When you play the Game of Thrones...

[SITB]

Ah, I see. I loathe Wheel of Time, so I'm very unlikely to have gotten references from it. Mea Culpa

And no, it's not an experiment within the series. It's a shift in narrative focus to spend time on other matters than what some people here refer to as "the main plot." It's a very commonly employed literary technique, especially when the author is introducing complications to the plot in an oblique manner so as to obfuscate his/her true intent.

Except when it takes up most of the book and leads to no point at all, which sounds like a terrible idea to me and seems like it held true in ASoIaF as well in WoT.

[Alarra]

Except when it takes up most of the book and leads to no point at all, which sounds like a terrible idea to me and seems like it held true in ASoIaF as well in WoT.

Book 10 did suck enough that it caused me to quit reading the series. Though I should really try again, since I know the next books are better. AFFC wasn't nearly as egregious. While I did find it slower than the other books and it didn't have the same 'can't put it down, have to know what happens next' quality I'd come to love from the previous three (took me several months to finish it), I still found myself caring about what happened and waiting impatiently for the next book. With WoT I could care less how things ended up. Which is sad, since I invested myself into reading 10 books.

[hamlet]

Except when it takes up most of the book and leads to no point at all, which sounds like a terrible idea to me and seems like it held true in ASoIaF as well in WoT.

We don't know what point or lack of point Feast has led us to yet. It's too early to call the game because you don't like the last couple of plays on the field and don't want to sit around for the end.

[SITB]

Book 10 did suck enough that it caused me to quit reading the series. Though I should really try again, since I know the next books are better. AFFC wasn't nearly as egregious. While I did find it slower than the other books and it didn't have the same 'can't put it down, have to know what happens next' quality I'd come to love from the previous three (took me several months to finish it), I still found myself caring about what happened and waiting impatiently for the next book. With WoT I could care less how things ended up. Which is sad, since I invested myself into reading 10 books.

Book 10 is terrible enough that a minute after reading it, I STILL had no idea what actually happened in the book. You can easily skip it by reading the epilogue and moving to the next book. Book 11 is good and it moves up from there since all the major plot threads are wrapping up.

EDIT: @ hamlet: If the book had no pint in it, then it had no point in it. Having ADWD the most awesome book ever still doesn't change the fact that AFFC is mostly setting up plot points and then mving to the next character. The book still fails on it's own merits.

Hell, I like Fate/Stay Night; the first route (Fate) is not very good because while it has the standard story/climax arc it's not intersting enough on it's own. The latter routes are FAR better and Fate is a setup for them. That still doesn't make Fate a good story.

[hamlet]

EDIT: @ hamlet: If the book had no pint in it, then it had no point in it. Having ADWD the most awesome book ever still doesn't change the fact that AFFC is mostly setting up plot points and then mving to the next character. The book still fails on it's own merits.

What point do you think it lacked?

Personally, I find most of the criticisms thrown at Feast to revolve around "they didn't have my favorite characters in it and I don't know what's going on" and so you'll forgive me if I really tend to not give much credence to that.

Is it technically as good as the other three books? No. It was rushed, and it shows in the prose and in some technical flaws.

Is it "pointless"? Not a chance. It's point merely wasn't a sword to the vitals like the others.

[SITB]

What point do you think it lacked?

Personally, I find most of the criticisms thrown at Feast to revolve around "they didn't have my favorite characters in it and I don't know what's going on" and so you'll forgive me if I really tend to not give much credence to that.

Is it technically as good as the other three books? No. It was rushed, and it shows in the prose and in some technical flaws.

Is it "pointless"? Not a chance. It's point merely wasn't a sword to the vitals like the others.

What plot threads did it resolve? Arya, Sansa and Jamie seemed mostly filler; Ceresi did have major things happen to her. The rest felt like setting a dozen of plot threads and resolving none.

Setting up for future events is very good and all, but if the book has no outstanding events it feels that the characters merely faffed about. Reading the book felt like at the end of every character arc (That was presented in the book) there was a big fat "TO BE CONTINUED..." label. Why am I supposed to care for a book that has nothing being resolved in it; and which only serves as a stepping stone to the next one?

[hamlet]

What plot threads did it resolve? Arya, Sansa and Jamie seemed mostly filler; Ceresi did have major things happen to her. The rest felt like setting a dozen of plot threads and resolving none.

Setting up for future events is very good and all, but if the book has no outstanding events it feels that the characters merely faffed about. Reading the book felt like at the end of every character arc (That was presented in the book) there was a big fat "TO BE CONTINUED..." label. Why am I supposed to care for a book that has nothing being resolved in it; and which only serves as a stepping stone to the next one?

