Help
Add Reply
Haven't been reading this thread for ages... has anyone heard anything new about A Feast for Crows?
George RR Martin
Rate Topic:
#21
Tiste Simeon 
- Faith, Heavy Metal & Bacon
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 12,319
- Joined: 08-October 04
- Location:T'North
Posted 28 February 2005 - 08:07 AM
A Haunting Poem
I Scream
You Scream
We all Scream
For I Scream.
I Scream
You Scream
We all Scream
For I Scream.
MultiQuote#22 Guest_Drake Labatt_*
Posted 02 May 2004 - 07:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mithfânion:
Let's take a step back here Drake. You were the one who brought up the comparison between Tolkien and Martin.
Yes.
quote:
You were the one who asked how long Tolkien took to write the LoTR, after others complained of Martin's incredible lack of process regarding Feast.
Yes.
quote:
So the question is not what I'm getting at, but rather what you were getting at comparing the two. They're apples and oranges after all.
Here's my point then, made as clearly as I can articulate it - both men wrote stuff. Both men spent time doing other things (it doesn't really matter what those other things are).
Regardless of who has/had/will have(?) more discipline as an author, it took JRRT a /long/ time to finish LotR. Similarly, it's going to take GRRM a /long/ time to finish his stuff. Longer, it would unfortunately appear.
quote:
Sadly you missed my point ( or in case you didn't miss it, you're simply trolling). In that case I'll feed you. I mentioned the fact that posthumously thirteen more books were published to show you what kind of output Tolkien had while he was writing.
Sadly, you missed mine. Let me throw some names at you:
- Tupac Shakur
- Gene Roddenberry
- JRRT
- Jimi Hendrix
- John Lennon
- Elvis Presley
- Frank Herbert
- Issac Asimov
- L. Ron Hubbard
All of the above are dead. All the above completed significant works of creativity. All of the above achieved a lot of success in their chosen field. All of the above were under the gun (poor Tupac) for deadlines and such, and all of the above faced certain distractions. In some cases (Elvis, Jimi) those distractions took on a life of their own!
quote:
You were after all comparing Tolkien's output to Martin's, so it seems only fair to mention that thirteen books with his writings were published after he died, and substantially sized books at that. The point I'm making seems obvious.
Well, your statements are open to interpretation. On one hand, the point you seem to be making is that someone capitalized on JRRT's success and attempted to milk it for all it's worth. Majel Roddenberry went through her late husband's writing material and found the early stuff for Earth: Final Conflict and Andromeda, and lo and behold, we have new TV shows! Not very good ones at that, but hey, you don't hear many people raving about the Adventures of Legolas and Gimli do you?
What about Jimi? How many albums have been released since his death containing 'new material'? Oh yeah, it boils down to someone remastering tapes of him tuning his guitar right after he comes out of a a drug-and-alcohol-induced fantasia, but it's still authentic Jimi Hendrix 'music'.
It ticks me off to see Kevin J. Anderson's name attached to Frank Herbert's in those newer Dune-universe books (House Harkkonen, etc.), as that hack Anderson can't even write a decent Star Wars story. But I digress (isn't that what the 'net is all about?).
Look, I know that you're really making the point that in all those years, JRRT lived the world of Middle Earth, and had his life and job. He created languages, he created cultures and all the rest of the world of Middle-Earth. His work was such that he had other stories in addition to the main tales that were later published. To me, when we're talking about creators (of music, stories or whatever) at a very high level, the fact that posthumous material is published doesn't seem to be very significant.
Let me put it to you this way - after GRRM passes away (which will be after ASoIaF is complete, I dearly hope), do you think that someone will NOT go through his notes, and his success will NOT be capitalized upon and more ASoIaF books WON'T be published, for whatever reason?
