I posted my final top 100 ranking for this year’s draft, and had draft expert Jim Callis on today’s edition of Behind the Dish.
—
I received George R.R. Martin’s A Game of Thrones
The plot appears complex, but at heart is quite simple: two main factions are competing for control of the Seven Kingdoms, jockeying for position under the current King, the slightly naïve Robert, and preparing for an eventual succession. There are two separate plots only loosely integrated in this novel with that main strand – one leading to the possible birth of an heir to the previous king, the “mad king” Aerys II, the other set on the ice Wall that separates the Seven Kingdoms from the unknown denizens of the North. Martin based some of the plot on the English Wars of the Roses, which pitted the Houses of Lancaster and York against each other over a thirty-year period that ended with the rise of the House of Tudor.
The false complexity of the plot was not my main objection to A Game of Thrones, but it is one of the book’s three major flaws. Martin populates the book with far too many people, even requiring an appendix to list most of them by the houses to which they belong or have sworn fealty, and as a result almost no characters receive any kind of depth or development, and most of those outside of the central core are utterly disposable. Martin separates the book into numberless chapters, each of which revolves around one of the main characters, of which there are at least eight: Ned Stark, Lord of Winterfell; his wife, Catelyn; four of their five children; Tyrion Lannister, a dwarf who belongs to the rival house of Lannister; and Daenaerys, the daughter of the mad king. King Robert, Tyrion’s sister Cersei, his brother Jaime (“the Kingslayer”), Daenaerys’ brother Viserys, her eventual husband Khal Drogo, Catelyn’s sister Lysa, and Robert and Cersei’s son Joffrey are all significant characters in terms of ink received, yet all are one-dimentionsal and their presence quickly becomes tiresome. The result is that Martin can weave lengthy plot strands, yet never has to do much more than set the swords in motion to advance any of the storylines, because he’s got so many people running around and never chooses to (or needs to) develop any of the characters.
The quality of the writing is also extremely poor, which I was warned about ahead of time; Martin spends much of the book forcing awkward middle-English phrasing on the reader, or altering spellings the way that bad bars and stores like to include “Olde” in their names to make them seem authentically crappy. His syntax is clumsy, and he spells far too much out for the reader in little details, both scene-setting – his descriptions of food are embarrassing if you’ve read any Murakami, and the made-up foods thing is just annoying – and emotions, where he explains far too much of what characters are thinking or feeling, which ends up leading the reader around by the nose. And I have no explanation for the line where he said a character was behaving like he had a “dagger up his butt.”
But nothing in the book was as awful as Martin’s obsessions with sex, violence, and especially sexual violence; it is the most rape-y book I have ever read, treating its women as objects and reveling in degrading them, especially female side characters, Martin’s equivalent of the red shirts of Star Trek. Women are raped, often, quite violently (not that rape is ever nonviolent, but Martin chooses to make it more violent), both in the present of the novel and in descriptions of the past. Victors in war in Martin’s universe engage in gang-rape, and it is accepted. Forced prostitution is rampant, and it is accepted. And when he describes rape, or even semi-consensual sex, Martin chooses to describe it in detail to further the degradation of the woman. (The idea that a woman might enjoy sex, or even assume an equal or dominant role in it, is completely foreign to him.) Martin’s women are props, and the only woman of clear strength in the book is a sociopath. That doesn’t even get at the incest in the book, made explicit in one scene but hinted at many other times.
On top of his loathing of women, Martin absolutely loves to devote ink to the carving up of the human body by knives, swords, and even weapons found along the way. Characters are cleaved, dismembered, burst open, disembowed, and eviscerated, and one can almost hear Martin panting at the keyboard as he describes these acts of violence. Given that he takes the rascal’s escape from a plot he can’t untangle – he sends everyone to war and kills a bunch of people off – there’s a lot of cleaving and disemboweling going on, and copious quantities of blood spilled, enough that you’ll need to wash your hands to get the damned spots out before you’re through.
When I commented on Twitter the other day that A Game of Thrones was one of the most misogynistic books I’d ever read, a few of you said that I needed to stick with the series to see some of the female characters develop. That may be true – the situation might improve in later books – but I should not have to read beyond the first 670 pages to see a female character with any kind of depth. That’s not to say that his male characters are much better developed, but they might reach two dimensions while his women are limited to one.
I’ve never seen the HBO series, so I have no idea how that compares or if it addresses any of the book’s flaws. A thin plot in a novel can often seem rich on screen with the right adaptation. All I can say is that I won’t be moving on to book two of the series.
Next up: Jim Thompson’s grim, darkly funny novel Pop. 1280
The book is far from a masterpiece; I certainly won’t argue that. Still, this reads like you had you mind made up before you opened it, and focused on events that supported your prejudices. It would be impossible to develop depth for the seemingly endless cast of characters in one book. That’s why the story exists as a (long) series. Book one should be judged on its storytelling, which is pretty solid, in my opinion.
