Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-24-2017, 05:40 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,075

Game of Thrones: The North Remembers plotline [TV/Book spoilers]


Open spoilers for show/books. The events I'm discussing haven't happened in the books yet so most of that discussion is speculation, hopefully it'll go down differently.

The Starks aren't dealt endless suffering in GOT/ASoIaF out of pure sadism. Their story is meant to illustrate that the fantasy trope of chivalrous, honorable conduct doesn't always win out - that when it's up against people who are willing to scheme and be dishonorable and do anything to boost their own power over the greater good, their honorable behavior can lose.

In the North, honesty, loyalty, duty, and honor are simply more important than they are in the south. They must cooperate and treat each other fairly in order to survive the much harder conditions. If they played the game of thrones in the north, too many resources would be spent on war and squabbling to have any left over to survive the winter.

So a leader like Ned Stark and his code of honor makes a lot of sense in the North. He's exactly what they need up there for the conditions.

But when he's dragged down south, into a den of vipers, and forced to try to maintain rule against people whose traits are duplicity, dishonor, and selfish conduct, his skill set and traits leave him unable to maintain rule and ultimately unable to survive. Okay, this makes sense - this is a thematically consistent point. Northerners are different, and in some scenarios that hurts them. Great.

So in the last two seasons of the shows, we're given hints that even though the Boltons are in control of the North because of their betrayal, the Northern people resent such a thing, and that The North Remembers. That the people's loyalties to the Starks run deeper than typical vassal loyalties. We've been told explicitly by Sansa, John, and others that northerners are different - more loyal, more honorable.

Since the Starks are the most identifiable "good guys" of all the factions of the story, as an audience we identify most with them and we've been punished by seeing them suffer throughout the whole series.

But now we've been set up for a well-earned comeuppance, a triumphant moment where the traits of honor, decency, and loyalty of the North cease to become an anchor that drags them down, but a wave that uplifts them. We're told over over again that The North Remembers, that northerners are different, that the Starks matter to northerners. We're set up for a well-earned payoff after years of watching the Starks suffer to finally have them win in a completely organic, and earned way.

And... nothing comes of it. None of that matters at all. A few minor houses fight or Jon Snow/Jon Stark, but almost all of them abandon the Starks in their time of need and show no loyalty. "The North Remembers" amounts to nothing at all. The day is ultimately saved when an outside power (Littlefinger and the Vale) come in and defeat the northern armies.

So after years of enduring Stark suffering, and the North suffering, we finally have a way that's completely set up by the story and earned to give them a cathartic victory, a fist-pump moment where the positive traits of the Northerners finally had them a well-deserved win, and nothing comes of it. Instead we get a cliched "some forgotten outside force comes in at the last second to win the battle" ending.

This is an incredibly botched storyline. 6 years of payoff just completely left aside for seemingly no good reason. As much as the Starks' suffering was earned given the context of the story, the Starks victory here was also earned.

There were hints it was going to end that way. For instance, when Ramsay Bolton demands a pledge of fealty from Lord Karstark, Karstark refuses, saying pledges are worthless given the duplicitous way that the Boltons came to power. I interpreted this as an honorable Northman finding a reason not to give a pledge that he knew he was going to violate later, since he planned to betray the Boltons. Perfect setup for the Karstarks to later betray the Boltons in a way consistent with their sense of honor and loyalty.

A better resolution, obviously, and one fully supported and heavily hinted at by the story, would be if the northern armies that lined up alongside the Boltons had betrayed them at the start of the battle and fought for the Stark army. Instead, we get the cliched "all is lost.... oh wait, here comes the cavalry" ending that we did get.

It also made the following scene in which Jon is declared King In The North ring hollow. Everyone basically had to say "yeah, I was a loyal lacky to the Boltons who I knew were shitbag impostor rulers of the North, but hey, you beat them in battle, so now I'm gonna suck up to you and pretend I was loyal to the Starks all along" - the scene is meant to be a triumphant scene like Robb being declared king, but instead loses most of its impact because the northerners aren't acting in character up until that point. It robs the Stark of their moral and story victory and turns it into a victory of happenstance - that Littlefinger came to the rescue.

The books haven't yet reached this point, so I hope we can at least get the cathartic Stark victory there. The North Remembers is more actively shown to be plotted with the Manderlies. But the showrunners do have an outline of how the story ends, which makes me wonder if this was the intended route.

