What are the problems with the "A song of ice and fire" series?

In reply to Da'shain:

Spoiler

Show

Aegon wasn't that bad on his own. My problem was that we had two princes trying to reach Daenerys, and after a while, I had problems trying to keep them apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldan

In reply to Da'shain:

Spoiler

Show

Aegon wasn't that bad on his own. My problem was that we had two princes trying to reach Daenerys, and after a while, I had problems trying to keep them apart.

---

Small, spoiler laden rant incoming.

Spoiler

Show

Hah, when thinking about what was wrong with aDwD I didn't even remember that Quentyn existed. Yeah, he was useless.

I don't know, Aegon as a character might not be bad (we'll see when he actually has a character other than "prince raised in exile"), but Aegon as an idea is just too ridiculous to be the real plan Varys and Illyrio cooked up together, in addition to smacking EVEN MORE of the tired "true prince in exile" trope that a lot of people already dislike Dany (and sometimes Jon) for, with less of an interesting twist on it. Either Aegon loses and, shocker, we see yet another idealistic character get totally trounced, or he wins and basically comes from behind to say "All that struggle in the past few books? That was just to get me on the throne!" Not to mention it's adding yet another faction to a plot that has already grown out of control, by the author's own admission. It's not necessarily going to turn out terribly, but ... I really don't see how it's going to make anything better, either.

Contrast that with the expansion of the Iron Islands plot, which essentially does the same thing (add new viewpoint characters, introduce a new fighting force to Westeros), but actually has more roots in the backstory than "Oh, we spirited him away in the night", has played a continuing part over most of the series, and is actually going to intersect with Dany's plot in one of the first major joinings of her plotline with ANYONE ELSE'S. This is what adding a new faction should be like; we've seen the rumblings of it, we have some roots for it in the past several books, and it's actually served several important story functions. Varys and Illyrio's plot is now just made more convoluted with the addition of a wholly new character who is, of course, the REAL one they were pinning their hopes on.

Ugh, it just ... doesn't work for me. I'm sure it's an opinion thing, but it just feels legitimately like a bad move to me. Sorry for the small rant.

My major problem is the way the setting results in the frequent Deaths of, and failures of, major characters. Who I like. One or two is good, but it seems too frequent for my tastes.

But then, this is just my own opinion.

Haven't finished Feast for Crows yet, but here's a few:

1) The worst sex scenes in the history of everything (in a published work). Sometimes I have to wonder whether George is actually a 13 year old in a fat suit.

2) Some truely awful sentence-by-sentence writing. Improves drastically over the 2nd and 3rd books but jesus christ George breaks the 'Show, Don't Tell' rule so often he now owes it a military funeral and a widow's pension.

3) Esteros sections are not as interesting as the Westeros ones. Not even close, and this is compounded by how (so far) they're almost vestigal to the main story. Maybe I just prefer low fantasy to high, but there you go.

Da'shain again:

Spoiler

Show

There was a nice theory floating around about Aegon, actually:

He's not a Targaryen. He's a Valyrian, but not a Targ.
Because in the same book, other Valyrians with similar white/purple colouring where first mentioned. The conspirators found themselves a baby in the correct colours and raised it as Aegon, then made up a nice true-prince-in-secret-exile story for the commoners to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldan

Da'shain again:

Spoiler

Show

There was a nice theory floating around about Aegon, actually:

He's not a Targaryen. He's a Valyrian, but not a Targ.
Because in the same book, other Valyrians with similar white/purple colouring where first mentioned. The conspirators found themselves a baby in the correct colours and raised it as Aegon, then made up a nice true-prince-in-secret-exile story for the commoners to believe.

---

Spoiler

Show

This theory is pretty common and also ties in well with the Mummer's Dragon mentioned in Dany's visions from the House of Undying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 123456789blaaa

Most of the time I have heard nothing but praise for the above series. However there have been some instances of criticism. Since I enjoy hearing critiques and the playground is a place full of fairly intelligent, well-read people I have decided to ask my question here.

