Amnesiac Pigeon said:
Elijah Newton said:
Dance with Dragons was a mess. Again, I like that Martin's making bank as an author and I think fans who demand output on a certain schedule ought to be laughed off. But that was not six years of the quality of work he showed with the first two books. He's slipping badly.
I'm curious why you think A Dance with Dragons was a mess.
I'd rank it amongst my top three with A Game of Thrones and A Storm of Swords.
Loved Quentyns story as well as Danaerys' ruling troubles. Reek's sections were fantastic and I relly like where that Winterfell story is headed.
then again I did start reading it as soon as I finished A Feast For Crows. Skipping the six year wait that seems to lead to people declaring it rubbish.
The six year wait didn't help matters any. If it'd been rushed out the door I'd be somewhat relieved to use that as the scapegoat for the quality issues I perceive.
There were passages flat-out copied from the fourth book and inserted into this one. It wasn't just a recap, it was pretty much word for word for what seemed like a half dozen paragraphs. This kind of gripe sounds lame and improbable without a citation, so feel free to call me on that, but honestly I don't have the energy or interest to back that up. Pretty sure I didn't hallucinate it, though.
As for the plot lines and comparisons with earlier books? well, liking one thing over another is completely subjective and I'm not going to say what you like is wrong or anything of the sort. But what the series
needs in order to conclude as smartly as it began is to follow existing characters to their ends. Sometimes that means characters die, which is great. Or fine, or whatever. The death of characters highlighted important moments, made the reader fear for those remaining and honed the focus of the story. But between resurrecting characters, nerfing cliffhanger threats and introducing new characters, the tale is becoming diffuse. Instead of one group of characters he's attempting to make a story of everything.
By way of segue :
Tono Makt said:
It is fictionalized history - it's like writing about the 100 years War from the point from a "real time" perspective. There are so many different factions and people to keep track of and no one knows what is going to happen next. There is no plot per se - just action and reaction.
I get where folks like Tono Makt are coming from but for me it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The story doesn't start as a history of everything, it starts as a narrative focused on the Starks of Winterfell, the foreshadowing and execution of their downfall and subsequent diaspora. The world is defined by the Starks as they move through it. Sometimes you'd get a handoff to another character who worked closely with them, and you had the implied foreshadowing of conflict by a similar attention given to Daenerys (but, significantly only Daenerys) whose backstory was not unlike the Starks? blah blah blah. *sigh*
Look, I just think that had it been his intent to write a history of everything, he would've started with an everything perspective in the beginning instead of focusing so tightly on one family. I think what we're seeing is bloat - which could arise from an earnest love of the setting and interest in the characters, but let's call it what it is - explained away as an unconventional structure. I think that's a weak excuse and is hurting the quality of the books.
Martin's insistance on introducing new characters to the mix in book five doesn't just stretch out the series (which one might label 'stalling'), it actively interrupts the pace of what's going on as Martin fills us in on the whole backstory, culture, life events, etc etc. Off the top of my head, compare Brynne's introduction and role with Quentyn's. Her addition was less intrusive. Plus, I mean, even at whatever ridiculous page count he's at, we're getting no follow through on characters he introduced in book 4. If you're not doing anything with Myrcella in book 5, why is she there?
captcha : Sausages.
"Sausages, sausages, sausages."