Thanks for this review. So many of my friends are fans of the TV series, and as I’ve never not found an HBO show yet that I could enjoy, I’ve considered tackling the books instead. Your review has definitely made me think twice. It reminded me of an exploitation film from a few years back called “Chaos” (well-reviewed by Roger Ebert here http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/chaos-2005) in that everything about the film – from the dialogue to the acting to the cinematography – was complete shit, except for the impeccably-done, ultra-realistic scenes of violence and sodomy. To make awful “art” is one thing, but to half-ass make it as an excuse to live out sadistic and violent fantasies is quite another. Maybe I’m overreacting and forming an unfair opinion of Martin here, I don’t know. I just know that movie was 70 minutes of hell, and I can’t imagine going through 700 pages of it.
– Nate
Since women weren’t raped and people weren’t violently killed in the middle ages…?
The fact that you think it’s a simple battle between two factions shows you either didn’t read closely enough or it went over your head.
Thanks for reviewing something a bit outside of the norm for you. I don’t disagree that Martin’s prose can be clumsy at times, however I would disagree with a couple of points:
1) The book’s misogyny: There is no doubt that Martin has created a world that is very male dominated, and very, very rape-y. I think painting Martin’s writing as misogynistic, though, kind of misses the point. If you look at the book, or series as a whole, I don’t think misogyny is portrayed positively at all, quite the contrary in fact. Most of the rapey-est characters are outright villains, and those that aren’t are at least frowned upon. Khal Drogo’s initial sexual interactions with Daenerys certainly aren’t portrayed in a positive light, for instance, but rather as a brutal, uncompromising fact of life in this world where women are effectively treated as chattel. I think that the reader is clearly meant to sympathize with Daenerys in those scenes and cheer for her as her character develops and she increasingly grows into a more powerful position in that relationship. In short: misogynistic world does not equal misogynistic author or message.
2) Character complexity: I know this won’t convince you, but I will say that if you give it time, this is an area that greatly improves going forward as you get to know the characters more. Good people do bad things, bad people do good things, and we learn more and more about the “grey” characters of this world Martin has created. But if we’re just talking about this book as a standalone item, I still think there is some pretty interesting characterization going on, but it’s not just put right out in the open. You have to work for it some as the reader. For example, consider: Who is Jon Snow’s mother? And what does this say about Ned?
I almost don’t believe you read the entire book Keith.
How can you argue that the book is misogynistic based on bad things happening to women in the narrative? Does this mean Schindler’s List is pro-violence, forced-nudity, racism and genocide? Awful things happen in the book and at times the reader isn’t sure which characters are in the right.
As for one-dimensional characters, I can only think of two in the entire series: Joffrey and Cersie. Every other main character is complex, developing and conflicted. Tyrion is constantly torn. Jaime totally changes your opinion of him over the course of the books. Dany is sometimes loveable, sometimes terrifying. Jon grows astronomically.
You don’t like the genre so you’re quick to dismiss it. Same thing with Watchmen, although that review at least had its points.
It is possible to enjoy something while recognizing its flaws. I enjoy the book series, even though GRRM’s descriptions can leave something to be desired and he does tend to “lead readers by the nose.” I appreciate the depth and intricacy of the world her creates. I also enjoy hearing what Keith Law has to say about things, even if he occasionally comes across as preachy and snobby.
What was the quality of life for women in the medieval era? Maybe the portrayal is overly harsh at times, but do you think it’s honestly that unrealistic? The female characters do get stronger over time. But I can understand how 670 pages of reading must seem like an eternity to work towards women being taken more seriously.
Clearly I’m a fan and apologist. I value the series for what it is; entertainment. I think you have a stong streak of contrarianism running through you. I can relate to that. I wonder what your take would have been if it weren’t so popular. Maybe you’d like the television series better; it’s slightly more streamlined, character-wise. If it helps we can push for them to include an alt-J cameo for next season.
The female roles are one of my favorite things about the book. My teenage niece has (probably temporarily) revised her life’s goal to running an army after seeing the way George Martin empowers several of the female characters to fight and lead battles in an otherwise primitive society.
The logic that led you to brand Martin a woman-loather is extremely flawed. Putting a non-fictional reality in a fictional world shouldn’t lead to attacks on the author’s character.
And you’re off on your plot analysis, but since you won’t be reading on there’s no need to dig into that.
I’m confused about how someone could read the book and come to the conclusion that their are only two factions. In the book we get the Lannisters, the Starks, Renley Baratheon, Stannis Baratheon and the Targaryens.
