Thanks, MatsVS, I've enjoyed writing it throughout the season. I was disappointed by Feast as well, I even thought that Robert Jordan's successor did a better job keeping my interest, which sounds like blasphemy but it was true.MatsVS said:Thank you for the thoughtful and contagiously giddy commentary throughout the season, Mr. Tito, I've greatly enjoyed it. I've yet to catch the final episode, knowing all too well the inevitable, inexplicable emptiness I'll feel once it's over and the credits roll. I'm sure I'll be better served by savouring it for when my mood is perfect, and I have a whole evening to properly absorb it.
Funny thing is, before this series started, I did not count myself a great Martin fan, having found the latest title lacking, but now my excitement has been ignited yet again, and I am eager to consume the newest title. Hopefully, it will be more focused than Feast and prove that Martin actually knows where he intends to take this jumbled narrative.
Yeah, the Dany/Drogo relationship is a little muddy for me.unabomberman said:Odd. I assumed that the whole Daenerys/ Drogo thing would be way more graphic and awful in the books than in the TV series (I watched that part in the series first before delving into the books) but it seemed, to me, that the whole thing was somewhat less forceful in the books. There's the whole "No" part when they first have sex where in the books, where Dany was a lot less tentative whereas in the series she's on the verge of breaking down at the thought of getting raped right then in there, which was followed by the later stuff both in the book and the series where she basically swoons for the guy while at the same time she finds her strength.
I'm not sure if I misunderstood it, badly, or if somehow I'm missing the point made in the separate novella about her (Blood of the Dragon) that better explains her misadventures with the Dothraki.
Can anyone clear that up for me?
The way I understand it, and I may be wrong, is that Blood of the Dragon is comprised of both the contents of the book with a little bit more content to flesh everything out, and that I may be forming an incomplete picture of the whole deal.Greg Tito said:Yeah, the Dany/Drogo relationship is a little muddy for me.unabomberman said:Odd. I assumed that the whole Daenerys/ Drogo thing would be way more graphic and awful in the books than in the TV series (I watched that part in the series first before delving into the books) but it seemed, to me, that the whole thing was somewhat less forceful in the books. There's the whole "No" part when they first have sex where in the books, where Dany was a lot less tentative whereas in the series she's on the verge of breaking down at the thought of getting raped right then in there, which was followed by the later stuff both in the book and the series where she basically swoons for the guy while at the same time she finds her strength.
I'm not sure if I misunderstood it, badly, or if somehow I'm missing the point made in the separate novella about her (Blood of the Dragon) that better explains her misadventures with the Dothraki.
Can anyone clear that up for me?
I thought Blood of the Dragon was just Dany's POV chapters from GOT bound together. Is that not the case? Is there more detail given?
Greg
Think waiting till spring is bad? Think about how long ago Feast came out. As for why it doesn't have all the characters. GRRM explains it as he wrote too much, and had to put out Half of his book. That doesn't really explain why it's taken forever and day for Dance to come out though.MajorDolphin said:This is why I hate television.. I find something I really like and watch it as often as I can and then the season ends and the long wait for the next one begins. Grr.
Feast for Crows is killing me. Why the author decided to forget about all the interesting characters and the interesting things they're doing is beyond me. Is it just me or does Martin rely far too much on story twists? He constantly builds up expectations only to go the completely opposite direction and it was old by book 3.
True. I was just looking at the release dates. I'll have to find something worth reading after I knock out Dragons.rickthetrick said:Think waiting till spring is bad? Think about how long ago Feast came out. As for why it doesn't have all the characters. GRRM explains it as he wrote too much, and had to put out Half of his book. That doesn't really explain why it's taken forever and day for Dance to come out though.MajorDolphin said:This is why I hate television.. I find something I really like and watch it as often as I can and then the season ends and the long wait for the next one begins. Grr.
Feast for Crows is killing me. Why the author decided to forget about all the interesting characters and the interesting things they're doing is beyond me. Is it just me or does Martin rely far too much on story twists? He constantly builds up expectations only to go the completely opposite direction and it was old by book 3.
OT: I'm looking forward to season two and three.
I have to wonder who they'll pick to play Briene of Tarth.
Here's hoping they keep her ugly
I don't know of any grass roots resistance movements in ASOIAF series other than maybe what Dany starts up in A Clash of King and A Storm of Swords; and even then she is still in the free cities far from Westeros.Noelveiga said:By the way (spoilers for Dune and this), I would have been waaaaay more shocked at Ned's death (the use of misspelled common names in the show is one of the little things that annoy me) if I hadn't realized early on that this is just fantasy Dune.
I mean, a nobleman forced to go rule in a place he has no particular interest in? Suspiciously friendly allies that may or may not be setting up a trap? Betrayal from one of them out of left field? Friends and children left to escape by their own devices? A counterattack built out of a grassroots movement? Yeah, it's pretty close and not quite as original as people make it out to be. But still cool, don't get me wrong.
"Historical accuracy" is used because they are researched and intended to be historically accurate to medieval customs. That's why. It's not some kind of "nerd delusion." That's just ignorance speaking on your part.Noelveiga said:Ok, this is freaking me out, now. Why does Greg Tito keep referring to the books as if they had actually happened and talking about "historical accuracy". At first, earlier in the season, I thought it was some sort of rethorical resource, but now it's seriously starting to come across as nerd delusions.
Anyway, yep, it was pretty cool. Not quite as cool as some made it out to be. It wasn't more shocking or detailed than Rome and, frankly, a lot of smaller threads didn't pay off. Sure, they *will*, but like I've said elsewhere, at that point we're in FFXIII's 40 hour tutorial territory.
By the way (spoilers for Dune and this), I would have been waaaaay more shocked at Ned's death (the use of misspelled common names in the show is one of the little things that annoy me) if I hadn't realized early on that this is just fantasy Dune.
Who have you been talking with, then? Nobody has been making it up to be as something groundbreaking and original as you were expecting it to be. Those particular plot strands, especially, have been around for thousands of years and you could fill the back of trucks with all kinds of different stories about the same thing. JRRM just does it exceptionally well, that's all.I mean, a nobleman forced to go rule in a place he has no particular interest in? Suspiciously friendly allies that may or may not be setting up a trap? Betrayal from one of them out of left field? Friends and children left to escape by their own devices? A counterattack built out of a grassroots movement? Yeah, it's pretty close and not quite as original as people make it out to be. But still cool, don't get me wrong.
This. Fantasy is always stronger to me when it has real-world analogues, and Martin does that expertly. This is the reason I prefer playing D&D with rules that adhere to how humans actually lived in history, rather than supermen with super human powers at level one. And it's why Game of Thrones resonates with so many people, especially me.unabomberman said:"Historical accuracy" is used because they are researched and intended to be historically accurate to medieval customs. That's why. It's not some kind of "nerd delusion." That's just ignorance speaking on your part.Noelveiga said:Ok, this is freaking me out, now. Why does Greg Tito keep referring to the books as if they had actually happened and talking about "historical accuracy". At first, earlier in the season, I thought it was some sort of rethorical resource, but now it's seriously starting to come across as nerd delusions.