Post by eyesofmist on Mar 12, 2015 19:48:04 GMT
I have read this great post by Jon Con at Westeros.org. I think she has very good points when she talks about how to understand ASoIaF and how readers should pay attention to a writers style. I agree with her in nearly everything, except when she says the ASoIaF is not a bag of clues because there are many clues in the story. That's how George writes. However, the clues are only part of it,an insignificant part and they are nice only if they help you realise you are in the right path.
I have underlined my favourite parts but I could have underlined everything. I agree with her so much.
This is the thread where I found this post,in case you are interested.
I will complain again about how I lost a guide I used in high school to make good book analysis. It was a very complete guide. And I complain because, the first section was devoted to analyse the author: his life, his bibliography and last but not least, the Historical Context in which the book was written and published. I think it's important to know WHY an author writes what he writes. Does fantasy authors write and create a world because they want to write about elves and dwarves? Or because they want them to represent human values/flaws? GRRM doesn't have to be any different.
People often misunderstand GRRM's views of fantasy and his writing style. He's not a breaker of tropes as much as many say (and would like). He's not some kind of plot-twisting freak enthusiast many would claim him to be. He is not writing a big clue hunting book either. GRRM is, even though he doesn't look like, very old fashioned in the way he writes, specially in his views of romance. He's different in which he tries to add some realism to the most classical tropes of medieval-like sagas, because that's something he didn't like about the books he has read, like LotR. It's not like he doesn't like LotR: he felt that there was many things that Tolkien didn't specified or left open, like the infamous tax-policies or how Gandalf should have returned changed. He's not saying JRRT was wrong, simply that he, being a more modern author with different views, would have done differently, which he's doing now.
That's where the misunderstood of his work comes from. People expect GRRM to pull things and mysteries out of his ass and he doesn't do this. He is very obvious about the things he plans to do, even if we don't notice it at first time (which it's fine, because despite the obviousness, he still can't simply put everything under the light: it wouldn't be any mystery to solve at the end). And, the wishful thinking of GRRM doing SHOCKING UNEXPECTED revelations at the end is simply paving the way for many readers' disappointment, something we already see in the reactions about aFfC and aDwD when he's not moving the plot along but simply positioning his next pieces on the board (besides the pace of the writing or the delay in publishing).
So, this is not about "trusting" an author or not. This is about know and recognise his writing style. I think it has already been identified as a "three steps" method: 1. Mention the event, 2. Explain/develop the event 3. Reveal the event. Many crackpot theorists believe that the big revelations that will come are hiding under rocks that GRRM never put in first place, that's why they believe that because character A and character B both have, dunno, long noses (yeah, random example), they are secretly the same. Has he even done this before so far? Idem for the deaths, a resource Martin has, imo, overused. Yet, pretty much every other revelation about people being death has been hurriedly solved, even in the same book, and no one who has been dead for years has returned, unless there are specific circumstances.
About this:
Blazfemur, on 10 Mar 2015 - 9:47 PM, said:
Would readers rather debate against the author's legitimacy in writing and bet for something they want to happen, or is it better to accept what he's written and be pleasantly surprised if something else turns up? I'm victim of this, too, especially when dealing with the conspiracies in the north.
I can't find the exact quote (sadly), but some fans will always cling to what they want. I will never forget how, when JKR said that yes, Ron and Hermione were meant to be a couple since the beginning, that she planned it this way, in one debate, someone argued that it was their duty to make JKR, THE AUTHOR, to notice she was wrong and how she has misunderstood the characters. Yes, THE AUTHOR MISUNDERSTOOD the characters she wrote. Some will come saying exactly that. Hey, so many already come here to say that GRRM has written Dorne, Doran, Arianne, Victarion, Tyrion, Cersei and other things "wrong", even though we don't yet get the full story for us to analyse objectively. Those same might come here at the end to pretend that their expectations not being fulfilled equals bad writing and characterization. That, or some implied and subtle arrogance of pretending "I could have done better".
People often misunderstand GRRM's views of fantasy and his writing style. He's not a breaker of tropes as much as many say (and would like). He's not some kind of plot-twisting freak enthusiast many would claim him to be. He is not writing a big clue hunting book either. GRRM is, even though he doesn't look like, very old fashioned in the way he writes, specially in his views of romance. He's different in which he tries to add some realism to the most classical tropes of medieval-like sagas, because that's something he didn't like about the books he has read, like LotR. It's not like he doesn't like LotR: he felt that there was many things that Tolkien didn't specified or left open, like the infamous tax-policies or how Gandalf should have returned changed. He's not saying JRRT was wrong, simply that he, being a more modern author with different views, would have done differently, which he's doing now.
That's where the misunderstood of his work comes from. People expect GRRM to pull things and mysteries out of his ass and he doesn't do this. He is very obvious about the things he plans to do, even if we don't notice it at first time (which it's fine, because despite the obviousness, he still can't simply put everything under the light: it wouldn't be any mystery to solve at the end). And, the wishful thinking of GRRM doing SHOCKING UNEXPECTED revelations at the end is simply paving the way for many readers' disappointment, something we already see in the reactions about aFfC and aDwD when he's not moving the plot along but simply positioning his next pieces on the board (besides the pace of the writing or the delay in publishing).
So, this is not about "trusting" an author or not. This is about know and recognise his writing style. I think it has already been identified as a "three steps" method: 1. Mention the event, 2. Explain/develop the event 3. Reveal the event. Many crackpot theorists believe that the big revelations that will come are hiding under rocks that GRRM never put in first place, that's why they believe that because character A and character B both have, dunno, long noses (yeah, random example), they are secretly the same. Has he even done this before so far? Idem for the deaths, a resource Martin has, imo, overused. Yet, pretty much every other revelation about people being death has been hurriedly solved, even in the same book, and no one who has been dead for years has returned, unless there are specific circumstances.
About this:
Blazfemur, on 10 Mar 2015 - 9:47 PM, said:
Would readers rather debate against the author's legitimacy in writing and bet for something they want to happen, or is it better to accept what he's written and be pleasantly surprised if something else turns up? I'm victim of this, too, especially when dealing with the conspiracies in the north.
I can't find the exact quote (sadly), but some fans will always cling to what they want. I will never forget how, when JKR said that yes, Ron and Hermione were meant to be a couple since the beginning, that she planned it this way, in one debate, someone argued that it was their duty to make JKR, THE AUTHOR, to notice she was wrong and how she has misunderstood the characters. Yes, THE AUTHOR MISUNDERSTOOD the characters she wrote. Some will come saying exactly that. Hey, so many already come here to say that GRRM has written Dorne, Doran, Arianne, Victarion, Tyrion, Cersei and other things "wrong", even though we don't yet get the full story for us to analyse objectively. Those same might come here at the end to pretend that their expectations not being fulfilled equals bad writing and characterization. That, or some implied and subtle arrogance of pretending "I could have done better".
I have underlined my favourite parts but I could have underlined everything. I agree with her so much.
This is the thread where I found this post,in case you are interested.