@Mark S.: Renly and Stannis are ciphers in this book. They may appear more in the series, but they are only discussed as offstage actors here. I cited the Targaryens, but their plot thread is not connected to the Stark/Lannister thread in this novel.
I will agree with you that the prose isnt really a highlight of the book id probably put it on the leve of a dan brown novel. i really think youre off the mark with most of the rest of what you said though. first of all you said you dont normally like this genre and then complained when the book followed a few tropes of the genre that it is very solidly embedded in. its like criticising an abstract painting for not being a landscape. every thing else id say would all boildown to you really need to read at least through the third book. character development, mysoginy (its never going to become a feminist tome but it does get better), the typical/predictable plot. its really is one of the strengths and weeknesses of these books that you cant read just one and judge the series. also the food descriptions… i mean come on youre right its pretty brutal sometimes.
Agree with David above.
I also want to add that the complexity of the universe (which is internally consistent and meticulously put together) and the many, many questions that arise as the story unfolds (especially as you progress past book one and realize the struggle for the crown of Westeros is not at all the main focus) and prophecies are made make this series much, much more than Book One indicates.
Keith’s points about writing style, prolific violence, and too many characters are valid. As a huge fan of the book series, even I would consider them negative points, though not to the degree to which Keith does.
As far as character development goes, I think Keith’s pronouncements are premature. But if you read 600 pages you don’t like, you shouldn’t be forced to read 600 or 800 or 4000 more.
Keith, before you dismiss the entire series altogether, you should know that the first book of this series compared to the rest of the series is very, very similar to the first book of Harry Potter compared to the rest of that series, which, if memory serves, you liked.
Thanks for this review.
I don’t have any opinion to express about the book. I’m going to do a review of your review.
You start by making a blanket statement about over-simple plot and/or shallow character development. This is a lazy approach. If someone tries to challenge your opinions then you’re ahead of the game. Firstly because you’ve invited your readers to defend a strawman. Secondly because it’s an opinion. The readers who won’t be snowballed by this tactic are the ones who understand something about storytelling, but you’ve placed the onus on us to explain that simple plots and static characters are appropriate for certain types of stories. If you want to criticize the plot structure or the characterization then you ought to be willing to give specific examples of poor decisions and explain how it could’ve been handled better.
Moving right along – you went on to name-drop a more acclaimed author. That’s a low argument. It gives you the option of adopting the credibility defense against anyone who hasn’t read the same books as you. Unfortunately for us it doesn’t tell us anything useful about the novel that you’re reviewing. As a somewhat informed reader myself I’d like to counter this argument (and also the previous one) by referencing the epic of Gilgamesh. If you’d like to amend your arguments about characterization and story structure you should make some sort of an allowance for this sort of ancient story structure.
Then there’s the white-knight tactic.
It’s one thing to accuse Martin of misogyny but it’s another thing altogether to suggest that the novel is bad because he’s a misogynist.
All-in-all this reads more like a cry for attention than a legitimate attempt to discuss the book. I feel very let down. A thoughtful negative review would’ve been okay, but not this. This is just trolling.
Still, this reads like you had you mind made up before you opened it, and focused on events that supported your prejudices.
You don’t like the genre so you’re quick to dismiss it.
I am embarrassed for you. This is pure cognitive dissonance – you cannot accept the criticism of a book (or series) you love, and therefore you are rationalizing away the criticism by saying that I had already decided I was going to hate the book. Not only is this insulting to me, especially given the hundreds of reviews I’ve posted here of books and films while exhibiting zero evidence of this sort of behavior, but it ignores the simple fact that no one in his right mind would read a 670 page book if he’d already decided he was going to hate it. I have no shortage of other books to read. If I’d decided I was going to hate this, and then hated it, why would I persist past the first hundred pages? I wouldn’t, but that destroys your rationalization.
I do not buy the response that sexual violence against women is historically accurate, and therefore it is acceptable in literature that represents or pays homage to that time period. Martin exults in these depredations; they are not merely mentioned, but are described in detail well beyond what would be necessary to make the relevant plot points. Furthermore, this is still a work of fiction. Martin made the choice to use violence against women, including rape, as a core part of the book. Sierra Leone underwent a brutal civil war where teenaged rebels hacked the hands or arms off women and children; this does not excuse all future novelists who use terror via limb amputations as a plot device because it has some basis in historical reality. Martin did not need to use sexual violence against women as a central plot point; he chose to do so, and wrote those passages with evidence enjoyment of the torture to which he subjected his female characters.
@Paul: Don’t come back. I don’t appreciate being called a troll, and you are not welcome here if that’s how you’re going to behave.
