Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I just finished A Game of Thrones by George RR Martin and find myself sort of

disappointed. The book was interesting and I found the storing particularly

engaging at the end, but the only reason I got towards the end and enjoyed the

latter part was because I forced myself to grind through the beginning and middle

parts. I told myself I'd finish this book so I could watch the tv series with my family,

but I also don't like starting a series without finishing it. Overall, I wasn't

particularly impressed with the book. The world building was well executed, but the

overall quality of the writing wasn't phenomenal like I'd anticipated. Am I not giving

this series a chance and am only going to be happily surprised if I continue through

the series, or is there a particular fantasy series I should turn my attention to that

some of you might think if better and more well suited for my time? Thoughts and

recommendations appreciated!

I keep thinking I should try this series and see what all the fuss is about, but it honestly doesn't sound appealing at all to me.

Also, what's up with the formatting in your first post? Is the double-spacing intentional?

Ah yes...the double spacing is intentional to break up the body of text and make it easier to read. I'm still waiting to hear from people regarding my post. The first book was good, but it wasn't fantastic like I had expected. It might have been the fact that the first book often times spends a lot of time laying out the ground work for the series, but I feel I've read other series that do a sufficient job at world building while also keeping the narrative interesting.

Robert, this is my favorite series of books, period. I love all five books, but I do have to say that if you weren't impressed by the first one, you will probably still feel that way later on. Many would say that book 3 is better, but I think you have a feel for Martin's style, world, and characters with book 1.

Robert wrote: "Ah yes...the double spacing is intentional to break up the body of text and make it easier to read. I'm still waiting to hear from people regarding my post. The first book was good, but it wasn't f..."

Ah, okay. I just wasn't sure, thought it might be some new GR bug. You never know these days...

Robert, I agree with Chris. Personally, I love all the books, especially 1 and 3. If you didn't like the first one, I don't expect you'll like the rest any better.

It's not that I didn't like the book. I just feel that perhaps there are possibly others books better worth my time. Am I the only one who felt the book is overrated?

I've noticed that the beginning-middley bits in all of the ASOIAF series are really quite tedious and that the ends are just action as far as he can stretch it. Personally, I really liked the first one and third ones the best, but all the books tend to fall into this style. If you did not enjoy reading the first one, I would not recommend the others in the series. Who knows, you may find the show more to your taste. :) There's plenty of books out there, and not all popular series are universal. /cough Twilight

You provide me with your perspective on the series, but do you have any books you think I should invest my time in instead?

It kind of depends on what you want to read. Epic fantasy? YA? Classic fantasy and/or SF? There are plenty of good books out there, it just depends on what you're looking for.

If GoT didn't do if for you, why not just watch the series anyway and let your family help you out with any important things you might be missing?

I consider it a good, but not great series. The story is richly layered, and the characters complex, and they actually grow and change throughout the books rather than remaining who they were at the beginning (a big flaw of most fantasies, imho).

Epic fantasy is what I seek in terms of actual books in the fantasy genre, unless it is alternate history, which I always find entertaining.

The Fionavar Tapestry by Guy Gavriel Kay
The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss

You can look here for more titles: http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/50...

Good luck

The first book was just sort of so-so for me. However, I liked Martin's previous books, so I gave the follow-up a try. The second book is easily one of the best fantasy novels I've ever read. The third book wasn't quite as good, but still interesting. The fourth one, though... man, Martin stunk the place up with that piece of crap.

In retrospect, it's pretty clear *why* the second book is so good: Martin had an editor. The story is tighter, the prose is kept to a minimum and the story moves right along. Contrast with the fourth book which just meanders and tells the same thing over and over again.

If you want a well-written fantasy, the two books by Peter V. Brett called The Warded Man and The Desert Spear are excellent. They start off small but expand over time. The first book starts with a single pre-teenage boy in a small village, but by the end of the second book he's a full-fledged warrior who is embroiled in both a war between two nations *and* a war with demons determined to kill everyone.

For my money, the Warded Man books are better than the Song of Ice & Fire series. The third book comes out next February, I believe.

To me it depends on if you're closer to the side of liking or not liking it. If you're swinging more toward liking it I'd continue. But if you're closer to hating it nothing in the continuing series will change your mind. The first time I read it I liked it but wasn't crazy about it. But now after rereads it's a favorite. Not sure about it being the "greatest fantasy" series of modern era though. Imo, there's not enough "fantasy".

If you want a more challenging read with more of a fantasy element try Gardens of the Moon. This is my favorite series. And its finished, which is a plus.

I think you should continue the series and read book two. Even though several of the peviuosly mentioned books are good none of them in my opinion are as good as A Song of Ice and Fire.

^ I tend to agree. Give it one more shot.

6/7 years ago i read the first two books and the first half of book three ( for some reason they have split up the paperback version in Europe) anyways i thought it was ok but nothing special. Then around a year ago i had nothing to read one day and picked up Game Of Thrones for a reread. The best decision ever, i kept on reading and now i am a diehard fan, i would give a kidney for the last two books lol.

