Einherjar86
Active Member
Good point. I haven't read the book yet, actually, but I've seen the film. Is the dream description at the end of the film the same as the book?
The Books/Reading Thread
- Thread starter Matt
- Start date
Good point. I haven't read the book yet, actually, but I've seen the film. Is the dream description at the end of the film the same as the book?
unknown
fuck ftagn
AchrisK
Weakling
Einherjar86
Active Member
AchrisK
Weakling
Janga666
Infamous Butcher
I find Clash of Kings to be a chore to get through. There doesn't seem to be anything happening in the book at all. A GAme of Thrones was awesome, I'm hoping A Storm of Swords is better!
Winter.
Member
Currently reading Voodoo Doll by Leah Giarratano. Not really gripped by the storyline to be honest.
Black Friday
Member
- Feb 18, 2008
- 1,186
- 0
- 36
Martin has the periods of rest between the action. IE: Feast For Crows was somewhat boring, but Storm Of Swords was really dynamic and exciting.
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,664
- 9,648
- 113
i think the popularity of GRRM is the single most baffling thing in the world to me. maybe im just weird but i was a hair's breadth away from putting down a game of thrones about 2/3 of the way in (only carried on 'cause a friend insisted), and i have absolutely no excitement over the prospect of reading the second one. it's all just so familiar and predictable to me. i know i've brought this up before but i can't help myself. 
Einherjar86
Active Member
I know you feel that way, and it's funny because your attitude towards it baffles me. I find Martin so much more interesting and unpredictable than Erikson, and I find his characters so much more interesting and developed. I know you feel the exact opposite, and it's so strange to me. Everyone I talk to who has read Martin finds his series so enjoyable and interesting. But everyone is different; and Erikson's series really is a great read. I think I'm just burned out on fantasy for a while. I'm on a Cormac McCarthy spin right now
I think Martin gets less predictable as the series goes on, actually. The punches he pulls in the third book are really out of left field.
I think Martin gets less predictable as the series goes on, actually. The punches he pulls in the third book are really out of left field.
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,664
- 9,648
- 113
i do kind of understand why a lot of people like martin more than erikson, but that perspective is just really alien to my own. in erikson's world the human characters are made aware that they're just a flicker in time, a speck on the arse of a world dominated by ancient forces unimaginably powerful, and all of them are tragically striving for some kind of meaning against this abyssal backdrop. it's like all the existential struggles of the human condition are pushed to the forefront and amplified, because the world is so extreme it doesn't allow for conceit and intellectual dishonesty, and so characters are forced into wise fearless perspectives i find incredibly powerful and admirable (even including many of the humorous gimmicky characters some of whom i identify with most of all, the place for humour within tragedy cannot be overestimated, and it certainly isn't by erikson). it ends up serving really extensively as a metaphor for the human condition, from where i'm standing, and in doing so it really reaches me at a visceral level. what it provides is pretty much exactly the same as what i get out of my other great love metal, incidentally.
also i think the characters usually give the impression of being very developed, but they rarely let you know them well enough to check - they keep their cards close to their chest, and you only really begin to understand them by observing their deeds or the few times they talk openly. some people view them as being indistinguishable, or as having no real content, but i don't get that at all. i love the mystery/potentiality and revelation tool he uses with his characters, the power in mystery is intimately bound to the anticipation of revelation, and because he has this way of hinting at really special qualities without actually revealing them (and because i tend to love the erikson characters i've already gotten to know), i get obsessed with these less known characters, full of wonder about them, like when staring into the shadows. the same applies with metal albums, just to give an analogy; when i approach a new album with evocative cover art, stellar influences named in the liner notes, a huge reputation and gorgeous descriptions from every tasteful person i know etcetc, the potential i perceive to be held within that cd excites me unimaginably, and eventually listening to it is like finally finding atlantis or something haha.
in martin, most of the characters are immediately defined by two or three stereotypical characteristics (the smarmy unpleasant prince, the tired honourable old man given responsibilities he doesn’t want, the young misunderstood girl who defies society’s standards – contrasting with her spoilt brat sister of course, the fat has-been king, etcetc), and then those stereotypes are turned on their head, or the characters receive come-uppances, etcetc, often in ways that are themselves clichéd. it's been a while since i read it, but that was the impression i got at the time anyway. i did like some bits, iirc i thought tyrion really transcended his status as bitter outcast, and a few other characters were interesting. i can imagine the stuff with the wall will be cool when it gets going as well. i just found there was too much in the way of medieval fantasy clichés for my liking, even if those clichés were being overturned they were still the focal point.
hopefully that'll do as some kind of basic explanation.
also i think the characters usually give the impression of being very developed, but they rarely let you know them well enough to check - they keep their cards close to their chest, and you only really begin to understand them by observing their deeds or the few times they talk openly. some people view them as being indistinguishable, or as having no real content, but i don't get that at all. i love the mystery/potentiality and revelation tool he uses with his characters, the power in mystery is intimately bound to the anticipation of revelation, and because he has this way of hinting at really special qualities without actually revealing them (and because i tend to love the erikson characters i've already gotten to know), i get obsessed with these less known characters, full of wonder about them, like when staring into the shadows. the same applies with metal albums, just to give an analogy; when i approach a new album with evocative cover art, stellar influences named in the liner notes, a huge reputation and gorgeous descriptions from every tasteful person i know etcetc, the potential i perceive to be held within that cd excites me unimaginably, and eventually listening to it is like finally finding atlantis or something haha.