I hate the books for another reason (they’re misery porn), but I don’t agree with you on the misogyny. The books are popular on feminist blogs like the XX Factor at Slate. A sort of friend actually published something today arguing that the books’ principal theme is an indictment of patriarchy: http://prospect.org/article/how-patriarchy-screwed-starks (spoilers for as far as the tv show has gotten, for anyone who still area about that sort of thing).
saying that you are trolling in one of your hundreds of posts isn’t calling you a troll.
Thanks for the review, Keith. It sounds like my instinct to avoid them was a good one.
I don’t know what to really say Keith… To each their own I guess. I thought some of your observations were pretty spot on as far as the writing is concerned. GRRM can sure ramble on at certain points. It does have a lot of rape and violence.. However, I happened to enjoy the book and the entire series up to this point. I will say that I have met many people who have enjoyed the HBO series more than the books. You don’t sound like you are interested in continuing the story whether through reading the books after GOT or the HBO series. Thanks for sharing though.
I enjoy the books for the plot, which is considerably more complicated than you suggest, but maybe the first book reads that way because the disparate threads like the wall and Daenerys still seem disconnected.
Your comments on the exposition and misogyny are spot on, though. I think the TV series fixes the former – it’s well-written and allowing the actors to emote rather than telling you what they think just works better. However, in the TV series the misogyny is still there, just different. Less rape-y, but exploitative and soft core porn-y at times. The HBO effect, if you will.
I take issue with your claims of misogyny . I’ve studied English history and written papers on both the 30 years war and and the War of the Roses. the lot of women in life that Martin depicts is sadly not that far off from reality during those periods of strife. The books are meant to depict a period which apes or is contemporary to that time in our own history. During the 30 years war, children born or rape from soldiers were hardly uncommon and the daughters of well born families were practically treated as property to be married for advantage. I don’t think it’s misogynistic to depict that as it was, despite the fact that it was awful and primitive.
As an aside I’ve heard similar criticism of the BBC show ‘Copper’ because it depicted a 13 year old girl prostitute in 5 points NYC circa 1863. People told me that was awful and preposterous yet it was fully accurate and not uncommon at all. Depicting a historical reality is not misogyny. It’s about whether the presentation glorifies that behavior or not, and I don’t think Martin’s work does.
“one can almost hear Martin panting at the keyboard as he describes these acts of violence”
I haven’t read the book but I don’t understand why you would undermine your own credibility by making this kind of cheap shot. Seems like there’s ample there to criticize without resorting to speculation about the author’s state of mind.
Sorry to keep spreading my points about but I had not read the entire comment thread yet.
Keith, I agree that the depredations of women that Martin depicts have entirely too much detail since you complain of his overly rambling and verbose style, isn’t that simply part and parcel of the same criticism, rather than misogyny?
First, I wanted to start by saying I don’t really like the series either, but I think you missed the boat on a few points:
* This is opinion, but I subscribe to Ebert’s style of relativistic reviews. That is judge a film or a book for what it aims to be, not against a platonic ideal. This is in the escapist trash section of fantasy. This is not Tolkien or Gene Wolfe or Ursla Le Guin or China Miellive which are not trash. That said, it’s not very good trash. Something like the Wheel of Time or The Dark Tower are much better. Either way, there is nothing inherently wrong in reading trash, it’s fun!
* In this genre it is expected that books are part of a series; so I’m sorry it is fair to say you shouldn’t judge the series by just this one book. However, the series does still suck.
* I think you did misread the book. The main theme is anti-Tolkien. The misogyny is a clumsy attempt to depict a dark more “adult” fantasy (something Martin’s proponents rally upon) Martin reaches out to the blunt instruments of rape, maim character death, and mutilation; look aren’t we mature! Stupid, clumsy, weirdly unaware of why people read trash, but I don’t believe misogynist. Martin has no real viewpoint other than this reactionarism.
* because you are justly giving up after the first book, you miss one of the biggest flaws: The scope is too big for Martin, he has no plan, kills off characters and regrets it, and originally thought he could skip several years between books, and …. Well it goes on.
Tl;dr never attribute to malice what is sheer incompetence and read some of ther other author’s above.
I like the TV series, up to a point, but couldn’t get more than 50 pages into the book before I got fed up with all the “Ser This” and “Ser That”. We get it, George R. R.: it’s like the Middle Ages, only different!
And I’d wish you good luck, Keith, in the coming storm of nerd rage, but I don’t think you need it.
I picked this one up a few years ago, got about halfway through it and threw it away. It’s dime-store fiction with dime-store writing, thin characters, and it’s about 400 pages too long. If there’s no compelling characters, and the writing is so very clumsy and in need of editing, what’s left exactly? I never really figured it out, either.