I am leaning towards liking it, and am going to continue reading it. It seems the second book is already better paced. I'm finding myself more drawn in by the writing, hence the inclusion of an editor! Thanks for the advice, and I'll have to add some of those books mentioned above to my to-read list.

When I first started reading it, I thought it was silly because of the dire wolves. Then a couple of years later I tried reading it again and I'm glad I did. Sure it's long and I missed some scenes because my mind started wandering too much. I like how the heroes are not all goody good. Although I didn't like book 4 as much as the others, I enjoyed reading the series.

Robert wrote: "It's not that I didn't like the book. I just feel that perhaps there are possibly others books better worth my time. Am I the only one who felt the book is overrated?"

I'm one of those that 'don't get it' when it comes to GRRM ... I did get through A Game of Thrones, okay but not fascinating. Didn't get through the second book and I am truly not a particular fan of the 'never ending series' so to speak. Even with a trilogy, I like a beginning, a middle and an end ... so that if the author never continues with the series as planned, you don't end up never knowing what happened.

A recent series I've liked is the Peter Brett series that starts with The Warded Manwhich Trike mentioned.

You might enjoy any of Arthur C. Clarke's books.

I have one word to say: Malazan

I have read 2001: A Space Odyssey. Excellent read.

Lee wrote: "I have one word to say: Malazan"

Second and Agree!

Trike wrote: "In retrospect, it's pretty clear *why* the second book is so good: Martin had an editor. The story is tighter, the prose is kept to a minimum and the story moves right along. "

I beg to differ. I felt the first book was much tighter than the second. In the first, all the story threads were interconnected and made sense together. By the end the challenges each character faced were dealt with in one fashion or another.

Now contrast that with the second where you had two major characters, Jon and Daenerys, who effectively did nothing the entire time. I can see their importance to the series as a whole, but they had nothing to do with any of the main story arcs in the second book, so they really felt out of place. Aside from those two, half the other story threads didn't even resolve; they just ended. It was like Martin hit his max word count and arbitrarily decided to halt the action.

Why is it that there are always group members who bring up these Malazan books? I honestly don't know much about them. What makes them so phenomenal that they make die hard fans out of the people who I've met that have read them?

I really wish you hadn't asked that :P

Dawn wrote: "I really wish you hadn't asked that :P"

Me too....now we'll get 437 posts about how superior the Malazan books are and how we GRRM fans are simpletons.

Robert, I don't have a lot to add here that hasn't already been said. I also found the first book cumbersome, but I thoroughly admired the world building, and thought his characters very charismatic. In my case, the story 'grew' on me. As I read book 2, and especially book 3, I became more and more of a fan. Now, I would say book 1 and book 3 are the best in the series. (Book 4, on the other hand, rather turned me off to aSoIaF, and now I'm dragging my feet on reading book 5, though everyone says its better...)

Quality epic fantasy is hard to come by, I think. It's a very demanding genre for any writer. You have to a achieve a good blend of expansive world building and character-driven plots, which isn't easy. I haven't read the Malazan books, but no matter how good they are, I'd still say GRRM is among the best in the field. There just aren't many out there who can do what he does, and do it well.

Sharon wrote: "Robert wrote: "It's not that I didn't like the book. I just feel that perhaps there are possibly others books better worth my time. Am I the only one who felt the book is overrated?"

I'm one of th..."

Sharon, I'm with you. I read A Game of Thrones when it was first released back in the 90s. I thought it was a good book, but it just didn't grab me enough for me to make the effort to read the others. I felt very...eh...about it. I won't deny that it was very well written, and I can understand why so many love it so much, but it just never did anything for me.

As for Malazan, I've read them and I do love them, but I wouldn't say that those who like GRRM are simpletons. But I find the need some have to bash one thing in order to lift another thing up to be trite and childish. Both serieses are very complex stories with huge casts and extensive world building. Aside from that, the stories are so different that I don't think they are otherwise comparable. The greatness of one doesn't negate the greatness of the other. That's just silliness.

Check out my rankings of the Malazan books I've read. Most are 5 stars, with a few 4's.

I wasn't saying the books aren't good. Just that my experience on GR is that many of the Malazan die hard fans are condescending to the rest of the fantasy world. A generalization, true. But the fear when it came up was "here we go again, with the Malaz snobs".

I didn't even know there was tension between the two groups. Lol. I love both. And if I had to say who was the better writer, as much as I love Erikson, I'd have to say it's Martin. But if I named my favorite series it's Malazan....yeah, I know, makes sense in my head. When I recommend Malazan to a new reader I usually warn of its difficulty, but not in a "this book is so much more superior" kind of way. It's a warning.
To answer the question I guess, I like Malazan because it has more of the dungeons and dragons aspect of fantasy that I fell in love with when I started reading this genre and I feel as though A Game of Thrones made unpopular. Both are sophisticated series though and I'd never call anyone a simpleton. Well, not for reading Martin anyway.

