't make you stupid, and it doesn't mean you need to be spoonfed. It's just a preference, like any other. Celia and twinky enjoy getting a certain kind of intimate understanding of an individual when they read, they don't like getting distracted from it, and they don't get as swept up in grand, epic, world-sweeping plots. So these books probably aren't for them. You don't have to be insulting about it.
Basically, everybody shut up! Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Just for the record, I'm pretty sure she's kissing me.
I just don't want to rest of you to be confused.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
uh, no. but this one's for you
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
I find that Martin does develop his characters and shows a great deal of complexity in them. He just does it over a longer time scale than most stories.
Remember, in the first three books alone he's written over 3000 pages--enough for between 7 and 15 regular novels. And he's just started! I can only guess how his characters will turn out in the end.
Tyron has become quite a complex character in these first three books, gaining my sympathy, empathy and disgust. He's a hero, but a questionable one.
But then, just about everyone in the story is.
You do have to keep all the characters sorted out in your head, which is quite a task in these novels. But like a good soap opera, you get involved in all of their stories, and so end with a richer experience, IMHO.
The only complaint I have about the series is that Martin keeps making each new book longer. For crying out loud, the first one was all ready too long!! I don't have the time for all these pages! Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Not too long ago you mentioned you wanted to read the second book for a certain "graphic" scene.
And now you tell me that is for me?
Yowza!
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
bobble, that smilie combination is a spanking. if i just used the eek one, or if i ever at you, feel free to Yowza.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that the California Grape smilies are the most sexually explicit. Those crazy Californians.
Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
So... amazon(uk) tells me that A feast for Crows will be released on Monday. Could it be true this time? I've been checking regularly. At the previous release dates, the date has been changed well before the actual date. Anyone with inside information? I'm reluctant to check the message boards, because I want to start the book fresh when it finally arrives, and it seems they all have been reading chapters released on the internet.
Someone in this thread mentioned lack of character development in the series. I can't agree with that. The change the characters undergo is one of the things that have really hooked me to these books. I started out hating Jamie Lannister. Now I find myself harboring some sympathy for him, and if he continues to change I might end up liking him and rooting for him. It's nice to know that it could happen for anyone
(except Cercei)
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
Martin has promised to update his website with an announcement as soon as A Feast For Crows is finished. Thus far, no change.
[ May 28, 2004, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Fitz ]
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
(currently half way into the second book) I might actually come to like Jaime Lannister?! I think not, that man will never have my sympathy.
Then again, I said I'd never like Sansa after I found out she ratted out her father and thereby causing his death, but Xavier promised I would, and sure enough... I guess she's not so bad after all..
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I don't know if this has come up, yet, because I'm only floating through this thread, but...
Has anyone else played the Fantasy Flight game based off of A Game of Thrones? I havn't read the book, but my Song of Ice and Fire-fanboy friend bought the game recently and it's one of the best board games I've played in a long time. I highly reccomend it, even if you know nothing about the storyline (like me).
Posted by Chizpurfle (Member # 6255) on :
Yeah, I agree, loads of character development here.
quote:(currently half way into the second book) I might actually come to like Jaime Lannister?! I think not, that man will never have my sympathy.
Then again, I said I'd never like Sansa after I found out she ratted out her father and thereby causing his death, but Xavier promised I would, and sure enough... I guess she's not so bad after all..
I didn't like either Sansa or Jaime at all in the beginning either but by the end of the third book (I am not quite sure precisely when since I have not read the books in a long time) I think began to take a liking to them. They're not perfect, but maybe not all that bad either.
That's the thing that makes me like this series so much- the realism and the uncertainty. I like how the characters are not clearly defined and not black and white. It's more real for me that there is no definate protagonist. It's more real for me that death is not something predetermined by their status (ie. hero and villain) and that every character has their own faults and attributes.
What is odd though, is that while many appeared to have enjoyed Tigana because of the character development, I disliked it because of its seemingly lack of character development to me.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I like the series so much simply because I have read so much fantasy it was starting to bore me. I have a very good library of over 800+ fantasy books, so for me to say I was getting tired of fantasy is quite a statement. I have been reading fantasy for 25 years, ever since I was bitten by the LOTR bug (The Hobbit, actually) at the age of 9. It is one of my favorite things, and I read several books a week.