My guess is that they thought the cavalry coming at the last moment was more dramatic on screen than paying off 6 years of story and giving the audience a cathartic victory for their long-suffering protagonists. They were wrong.
  #2  
Old 05-25-2017, 01:54 AM
magnusblitz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,307
It is known.

Last edited by magnusblitz; 05-25-2017 at 01:55 AM.
  #3  
Old 05-25-2017, 09:24 AM
Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 36,260
Perhaps one of the lessons is that "the north remembers" are ultimately words.

Similar situation with the south in the Civil War: at the beginning of the war there was a huge groundswell of support- state's rights (to own slaves) and personal honor and nobody tells us what to do and all that- at least among the "nobles" class (the peasantry was less enthusiastic and most waited til they were conscripted). In legends of how they availed themselves during the war there's the "we were defending our homeland and thus we held on for years in spite of no supplies and being outnumbered". In truth, there were certainly good fighters among the south, but there were good fighters among the north and most every other army, and there was also astounding incompetence among its leaders, especially from the planter/noble class (e.g. Polk, Bragg, Beauregard) and constant infighting and class consciousness, and what's forgotten is that the desertion rate among foot soldiers was through the bloody roof. As with the fictional Winterfell, many subsistence level farmers got to the "I don't particularly give a damn which rich guy stays rich" part pretty quick, which was probably also true in most wars in history.
  #4  
Old 05-25-2017, 10:08 AM
Telperion's Avatar
Telperion is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,436
I suspect the overarching point is that words are just words. If Game of Thrones has taught me anything, it's that you just can't trust any mofo in Westeros. Even Thormund picked up on it when he commented that when Wildlings say they will do something, they'll do it.
  #5  
Old 05-25-2017, 10:17 AM
DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,977
I think what you are missing is that the North DID remember, they DID stand with the Starks and they suffered GREATLY for it. The show mostly focuses on the Starks but every single northern house was completely decimated by the war, the Starks didn't even get the worse of it (those poor poor Hornwoods). Their armies are dead, most of the Stark loyalists died or where captured at the Red Wedding. The north backed the Starks to the bitter end and as far as they were concerned they lost the war and the matter was settled. They were not dishonorable, they were simply beaten.
  #6  
Old 05-25-2017, 10:44 AM
Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post

In the North, honesty, loyalty, duty, and honor are simply more important than they are in the south. They must cooperate and treat each other fairly in order to survive the much harder conditions. If they played the game of thrones in the north, too many resources would be spent on war and squabbling to have any left over to survive the winter.
The failure of the North to risk their precarious position under the Boltons and gamble on the Starks out of loyalty and honour does still speak to the theme of the myth of chivalry. In the North, at the beginning of the book, honour, trust and loyalty are winning strategies, as you say. But by the point where the Starks commitment to honour has stripped the North of its manpower, its political stability and its chances of surviving winter (as DigitalC says), "The North Remembers" has ceased to be a winning strategy. The unified, communitarian worldview necessary to sustain a high-trust, high-honour society has been destroyed and people have learnt to look out for their own best interests.

At the end of Season 6, when we found out that the Houses of the North are (Mormonts excepted) just as full of timeservers, chancers and shitebags as the rest of Westeros , we learned something about how the crisis of the War of Five Kings and its aftermath has ripped the heart out of Westerosi society.

I was hoping to see a Karstark betrayal/reaffirmation of loyalty to the Starks, but given that Robb Stark killed their dad it was a lot to ask. The loyalty and honour contract goes both ways. And I was hoping for any other resolution to the Battle of the Bastards than "John nearly gets his whole army killed through exceptional stupidity than saved by Littlefinger's machinations". It's one thing for Ned's honour to be his downfall, but on a battlefield it should be possible to be both honourable and capable of avoiding really obvious strategic errors.
  #7  
Old 05-25-2017, 11:04 AM
Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 36,260
The Iron Islanders are also full of swagger and pride and "what's dead can never die" resolve and all that, but much is made that the Greyjoys "bent the knee" to Robert Barratheon, even sending their king's last surviving son to be raised as a hostage at the Stark court per his order. Steel trumps iron and pride both.
Walder Frey is pretty upfront about his duplicity and opportunistic alliances. I did like the scene with Jaime where he wipes the smirk off Frey's face by asking what good he is as an ally if the Lannister/Barratheons have to keep bailing him out- first time we've seen fear on his face (fear of House Frey being replaced by House More-capable) as lords of Riverrun and maybe even the Twins.

