Favorite Reads

[Mebert]

Expand on that for us? Why don't you like the first book exactly?

I think he spends more time deep diving on sex with a 15 year old then he does on plot. I felt every character was a one dimensional extreme. How anyone was ever betrayed blows my damn mind as each character is the extreme of the personality.

Maybe in later books characters are more fleshed out, but I lost interest before that point.

 

[chf]

I think he spends more time deep diving on sex with a 15 year old then he does on plot. I felt every character was a one dimensional extreme. How anyone was ever betrayed blows my damn mind as each character is the extreme of the personality.

Maybe in later books characters are more fleshed out, but I lost interest before that point.

Yep, pretty much the definition of 'fleshed out.'

Villains you think are villains, not so much, heroes - likewise.

And c'mon now. You REALLY think Martin is pro sleeping with children? What's next, Mark Twain was pro racism?

You can of course not like the books. There's a shvt ton of fantasy authors that have sold a shvt ton of books that I can't stand. I'd disagree vigorously with your take on Martin though, well to be precise on GOT. I've read some of his other stuff, short stories and the like, and was underwhelmed.

For world building and simple aspiration, ASOIAF is amongst the genre's best.

 

[Mebert]

Yep, pretty much the definition of 'fleshed out.'

Villains you think are villains, not so much, heroes - likewise.

And c'mon now. You REALLY think Martin is pro sleeping with children? What's next, Mark Twain was pro racism?

You can of course not like the books. There's a shvt ton of fantasy authors that have sold a shvt ton of books that I can't stand. I'd disagree vigorously with your take on Martin though, well to be precise on GOT. I've read some of his other stuff, short stories and the like, and was underwhelmed.

For world building and simple aspiration, ASOIAF is amongst the genre's best.

I was absolutely not saying Martin is pro sleeping with children, I am saying it was a larger part of the book than it needed to be.

I don't agree with fleshed out, each character is 100% a single attribute, nobody in his world is well rounded. Maybe in later books he adds some depth, but not in the first, and nothing in the first gave me any desire to read on.

I will say he is willing to remove main characters when needed. That is admirable, I hate when an author gets too attached to his own characters.

 

[chf]

I was absolutely not saying Martin is pro sleeping with children, I am saying it was a larger part of the book than it needed to be.

I don't agree with fleshed out, each character is 100% a single attribute, nobody in his world is well rounded. Maybe in later books he adds some depth, but not in the first, and nothing in the first gave me any desire to read on.

I will say he is willing to remove main characters when needed. That is admirable, I hate when an author gets too attached to his own characters.

But in essense, you're ASKING him to be a bad writer. How is he supposed to 'flesh out' a character properly, if he can't take you on the journey of finding out ABOUT that character? Rule 101 of writing is 'show, don't tell.' In order for Jayme or Littlefinger to be 'fleshed out' in Book #1, he'd have to TELL you those details, not show them to you.

Which would negate the true brilliance of the characters and the books, discovering that what you thought you knew wasn't what you really knew. How you start to cheer for characters that you once wanted to die horribly.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the other point. I've had other people mention that though, often people who haven't even read the book(s), but read something about them on a blog or message board. My own child didn't want to watch the show/read the books for this reason.

Again though, it takes away a LOT of the power of the journey if the book is sanitized. Just like if Twain had taken all the offensive racism from 'Huckleberry Finn.' Or if Kubrick had taken the r*pe out of 'Clockwork Orange.'

It would water down the actual meaning of the book/movie.

Twain was making a social comment on racism. Burgess/Kubrick were making social comment on violence. GRRM is doing the same.

Sanitizing the story makes the message less meaningful.

 

[Mebert]

You are right, this is not something we agree on. I am not asking him to be a bad writer, I am asking for there to be enough in the first book to make the idea of future books palatable.

And as to the other thing, I am not saying it needs to be removed 100%, I am saying every third chapter does not have to make that it's main focus.

 

[The Q]

But in essense, you're ASKING him to be a bad writer. How is he supposed to 'flesh out' a character properly, if he can't take you on the journey of finding out ABOUT that character? Rule 101 of writing is 'show, don't tell.' In order for Jayme or Littlefinger to be 'fleshed out' in Book #1, he'd have to TELL you those details, not show them to you.

Which would negate the true brilliance of the characters and the books, discovering that what you thought you knew wasn't what you really knew. How you start to cheer for characters that you once wanted to die horribly.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the other point. I've had other people mention that though, often people who haven't even read the book(s), but read something about them on a blog or message board. My own child didn't want to watch the show/read the books for this reason.

Again though, it takes away a LOT of the power of the journey if the book is sanitized. Just like if Twain had taken all the offensive racism from 'Huckleberry Finn.' Or if Kubrick had taken the r*pe out of 'Clockwork Orange.'