Many of your criticisms of Martin and the book are valid. I’ve read all the books thus far, even though they annoy the crap out of me at times. Martin’s relentless attention to minutiae might be the reason it takes him so friggin’ long to write each one. Yet I’m invested in the story and the characters now. And I appreciate when he makes the bold choice, as he’s done over and over again throughout the series. Even if I don’t appreciate that he takes 10 pages to describe what everyone is wearing or eating to do so.
I have been enjoying the HBO series more than the books. Even with knowing what’s coming next (yeah, yeah, yeah…it’s Winter…we get it). Maybe because the acting is so sound, especially for characters that aren’t as interesting in the books. Like Cersei and Catelyn. Actually all of the female characters come across as more interesting (and powerful) in the series than they do in the books. It’s still a rape-y world…just not as rape-y as the books.
“I am embarrassed for you. This is pure cognitive dissonance – you cannot accept the criticism of a book (or series) you love, and therefore you are rationalizing away the criticism by saying that I had already decided I was going to hate the book.”
Isn’t this the same cognitive dissonance? You cannot accept the criticism of something (in this case your opinion/review) that you are invested in, and therefore you are rationalizing away the criticism by saying they are only disappointed because the review was negative and not because of its actual content.
Like most of the other comments I will agree that Martin can be overly descriptive and get bogged down in unnecessarily details, but think the plot and characters are much more complex than you concede. I suppose it may require reading further to see the depth of it all, as you essentially have only read the intro chapters to a much larger story, but you should definitely have seen the complexities coming at least. That being said, you certainly shouldn’t read on if you got no enjoyment out of book 1, but even if the writing style is as abhorrent to you as you make it seem, if you see this as a simple book of two factions, one good and one bad, fighting for power you seem to have missed a lot.
I can’t believe how personally people are taking this review. I enjoy the books (though I am on board with many of Keith’s critiques, particularly about the prose). Reading Keith’s review doesn’t change that. It’s perfectly fine that these books aren’t for him. I can’t even say that I am surprised by the negative review. These books just don’t seem to align with what Keith generally enjoys. Ultimately, there’s nothing wrong with not enjoying the series, and people probably should calm down a wee bit about this.
When you said on Twitter that you found AGoT to be misogynistic, I said that I’d be looking forward to your review. See, there’s obviously a lot of misogynistic _stuff_ that happens in AGoT, but it’s not automatic to say that therefore the book itself is misogynistic. I never found a reason to take that step (rather the opposite, actually), but if you had found through some subtle reasoning that it was justified, then I certainly wanted to hear about it.
But I was disappointed: that’s not what’s in your review here. There are, however, some statements presented as fact that provoke in me the reaction of, “Well, that’s not true at all.” For instance:
“The quality of the writing is also extremely poor”… I’ve read a lot of books. I’ve read a lot of different _kinds_ of books. And I would have to say that no writer has ever done a better job than Martin of making me want to read what happens next. Even when I’m _rereading_ one of his books. (Not just in this series, either: when _A Game of Thrones_ first came out, my reaction was, “George R.R. Martin writing epic fantasy? That’s a little weird for him.”) I cannot but consider that an indicator of good quality in writing.
“Martin’s women are props, and the only woman of clear strength in the book is a sociopath.” I assume you mean Cersei. Look, I understand if you don’t want to count Sansa, Arya, and Dany as “women of clear strength”, although a few books from now they’re much more so than Cersei is (as are a few women that haven’t come into the series yet), but how is Catelyn not a woman of clear strength?
“he takes the rascal’s escape from a plot he can’t untangle – he sends everyone to war and kills a bunch of people off”… No, that’s not an escape from the plot; that is the plot. It isn’t all of the plot, but it is a lot of the plot.
“Martin’s obsessions with sex, violence, and especially sexual violence”, “reveling in degrading them”, “And when he describes rape, or even semi-consensual sex, Martin chooses to describe it in detail to further the degradation of the woman”, “his loathing of women”, “one can almost hear Martin panting at the keyboard as he describes these acts of violence”… This is all you imagining stuff. Obviously you don’t know what’s going on in the guy’s head. And I don’t get that impression at all.
Plus a couple in the grey area:
“his descriptions of food are embarrassing if you’ve read any Murakami”… well, that’s as may be, but I hope it’s permissible if the rest of us don’t hold it to that standard.
“(The idea that a woman might enjoy sex, or even assume an equal or dominant role in it, is completely foreign to him.)” This is demonstrably untrue, but there may not be an example in this one book specifically, so I’ll let it pass.
You also make the assumption that Martin’s hit-and-run approach to characterization is a flaw. I say it is neither a flaw nor a strength; it’s just how he’s doing it. Characterization isn’t the only thing in a novel that can be the most important thing; notable authors of the past have dispensed with it to a much greater degree than Martin has, and to good effect. I’m thinking specifically of Isaac Asimov and P.G. Wodehouse (but others too!), both of whom had other fish to fry. Martin also has other fish to fry.