Last edited by Sampiro; 05-25-2017 at 11:06 AM.
  #8  
Old 05-30-2017, 06:45 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,075
You guys gives some good, complex, and plausible explanations for why it played out as it did, but I don't feel like those were the impressions the writers intended to convey. Usually when a trope is busted like that on this series, there's dialogue to support it so that the theme is at least implied. In this case only the scene of Jon and Sansa pleading for the loyalty of the Glovers really begins to touch on that.

So I don't feel like the writers were trying to pull off a complex tapestry of conflicting motivations like that, but you can certainly decide as a viewer that those are good reasons, so fair enough.

My impression is that they wanted the cavalry comes to the rescue drama of the actual battle episode and placed that above the payoff of the storyline. And possibly because it's necesary to create the Littlefinger/Sansa/Jon conflict.

And then they still tried to pull off a triumphant The North Remembers scene when the northerners rally around Jon as king - but it ends up looking weak and self-serving - instead of showing the loyalty of the northerners, it just looks like a bunch of lackies trying to suck up to whoever won and doesn't have the same tone as when the Northerners genuinely declared Robb to be king.

You do provide good alternate explanations, I'm just really disappointed as a guy who's been waiting for years for some justified good was going to happen to the Starks and the northerners were finally going to get a chance to show their merits. Even if the way it went is plausible, it robbed us of what could've been the most inspiring scene of the whole story.
  #9  
Old 05-30-2017, 07:56 PM
ganthet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
So I don't feel like the writers were trying to pull off a complex tapestry of conflicting motivations like that, but you can certainly decide as a viewer that those are good reasons, so fair enough.

My impression is that they wanted the cavalry comes to the rescue drama of the actual battle episode and placed that above the payoff of the storyline. And possibly because it's necesary to create the Littlefinger/Sansa/Jon conflict.

And then they still tried to pull off a triumphant The North Remembers scene when the northerners rally around Jon as king - but it ends up looking weak and self-serving - instead of showing the loyalty of the northerners, it just looks like a bunch of lackies trying to suck up to whoever won and doesn't have the same tone as when the Northerners genuinely declared Robb to be king.
It's realpolitik. There is a theory in international relations called "passing the buck" that involves the tendency of nation-states to avoid confronting a growing threat directly in the hope that another nation-state will do it for them, thus relieving the original state of the burden/cost. This is what happened during the mid-to-late 1930s in Europe vis-a-vis Nazi Germany and, on a lesser level, is involved in China, its neighboring states with conflicting claims in the South China Sea, and those neighboring states tacit support of U.S. leadership in the hope that the U.S. can confront China on their territorial claims without the neighboring states having to take any forceful stand.

Glover explicitly asked Jon Snow how many other houses had pledged troops to their cause because even though he had little love for the Boltons, despite their help in reclaiming his land, he wasn't going to be the one to stick his and his mens' necks out first. No one wants to volunteer to fight for a seemingly certain lost cause, no matter what pledges of loyalty have been made in the past. If Jon Snow already had an army that outnumbered the Boltons, Glover (and the others) probably would have been more receptive to jumping on the bandwagon.

For some bizarre reason, Jon Snow never seemed to mention (except a very vague reference by Davos) that the White Walkers are coming, that they were the real threat that needed to be fought, and that he was a much better leader to fight them than the Boltons.
  #10  
Old 05-31-2017, 07:51 AM
Smid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 913
The North does not remember in the show. The show just doesn't have time. It's cut.

The North remembers in the books. Lord Manderly being one of the kickarse Northerners who remembers, and Stannis has most of the North with him.

So it was just "Don't have time. Stannis CUT. North DOES NOT remember. Awesome eunuch army CRAP. Barristan the BAD. Lady WHO?"
  #11  
Old 05-31-2017, 08:18 AM
Lightray's Avatar
Lightray is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis MO
Posts: 6,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
You do provide good alternate explanations, I'm just really disappointed as a guy who's been waiting for years for some justified good was going to happen to the Starks and the northerners were finally going to get a chance to show their merits. Even if the way it went is plausible, it robbed us of what could've been the most inspiring scene of the whole story.
It appears to have escaped your notice that you have been watching a show which gleefully upends viewers' expectations and then rubs the viewers' faces in the resulting mess so they'll learn their lesson. Perhaps they should also whap you with a rolled-up newspaper: Bad viewer! Bad!

OF COURSE they set up an expectation that they subverted. That's the whole point of the show.
  #12  
Old 05-31-2017, 11:49 AM
TruCelt's Avatar
TruCelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 11,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post

. . .Their story is meant to illustrate that the fantasy trope of chivalrous, honorable conduct doesn't always win out - that when it's up against people who are willing to scheme and be dishonorable and do anything to boost their own power over the greater good, their honorable behavior can lose.