Why does it need to resolve plot threads? It established several others, which in my mind is the way the book stands out. Hell, the Dorne plot it introduces, and which I can detect in rereading again going all the way back to Book 1, is a major standout in my mind.

The book is a transition book. It's not about resolving plot threads, it's about introducing new complications and moving towards something else. At the very least, it's an interlude.

[SITB]

Why does it need to resolve plot threads? It established several others, which in my mind is the way the book stands out. Hell, the Dorne plot it introduces, and which I can detect in rereading again going all the way back to Book 1, is a major standout in my mind.

The book is a transition book. It's not about resolving plot threads, it's about introducing new complications and moving towards something else. At the very least, it's an interlude.

But that's the point; why should I care for a transition book? It's the same problem CoT had. Without resolving ANY plot threads it feels like the characters are faffing about doing nothing. Transition works as long as it moves INTO something and AFFC was released as a stand alone book. Reading 700 pages of "we will return to the exciting climax, right in the next book" isn't a fulfilling exprience.

[hamlet]

But that's the point; why should I care for a transition book? It's the same problem CoT had. Without resolving ANY plot threads it feels like the characters are faffing about doing nothing. Transition works as long as it moves INTO something and AFFC was released as a stand alone book. Reading 700 pages of "we will return to the exciting climax, right in the next book" isn't a fulfilling exprience.

I suppose your and my definition of "a fulfilling experience" differ significantly.

[Erloas]

At this point many of the events of the various books have merged together so I can't really pull out an event and say it was in one book or another.

With that qualification I would also say that I don't remember anything about Feasts as bad. I liked Arya's chapters, and Jamie's, and Brienne's. I see a lot of all of the books as world building rather then story telling and to me that is more important. I think the world a story takes place in is at least as important as they story itself, if not more so.
Its also not really a surprise that the book ends with a "to be continued" feel to it because the first 3 books did as well and I don't expect that to change until the end of the last book. It was clear before you even pick up the book (and the same will be true with ADWD) that its not going to conclude anything and that there will be more to come.

As they say, its not the destination, its the journey.

[kyoryu]

Except when it takes up most of the book and leads to no point at all, which sounds like a terrible idea to me and seems like it held true in ASoIaF as well in WoT.

I'm hoping it's like Dexter Season 4. I loathed the season until the last episode - then I saw what everything was building to. The end wouldn't have had the impact without the middle, even if the middle wasn't enjoyable on its own.

I do understand I may be let down in this

But that's the point; why should I care for a transition book? It's the same problem CoT had. Without resolving ANY plot threads it feels like the characters are faffing about doing nothing. Transition works as long as it moves INTO something and AFFC was released as a stand alone book. Reading 700 pages of "we will return to the exciting climax, right in the next book" isn't a fulfilling exprience.

It's a lot of character development, and increases the impact of what happens next.

Spoiler

Show

I'm pretty sure that Brienne isn't dead. I don't know what she is, though. Arya's going to become some super assassin, probably blind. Jaime had his heel-face turn. While we don't know where these are going, would the characters be as interesting as if we were just told "Five years later, Arya's an assassin. Oh, and she's blind"? I don't think so.

[hamlet]

Spoiler

Show

I'm pretty sure that Brienne isn't dead. I don't know what she is, though. Arya's going to become some super assassin, probably blind. Jaime had his heel-face turn. While we don't know where these are going, would the characters be as interesting as if we were just told "Five years later, Arya's an assassin. Oh, and she's blind"? I don't think so.

Spoiler

Show

I'm almost positive that Arya's about to face a major decision about what she wants/needs to be in her adult life and that in the end she'll be going back to Westeros to take up her own name and inheritance. I'm almost 100% positive that we have not seen the last of Nymeria and that the distinction between Arya and Sansa is more than just personality. The loss of Lady is the loss of her soul and/or her "Starkness" if that makes any sense. Arya's Stark identity might be lost, but it still lives and is roaming free across the countryside.

[kyoryu]

Spoiler

Show

I'm almost positive that Arya's about to face a major decision about what she wants/needs to be in her adult life and that in the end she'll be going back to Westeros to take up her own name and inheritance. I'm almost 100% positive that we have not seen the last of Nymeria and that the distinction between Arya and Sansa is more than just personality. The loss of Lady is the loss of her soul and/or her "Starkness" if that makes any sense. Arya's Stark identity might be lost, but it still lives and is roaming free across the countryside.

Wow. Almost word for word about what I've said about Arya/Sansa either here or elsewhere.

So, um, I agree.

Spoiler

Show

Even in her training as an assassin, the one thing she cannot let go of is Needle - another aspect of her Stark identity.