However, even with the current glut of fantasy writing that has happened over the last 56 or so years (or perhaps because of the glut) I have felt my enthusiasm begin to wane. I still like reading, and I love to reread my favorites, but it all started to blur together.
Then along cam Martin, and he did things to me as a reader that I had not experienced in years. Main characters dying in the first book of a series? Impossible! How dare he...
Thank God he did. I woke up out of my apathy, ad began reading again. I found Octavia Butler, and Neal Stephenson, and a lot of writers I had ignored or not noticed, and found myself intrigued buy their writing styles.
Kay did the same thing for me 5-6 years ago. I was surprised by how fresh his ideas were, as opposed to the ho-hum D&D based books were, and he surprised me with each book. Now he doesn't surprise me as much, but I still enjoy his take on historical fantasy.
BtL, I found the Night Walkers to be one of the better chapters of Tigana, and as that is one of my favorite books of all time, that is saying a lot. I understand that the flow from chapter to chapter at time seemed to jar a bit, but I think it was due to the scope of the story. I love the way Kay includes both styles of stories we have been discussing; the Epic and the Personal. I like his characters, and care what happens to them for personal reasons. At the same time, they are caught up in these sweeping, world-changing events.
IMHO....
Kwea
[ May 29, 2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I recently started reading the series and have been surprised at how much I enjoy it. You see, I can't put my finger on what exactly about it I like so much. If I were to tell someone: there's this series about some nobles and their intrigue and whatnot... there just doesn't seem to be anything all that special there.
But then I also feel that way about a certain anime series: Juuni Kokki, or Chronicle of 12 Kingdoms. (Based on a book or series, I think.) It is similar in that it is a story that brings in characters from a multitude of different places. And they keep bringing in new ones! Eventually I expect they bring in aspects of all 12 kingdoms. (I haven't got that far yet.)
While it starts with a clear protagonist, given time there is no longer any one clear protagonist. It also is about countries, and intrigue amongst rulers of kingdoms. Nothing all that special. And yet I *love* it more than any other anime series I have seen. (Not that I have seen all that many.) It feels so real in the same way that ASOIAF does.
So the whole multiple-character thing in ASOIAF didn't bother me. But then, I knew a lot about the series going into it. For instance, I knew from the start that a certain beloved character would die. I knew that there was no clear protagonist. Maybe that meant I was prepared to accept these things ahead of time. But then, for some reason the multiple-character thing doesn't strike me as all that odd or unique, just an alternate style that I already feel acustomed to. I have enjoyed it.
What does bug me is when authors take you up to some climactic event and then suddenly switch scenes without resolving that event. ARGH! Just when you are dying to know what will happen next, you are suddenly wisked off to something you have no interest in. I think it is their way of getting you to tolerate the boring parts because you are trying to get to the part you actually care about. Movies are guilty of this too. I don't think Martin has abused this, at least not enough for it to bother me.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Kay doesn't really count as fantasy, either.....
Raja, I'm curious--do you continue to believe this? It seems like to me like a puzzling assertion to make, and one that would require an incredibly restrictive definition of "fantasy".
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Bah, I come off as a total tool in this thread.
You people need to stop bumping threads I posted in from 5 years ago...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
:: laugh :: It's funny reading it, X; it's so different from who you are these days.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: After The Darkness that Comes Before, I've gone running back to Kay again (The Last Light of the Sun). And guess what? Chapter one is over, and I have myself at least one major character.
Edit: I'm glad I'm not the only one.
BTW, Kay is my favorite author, and I love all his books so far.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'd be hard pressed to say who my favorite author is, but Kay is definitely in the top tier.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Whereas I still can't bring myself to enjoy one of his books. They're just all so boring. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I know what you're talking about, Tom. There's something about Kay's work that reminds me of what it's like being outside in the woods during a heavy snowfall, and I could see the quality that feels that way to me feeling boring to someone else.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I also hate being outside in the woods during a heavy snowfall. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I love his books. They are dense, and full of interesting scenes and great protagonists. I love how descriptive he can be too, and his interweaving of historical situations and fantasy.