What are the problems with the "A song of ice and fire" series?

---

Varys face-heel turn makes no sense, and ruins one of the best characters.

The series is too cynical, unrealistically so IMO, with a dearth of good and noble characters.

This seems as good a place as any to ask a question that's been bugging me for awhile.

Okay Westeros, is called the Seven Kingdoms because of the seven kingdoms that Aegon the Conqueror conquered. I get that. Here's my problem, I count eight kingdoms: The North, the Riverlands, the Vale, the Westerlands, the Reach, the Stormlands, Dorne, and the Iron Islands. So which of those isn't counted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanguine

This seems as good a place as any to ask a question that's been bugging me for awhile.

Okay Westeros, is called the Seven Kingdoms because of the seven kingdoms that Aegon the Conqueror conquered. I get that. Here's my problem, I count eight kingdoms: The North, the Riverlands, the Vale, the Westerlands, the Reach, the Stormlands, Dorne, and the Iron Islands. So which of those isn't counted?

---

Dorne wasn't part of the realm until two centuries after the fact, so it's not being counted as one of the Seven Kingdoms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanBuren

Dorne wasn't part of the realm until two centuries after the fact, so it's not being counted as one of the Seven Kingdoms.

---

Ah, that explains it. Thanks for the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanBuren

Dorne wasn't part of the realm until two centuries after the fact, so it's not being counted as one of the Seven Kingdoms.

---

Appendix to A Feast for Crows notes that "Dorne was the last of the Seven Kingdoms to swear fealty to the Iron Throne."

I think the Riverlands must be the non-kingdom. There was a king in the North, a Storm-King, a king of the Reach (which House Tyrell was steward to), a kingdom of Mountain and Vale, the kingdom of the Iron Islands, and--I think anyway--a western kingdom.

Also, I love how in that appendix:

Spoiler

Show

King Tommen's kittens (Ser Pounce, Lady Whiskers, and Boots) are listed as characters.

The Riverlands indeed weren't a Kingdom, there was no River King. They belonged to King Harren the Black at Harrenhal, who was an Iron Islander.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldan

The Riverlands indeed weren't a Kingdom, there was no River King. They belonged to King Harren the Black at Harrenhal, who was an Iron Islander.

---

Hmm, interesting. Once again, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haarkla

The series is too cynical, unrealistically so IMO, with a dearth of good and noble characters.

---

There are good and noble characters. Unfortunately, most are morons.

On the other hand, most characters in the series are morons anyway. So, on reflection, I guess it evens out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoopy13a

Appendix to A Feast for Crows notes that "Dorne was the last of the Seven Kingdoms to swear fealty to the Iron Throne."

I think the Riverlands must be the non-kingdom. There was a king in the North, a Storm-King, a king of the Reach (which House Tyrell was steward to), a kingdom of Mountain and Vale, the kingdom of the Iron Islands, and--I think anyway--a western kingdom.

Also, I love how in that appendix:

Spoiler

Show

King Tommen's kittens (Ser Pounce, Lady Whiskers, and Boots) are listed as characters.

---

Actually, now that I think about it, I think the kingdoms were listed as: The Kingdom of the North, the Kingdom of Vale and Sky, the Kingdom of the Isles and Rivers, Kingdom of the Rock, Kingdom of the Reach, Kingdom of the Stormlands and Dorne.

That comes out to seven.

I've only seen the first season of the HBO series, and not even all of it, so keep that it mind. That said, the only characters I felt any empathy for were the Starks (including Jon Snow).

If you've got any idea what GRRM's series is about, you know that the Starks get metaphorically defecated upon. Frequently. Because I'm not averse to reading spoilers, I read ahead a bit on plot synopses. And thank goodness I did, because after what happens to Ned Stark, I can honestly say that GRRM can write whatever he wants, but I will neither pay for nor spend my time on anything that he's touched. I believe I actually said out loud (yes I was talking to my computer screen) "F- you, George. F- you straight to hell." And I haven't looked back since.

