Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device
Beksinski Beksinski 22-25, F 2 Answers Jul 16, 2012

Your Response

Cancel

no, it annoys me slightly - i mean just for starters, why do the Crows, the rangers of the North, wear black? maybe this is why they have so much trouble fighting the Wildlings - black might look cooler but for people sneaking around in snow they might get killed less often if they wore, say, white

Best Answer

seriously though, there's obviously something to the books lest they wouldn't be so popular, but for me his 'realism' is 'cynicism' and i gave up around the forth book when i realized the writer didn't understand evil better than me --- just my opinion

Best Answer

lol, THAT'S what bothers you???? I think they wear it because black is sexier, and it's like a death sentence, you know, the black is symbolic of being sent away to live in the cold, at war, in a miserable situation forever with no sex. I love the fact that I can "solve" mysteries in the writing....like Jon Snow is totally a Tarragon.

Best Answer

obviously you wrote this before you read my second post, and i get the aesthetic and symbolic reasons for their uniform - but in the context of Martin's gritty, real-politic, high-middle-ages style the fact that snow rangers wear black feel ridiculous to me, and symbolizes the metaphysical confusion of the writer

Best Answer

but i'm a literary kind of reader and i really read the books to see where good fantasy genre fiction was at more than anything else, so mine is an over-intellectual answer

Best Answer

Yeah, I think you're absolutely right, I skipped around a lot because I couldn't deal with the sadism and the unrealistic-ness of the world. Though it's closer to reality in the sense that most books like LOTR have all the characters untouched largely, living happily ever after. And in a war situation where there's no consequences to your actions, if you look at various places in the world some people take total advantage when otherwise they'd seem like nice people. You're right, sorry, completely.

Best Answer

I think it's completely valid, every writer has serious flaws and those touch on George R.R. Martin's. But when you read the books I love the way he organizes the plot, it's much more intricate than others of the genre. For instance did Jaqen kill Balon, get a dragon egg from Euron, and steal a book on raising dragons form the citadel, giving the faceless men a dragon and a lot of power? How will that affect the plot? Is Stannis really Azor Ahai reborn or is it someone else, like Danaerys or Jon? Who will get the Iron throne? Who's the new giant man? Is Arya really smarter than Sansa, in that she's becoming the evil she hates, and how will that end up for her? Who's the prince who was promised? Is Jon Snow both Targaryen AND stark, making him both Ice and Fire. Who will kill Cersei? Is there another dragon sleeping under Winterfell? What role will Bran play? Is Bran the prince who was promised? I love that because you get a better sense of the reality of the situaiton than any character, you get to theorize and put pieces together and hypothesize. I've never read an author as talented as Martin for that EVER, despite his flaws he's quite brilliant in that respect.

Best Answer

I don't think it's metaphysical confusion, as much as the fantasy genre gets a hall pass in general with the metaphysical. There are metaphysical mysteries in our world, same as Martin's world.

Best Answer

oh, don't back down so quickly - Martin deals with the reality of politics more like Herbert in Dune than Tolkien in LOTR, and this is to his credit - i just personally eventually felt he was expressing his own bitterness at the world more than he was revealing insight into why the world produces bitterness - but some of his characters are genuinely original and inspired [Drinkwater must have been delighted to play Tyrion in teh HBO affair - has there ever been such a well-developed dwarf character on TV?] - and it is fantasy genre fiction after all - one shouldn't judge it by the standards of Tolstoy or something

Best Answer

ah - i hadn't read your last two replies when i wrote the one above

Best Answer

and i agree with you that the books are well-plotted --- my metaphysical point was deeply meant but glibly expressed and i haven't the time nor the patience to defend it here - i don't begrudge your rejection of it

Best Answer

lol, I agree 100% with your observations, I do feel that George R.R. Martin's genius lies in a completely different area, the intricate-ness and ability to foresee, predict, guess, and solve mysteries... I don't think he's got an equal in that regard. Tyrion IS amazing and so is Dinklage. I don't think he was supposed to reveal insight into why the world produces bitterness so I don't see why his failure to do so is a problem? The object of the book wasn't social commentary like say Catch 22. He wanted a world where everything was exaggerated, so you could really see the contrast between the ostentaciousness of castles vs. the poverty and lack of rights of the everyday Joe.

Best Answer

yeah - the social reality aspect was what lured me in, especially the dark aspect - in the long run though i feel that a writer that writes long and hard on evil needs eventually to say something fairly deep, if not compassionate, about it or else they risk exploiting it --- it's a philosophical divergence in the end - most of his fans will think i am being too serious, and perhaps they're right - all i can say is that as i came to grasp the mind of the writer i began to feel lectured to by someone i disagree with - and as the dragon-queen became so central to the story i grew bored with her character, which i felt Martin wasn't able to do justice to [she far too much a liberal humanist and his fantasy woman] --- again, i realize this is art and only my opinion - i just struggle to keep it to myself

Best Answer

I didn't find any of the female characters particularly well developed, despite their strength. I think it's pretty obvious Martin is male, and yeah, Danearys is too "perfect." I don't get the philosophical divergence though, there's many possible philosophical disagreements, what specifically didn't you agree with and what did you feel lectured in specifically?

Best Answer

it's difficult to express the workings of one's own intuition, and harder still to justify them - perhaps i exaggerate to make my point when i say 'lecture' - in the end i just felt he was [philosophically] a rationalist, a materialist and a cynic and I didn't believe in his world in the end - at first i thought he was being realistic but eventually i decided it was just garden-variety cynicism - i felt there wasn't much compassion for the villains in his work and it eventually made them boring, and such vaudevillian baddies played off-key against the realism of the background political setting - in the end i felt this writer was trying to convince me that the world is more terrible than it is --- but like i said before, this book was never written for me and i can't really subject such a work to this kind of analysis and keep a straight face

Best Answer
11 More Responses

No, though I did enjoy the DVD set of the first season of the TV adaptation.

Best Answer

i thought the tv series was better than the books

Best Answer

That's fair. I like that I feel I can hypothesize and theorize and solve mysteries because I get all the different characters' information, secrets, prophecies, etc. It's really rare to find an author that doesn't leave you figuring things out way in advance, or that doesn't give you enough info to predict something until the protagonist figures it out.

Best Answer

Related Questions