Some of his books start slow, a bit, but he hasn't disappointed me once in all the years I have been reading him.
And he has a way of coming out with one sentence, or one phrase, that is so rich and complex that it changes the whole situation. I have had to put down a book of his after reading one of these sentences, because it evoked such emotion in me, in relation to the story, that I got the chills.
Not even Martin, as great as he is, has done that to me more than once or twice.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
:: laugh :: Well there you go.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I liked Last Light of the Sun; was not a fan of Ysabel. I would put him in the tier below Martin, Erikson, Bakker, Mieville & Cook (to name a few).
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'd probably put him in a subtier, just below Martin. If Martin were an A+, Kay would be a solid A, and would share that slot with Bakker. I'd probably put Cook in the B+ tier. I haven't read Erikson or Mieville, though I've been meaning to.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Kay doesn't really count as fantasy, either.....
Raja, I'm curious--do you continue to believe this? It seems like to me like a puzzling assertion to make, and one that would require an incredibly restrictive definition of "fantasy".
As you know, my view of Bakker at least has completely inverted in the five years that have elapsed since this thread was last bumped. He's my favourite fantasy author by a healthy margin -- not just favourite fantasy author currently writing, but favourite period. I've also developed an appreciation for stories without clear protagonists.
Additionally, I haven't read or reread any Kay since Last Light (which left me a little bit disappointed). Ysabel didn't interest me, because it was set in the "real" world. So honestly, I haven't thought about where I file him mentally all that much.
I'm currently reading Glen Cook's Tyranny of the Night, which is "not quite historical Earth," or "historical Earth with the names changed and fantastical elements," in much the same way that a lot of Kay's writing is. I suppose I'd put Kay in similar territory: in the fantasy section, but over at the pseudo-historical end of it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: As you know, my view of Bakker at least has completely inverted in the five years that have elapsed since this thread was last bumped.
Yeah, I know. It's interesting to see how much people's tastes change over that kind of a span of time.
quote:I've also developed an appreciation for stories without clear protagonists.
I wonder if you'd like ASoIF more now. I can't remember if you've read beyond the first book of that series. Have you?
quote:Additionally, I haven't read or reread any Kay since Last Light (which left me a little bit disappointed).
Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that you haven't read any Kay is at least five years? If I'm reading you right, it's kind of funny--I think of Kay as being one of "your" authors, because you introduced me to him (I think of Cook and Bakker the same way, but not Watts for some reason. I think I've recommended him to enough people that I think of him as "mine" now). If you reread any of his stuff I'd be interested to know if your perception of it/appreciation for it has changed at all.
quote: So honestly, I haven't thought about where I file him mentally all that much.
Fair enough.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Kay doesn't really count as fantasy, either.....
Raja, I'm curious--do you continue to believe this? It seems like to me like a puzzling assertion to make, and one that would require an incredibly restrictive definition of "fantasy".
As you know, my view of Bakker at least has completely inverted in the five years that have elapsed since this thread was last bumped. He's my favourite fantasy author by a healthy margin -- not just favourite fantasy author currently writing, but favourite period. I've also developed an appreciation for stories without clear protagonists.
Additionally, I haven't read or reread any Kay since Last Light (which left me a little bit disappointed). Ysabel didn't interest me, because it was set in the "real" world. So honestly, I haven't thought about where I file him mentally all that much.
I'm currently reading Glen Cook's Tyranny of the Night, which is "not quite historical Earth," or "historical Earth with the names changed and fantastical elements," in much the same way that a lot of Kay's writing is. I suppose I'd put Kay in similar territory: in the fantasy section, but over at the pseudo-historical end of it.
I thought Last Light was good, but not one of Kay's best works. I also wasn't interested in Ysebel at first, but he ties it in with the Finovarr books well, and while it was slow to start it was very, very good.
