I thought some of the
comments from yesterday's post about the George R. R. Martin book signing were interesting, and wanted to reply with more words that would fit neatly into a comment of my own. So here I go.
First of all, I failed to add something to my talk about his roller coaster metaphor. The point is not that he kills off good guy characters. He does, sometimes, but not that often, and not capriciously. It's not, to use another fantasy series as an example, like Frodo and Sam are about to reach Mt. Doom, and then suddenly Sam trips and falls on a rock and breaks his neck. Or strokes out from a blood clot. Martin does do away with some main characters, including ones you really like, but he does it in the flow of the story, and that's what I love about it. It's not about whether that particular character lives or dies, it's about the reader knowing that they might die, and that good might not always triumph. It's about setting an example and a precedent, so that the reader is taken from their nice, safe, well-maintained roller coaster and sent careening down a rickety mine shaft with no brakes and no steering.
So yes, characters might and will die, but not cheaply, not unnecessarily, and not out of the blue. You get the showdowns and payoffs and big money scenes you're anticipating, but you don't know how they're going to turn out in advance, which makes them all the more enjoyable. For me, at least.
Two other points:
I read the first two books, but I guess I couldn't stand the...um... brutal realism, if that's the right phrase for it. I feel so unsophisticated... :(
#: 8:24 AM posted by Kane
This is another objection I see to Martin's series, and I'm not going to argue it. There is definitely an overdose of brutality, much of it largely grounded in realism, and it's not what we're used to seeing in the usual romanticized depictions of life in the Middle Ages. Martin regularly depicts humans at their absolute worst, and when you've got warring men operating without any laws to govern their conduct or behavior, they're going to do horrible things. The massacres and murders and intimidation and scheming that is discussed in morally-neutral tones is definitely strong enough to turn off a lot of readers, regardless of the quality of the overall work, and that's the price he pays for his "brutal realism."
I often find things shocking and cruel, but that doesn't turn me off or make me want to stop reading. I can easily imagine it would, for some people. My mom's reading the series now, and I'll frankly be amazed if she finishes it. She couldn't read even light horror stuff fifteen years ago, but she's gotten more comfortable with her dark side in the years since then, and if she gets through this series, much less enjoys it, I'll be amazed at how far she's come. This isn't a criticism of her or other people either; everyone has different tastes, and while I love gore and suffering and such in fiction, I realize that other people are much more sensitive than I am about it. I can't sit through lots of sappy stuff that other people eat up, and that doesn't make me weak anymore than their choosing not to subject themselves to horror and gore and brutality makes them pussies. There are surgeons and paramedics who enjoy romance fiction to unwind and get away from the ugly reality of life, and goth horror lovers who faint at the sight of their own blood and who capture bugs and release them outside rather than swatting them. Fiction is not an endurance contest.
Here's another comment, this one posted anonymously:
I read the first book, but I just found it, well...uncompelling. There wasn't anything brilliant I noticed or remembered. The writing may be excellent, but I wasn't really interested in that. But I'm planning to read the other books sometime.
As you can see in
my review of the first book (
Game of Thrones), I agree. This is basically how I reacted to that novel on my first read, though I was intrigued enough to continue on to book two, which immediately pulled me in. I liked Martin's writing, though it wasn't brilliant, and I found much of the novel interesting, while being far from blown away. I got bored with the endless court scheming and power struggling, and wanted more adventure, combat, and magic. Plus I couldn't keep the dozens of names straight, and didn't know or care who most of the minor characters were.
I did get one thing 100% correct in my review, though. I said it would be a better book the second time through, and when I read it for the second time this summer, I was amazed at how much more I enjoyed it. Simply knowing who all of the characters were was a huge help, (I'm terrible at remembering character names, even in my own writing.) but it was also great to see how all of the characters and plot lines were introduced, and to revel in the depth and detail Martin worked into his world and society.
So yes, Martin's series is bloody and brutal and all too realistic at times, and the first book is sort of slow and it's heavy lifting to remember all of the names and relationships... but it all starts to pay off incredibly in book 2, and I loved that one the first time I read it. Book 3 is even better, as the plot threads twist and turn, and characters we know so well interact in frequently astonishing ways. And yes, I'm raving like a fan boy, but it's really that good. Check
my reviews section; I never enthuse about anything like this, with the possible exception of the LotR films.