It's also worth noting for this theory that Sansa lost Lady because of "non-Stark" behaviors - lying to get Micah killed and to protect Joff. Which she then followed up with telling Cersei about Ned's plans, causing his death, and generally playing the victim even as she is complicit in many fairly nasty behaviors. Which is kind of the opposite of the Stark view.

Also, Robb died when he wouldn't let Grey Wind into the wedding with him, and ignored Grey Wind's distrust of individuals - in effect, ignoring his Stark heritage (which, arguably, he did by not keeping his oath to marry the Frey girl).

[Dienekes]

But that's the point; why should I care for a transition book? It's the same problem CoT had. Without resolving ANY plot threads it feels like the characters are faffing about doing nothing. Transition works as long as it moves INTO something and AFFC was released as a stand alone book. Reading 700 pages of "we will return to the exciting climax, right in the next book" isn't a fulfilling exprience.

Spoiler

Show

So the answer to what are the Faceless Men exactly, a definitive answer to the deaths of Joffrey and Jon Arryn, the death of Lysa, the end of Cersei's machinations as leader of a nation, and Jaime finally turning away from his sister weren't integral to understanding the plot to you?

There is a lot of important events that go on in that book, both politically and for individual characters. I shouted for joy when Jaime said to burn Cersei's note, and I hate Jaime. Maybe you didn't like it, or didn't think it was worth the effort of reading it, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Now it isn't my favorite installment but hell, how can you match Storm of Swords?

[Klose_the_Sith]

Spoiler

Show

but hell, how can you match Storm of Swords?

Spoiler

Show

Funny, I preferred Feast to Storm

But that's mostly just because I didn't like Storm. Too depressing for me to like it, wonderfully written or not.

[Seerow]

ADWD reviews are starting to go up.

Some of the comments on it seem to confirm what I got spoiled on, which is kind of sad, but a lot of it is very interesting. One reviewer said we finally get an in depth explanation of the Doom of Valyria, which is something I've been waiting for for ages.

[Yanagi]

One reviewer said we finally get an in depth explanation of the Doom of Valyria, which is something I've been waiting for for ages.

Honestly it's something I didn't think we'd ever get. Cool, if true.

After re-reading Clash of Kings, I have a question...I'm going to spoiler them because I want to reference future books:

Spoiler

Show

The images Dany sees in the Temple of the Undying represent real events--the four kings, the Red Wedding, etc. The one I'm curious about is the smiling corpse on the prow of a ship: I can't think of anyone/anything that this fits with, but was wondering if anyone had ideas.

[hamlet]

Honestly it's something I didn't think we'd ever get. Cool, if true.

After re-reading Clash of Kings, I have a question...I'm going to spoiler them because I want to reference future books:

Spoiler

Show

The images Dany sees in the Temple of the Undying represent real events--the four kings, the Red Wedding, etc. The one I'm curious about is the smiling corpse on the prow of a ship: I can't think of anyone/anything that this fits with, but was wondering if anyone had ideas.

Spoiler

Show

Always assumed it was Theon.

[Seerow]

Honestly it's something I didn't think we'd ever get. Cool, if true.

After re-reading Clash of Kings, I have a question...I'm going to spoiler them because I want to reference future books:

Spoiler

Show

The images Dany sees in the Temple of the Undying represent real events--the four kings, the Red Wedding, etc. The one I'm curious about is the smiling corpse on the prow of a ship: I can't think of anyone/anything that this fits with, but was wondering if anyone had ideas.

Spoiler

Show

I saw a theory recently that it was a reference to Tyrion/Cercei/Jaime's uncle Gerion Lannister, who sailed into the Doom to look for their lost family sword.

An interesting side note of that theory is that The Sailor's Wife is his wife. With the other major theory being that The Sailor's Wife is in fact Tysha.

[Yanagi]

@ hamlet & Seerow

Good theories both. Mostly I was worried I'd been dense and missed out on some obvious thing from book 3/book 4.

Spoiler

Show

I had supposed it somehow fit in with the Greyjoys, but couldn't settle on Euron, Victarion, or Theon. I really like the Gerion Lannister theory, though.

Edited to add: check out this crazy-detailed Westeros map.

[BlackDragonKing]

Wow. Almost word for word about what I've said about Arya/Sansa either here or elsewhere.

So, um, I agree.

Spoiler

Show

Even in her training as an assassin, the one thing she cannot let go of is Needle - another aspect of her Stark identity.

It's also worth noting for this theory that Sansa lost Lady because of "non-Stark" behaviors - lying to get Micah killed and to protect Joff. Which she then followed up with telling Cersei about Ned's plans, causing his death, and generally playing the victim even as she is complicit in many fairly nasty behaviors. Which is kind of the opposite of the Stark view.