in martin, most of the characters are immediately defined by two or three stereotypical characteristics (the smarmy unpleasant prince, the tired honourable old man given responsibilities he doesn’t want, the young misunderstood girl who defies society’s standards – contrasting with her spoilt brat sister of course, the fat has-been king, etcetc), and then those stereotypes are turned on their head, or the characters receive come-uppances, etcetc, often in ways that are themselves clichéd. it's been a while since i read it, but that was the impression i got at the time anyway. i did like some bits, iirc i thought tyrion really transcended his status as bitter outcast, and a few other characters were interesting. i can imagine the stuff with the wall will be cool when it gets going as well. i just found there was too much in the way of medieval fantasy clichés for my liking, even if those clichés were being overturned they were still the focal point.
hopefully that'll do as some kind of basic explanation.
Martin's approach to character-building holds some merit, though, as, let's face it, most people aren't these unfathomable deep characters who are all endless sources of fascination and awe, which tends to be the case with Erikson's characters. Especially, we can speculate, when these characters come from a time with more established cultural boundaries and norms and whatnot. That is not to say that all lazy writers can simply slap a realism-tag on all their shallow characters and get away with it, though, as Martin is anything but lazy. I got the impression that he is constantly challenging his own characters, but by following the narrative to its logical conclusion, the characters, like people most, will fall back to old habits, with a few exemptions, which is what keeps it interesting!
I have reserved a special little nook in my heart for both, though.
I have reserved a special little nook in my heart for both, though.
Dak
mentat
Can't really add much to that on GRRM. Yeah the cliches do get used but I think Martin manages to make them feel like they were HIS originally and everyone else is merely copying.
Tyrion is obviously one of his more developed and diverse characters. I think Martin does an excellent job of showing how continuous exposure to harsh events can slowly change people in one direction or the other.
Tyrion is obviously one of his more developed and diverse characters. I think Martin does an excellent job of showing how continuous exposure to harsh events can slowly change people in one direction or the other.
Janga666
Infamous Butcher
I find Martin's books to be really good in the description department. However, I find the lack of action (especially in the 2nd book) makes it drag on, especially in the Tyrion scenes. throughout the book Tyrion basically moves from one part of King's Landing to another, never really doing anything but screwing his prostitute girlfriend.
Einherjar86
Active Member
@no country: that is a really interesting post, and enables me to better see where you're coming from. I understand all your comments on cliches, and I realize that Martin does borrow a lot from them. I just feel that he is doing so because he is trying to maintain a sense of classical fantasy/adventure. And a lot of those cliched stereotypes are definitely turned on their heads, and not all of them in completely cliched ways. I personally think that Arya's character in the fourth book has gone far from where I'd expected her to go (I'm psyched to see what she becomes, though).
@Janga: this is how the movement of the books goes:
A Games of Thrones: catchy, fast-paced, intriguing
A Clash of Kings: longer, slower, takes its time building characters and tensions; but with a very rewarding battle sequence at the end
A Storm of Swords: fucking fast as hell, catchy, and gut-wrenching
A Feast For Crows: long, pretty slow, introduces new characters that most readers find difficult to relate to and love, and boring at times; definitely a let-down after book three; hopefully the fifth will be better
@Janga: this is how the movement of the books goes:
A Games of Thrones: catchy, fast-paced, intriguing
A Clash of Kings: longer, slower, takes its time building characters and tensions; but with a very rewarding battle sequence at the end
A Storm of Swords: fucking fast as hell, catchy, and gut-wrenching
A Feast For Crows: long, pretty slow, introduces new characters that most readers find difficult to relate to and love, and boring at times; definitely a let-down after book three; hopefully the fifth will be better
unknown
fuck ftagn
I was just able to finish my first non-school required book: 1933 Was a Bad Year by John Fante. I didn't know much about the author other than he was a big inspiration to Bukowski, and one of the creative writing professors at my uni wrote a biography on Fante. So I checked him out. It was a good book. Nice slab of blue collar lit. Reminds me of maybe Catcher in the Rye if it had been written by Raymond Carver if he was a huge baseball fan. Apparently this isn't Fante's most famous work...that nod goes to Ask the Dust which I'll probably read next.
AchrisK
Weakling
Evil?
omghaxlol!1
Hey No country, just thought I would pop in and say that I picked up Gardens of The Moon based on things you have said in the past. I'll let ya know what I think once I get to it.
Einherjar86
Active Member
He's actually said that it's his least favorite book of that series. Regardless, it's a very good book, I think (and I know that no country still likes it too). You're in for a treat.
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,664
- 9,648
- 113
hah, keep an open mind. gardens of the moon is a pretty crazy read first time round, he throws you in at the deep end. for a lot of people i don't think erikson starts being easy to read until memories of ice, really. others seem to love it straight away though. and some people just put it down 'cause they can't be bothered with following it haha.