In the North . . . They must cooperate and treat each other fairly in order to survive the much harder conditions. If they played the game of thrones in the north, too many resources would be spent on war and squabbling to have any left over to survive the winter.

. . .

But now we've been set up for a well-earned comeuppance, a triumphant moment where the traits of honor, decency, and loyalty of the North cease to become an anchor that drags them down, but a wave that uplifts them.

. . .

And... nothing comes of it. None of that matters at all. A few minor houses fight or Jon Snow/Jon Stark, but almost all of them abandon the Starks in their time of need and show no loyalty. "The North Remembers" amounts to nothing at all. The day is ultimately saved when an outside power (Littlefinger and the Vale) come in and defeat the northern armies.

. . .

This is an incredibly botched storyline. 6 years of payoff just completely left aside for seemingly no good reason.
You're missing the point entirely, I think. The North did win in the end. Why?

Because a Stark gained the (figurative) balls to say "We DON'T get our little brother back, deal with it." If honorable Jon had listened to her then, the battle would have gone very differently.

Because a Stark bent her every wish, preference, and scruple to call upon the help of a man she heartily despised, but had still wisely allowed to live - desperately wishing to regain her good will.

Because a Stark has learned the Game of Thrones.
  #13  
Old 06-02-2017, 12:15 PM
theR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
I think what you are missing is that the North DID remember, they DID stand with the Starks and they suffered GREATLY for it. The show mostly focuses on the Starks but every single northern house was completely decimated by the war, the Starks didn't even get the worse of it (those poor poor Hornwoods). Their armies are dead, most of the Stark loyalists died or where captured at the Red Wedding. The north backed the Starks to the bitter end and as far as they were concerned they lost the war and the matter was settled. They were not dishonorable, they were simply beaten.
For what it's worth, I think your post is being slighted. As you say, most of the northerners that stood by their word were eliminated during the war, particularly the Red Wedding. That leaves a few lesser houses that were also true, plus some that shift sides based on who they think will win.
  #14  
Old 06-02-2017, 01:25 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smid View Post
The North does not remember in the show. The show just doesn't have time. It's cut.

The North remembers in the books. Lord Manderly being one of the kickarse Northerners who remembers, and Stannis has most of the North with him.

So it was just "Don't have time. Stannis CUT. North DOES NOT remember. Awesome eunuch army CRAP. Barristan the BAD. Lady WHO?"
This is basically it. The show writers are just trying to finish this sprawling, expensive show at this point. GRRM is not helping them out. He gave them the end point, and said "get there". Now they have the plot points, but not the execution.

They deviated from the books in previous seasons, but they knew what they were deviating from. Now there's no safety net, and they didn't give themselves enough time to flesh out the complex plot GRRM has in store for the endgame, and so, by taking some shortcuts, the writing has suffered.

It's still one of the best shows on TV. GRRM has explicitly stated several times that ASoIaF was written to be "unfilmable". And he worked as a television writer, so I suspect he knows how to do that. So D&D, the GoT showrunners, have done a marvelous job up to this point. And they're still putting out a great show. But there's absolutely no way to finish GRRM's enormous, epic, complicated story in a way that's consistent with the rest of the show in only 15 more episodes.

We're going to get more disappointing, unsatisfying scenes like this in the next two seasons. But we'll get some killer cinematography and acting. Sea battles and ice dragons, it's going to be awesome, and slightly disappointing at the same time. That's just how it's going to be. Hopefully we'll all live to see A Dream of Spring get published, and then we can have the real ending, which will be dirty, complicated, subtle, ambiguous and yet satisfying in a way the show's ending won't be.
  #15  
Old 06-02-2017, 06:56 PM
StarvingButStrong's Avatar
StarvingButStrong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,705
Dreamer. I've given up all hopes of ever seeing GRRM put "The End" to this epic.


*Maybe* if he takes on a co-writer/ghost.
  #16  
Old 06-02-2017, 07:51 PM
Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 25,138
Regarding the OP and the men of the North being more honorable, I'll point out that House Stark's Banner houses are the Boltons, who are led by a sadistic sociopath, the Mormonts, whose former head was forced to flee for his life to avoid his execution for slave trading, the Umbers, who rape their peasants, and the Manderlys. The head of that family who got his revenge on the Freys for the murder of his son by murdering three members of the Frey family and then serving them in a pie to the other Freys.