Also, Robb died when he wouldn't let Grey Wind into the wedding with him, and ignored Grey Wind's distrust of individuals - in effect, ignoring his Stark heritage (which, arguably, he did by not keeping his oath to marry the Frey girl).

I was kinda pissed about the whole thing with Robb, really.

Spoiler

Show

WHY THE *@#$ WASN'T HE HONORABLE THE ONE TIME IT'S NOT A GODDAMN HANDICAP?!

I get the whole "deflowering and being young and stupid" thing, but Robb knows better than that! He knows the King in the North has to make the hard but right choices, even when he doesn't like them. He knows Ned didn't marry Jon's mother instead of Cat during the war. He knows he is honor-bound to marry a Frey girl and owes Jeyne nothing besides her virginity rights.

But no, honorable people are chamber pots for this universe, so of course he chooses the Honor Before Reason response that DOESN'T benefit anyone as opposed to the considerably more honorable action of upholding his promises even when he is bringing personal shame on himself by doing so. It's one of the reasons I can't read Storm of Swords anymore, the sword of damocles set up in Robb's first appearance in the book makes rereading it just unbearable.

[Dienekes]

At above

Spoiler

Show

You see that wasn't done for honor, but love. Even worse than honor makes you stupid, in these books it's love that screws things up worse.
Sansa betrays her little sister because she thought she was in love
Littlefinger nearly killed himself for love, then from that scorn fueled himself to take down the entire system
Daeny lost her child out of love and will be betrayed because of it.
The things Jaime does for love.
Tyrion acts at his stupidest for love of a common girl
Tywin is killed not because of the dangerous politics but from the angry lover who just realized all that was taken from him
Ned in the end gives up his honor and dignity for the love of his daughters.
And maybe Lyanna and Rhaegar as well. Causing the whole damn conflict.
Jon Snow was forced to choose between love and duty and had a hand in killing his love
Even bit character Mya Stone ends up alone and forlorn.

This is not a series for lovers.

[Knaight]

Spoiler

Show

You missed a few, not the least of which was Catelyn's love for her children and Cersei's for hers.

[BlackDragonKing]

Spoiler

Show

You missed a few, not the least of which was Catelyn's love for her children and Cersei's for hers.

Spoiler

Show

I'm not sure Cersei truly loves her children, to tell the truth. She MIGHT, in her own very strange way, but I've been wondering if she's so protective of them because she cares or because they're life buffers; while Tommen and Myrcella are alive, she can't die, according to prophecy.

[Yanagi]

Spoiler

Show

I'm not sure Cersei truly loves her children, to tell the truth. She MIGHT, in her own very strange way, but I've been wondering if she's so protective of them because she cares or because they're life buffers; while Tommen and Myrcella are alive, she can't die, according to prophecy.

Regarding Cersei:

Spoiler

Show

No question she's protective on them, and perhaps that's a sign of love, but there also seems to be a twist of vanity involved. Cersei is very vocal in her resentment of how her gender cuts her out of the power structure and constrains her choices, and I wonder if the way she treats her sons--we don't actually see her interact with Myrcella, really--isn't colored by her perceptions of "...if I were a man, I'd do...." This is reinforced by the reality that through her sons she has a lien on the power of the throne. I'd further venture that in raising Joffrey to be the heir Cersei dyed him in her colors, so to speak: he's a projection of who she wants to be, had gender roles (and her father) not constrained her. Her interactions with Tommem have such a different tone: it's like she can barely contain her resentment that her power as regent emanates from his as king (in addition to all the ways he's not Joffrey

If she weren't an evil compassionless nutbag she'd be tragic, but by all evidence she's always been a narcissist of the most bleakly amoral variety.

[0Megabyte]

So. Perhaps it's time to think again about a title for the next thread, since the Song of Ice and Fire convo is going to continue even more in a few days time.

It would be easy to just call it the Dance With Dragons thread, but it sounds fun to make it a continuation of this thread.

SoIaF Thread 2: A Clash of Mods, or something fun like that. Then we can have Thread 3: A Storm of Posts, thread 4, A Feast for Trolls, and thread 5, A Dance with Spoilers, or some equally punny titles.

It just seems fun, and has precedent with other ones. What does everyone think? A Clash of Mods?

[TheSummoner]

Nah, limit it to the book and when season 2 come sout we can do a pun based on the second book's title.

[Eldan]

Plus, we're in the middle of the trilogy now, so II works just fine

[Da'Shain]

I'd be a fan of "The night is dark and full of terrors" for the second thread, myself.

R'hllor's scary.

[kyoryu]

I'd be a fan of "The night is dark and full of terrors" for the second thread, myself.

R'hllor's scary.

Spoiler

Show

Wouldn't it be funny if it turns out that the Others are in fact trying to save the world from the evil of R'hllor?