Chris wrote: "Check out my rankings of the Malazan books I've read. Most are 5 stars, with a few 4's.

I wasn't saying the books aren't good. Just that my experience on GR is that many of the Malazan die hard fa..."

I didn't think you were saying they aren't good. There are people like that among fans if anything. I haven't seen much of it yet here, but I'm still new here. I can only imagine how I'd be looked at for reading urban and YA fantasy as well as books like the Malazan series. ;)

I read all that stuff. I'm reading a Dresden book right now.

Welcome to the group and stuff, Athena-Nadine.

And no, Tracy. I didn't mean you. Like I said, I've enjoyed the Malazan series and recommended them before. But like you say, with a footnote about their difficulty. I don't usually describe it as "difficult" but definitely "work".

Since this has become a discussion about game of thrones vs. malazan; if I had to choose just one, I would choose malazan.

Salman, are you really not going to provide an explanation as for why you feel that way? :P

In all seriousness, I'm enjoying this insight into the two respective series and the authors as well. Please continue to elaborate if you feel led to do so. Good discussion is always a fun learning experience, especially when you are uninformed on the issue.

So yes, the question stands. Why malazan?

Robert wrote: "Salman, are you really not going to provide an explanation as for why you feel that way? :P

In all seriousness, I'm enjoying this insight into the two respective series and the authors as well. Pl..."

Oh snap, here we go. This won't be pretty lol.

Robert wrote: "Ah yes...the double spacing is intentional to break up the body of text and make it easier to read. I'm still waiting to hear from people regarding my post. The first book was good, but it wasn't f..."

I think your view of the first book is spot on. It's slow and cliched and the writing is disappointing and every time I've read it I've found it hard to get through - certainly the first third, and mostly the second third as well. The final third hooked me, but still wasn't brilliant.

The second book is a little divisive, because it focuses more of putting characters in place, and developing characters. A lot happens, but apart from near the end there's not so much of the decapitation and whatnot. I really liked it, though I've not re-read it in a while. There's a lot of Tyrion and a lot of Arya.

The third book is the one that people love. It's explosive.

The fourth book is flawed.

The fifth book I think is quite good in its own right, but some people complain because it doesn't seem to progress the plot enough, or because it spends too much time in scenarios they don't like.

---

I'd say the first three books get better and better, and if you've got the time, I'd recommend reading all three even if you decide to drop it after that (plot-wise, the third book is a bit of a cliffhanger, but emotion-wise, it's a climax in its own right so probably works as a stopping-point).

So few people seem to like the fourth ASoIaF book, maybe because my expectations were so low, but that's one of my favorites. There's less characters but I found in it some of Martin's best writing. Shakespearean in tone.

I think the disappointment of Dance with Dragons can be summed up by the unfulfilled promise of the title.

To stay on topic, I have decided to continue reading the series and can see myself progressively getting through the second book over the next two weeks. By then, the third book should be easy pickings I hope.

To venture off topic, I ask you Malazan fans...why malazan? Why should I read it? I'm being serious in the sense that I desire to read your responses, but I also want to fuel the fire that supposedly exists according to Mach up there.

Lol. Why not pit Hobb against Rothfus, or Sanderson against Jordan. Herbert against Simmons.

I think I was brave enough to answer. But I'll go further. To me Martin's series is an awesome piece of literature but it's more medieval than the sort of fantasy I grew up on and love. I started with Dragonlance and still have a strong desire to read books with dragons, elves, magic, and such. That's the first biggest difference between the two series. Malazan throws about every fantasy element out there at you, while still giving fresh spins on it. The second difference I'll bring up is writing style. Martin has almost complete control of his words. He knows what he wants to say and there's little guessing to purpose or meaning. I am not saying his writing is "simple", but it is clearer. Erikson on the other hand, well as much as I love him I have to admit he writes looser and can get out of control. And his words can leave you behind if you don't keep up. I'm not going to say which writing is best. I'm not stupid. Lol. Actually I like both for different reasons. Martin's epic is about families and the throne for King. Erikson's epic is more militarian in nature. My biggest comparison to Malazan is the tv show Lost. Not that they're anything alike in story. But they are in structure. Malazan, like Lost, is a puzzle that needs to be put together as you read.

Nicely put, Traci.

And I guess I just got mired in Season 3 book 6 and never got back into it.

wait... Traci, you put the Malazan puzzle together?

;)

I hope it's not like the puzzle box from Hellraiser.

Lee, with some left over pieces, but they didn't matter anyway...right? :)

Chris, well if it turns us fans into Malazan-drones...maybe it is exactly like the Hellraiser puzzle.

...Lol.

...and there are Chains..

Your comparison makes sense and does a good shop of distinguishing the two writing styles and settings from each other. You ask for another comparison that is more reasonable, but I have to admit that I've never read any Hobb or Sanderson yet, but I intend to. Hobb's farseer trilogy looks good, and Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy is excellent from what I've read and heard from relatives.

Hobb is my absolute favorite ever ever ever.

Just saying.... :)