Eddard Stark isn't successful and well loved in the North because he's honorable. He's successful because he's a good fighter, he's physically brave, he's willing to commit violence himself if he has to instead of delegating it to others, and he listens to the advice of the people under him. That's the same reason that Robb failed utterly.
  #17  
Old 06-06-2017, 04:55 AM
Smid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Amazing View Post
Eddard Stark isn't successful and well loved in the North because he's honorable. He's successful because he's a good fighter, he's physically brave, he's willing to commit violence himself if he has to instead of delegating it to others, and he listens to the advice of the people under him. That's the same reason that Robb failed utterly.
The reason he failed was that he doesn't listen to advice of others. It was his breaking of vows which did it, plus belief that Freys were going to be honourable (advised they wouldn't be), and probably the killing of Karstark for the Lannister revenge (note of interest, the actor who played Martyn Lannister killed by the Karstark was recast as Tommen Baratheon, the young king). Without that, there wouldn't have been people open to betraying...

Ok, so Catelyn produced the Karstark situation by letting Jamie Lannister go, provoking the Karstarks but still, Robb wasn't always taking the advice from people under him, especially towards the end.
  #18  
Old 06-06-2017, 05:07 AM
Smid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Hopefully we'll all live to see A Dream of Spring get published, and then we can have the real ending, which will be dirty, complicated, subtle, ambiguous and yet satisfying in a way the show's ending won't be.
I've given up hope of seeing "A Dance With Dragons" published.

Yes, I've got the right book. Writing deadlines to produce income (not needed now the show is paying all his bills) produced a cut short ADWD book, short The Battle of Ice (not the Battle of the Bastards, it is the clash between the Freys and Stannis, of which Stannis is likely to win) and the Battle of Mereen, as well as something claimed to be shocking from Sansa...

Not a chance of seeing The Winds of Winter. The show has killed that. Whatever he's written has been binned and is being rewritten to avoid being the same as the show.

His wish to avoid the fan theories have previously at least produced books untainted by doubt and changes. The show has killed that aspect of it. I think he's written stuff, then seen last season, rewritten it differently and that will happen for the next two seasons. Leaving us clear of 2019 before he has a clean slate and there's another five years of him scraping that quill....

He'll be 76 by then, and going dolalley...
  #19  
Old 06-06-2017, 06:57 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,185
Even if he does finish, it's been more than 15 years since the last competent ASOIAF book. Feast and Dance both had good scenes but overall were messes. Even if he stays healthy and doesn't change everything around because he's bitter about the show, I wouldn't expect anything spectacular.
  #20  
Old 06-06-2017, 08:28 PM
thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,672
My absolute, #1 least favorite part in the show (more than Dorne) is at the very end when Arya takes over Manderley's role. It makes no goddamn sense! Should she have a) snuck in and killed Walder, or b) snuck in, killed some of his offspring, hide the bodies, use some sort of medieval hand crank grinder to make them into ground meat, fed them to Frey, and then immediately killed him? What is the payoff, giving him 2 seconds of horror?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
There were hints it was going to end that way. For instance, when Ramsay Bolton demands a pledge of fealty from Lord Karstark, Karstark refuses, saying pledges are worthless given the duplicitous way that the Boltons came to power.
Smalljon Umber, wasn't it?

Also "rape their peasants"? Bolton certainly did that, but I presume you're talking about the primae noctis part, I don't think the book addressed that beyond a rumor?

And yeah, him bringing that up was odd. Same when Stannis is killed. Martin loves smashing tropes, but don't cut away at the last second and act puzzled when people think it looks like you are ending on a cliffhanger.
  #21  
Old 06-07-2017, 05:01 AM
Smid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
My absolute, #1 least favorite part in the show (more than Dorne) is at the very end when Arya takes over Manderley's role. It makes no goddamn sense! Should she have a) snuck in and killed Walder, or b) snuck in, killed some of his offspring, hide the bodies, use some sort of medieval hand crank grinder to make them into ground meat, fed them to Frey, and then immediately killed him? What is the payoff, giving him 2 seconds of horror?
You missed out the rolling of the pastry, cooking in the oven for a few hours and conversations with the kitchen staff while waiting.

It's just another "quick and bad shortcut" of the series. Sure, let Arya kill Walder Frey, quick and quiet like an actual Faceless man.

Or just kind of BUNG IN THAT BIT WITH FREY PIE as well. No need. Not even for the fans either, as it just doesn't make sense.