I simply don't like any other characters enough to care what happens to them. And I don't care what kind of story GRRM is trying to tell, because he kills/cripples/maims/otherwise completely screws over House Stark as his first order of business. It's entirely possible that he stops screwing with them at some point, but I'd bet that it's only because he's killed them all.

Tyrion is an interesting character and all, but he's hardly enough to keep me invested in the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldan

The Riverlands indeed weren't a Kingdom, there was no River King. They belonged to King Harren the Black at Harrenhal, who was an Iron Islander.

---

Actually . . .

It's a little complicated.

There was a River Kingdom before Harren the Black. Rob, while marching with his army, finds his tomb in Storm of Swords, recall. What actually happeend is that the River Kingdom got conquered by Harren from the Iron Islands who then proceeded upon the folly of Harrenhall. So, by the time the Targaryen's show up, no, the River Kingdom is really a non-entity, but it was still a kingdom until shortly before they did arrive with flying lizards with terminal halitosis.

HOWEVER.

The Riverlands are still treated as a unique socio-political entity to this day, even if it is just about the cruddiest place to live in all of Westeros any time there's a war on. EVER.

Yes. I should have said "There was no River King when the Targs showed up."

I thought the Iron Islands didn't count, they were just a part of the North - in as much as it seemed up to Ned to keep them in line, obviously with help of the other regions when they rebelled; But then when the north rebelled, all but dorne got in on the act, so i don't see that as reason for anything on it's own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustSomeGuy

I thought the Iron Islands didn't count, they were just a part of the North - in as much as it seemed up to Ned to keep them in line, obviously with help of the other regions when they rebelled; But then when the north rebelled, all but dorne got in on the act, so i don't see that as reason for anything on it's own.

---

That appears to be correct, according to the Song of Ice and Fire wiki; although it lists the Iron Islands as having been part of the Riverlands when Aegon arrived, and him splitting the territory into two parts. They seem to have been attached to the North at a later date.

They aren't part of the North. They have their own culture, different gods, different kings. They often raid the North, and they are closest to hte North, which is why the North went over to kick them down when they rebelled. But they aren't part of the North.

In the past, their kingdom was, at times, much bigger than just the isles. See Harren and the Riverlands. But I think it was said that other kings of the isles had, at times, conquered other rivers and coasts.

Nah, the Iron Islands are their own political entity. It's Ned's job to keep them in line because they have a habit of rebelling, and Winterfell happens to be closest to them. If they were down south, then it would be up to the Lannisters, or Dorne to handle them.

Also, The North didn't rebel on it's own.

If I recall, it went something like this.

Regar Targeryan "Steals" Lyanna Stark (Betrothed to Robert Baratheon), Mad King Ares kills Ned's father and brother.
So, Ares has now angered the Starks and the Baratheons, so there go the North and the Stormlands. Meanwhile, the Starks are bound to the Tullys by marriage, so the Riverlands also rebel. Jon Arryn raised Ned and Rob (And may be tied to the Tullys by marriage as well, I'm not sure when he was married to Lyssa), so the Vale gets in on the conflict.
Technically, Ned has more cause (a stolen sister, dead brother, dead father), but he's unambitious, so Robert (stolen fiancee) takes the lead.
This leaves the Westerlands (Lannister), Dorne (Martell), the Iron Islands (Greyjoy), and the Reach (Tyrell) as loyalists. I'm assuming the Ironmen didn't actually contribute very much, even if they didn't actually join the rebellion.

They did rebell on their own, just later. They probably thought that Robert was a weak King, and everyone else was weakened from civil war, so they could go back to their raiding ways. Robert was King already when that happened, and he and Ned put them down. That's why Theon Greyjoy, the last male heir of Greyjoy, is Stark's ward.