I’m not particularly a fan of all the violence in these books. It’s epic fantasy; there’s going to be some. That’s fine. I could do with less. And I don’t find all the rape pleasant either; I wouldn’t miss it at all if it was gone. I, however, can find enough that I do like in the books that I can deal with the stuff that I don’t. You can’t. Which is fine: as Yogi says, if you don’t wanna read ’em, nobody’s gonna stop you. But that doesn’t make it valid to attribute qualities to the book and author that is not justified by the facts in evidence.
(One idea I had about that that seemed to me good enough to pass along: a misogynist book might have a Cersei or a Sansa in it, but probably not both. It certainly wouldn’t have Cersei _and_ Sansa _and_ Catelyn _and_ Arya _and_ Dany _and_, well, you get the idea.)
Finally someone with an audience succinctly broke the glaring issues with this book/show.
The aghast defenders are ridiculous.
For anyone struggling with the not quite right words (e.g., “Ser” instead of “Sir”), I highly recommend listening to the unabridged audio books, instead of reading them. It requires an investment of time that not everyone has – I have a long commute to work, so it worked for me – but is well worth it if you can do it. Roy Dotrice, the accomplished British actor, is the narrator* and he does an amazing job voicing all those characters. I’m a fan of the series and my biggest concern is not that Martin will never finish, but that Mr. Dotrice, who is 90, may die before Martin finishes.
I appreciate your perspective and review, Keith, though I do not agree with all of your points. I agree with many here that found a tremendous amount of character development occurs over the course of the series, and would not indict the first book on that basis.
*you can also find versions read by John Lee, which are good, but not nearly as good as those read by Mr. Dotrice
I haven’t read the books (nor do I intend to) but I have watched (and enjoyed) the show.
But this is sort of validating, for me, that, by whatever circumstance, klaw’s just departed from generating the content I’ve previously enjoyed.
His chats and posts are relentlessly snarky. And I’m of the opinion that snark is a primary impediment to discourse, especially over the internet, making the level of the conversation much shallower than it should be, as well as a crutch to be mean or antagonistic without, perhaps, overtly being so. Which is to say that I think that snark isn’t funny, and that it’s actually pretty lazy. He seems to relish it. Anyway, one man’s snark is another man’s trolling, the line’s probably pretty thin at some points.
As for the review, there are elements that read like he was operating on his own confirmation bias and creating points to dredge up against Martin. So authors aren’t allowed to use any sort of atrocity in their stories, or as a central point? Well, on one level, obviously, most of these sorts of things are significant to the lifes of those who experience it, and warrant exposition but, even, if it’s merely included just as a matter of fact, those sorts of things can be useful as a heuristic in depicting the world (especially as a fantasy world). Okay, so Martin’s world is starkly cruel, as per whatever. Plus, it’s fiction.
And, yes, I think that throwing in Martin “panting at his keyboard”, just short of mentioning that it was in his mother’s basement, while getting offended (seemingly to the extreme) when somebody accused you of trolling feels like a bit of cognitive dissonance in its own right.
As for the comments and such, people like what they like and don’t like what they don’t and will rationalize either side … I don’t think many opinions are getting swayed much (including the post itself here).
Anyway, I’d be tempted to levy a $5 fine, myself, but apparently klaw is the only one who can make those sorts of indictments.
“For anyone struggling with the not quite right words (e.g., “Ser” instead of “Sir”), I highly recommend listening to the unabridged audio books, instead of reading them.”
No thanks. And I don’t know if you read into my post that I was struggling, but I wasn’t. I was annoyed.
That particular example is only one of Martin’s tics that drove me from the book; there are plenty of others.
The “Game of Thrones” books are fast food literature – bloated with filler and crammed full of crap that’s bad for your mental health.
I think the TV show has distilled the story down to reflection of current anxieties. Everyone is scheming to get ahead and will do anything not to be left behind.
I haven’t read the book. I generally don’t like fantasy. But I do like the HBO series. There is significant character development due in large part to some terrific acting. There are women characters of considerable depth.
I don’t agree that it is based on the Wars of the Roses. I think it comes more from the Merovingian times of the 5th-8th Centuries in Europe, in particular the time of Brunhilde, a Visigothic princess who was married to one of the Merovingian kings. Her sister was as well, but was murdered by the king’s mistress and that resulted in a long feud that dominated the period. Brunhilde and went on to basically rule, through husbands, sons and grandsons, various kingdoms for about 50 years, mostly through sex, murder, and brains. She also carried on a correspondence with Pope Gregory the Great on religion. Sexual violence was common, Small kingdoms, murder and brief wars, marauding tribes – all part of that time. Much more like Game of Thrones than the somewhat more civilized Wars of the Roses.
