any fans of George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series

[warnie]

well?

[ 11-25-2003, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: warnie ]

[Dreamer128]

Yes


Do a search on this and you'll probably find numerous topics on this subject [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Luvian]

Yes, I'm a great fan of his series. Iown it in two languages.

I can't wait for the next one. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Thoran]

Lots of fans of it... many of us believe it's the best fantasy being written today.

[HolyWarrior]

check out his website--it's got a preview of a Daenerys chapter from the forthcoming A Feast for Crows

[Timber Loftis]

After I read GRR Martin's series I decided I no longer had a firm duty to try to write fantasy as I believe it should be written -- he does it quite nicely. He is the best, IMO. Better than any contemporary writers I've read, better than Tolkien (YES, I said it).

In fact, just today, I was rereading Clash of Kings, and I was delving a lot into Theon's psyche and how the acts of family and heritage can force us to betray those we've befriended and our values -- to the point of near madness.

Anyway, he is true no-holds-barred grown-up type fantasy. Down to the threshes on the floor, I absolutely adore his work and his "down and dirty fantasy" style. The birth defects, the nastiness, the cruelty, the suffering, the hope against all hope all carry a lot of weight with me. The inability of Theon to properly behead someone, the cruelty of Gregor Clegane, the fatal misjudgment of Robb Stark and his mother about a certain wedding. Wonderful stuff.

There are two things I love and hate about GRR Martin -- and let's face it, it's the writers who can make us love and hate at the same time that are truly good. One, I cannot predict him. He will teach me to love a character and then show that characters fatal flaw (which may have heretofore been a virtue in my mind) and kill the character. He has little compunction -- all are fair game. Second, he will get me to hate a character, and then warp him/her into someone I like. Jamie Lannister, for instance. This infuriates me, though I really like it. It's like reading Interview With the Vampire and then Vampire Lestat -- first you hate the guy, then you love him. (For the record Anne Rice is lacking in many areas Martin excels at, and I consider him the better author). The next character I think he'll do this with is *shudder* Cersei Lannister.

Anyway, I'm rambling now. Let me get to my final thought -- which is my problem with Martin. Feast for Crows was due out in April 2003 -- it's waaay late, with no publication date in sight. That does bother me.

[ 11-26-2003, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: better than Tolkien (YES, I said it).

AAARRGGghhhh! My eyes! They burn!

I actually think Martin is unique enough to be tough to compare to Tolkien. He doesn't follow the epic fantasy form that Tolkien is THE master of. If I had to say which I enjoyed reading more it would probably be Martin, mainly because he doesn't have the "luls in the action" sections that Tolkien has (wander in the woods, wander in the woods, wander in the woods...), but as far as imagery is concerned tolkien is just about impossible to beat.

Martin's world is a rich social construct, full of intrigue that hasn't been seen since Louis XIV and Versailles (Jordans game of houses... pah!, childs play), and Tolkiens world is so vibrant that when I see it on the big screen not a whole lot is being added, he painted the picture amazingly well with words. His characters embody the archetypical hero's and villans so well that it's tough for modern writers to follow the epic form without being compared to LotR (well... that or Beowolf).

I think of it this way, Martin has (hands down) the most complex and multi-faceted characters of any fantasy I've read, but he doesn't spend a ton of time in setting development (Daenerys overseas travels are broken up into a series of sets, almost like she magically jumps from one action sequence to another). Tolkiens characters are deep but (at least in the books) the complexities of their societies and interactions aren't as central to the plot as with Martin, but his narrative flows as smooth as glass from start to stop, making you feel you're on the journey WITH the characters.

Well, after all that I can sum it up with three words... Both are great! I couldn't choose between them (unless Martin blows the concluding volumes [img]smile.gif[/img] )

[Luvian]

Here's my opinion about Martin versus Tolkien.

Martin make me feel lots of strong emotions, while Tolkien just describe things and bore me to death with songs. Thinking about what's happening in Martin's new chapter can keep me awake for hours, but I won't miss any sleep over some marvellous enchanted glade or a song about a forgotten god.

[Tancred]

Gah! Lord of the Rings is not a fantasy novel, it's an epic. You can't compare Homer's 'Iliad' to Gemmell's 'Legend', despite the fact that they both deal with a siege. Two completely different genres.

[Memnoch]

Yep, Martin isn't exactly prolific. Though I'm all for him making sure the product is satisfactory, I hope that he doesn't keep changing and changing and changing his storylines to the point that he never finishes the series.

But in the meantime I've been getting REALLY into
Steven Erikson's A Tale of the Malazan Book of the Fallen series - it's the closest thing to GRRM I've read yet. Quite outstanding - it starts off really hard to understand but you just need to keep persevering and it hooks you in - and this guy can write an epic, trust me. The scale of this series is grandiose.

Well worth a look at - I believe his books were previously not available in the US market because he was supposedly "too complex" for US readers (whatever that means) but he's found a publisher and they'll be publishing the first four of his 10-novel Malazan series (the fifth is due to be released early next year).

Check it out. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]