[Werthead]

Hmm. Every print review I've seen of AFFC (SFX, Starburst, Dreamwatch) has given it maximum marks and been breathlessly adulatory over it. Time Magazine went to town on its greatness. The 'naysayers' are very definitely in the minority and I'm on the main Martin forum site (westeros.org). That said, it is a very vocal minority and some of the arguments are valid (the new POV system didn't quite work, Cersei seems a bit dumber in her own POV than she did in other's, although there are circumstances explaining that). Most of the criticisms seem to be "My favourite character wasn't in it!" which isn't a valid argument for disliking the book (criticise it for what it does have, not what it doesn't). Why not hold off until ADWD came out then? The other argument is that nothing happens, which is just rubbish. It's just that there isn't a massive full-on battle like in the previous novels or a major betrayal and death. If GRRM did that in every book, it would get old quite quickly. But the fact remains that it was extremely well-written. Sure it disappointed slightly after a 5-year wait but anything would have disappointed after a 5-year build-up.

[Dagger]

For someone named Werthead you sure sound sensible. I totally agree, AFFC should be taken as only part of a hole. I can guarantee that nay-sayers will be singing a different tune once it is revealed that the threads that Martin has created in AFFC are developed in full in the DWD and what comes after. Martin knows exactly what he is doing and he is NOT Robert Jordan, stringing us along to get more $$$. Have a little faith folks.

[QuickTidal]

Indebted said:

How exactly does disagreeing with the most popular view point put someone on the "losing end of the stick"?

Hmm, I suppose you are right genius. Perhaps I worded that incorrectly, and I should have said that IN MY OPINION it was the losing end of the stick. But whatever floats your boat brother.

Edited:to censor my own foul mouth.

[QuickTidal]

I think the fact that this thread is so many pages long shows how "minority" (Cough, cough) we are.

[Werthead]

Interesting. I thought this was a general thread about GRRM, not GRRM-bashing, so its length proves nothing one way or another.

There is a question of degrees here as well. If someone asked me, "Is it a bad book per se?" I'd say no. If someone asked, "Does it have its problems?" then I'd say yes, but not many. On the jarhead level, I love big battle sequences, especially the battle on the Wall, and found the brief naval battle in AFFC didn't satisfy as much. However, I love the political intrigue in the series and on that level AFFC was immensely satisfying (especially Doran's revelation at the end of Arianne's final chapter). AFFC and ADWD also serve the same function as TBH and RG do for Erikson, pulling previously disparate story threads set on different continents into a more cohesive whole. In that, we can see the beginnings of a movement towards the end of the series, which is a good thing.

[QuickTidal]

[QUOTE=Werthead]Interesting. I thought this was a general thread about GRRM, not GRRM-bashing, so its length proves nothing one way or another.

QUOTE]

Oh for the love of....DUDE....listen carefully. I'm gonna 'splain it to you. This thread is not this length because everyone who read it loved it....it is this length because there is alot of people who loved it, and I'd say about as many who didn't love it (didn't hate it, but like me have alot of issues with it)....that makes us about equal one would think, give or take. .....okey?



Now, before anyone mentioned my thoughts about there being more naysayers than lovers....I only am going on what I have read not only HERE, but on other boards as well....it just seemd alot felt this way.

Nuff 'said.

[Arkmam]

QuickTidal said:

Hmm, I suppose you are right genius. Perhaps I worded that incorrectly, and I should have said that IN MY OPINION it was the losing end of the stick. But whatever floats your boat brother.

Edited:to censor my own foul mouth.

It's kinda obvious that it's your opinion, as it was you who wrote it. But I think what they're interested in is why you think the way you think.

[Werthead]

Having just read the whole thread I note the issues and stand corrected. Indeed the split is about even and in fact is about 'disappointing' versus 'quite good'. The majority being naysayers thing...as a member of Westeros.org, SFX and Wotmania the naysayers do seem to be smaller in number, but this isn't exactly a scientific study.

If a gun was put to my head I'd agree the AFFC is the weakest book in the series. But whilst reading it I didn't feel the boredom or rage that seems to have effected other readers. I didn't feel cheated or ripped off having waited 5 years for it. It was good, raised a lot of questions, had a few big shocks (if more subtly done than in previous volumes), and got the wheels moving towards the conclusion of the series. For some that wasn't enough or done well. Fair enough.

[QuickTidal]

Werthead said:

Having just read the whole thread I note the issues and stand corrected. Indeed the split is about even and in fact is about 'disappointing' versus 'quite good'. The majority being naysayers thing...as a member of Westeros.org, SFX and Wotmania the naysayers do seem to be smaller in number, but this isn't exactly a scientific study.