Of course more ASoIaF books will be published. Ridiculous to think otherwise. It's been done in the case of all the authors I listed above, and will be done for many many many others. Anyways, what will that say about GRRM's productivity? We won't be able to answer that question for a while anyways, which boils down to this - at this moment, your statement about JRRT being more productive cannot be disproven.
The rest of your post needs no reply.
#24 Guest_Riot_*
Posted 16 June 2004 - 11:32 PM
Cool, thanks for that. Just thought that sounded like a lot of chapters for some reason...
#25 Guest_johnturing_*
Posted 07 December 2004 - 12:43 PM
What Zollo said was fine - but he shouldn't have double quoted himself. Can't a mod just delete them?
I am personally a fan of Martin, and I agree with all the points Zollo made -
"The scare quotes two paragraphs above indicate the moral ambiguity of Martin's universe. He does not really believe in heroism or villainy, which makes for an extremely blah story. Granted that two-shaded, black or white storytelling is _almost_ as mindless as writing gets, Martin still does not improve on this. He actually falls short of even that low standard. His one shade of gray in the middle for everybody is even more mindless. It also creates a story that is inherently uninteresting - why should the reader care who "wins" when one character is as good/bad as another?"
Doesn't this entirely miss the point of "modern" fantasy? I thought that this is one of Erikson's greatest strengths. + Why did the reviewer bother reading the entire book - it seems clear he doesn't like non-traditional fantasy. He/She also claims to know a lot about human nature - Do they have any qualifications to back this up or to prove they know more than Martin?
I am personally a fan of Martin, and I agree with all the points Zollo made -
"The scare quotes two paragraphs above indicate the moral ambiguity of Martin's universe. He does not really believe in heroism or villainy, which makes for an extremely blah story. Granted that two-shaded, black or white storytelling is _almost_ as mindless as writing gets, Martin still does not improve on this. He actually falls short of even that low standard. His one shade of gray in the middle for everybody is even more mindless. It also creates a story that is inherently uninteresting - why should the reader care who "wins" when one character is as good/bad as another?"
Doesn't this entirely miss the point of "modern" fantasy? I thought that this is one of Erikson's greatest strengths. + Why did the reviewer bother reading the entire book - it seems clear he doesn't like non-traditional fantasy. He/She also claims to know a lot about human nature - Do they have any qualifications to back this up or to prove they know more than Martin?
#27
cruz1701
- Captain
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 177
- Joined: 28-November 03
Posted 10 June 2004 - 08:33 AM
No new excuse as of yet, although he does have a lovely collection of miniture knights which he keeps telling us about. Maybe he's waiting for a few thousand fans to send him soe in he doesn't have before he writes another page or two.
#28 Guest_FizbansTalking_Hat_*
Posted 09 June 2004 - 01:19 PM
Man I can't wait for this next book, he's taking so damn long to release it, its coming up on like 3 years or something. I know its worth it, b/c its quality but geez, I've seen other authors who have just as much talent as him release boooks quicker. Ah well, impatient I guess.
#29 Guest_Caldazar_*
Posted 02 May 2004 - 05:52 PM
Was 800 000 for the series. Prolly over the 1 mill ion mark now or close to it.
#30 Guest_Mithfânion_*
Posted 23 April 2004 - 11:27 AM
That Martin news is depressing. Again. Thanks for sharing though.
#31 Guest_Rallick Nom_*
Posted 02 May 2004 - 05:23 PM
Well, I am a King fan and it did help. The DT books were never nearly as popular as the rest, and I'm just glad he continued to write em. The books weren't even available outside of OOP small press editions until the early 90's.
#32 Guest_Izz_*
Posted 16 March 2005 - 07:55 AM
quote:Originally posted by Lady Spite:
What really annoys me is the way he has already given away about 20 spoiler chapters. One or two two spoiler chapters would be understandable but 20 is ridiculous.
No kidding. Martin is some goddam *******, ain't he?
No, you must be kidding. Seriously, are you joking or are you just a joke?