The Lannisters also didn't contribute a lot to putting down Robert's rebellion. Tywin was in a sulk about being demoted from hand and the whole Jaime situation. Highgarden, Kings Landing, the Dragon Stones and Dorne are the loyalist strongholds, with the Vale, Riverlands and Stormlands being the main battlegrounds.

Quote:

---

My major problem is the way the setting results in the frequent Deaths of, and failures of, major characters. Who I like. One or two is good, but it seems too frequent for my tastes.

But then, this is just my own opinion.

---

Yeah, thats the main reason for why i stopped reading it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lord_khaine

Yeah, thats the main reason for why i stopped reading it as well.

---

In regards to them all being dead....

Spoiler

Show

We still have Jon, Sansa, Arya, Bran, and Rickon. So, the only Starks who actually are dead are Ned, Robb, and Catelyn (and her only kinda). Plus with recent events in the North, i.e. Manderly, Glover, and Davos's scheme it could get pretty interesting.... the North Remembers!!!!

Also, Dany and Tyrion are probably my two favorite characters.

I really can't add too much to the previous mentions... I'll mostly support the pacing problems and the overly cynical tone. Though the pacing is still decent in the early stories I say in 4 and 5 it's... it's like he just tries to drag it out to make more money? I don't know...
And the tone... I guess it became apparent from the beginning but sometimes it's really grating. But I'll say this is mostly a matter of personal preference.

Then again, I really like the characters and I'm always way too curious how a story ends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seerow

Spoiler

Show

This theory is pretty common and also ties in well with the Mummer's Dragon mentioned in Dany's visions from the House of Undying.

---

In reply to this:

Spoiler

Show

I thought "Aegon" was an imposter until Varys' "James Bond-villian speech" to a dying Kevan Lannister. I don't see a reason why Varys would lie in that situation. Further, Varys and Illyrio's plan does make some sense in hindsight. Dany was to be married off to get troops--not for Viserys, but for "Aegon." They did not give Viserys the same in-depth training as "Aegon" either. Perhaps because as Viserys wasn't the actual heir that they planned to kill him eventually?

So after the epilogue, my hunch is that Aegon is legitimate, which I see as rather cheesy. Martin is already doing the "heir that is believed dead, but still alive with the surviving Starks." The main doubt I have is: how would Varys have known that Gregor Clegane would smash the baby so that it became unrecognizable?

The Aegon twist is bizarre. From a storyline perspective, Dany is still nowhere close to Westros. On the other hand, her "nephew" appears out of thin air and begins his invasion in one book. It is slow pacing on one end and ridiculously fast pacing on the other.

My prediction for the end of the series: Ramsey Bolton ends up as king--with Sansa Stark (or a alternative innocent like Myrcella or Shireen Baratheon) as a tortured, suffering queen--simply because that would be the most twisted ending I can think of right now (outside of the Others winning, that is). Martin loves to have the "bad guys" be "winning" but add a possibility of the "good guys" turning the tables only to have the good guys lose anyway (good and bad being relative terms of course).

For example, does anyone really think that the Onion Knight's attempt to rescue Rickon Stark will be successful?

Well, remember about Dany:

Spoiler

Show

She won't be coming the usual way round to Westeros. She'll go the other way around the world and come from the west, the prophecy says. I'm thinking the Iron Islanders will get her there. Which would also make Euron Crow's Eye this world's Leif Erikson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoopy13a

Spoiler

Show

The main doubt I have is: how would Varys have known that Gregor Clegane would smash the baby so that it became unrecognizable?

---

Spoiler

Show

If he knew anything about Gregor, Varys knew that the baby would be killed in a brutal manner. Babies are soft and squishy enough that it doesn't take much for them to not be recognizable - the only distinguishing features in someone at that age are on the head (short of genotyping), and the bones in the head aren't fully developed yet. And even if Greg hadn't done a good enough job, Varys isn't above muddling the scene enough that anyone else draws the conclusions that he wants them to draw.