If a gun was put to my head I'd agree the AFFC is the weakest book in the series. But whilst reading it I didn't feel the boredom or rage that seems to have effected other readers. I didn't feel cheated or ripped off having waited 5 years for it. It was good, raised a lot of questions, had a few big shocks (if more subtly done than in previous volumes), and got the wheels moving towards the conclusion of the series. For some that wasn't enough or done well. Fair enough.

and in this, I would agree with you. It is indeed my least fave in the series, but is NOt awful and unreadable...but I won't reread it as I would the others. I would say that my boredom whilst reading it outweighed the better moments, but a man can dream that GRRM will improve the next volume....and I can go back to loving the series, aside form the mark AFFC leaves.

[Folken]

K for all you folks in Toronto. I've been informed of a book signing apparently.

World's Biggest Book Store
20 Edward Street,
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1C9
Canada
(416) 977-7009
Our hours of operation are occasionally subject to change -- please call the store to confirm store hours.
What's On
Author Event: George R. R. Martin
Event Date: 1/9/2006
7:00 pm

if any of you Toronto folk are going PM me. my school is like 2mins away we can meet up say hi...or something lol. Don't expect me to partake in said signing though lol. I gave up Book 1 400pgs into it

[Brys]

Werthead said:

Having just read the whole thread I note the issues and stand corrected. Indeed the split is about even and in fact is about 'disappointing' versus 'quite good'. The majority being naysayers thing...as a member of Westeros.org, SFX and Wotmania the naysayers do seem to be smaller in number, but this isn't exactly a scientific study.

If a gun was put to my head I'd agree the AFFC is the weakest book in the series. But whilst reading it I didn't feel the boredom or rage that seems to have effected other readers. I didn't feel cheated or ripped off having waited 5 years for it. It was good, raised a lot of questions, had a few big shocks (if more subtly done than in previous volumes), and got the wheels moving towards the conclusion of the series. For some that wasn't enough or done well. Fair enough.

Werthead, I have a feeling that some of those who were very disappointed were those who not just view Martin as their favourite author, but view him as the only author worth reading. So when the book's finally published, after a five year wait and not a lot else they've read since then compares to Martin, and it's only quite good and without their favourite characters in, they're very disappointed. For those of us who've read plenty we might be mildly disappointed that it's not as good as the previous novels, but it's still very good - and it isn't devastating, because it's not like we haven't read anything good during that period - there's nothing saying we can't read other books while waiting for Martin's next, and while one book may be disappointing, another may be surprisingly good - eg this year for me it was the Warrior Prophet by R Scott Bakker, and so what if Martin's book wasn't the best of the year? It was still one of the better fantasy novels I've read, and I don't see the point in complaining when what's released is very competent, if not quite a masterpiece.

[Werthead]

Indeed. And Bakker is my next 'new' author to tackle, once I complete my second read-through of MBF.

[QuickTidal]

Actually, no, that is incorrect. I happen to be one who didn't thik it was good and was dissapointed by it quite alot....and I have read alot of other stuff.

You see, cause a person may be of that opinion, and et read plent of other books and enjoy them. I CERTAINLY don't think he is the only author worth reading. That theory is flawed Brys. Sorry bro.

[Werthead]

GRRM said he wasn't keen on the restrictiveness of historical fiction. He reads Cornwell and the like and enjoys them, but prefers having the freedom to do things without adhering to a rigid historical template.

I found the idea that he originally planned to put no fantasy elements at all into ASoIF, just have it as a different world with different history, quite interesting. In the end his friends convinced him to put the dragons in, and then the long seasons and the Others and everything followed.

[RodeoRanch]

I prefer Martin over Erikson. There, I said it.

[Arkmam]

RodeoRanch said:

I prefer Martin over Erikson. There, I said it.

BLASPHEMY!
*Brings out the garlic and sharpened sticks*

[QuickTidal]

Indebted said:

I was asking a question, not making a statement. "I suppose you're right" is a totally nonsensical answer. I was, in fact, giving us the opportunity to enter a debate as to whether, in matters of literary, aesthetic, or artistic merit, democratic principles apply. Or, in simpler terms, if the majority says it sucks, are they necessarily right?

Given that the educational and intellectual level of most people is pitifully low, I have a lot of trouble with the idea of trusting anything to a majority decision. Democracy is fine for deciding matters of no importance (like governments that never do anything they promise, and never really change anything) but in matters of artistic critique, it is completely useless. Governmental leadership should be decided by lottery... and the statement "most people think so" should be banned forever from any kind of literary review.

That's what floats my boat, brother. What floats yours?

Uh....yeah...jive.

(and by that I mean, it REALLY doesn't need to be discussed on that level....hence my answer)