Lady Spite has made 16 posts. I could understand her making maybe 2 or 3, but 16? Now that's just ridiculous.
#34 Guest_AR_*
Posted 23 November 2004 - 02:48 AM
Good one.
I thought that pic on his website was familiar.
I thought that pic on his website was familiar.
#35
Abyss
- abyssus abyssum invocat
-
- Group: Administrators
- Posts: 22,344
- Joined: 22-May 03
- Location:The call is coming from inside the house!!!!
- Interests:Interesting.
Posted 16 June 2004 - 05:27 AM
Latest on Amazon.ca says August 2005.
- Abyss... yes, 2005.
- Abyss... yes, 2005.
THIS IS YOUR REMINDER THAT THERE IS A
'VIEW NEW CONTENT' BUTTON THAT
ALLOWS YOU TO VIEW NEW CONTENT
'VIEW NEW CONTENT' BUTTON THAT
ALLOWS YOU TO VIEW NEW CONTENT
#36 Guest_Niko III_*
Posted 22 February 2005 - 05:06 PM
Unless, of course, he decides he doesn't like the finished product and start over from scratch. Or does a Hunter.
Which I must admit is unlikely to happen, but these are crazy times.
Which I must admit is unlikely to happen, but these are crazy times.
#37 Guest_Dark Daze_*
Posted 03 December 2004 - 03:28 AM
@Caldazar:
1) That was a typing mistake. I meant to say, "More on Patrick Sullivan's Review." Since I criticized Patrick Sullivan by name, you should have inferred that.
2) Liking Jordan doesn't mean your opinions are worthless. I just thought that it discredits Patrick somewhat because it seems inconsistent with his complaints about ASOIAF. Some of his critiques of Martin are more appliable to some of the authors he likes such as Jordan with respect to character believability and Donaldson with respect to liking the characters.
3) What words did I put in Patrick's mouth? I inferred some information based on his other reviews and ratings and I don't think that any of it was too far a stretch.
@Fool:
Since most of Patrick's views are unsubstantiated opinions that confuse the issue of why he doesn't like ASOIAF with why ASOIAF is poorly written, I focused mainly on discrediting him.
As for ASOIAF Patrick's comments on ASOIAF being poorly written: he makes observations and then jumps to conclusions.
A few examples:
1) "His "villains" are impossible to take seriously because they are incapable of successfully assassinating a middle aged woman, or, for that matter, a young child."
The observation is true that some of the villains had difficulty assassinating a middle-aged woman and a small child, but that doesn't make them unbelievable. Perhaps it is easier to kill a woman or small child in hand to hand combat, but why should they be easier to assassinate? I fail to see how he got from point A to B. Were aliens in the movie Alien unbelievable because a small child survived and an adult crew of travelers did not? Were Sauron and Saruman unbelievable because they couldn't capture Frodo?
Also, Patrick completely ignores the context in which the attempted assassinations occur. Granted, accumulatively the events of ASOIAF are difficult to believe. Individually they are not. There is a word for that: DRAMA.
Further, our world is full of news about incredible happenings. Patrick should pick up a newspaper and give greater respect to the ability of people to survive difficult circumstances.
2) “Granted that two-shaded, black or white storytelling is _almost_ as mindless as writing gets, Martin still does not improve on this. He actually falls short of even that low standard. His one shade of gray in the middle for everybody is even more mindless.â€
Why is it mindless? All Patrick really said are that the characters in ASOIAF are mindless. He doesn’t substantiate that claim.
In addition, the characters are not all the same shade of gray. The Starks are not perfect but overall they stand in great contrast to the Lannisters.
3) “It also creates a story that is inherently uninteresting - why should the reader care who "wins" when one character is as good/bad as another?â€
Because sympathizing with a character’s motives and situation do not mean that you want that character to win. Because NOT all the characters are as good and bad as the next. Because different readers will like different characters more than others. Because you don’t need to like characters to find their stories interesting.