I am quite certain that Martin is on record saying it was based on War of the Roses.
I find the level of defensiveness about Keith’s dislike of the book pretty funny. I also like how no one who argued against his point about misogyny was female. Park yourself inside a woman’s brain and re-read it and you might understand. The “panting at his keyboard” was a low blow but pretty evidently intended more for emphasis of the point than as an actual accusation.
I actually stopped reading the book at around page 600 because I just couldn’t deal with the level of gore and violence anymore. Then I went and spoiled the remainder of the series on Wikipedia in about 20 minutes and was glad I hadn’t bothered.
Keith;
I couldn’t agree with most of your review more. If you like the cheap fantasy genre, perhaps you couldn’t wait to read more of this. If you have read a wide variety of well-written literature, there is no way you could say the actual prose and writing of this novel were anything other than dime-store quality. Maybe you enjoyed the story, but the prose and writing is simply not good.
Secondly, I found this book *incredibly* misogynist. To represent a world which includes consistent sexual abuse as a critical plot point does NOT make it misogynist; to describe such events in dramatic detail above and beyond what is necessary to advance the plot DOES. And yes, some parts of Keith’s review may be slightly unfair with their portrayal of Martin as an author; however, it is difficult to read this book without coming away with the impression Martin was writing these scenes looking for cheap peverse thrills.
To anyone defending this book’s content, I would highly recommend reading Richard Wright’s Native Son, a book I did not particularly enjoy. However, Wright does a brilliant job letting the reader feel the emotions of a gruesome crime (murder and dismemberment) WITHOUT describing the act in naseauting detail. That is how a writer can include gruesome acts necessary to the plot point without drifting into the realm of a misogynist work.
While I agree with other commenters that many of the issues described (i.e. simple plot, basic characterization, no strong female characters, etc) are resolved as the series progresses, it is certainly understandable that a bad 1st impression = I don’t want to continue with the series. Keith is entitled to his opinion, and that’s fine. I will say that Keith’s responses in the comments section were extremely disappointing though – no real engagement, overly sensitive to a reference to trolling (not being called a troll outright), his own cognitive dissonance, etc. Oh well. It would have been nice to have a little back and forth, but he is not required to do so. The snarky one-liners do come off as a crutch to hide behind, however.
” I also like how no one who argued against his point about misogyny was female. Park yourself inside a woman’s brain and re-read it and you might understand.” -Daphne
Fair enough. But it’s also true that no one who argued that it _was_ misogynist was female.
I know that this discussion doesn’t reflect it, but the series (book and TV) does have a lot of female fans, for what that’s worth.
I’m really just commenting to say “Martin’s descriptions of food are embarrassing if you’ve read any Murakami” is one of the most hilariously pretentious and useless things I’ve ever read in a review.
I really don’t agree with any of keith’s review, but he doesn’t seem interested in discussing it with anyone whose views differ, so fine. I suppose I might mention that all the most rabid fans of the series I know are women, including my wife, who insists on rewatching each episode after it’s done.
Matt Ian says, “Since women weren’t raped and people weren’t violently killed in the middle ages…?”
I’ve seen this sentiment echoed elsewhere. And, in all honesty, I think it is pretty silly. First off, Martin’s story takes place in a fantasy land. To go for authenticity in the areas of rape and violence is… curious. Second, rape and violence know no bounds, unfortunately. They might be more or less prevalent at certain times and in certain places, but they seem to be an ugly constant of our species. So unless the violence and rape (violence specifically) are crucial to the story, they are gratuitous. And gratuitous depictions of rape are deplorable. Full stop.
I’m reminded of Tarantino’s use of the word “nigger” over 100 times in “Django Unchained”, citing historical accuracy. This in a movie that so wantonly abandoned historicity at every turn. That he felt the need to make the use of the word “nigger” historically accurate and little else made it seem similarly gratuitous, doing it for the sake of doing it and hiding behind empty appeals to accuracy.
As someone who watches the show religiously but has never read the book, I can say that at least some of the elements you described are not as evident onscreen. The dialogue, for the most part, is rather complex with a lot of doubletalk when the characters are playing politics. The misogyny aspect is present, but not to the degree you described, and there are at least a couple of strong-willed and positive female characters (Daenaerys doesn’t start that way, but she becomes perhaps the most exemplary female character as the story moves along). As the series follows roughly a book per season, the story definitely gets tidier with time and you do realize that almost none of the characters are 100% good or evil–they’re human beings who can be admirable at times, and despicable at others. I’ll admit that the number of characters was quite confusing at first, and I did have to locate some family trees/charts online during the first couple of episodes to figure out who was with or against whom, but having faces with the names helps a lot.