I'd love to read more about the main protagonist, he COULD be one of Kay's BEST creations in future stories.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I read the Fionavar books as a teenager and wasn't really wowed by them. My favourites of Kay's are the ones where the story isn't overtly riffing on something else -- Tigana and the Sarantine books. Possibly Arbonne, I wouldn't know.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:I've also developed an appreciation for stories without clear protagonists.
I wonder if you'd like ASoIF more now. I can't remember if you've read beyond the first book of that series. Have you?
No. It's one I'd consider revisiting, but not until it's finished. I'll probably just watch the HBO series instead.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Additionally, I haven't read or reread any Kay since Last Light (which left me a little bit disappointed).
Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that you haven't read any Kay is at least five years?
That's right. Ysabel came out after that, and I didn't read it. That said, I've thought a couple of times lately that he must be just about finished something, so I checked just now -- apparently his next book is due in the spring of 2010, and it looks like one I'll want to read.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: If you reread any of his stuff I'd be interested to know if your perception of it/appreciation for it has changed at all.
I almost never reread. I don't even manage to replay video games that have branching plot paths. Too much in the queue!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yeah, his new book looks very interesting, and I will probably buy it ASAP.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I've actually just started A Song of Ice and Fire. I'm on page 560-something of A Game of Thrones. It's good.
It's also getting really painful. This is definitely not a happy story. I go and read parts of other books and am stricken by how much more cheery even a lot of the serious ones are.
Anyway, the novel's really detailed and interesting. I like it a lot.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's also getting really painful. This is definitely not a happy story.
Hee. Let me know if you can finish Game of Thrones without hurling it across the room at least once. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If I can read more than a couple of hundred pages in a book (let alone more than five hundred, which was the case here) without being able to figure out who the main character is, I think there's something wrong with the book. Does anyone else find this as irritating as I do?
I haven't read the entire thread so forgive me if I'm repeating something. Books without a clear main character aren't in the least unusual. It seems like at least half of the books I've read recently don't have a single main character and have not suffered as a result. Here are a some examples of great books/stories that don't have an obvious main character Tale of Two Cities, Moonstone, Guerrilas, The Brother's Karamazov, War and Peace, Speaker for the Dead, Crossing to Safety, Grapes of Wrath, The Sound and the Fury, A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Princess Bride, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I could go on and on.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's also getting really painful. This is definitely not a happy story.
Hee. Let me know if you can finish Game of Thrones without hurling it across the room at least once.
Just GOT? How about the REST of it?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I managed to avoid hurling a book in the series until A Storm of Swords.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Heh. This definitely sounds like it's in the catagory of "don't worry, it gets worse."
Anyway, I'm having fun. If by fun you mean watching all these characters I've grown to care about a little bit get totally, and irrevocably screwed.
I'm getting the feeling the fates/personalities of the direwolves is a huge reflection on the fate/personalities of the Stark kids, though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It's a great series, one of my all time favorites. I have read a TON of fantasy, most of what is out there to be honest.
Old school and modern. It's my idea of a good time, curling up with a good series and reading all the way thought it. Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I finished GOT. I am not inspired to read any more of Martin.
Guy Kay is one I enjoyed, but was not overwhelmed by. They are good, but I do not return to them like I do other authors.
YMMV, I guess.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Of course. Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Sure. Even the greatest novel in history would be go disliked by a third of all people.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I was also annoyed by his inconsistent and obnoxious quasi-archaisms. What's up with "maester" and "ser"? Why use "gaoler" instead of "jailer"? And why does everybody need to say "would that I could" every other page?
Well, since I went through the trouble of reading this thread only to discover that it's a relic, I need to post something... so:
Gaol is not archaic, is is merely the British spelling of jail. And yes, Brits are weird, but it doesn't mean that they're archaic.
I use "would that" occasionally, but from my reading, it also appears to be more common in British English. I could be mistaken on this matter, though. In any case, it's a fun/pretty way of noting a subjunctive.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I just need to get my hands on the newest one. Oh and as far as favorite Kay, definately Lions of Al Rassan. Although, that was also the first one I read.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
at you, feel free to Yowza.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
I guess she's not so bad after all..