Patrick is missing the point. Martin is giving his readers a greater choice on how to relate to the characters. You get to pick your own heros and villains. One of the most compelling things about ASOIAF is seeing how we will relate to the characters from one moment to the next.
It is a stupid question from the get go. Martin has many fans who do care who wins. Furthermore, soap operas, which incorporate similar character techniques, seem to be a highly addictive form of TV program.
Finally, ASOIAF is not merely about seeing who wins.
1) That was a typing mistake. I meant to say, "More on Patrick Sullivan's Review." Since I criticized Patrick Sullivan by name, you should have inferred that.
2) Liking Jordan doesn't mean your opinions are worthless. I just thought that it discredits Patrick somewhat because it seems inconsistent with his complaints about ASOIAF. Some of his critiques of Martin are more appliable to some of the authors he likes such as Jordan with respect to character believability and Donaldson with respect to liking the characters.
3) What words did I put in Patrick's mouth? I inferred some information based on his other reviews and ratings and I don't think that any of it was too far a stretch.
@Fool:
Since most of Patrick's views are unsubstantiated opinions that confuse the issue of why he doesn't like ASOIAF with why ASOIAF is poorly written, I focused mainly on discrediting him.
As for ASOIAF Patrick's comments on ASOIAF being poorly written: he makes observations and then jumps to conclusions.
A few examples:
1) "His "villains" are impossible to take seriously because they are incapable of successfully assassinating a middle aged woman, or, for that matter, a young child."
The observation is true that some of the villains had difficulty assassinating a middle-aged woman and a small child, but that doesn't make them unbelievable. Perhaps it is easier to kill a woman or small child in hand to hand combat, but why should they be easier to assassinate? I fail to see how he got from point A to B. Were aliens in the movie Alien unbelievable because a small child survived and an adult crew of travelers did not? Were Sauron and Saruman unbelievable because they couldn't capture Frodo?
Also, Patrick completely ignores the context in which the attempted assassinations occur. Granted, accumulatively the events of ASOIAF are difficult to believe. Individually they are not. There is a word for that: DRAMA.
Further, our world is full of news about incredible happenings. Patrick should pick up a newspaper and give greater respect to the ability of people to survive difficult circumstances.
2) “Granted that two-shaded, black or white storytelling is _almost_ as mindless as writing gets, Martin still does not improve on this. He actually falls short of even that low standard. His one shade of gray in the middle for everybody is even more mindless.â€
Why is it mindless? All Patrick really said are that the characters in ASOIAF are mindless. He doesn’t substantiate that claim.
In addition, the characters are not all the same shade of gray. The Starks are not perfect but overall they stand in great contrast to the Lannisters.
3) “It also creates a story that is inherently uninteresting - why should the reader care who "wins" when one character is as good/bad as another?â€
Because sympathizing with a character’s motives and situation do not mean that you want that character to win. Because NOT all the characters are as good and bad as the next. Because different readers will like different characters more than others. Because you don’t need to like characters to find their stories interesting.
Patrick is missing the point. Martin is giving his readers a greater choice on how to relate to the characters. You get to pick your own heros and villains. One of the most compelling things about ASOIAF is seeing how we will relate to the characters from one moment to the next.
It is a stupid question from the get go. Martin has many fans who do care who wins. Furthermore, soap operas, which incorporate similar character techniques, seem to be a highly addictive form of TV program.
Finally, ASOIAF is not merely about seeing who wins.
#38 Guest_Fool_*
Posted 24 November 2004 - 04:56 AM
Hey DD! What have you been up to?
#39 Guest_Dark Daze_*
Posted 29 April 2004 - 12:05 PM
@Loose: There's no need to make a good point. That was completely uncalled for, so just be quiet. OK?
#40 Guest_Unoriginal_*
Posted 18 October 2004 - 03:15 PM
So Any news on A Feast For Crows yet?