All in all, this review indicates that the book is tedious and at times poorly-written, which is what I had heard from friends who had read it, and I wouldn’t have read it anyway. But Martin appears to suffer from the George Lucas syndrome: he’s a good storyteller who has a hard time getting the story out of his brain and into the world. Apparently having writers, a director, etc. helped him do that in a positive way.
Did you even read the book, Keith?
“First off, Martin’s story takes place in a fantasy land. To go for authenticity in the areas of rape and violence is… curious. Second, rape and violence know no bounds, unfortunately. They might be more or less prevalent at certain times and in certain places, but they seem to be an ugly constant of our species. So unless the violence and rape (violence specifically) are crucial to the story, they are gratuitous.”
The reason Martin’s story has gotten so much attention and acclaim is specifically because it is inserting realism into a fantasy setting. I would describe the first book as answering the question, “What happens if you take Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings and drop him into Richard III?”
And the violence and rape are ABSOLUTELY crucial to the story. The whole series is about fantasy tropes in a medieval setting.
The books go to great length to elevate its female characters from props who sit in castles waiting to be rescued (except for Sansa, for the most part) typical of the genre, but it then does not spare them from the same violence visited upon the men.
Now, you may find those things objectionable, which is of course perfectly fine, and pretty understandable. People have different tastes. But they are most certainly done with a purpose, and integral to the story being told.
The descriptions in A Game of Thrones are too detailed. There are too many characters. The obsession with food starts to annoy. Later in the series the plotting takes a dreadful dive.
However, I take issue with calling the book misogynistic for a couple of reasons.
Martin includes a lot of females characters in the series. Just look at the movies that fail the Bechdel test to see how refreshing that is. He also has females characters at different points on the good-evil continuum, just like his male characters. While less evident in a Game of Thrones, Martin also allows his female characters the same room to mature and change in response to circumstances. He clearly puts thought into his female characters and how the world they inhabit differs from the world his male characters inhabit.
He also writes enough female characters that he can show how some characters operate within the roles prescribed by society – Cersei, Sansa, Catelyn – and some manage carve out roles for themselves that are against societal rules – Arya, Brienne, Danyres, the Mormonts. Martin wrote Ned as a poor father for giving Sansa a doll, but a good father when he arranged sword-fighting lessons for Arya.
While I do see women complain about how descriptive the rape scenes are, I rarely see complaints about the frequent threat of sexual assault. I think this is because even today women have that fear. It really does feel depressingly accurate. Martin does a better job of capturing that reality than about any other author I’ve read.
Bourbon,
They may well serve a purpose, but historical accuracy is not it.
but he doesn’t seem interested in discussing it with anyone whose views differ,
The MLB draft is tomorrow. I don’t have time for lengthy discussions – I have to put together a mock tonight, and appear on BBTN tonight and the next two nights. If folks want more of a back-and-forth on this, I’d be happy to do so afterwards, but I’m in survival mode now.
Uh oh, you’ve pissed off the wrong group of nerds. Are you in your cups or something?
Throughout the series, characters don’t need to develop because there are enough of them to provide varies perspectives. Arya sees the world the way she’s always seen the world. Robb sees the world the way he always saw the world. This is true of most of the characters, which would be fine if they weren’t such viewpoint characters. I think the criticisms of it being super rapey are correct, though the extensions to what that says about Martin are probably off. I think he was trying to describe a world (and provide vivid contrast to the women that do gain power and times of peace), but it went overboard to me. I think it was more of a problem of flawed writing/storytelling than of a sick human.
For the record, I love the TV show. The violence has more impact because it is a little more limited (mostly due to budget stuff I think) and seeing characters physically grow/change takes away from some of their flatness. Arya may not be different, but she physically looks different. Also, 10 hours for a season vs about 18 hours for the first book felt like a better use of time.
PS- thanks for reviewing it Keith. I’ve been curious to read a review of a speculative fiction (sci-fi/fantasy), I just wish it’d been one I like (Gardens of the Moon is the Eternal Sunshine to GoT’s Inception). Also, thanks for reviewing it despite the crazy busy time.
Keith, my thoughts were very similar to yours when I read the book (at a friend’s recommendation) years ago. The difference is I stopped halfway through. I actually like fantasy as a genre, but Martin is a pretty lousy writer, and I had many of the problems you cited.
The writing critique aside, the point of the book is to subvert the classical genre, which means there’s going to be a lot of unpleasantness, including rape. The purpose of the rape is to connect it to classic ideas of chivalry and reject that model for a progressive, modern based approach. I’d go on but you know what subversive means. It’s a little troubling that you ignore this facet of the book.
There’s a good amount of literature on this, It’s hard to take you seriously if you’re not going to consider the argument.
PS Minor characters are more developed along the length of the series, less the book. Either you like this or you don’t, I guess. I do, but I’m hardly in the position to dictate you to as well.