Same as Stannis fighting his way through a permanent storm to sacrifice his only child to attempt succeed. Then 20 people steal all the supplies from an army of several thousand which can't seem to post a guard. Within an episode of him being called "The greatest military strategist in westoros" (or something).

Sure, get rid of Dorne. Nobody gave a crap. You've failed to do anything with it in the tv series apart from Oberyn.

So my complaint is not just about shortcuts, is BAD shortcuts. Might as well have dropped Stannis as well....
  #22  
Old 06-08-2017, 02:05 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
Even if he does finish, it's been more than 15 years since the last competent ASOIAF book. Feast and Dance both had good scenes but overall were messes. Even if he stays healthy and doesn't change everything around because he's bitter about the show, I wouldn't expect anything spectacular.
I thought the last two books were good reads. A lot of setup for later, but it gets pretty deep into the extraordinarily complex ASoIaF universe, which is a big part of why I love the series. It doesn't all have to be action and plot movement. I think these books will see their reputation grow as some of the foreshadowing and setup comes to fruition in books 6 and 7.

Which, barring GRRM's untimely death, I think will be written. (And I think it's reasonable to presume that he has extensive notes that would allow someone else to finish the series for him if he does die early.) But he's past retirement age, and only recently has become something of a mainstream celebrity outside of hard sci-fi circles. It's only natural that his writing has slowed down a lot under those circumstances. I'm willing to cut the old fellow some slack, but I understand why a lot of his fans are upset.

I do think the long period of time since the last book, and the incredibly successful TV show, will cause a lot of people to have expectations that simply can't be met, let alone exceeded, leading to a lot of disappointed fans. But I don't expect a huge drop off in quality, and I think the delay is evidence of that. He knows how the story will end, and he could have phoned in the last two books. But he is maintaining his standards even in the face of significant fan backlash and deadlines being missed by years.

I'm still kind of wishfully thinking that the reason TWoW is taking so long is that he's going to finish the entire story, split the resulting content into two books, wipe his hands of the series and have them both published within a year of each other. But realistically, I highly doubt that's the case. We might be looking at another decade (or more) before the series is complete. Which would put it at over 30 years since it began. In comparison, Patrick O'Brian wrote 20 books in the Aubrey/Maturin series over a similar time span.
  #23  
Old 06-08-2017, 11:38 PM
thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,672
I imagine a huge part of GRRM's process is just trying to keep the story straight, like trying to remember some obscure character mentioned once 3 books ago. His series is remarkably consistent in that respect. The only error I can remember is some mention of Lord X naming his brother his heir, while a different part mentions his son is the heir.
  #24  
Old 06-09-2017, 06:18 AM
Smid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
I thought the last two books were good reads. A lot of setup for later, but it gets pretty deep into the extraordinarily complex ASoIaF universe, which is a big part of why I love the series. It doesn't all have to be action and plot movement. I think these books will see their reputation grow as some of the foreshadowing and setup comes to fruition in books 6 and 7.
I would say that the last two books were good REreads. I didn't appreciate them at first. New characters. Too much Ironborn, gloomvikings that they are, none of the favourite characters in the first one. I call that one Feast for Editors. Second one had lots of spacefilling (How much cyvasse? Where do whores go?).

However on second read, there was so much depth in there, that you miss a lot of the refererences... I even missed that it was Mance and co in Winterfell on the first read...
  #25  
Old 06-09-2017, 09:19 AM
buddha_david is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Beyond The Fringe
Posts: 28,182
Here's the thing that bothered me the most about GOT season six. Jon Snow gets raised from the dead...and nobody cares!

Sure, this is a world where magic does exist. Dragons, dire wolves, wildfire, etc. But outright resurrections are exquisitely rare. The only other character who's been resurrected is Beric Dondarrion of the Brotherhood Without Banners, but he's so fringe that hardly anyone knows about him. There's also The Mountain, although it can be argued that he was only mostly dead, and again, his re-animation isn't well known outside Cersei's inner circle. Lady Stoneheart doesn't exist in the TV series.

That leaves the White Walkers and their zombies, something you'd think the Night Watch would be very, very concerned about. But, no -- after Melisandre rezzes Jon Snow, none of them seem to really care one way or the other. You'd also think the Northern houses would be quite impressed, but like the Watch, they're all just kinda "meh" about it.
  #26  
Old 06-09-2017, 02:45 PM
lisiate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,640
At this point I've reached two conclusions:

1) George Martin will never finish the novels; and
2) The show writers are totally out of their depth and are just chucking stuff together that they think will look cool on screen.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017