It would water down the actual meaning of the book/movie.

Twain was making a social comment on racism. Burgess/Kubrick were making social comment on violence. GRRM is doing the same.

Sanitizing the story makes the message less meaningful.

I love when you talk writing.

 

[chf]

You are right, this is not something we agree on. I am not asking him to be a bad writer, I am asking for there to be enough in the first book to make the idea of future books palatable.

I don't like something does not = objectively bad. Obviously LOTS of people disagree with you. He's indelibly influenced the entire genre. So not just readers, but WRITERS. Again, not saying YOU have to like it. But I call shenanigans on your reasons. Hey, you like your fantasy sanitized and non-confrontational. Nothing wrong with that. I loves me some Tolkien too.

And as to the other thing, I am not saying it needs to be removed 100%, I am saying every third chapter does not have to make that it's main focus.

It's not. Good grief. The book is a freaking doorstop. There's maybe five or six pages of Dany and Drogo.

It's possibly the most 'populated' book cast ever, and yet two of them are the book's 'focus?' Meh.

 

[ill]

I think he spends more time deep diving on sex with a 15 year old then he does on plot. I felt every character was a one dimensional extreme. How anyone was ever betrayed blows my damn mind as each character is the extreme of the personality.

Maybe in later books characters are more fleshed out, but I lost interest before that point.

Characters definitely get more fleshed out in later books. They evolve and grow as the story goes on. You are introduced to each character. You get the basics about what drives them, what they are all about. If you can't get past that, I don't know how you get past the first chapters of any book.

 

[Mebert]

I don't like something does not = objectively bad. Obviously LOTS of people disagree with you. He's indelibly influenced the entire genre. So not just readers, but WRITERS. Again, not saying YOU have to like it. But I call shenanigans on your reasons. Hey, you like your fantasy sanitized and non-confrontational. Nothing wrong with that. I loves me some Tolkien too.




It's not. Good grief. The book is a freaking doorstop. There's maybe five or six pages of Dany and Drogo.

It's possibly the most 'populated' book cast ever, and yet two of them are the book's 'focus?' Meh.

Wow you infer a lot of incorrect information from what I write. You put a ton of emphasis on one of my complaints and base your entire argument on that. Leave out Dany completely, I don't care at all. That was just one of many things I did not care for. The over all point I had is by the end of book one he had failed completely to pull me into the story and make me interested in reading more. Sanitized has nothing to do with it, I didn't not care for his writing. You are right a ton of people like it, just like a ton don't. I fall in the latter, I am not sure why you have an issue with someone having a different opinion on a book than you is so offensive to you. I am glad you found a book that you enjoy, happy reading.

 

[Mebert]

Characters definitely get more fleshed out in later books. They evolve and grow as the story goes on. You are introduced to each character. You get the basics about what drives them, what they are all about. If you can't get past that, I don't know how you get past the first chapters of any book.

I did not stop after a few chapters, I stopped after book one. I was not looking for everything to be answered by then, but by the first book you should at least be interested. I just wasn't.

 

[ill]

I did not stop after a few chapters, I stopped after book one. I was not looking for everything to be answered by then, but by the first book you should at least be interested. I just wasn't.

I didn't read it until after book 4 was out, so I guess I went in knowing there was more to come and dove right into the second book. With the looming wars and the number of people claiming the kingdom, that was enough to have me interested.

 

[Mebert]

I didn't read it until after book 4 was out, so I guess I went in knowing there was more to come and dove right into the second book. With the looming wars and the number of people claiming the kingdom, that was enough to have me interested.

Which is fair, it pulled in a lot of people. only chf seems to be offended that I did not care for it.

 

[ill]

Which is fair, it pulled in a lot of people. only chf seems to be offended that I did not care for it.

I had a couple friends who tried and couldn't get into it. There are a ton of characters and a lot of fluff, that the show was able to cut out.

 

[chf]

Heh. I'm not offended dude. I'm, you know, disagreeing with you. Dunno how many times I have to say it, (this will be the third), YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE MARTIN.

Hey, just say 'I couldn't get into it.' Fair enough. AGAIN, like I already stated in my earlier post, there's plenty of fantasy authors I can't get into that sell a LOT of books.

Some are good writers that I 'just can't get into,' (Stephen Erickson)

Some are fair writers whose style bored me once I'd gotten past age 11 (Terry Brooks etc etc)

Some are hacks whose popularity mystifies me (Terry Goodkind)

So I get you not liking Martin, AGAIN. (see now that's the fourth time)

What I'm disagreeing with are your reasons. I can only go off the ones that you've given me.

But hey, apparently my disagreement bothers you, so let's leave it at 'you couldn't get into it?'

 

[Mebert]

Heh. I'm not offended dude. I'm, you know, disagreeing with you. Dunno how many times I have to say it, (this will be the third), YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE MARTIN.

Hey, just say 'I couldn't get into it.' Fair enough. AGAIN, like I already stated in my earlier post, there's plenty of fantasy authors I can't get into that sell a LOT of books.

Some are good writers that I 'just can't get into,' (Stephen Erickson)

Some are fair writers whose style bored me once I'd gotten past age 11 (Terry Brooks etc etc)

Some are hacks whose popularity mystifies me (Terry Goodkind)

So I get you not liking Martin, AGAIN. (see now that's the fourth time)

What I'm disagreeing with are your reasons. I can only go off the ones that you've given me.

But hey, apparently my disagreement bothers you, so let's leave it at 'you couldn't get into it?'

Disliking Terry Goodkind is something we can agree on.

 

[chf]

I like Jim Butcher a lot. Not a huge fan of the Dresden series, but I really enjoyed Furies of Calderon. I have really enjoyed the Cinder Spires series he just started as well.

I like Dresden's stuff too (just to show that it's not like I disagree with ALL your opinions or anything. Peace, and happy reading.

 

[chf]

Disliking Terry Goodkind is something we can agree on.

To be fair, his very first book was okay. But yep, holy dreck.

So given your reaction to Martin, what's your take on some of the new guard of 'grey' fantasy like Abercrombie and Lynch?

 

[ill]

To be fair, his very first book was okay. But yep, holy dreck.

So given your reaction to Martin, what's your take on some of the new guard of 'grey' fantasy like Abercrombie and Lynch?

what do you mean by "grey"?

 

[Mebert]

To be fair, his very first book was okay. But yep, holy dreck.

So given your reaction to Martin, what's your take on some of the new guard of 'grey' fantasy like Abercrombie and Lynch?

hmm, you may have pin pointed for me where my issue was. Looking back the fantasy I tend to prefer has a more high magic element to it than more Military Fantasy. I have not read anything from Abercrombie or Lynch, however I did not love Miles Camerons series the Traitor Son. Same goes for Jeff Wheeler with the King Fountain series, although that one is probably lighter than most of that kind of genre.

I think it has more to do with amount of magic than gritty dark feel, as I like Robin Hobb and Fitz's life is about a depressing as can be.

It would also explain why I like Sanderson so much.

 

[chf]

what do you mean by "grey"?

There's been a shift from so called (paraphrasing here to avoid a WallOfText) high fantasy to darker, 'grittier' morally grey fantasy.

So while Gandalf is just good, and Sauron is just evil (both are just givens, the author and the readers don't spend much time wondering why), a lot of the new guard of fantasy authors are introducing fantasy readers to anti-heroes or protagonists that are deeply flawed.

The good authors spend time showing you WHY the characters are flawed, the not so good writers, less so.

Not to say that the anti-hero is brand new or anything. Elric of Melnibone was from 1972. But guys like Abercrombie and Richard Morgan delight in turning some fantasy tropes on their heads. There aren't innocent farm boys who save the universe, or if they DO, they're forced to make choices that make you question their underlying morals.

Similarly their villains are motivated by something. So unlike the cat-stroking evil genius of Bond movies in the past who wants to destroy the world, well just BECAUSE, the black hat wearer in these newer author's worlds, have motivations and things they want to achieve, and reasons that make sense beyond just being, you know, EVUUUUHL!

And sometimes, the line gets pretty blurry as to who is a hero and who is a villain.

Jayme Lannister is a great example of this (won't bother with spoilers since doubtful Mebert is going to jump back on the GRRM train.) We HATE the sunofabitch with a white hot passion through the first book. He has zero redeeming qualities, other than being a badass and having a sense of style.

But slowly his character is redeemed as the books play out. We see how he's been a tool in the game his father an Aerys were playing. We see the choice he makes in the throne room and WHY he makes it, and how that doesn't matter a bit, he'll always be the 'Kingslayer.'

We see him change his mind and go back and rescue Brienne, and eventually give her a Valyrian sword. We see (and listen to his POV doubts) as to where his crazy ass sister is going.

We start to actually LIKE Jayme Lannister. We want him to continue his redemption arc. We theorize that it may be he who finishes Cersei.

And all this plays out over literally THOUSANDS of pages of books. There's no HINT of this in book one, because Martin wants you to take the journey. He wants you to viscerally experience the change. He could give you the info from the throne room in a cheezy flashback in the first book, so that you KNOW that he's not REALLY a bad guy. But where's the fun in that?

And to be clear, even though he's been redeemed in the books, he STILL pushed a boy out a tower window. It's just that his 'The things we do for love,' that he utters as he does it, takes on a much deeper meaning 4000 pages in.

Whew, so much for my no wall o' text.

Here's a good discussion of it.

Grey scale morality in fiction