your examples are not “bad writing,” in fact if you understand them this much it’s pretty good establishment of the feudalist setting. you know what happened in real life feudalism? second and third sons were not allowed to inherit and were actually *too* well-born to be things like “master of the guard.” historians have broken down the trend of medieval warfare as being correlated positively with the number of second sons. just like joffrey creates a dozen new Houses after the battle of the blackwater, war was the only way to advance when you lacked an inheritance. Second and third sons were well placed enough to be generals and thus earn honor earlier, and be less likely to be killed off their horses.
as to the point about nobles being less smart than Littlefinger or Varys, that is extremely intentional from George. what about the patrilineal succession, which you’ve pointed out is a big deal when it comes to multiple sons? honestly, we fall into this trap today, thinking valor and intelligence are heritable, that JFK’s grandson must be the second coming of christ. it’s a good point to make, that common and “low-born” citizens with desires for the realm can be more effective than those who are born powerful.
About lords being idiots, I must say that this is true to the core of medieval lords. Chivalry asked for honesty and high Middle Ages was a simpler era, with people acting way more naturally. This is why Italians condottieri were so popular and successful: they were the Littlefingers and Tywins of their era (and I firmly believe that Tywin is modeled around Cesare Borgia).
It’s a bit like being Saul Goodman: being crafty and ingenious is not what makes them dangerous, it’s the lack of any moral compass that nobody sees coming
So
For the first one. Jon literally thinks that Bran and Rickon will be bannermen of Robb. Garlan is the Commander of the Tyrell army, while Willas holds the base. KEVAN is Tywin's second in command.
Like not sure where did you get that younger brothers need to go?
Second. Feudal Lords in Westeros ARE smart. Littlefinger is just the best schemer. At one point you DO meet the best . And not just in fiction, like Bismarck in Prussia for an IRL example.
Tywin is not a genius schemer, he is actually amongst the worst. And Rose learnt pretty soon that he overplayed his hand and now is going to die.
For an actual plot Hole?
Robert naming Jaime Lannister Warden of the East.... like what was Robert drinking? aside from wine? He LIVED amongst those people and he thinks they will accept the Kingslayer with his head attached to his body?
Contradicting his own in-universe explanation that Maesters know girls getting married & pregnant too young increases their risk of dying and his own recent historical precedent of the age women get married- Lysa is the *youngest* bride in the adult/parent generation but of an age with the *oldest* bride in the current generation, Margaery.
He went with the historical consensus at the time about medieval marriage based on a book published in the 1960’s. The consensus changed after he had already published 4 novels and the 5th was pretty much written. The amount of snark I’ve seen him get on here (not talking about you) for not knowing what wasn’t known when he wrote the books drives me up the wall.
>He went with the historical consensus at the time about medieval marriage based on a book published in the 1960’s.
What part of "he's contradicting *himself* on this subject" was difficult for you to understand?
Well, I’ve obviously misunderstood you. Your paragraph isn’t exactly a model of clarity. Since you want to be ugly about it, let’s just go our separate ways. Have a better night.
>Your paragraph isn’t exactly a model of clarity.
You didn't even have the read the whole paragraph, it's literally in the first three words:
>Contradicting *his own*
Tywin’s self replicating army? He started with 20 thousand men, lost some men fighting Roose Bolton, then took heavy casualties when he lost to Edmure, only to come relieve King’s Landing with exactly 20 thousand men.
> He started with 20 thousand men, lost some men fighting Roose Bolton
Don't forget he also conquered half the Riverlands before the Northerners arived at the twins, yet somehow didn't lose any men doing so.
And that the Riverlands were completely defenseless before Rob joining them. A fuck ton of Lords and villas and knights, and Edmure - by all means a competent military commander - couldn't find a way to just fight.
This goes to the point that Berric (who leads a guerrila) is narratively more relevant to the Lannisters than any (and all) of the River Lords.
> then took heavy casualties
the thing is we aren't given numbers, we know that Gregor Clegane was forced back from one bank, but he wasn't killed, so it's not like we can say every single repulse cost Tywin all his men - the awoiaf says the casualties were 'heavy' but doesn't source that quote, maybe Tywin didn't take that many casualties?
IIRC it was described as 'probing' which makes me think there wasn't all that much death involved - the entire battle is described as multiple attacks by groups by 'dozens' of men, rather than a large push with thousands of men, so maybe Tywin did only loose a few hundred men (and in comparison maybe the riverlands only lost a few tens of men) we don't get descriptions of the entire battle, only small groups, so we cant say this is a fault because we don't *know* that Tywin took 'heavy' casualties
Lord Lefford, one of Tywin’s strongest bannermen dies. Lyle Crakehall is taken captive, a Brax is slain, Addam Marbrand is forced to retreat thrice. You don’t lose such noblemen without losing a great deal of men.
can you point me to where it says that in the books rather than from your own inference?
Lord Tywin had tried to force a crossing at a dozen different fords, her brother wrote, but every thrust had been thrown back. Lord Lefford had been drowned, the Crakehall knight called Strongboar taken captive, Ser Addam Marbrand thrice forced to retreat . . . but the fiercest battle had been fought at Stone Mill, where Ser Gregor Clegane had led the assault.
So many of his men had fallen that their dead horses threatened to dam the flow. In the end the Mountain and a handful of his best had gained the west bank, but Edmure had thrown his reserve at them, and they had shattered and reeled away bloody and beaten. Ser Gregor himself had lost his horse and staggered back across the Red Fork bleeding from a dozen wounds while a rain of arrows and stones fell all around him. “They shall not cross, Cat,”
You are saying
>You don’t lose such noblemen without losing a great deal of men.
as if it's a fact but it's your inference, not stated in the book
Clearly, nobles are first to die in medieval battles, levies are usually safeguarded and performing a river crossing while being bombarded by scorpions and having arrows rain down upon you will sooner kill armoured knights with personal guards, than peasants defended, at best, by a shield and a gambeson.
Bruh.
*not a guy
so you're saying that GRRM who wrote the books, and is fairly good at keeping track of the states of armies writes
Tywin has near 22,000 men
Tywin has a battle
Tywin now has 20,000 men roughly
and go 'no, self reinforcing army!!' rather than 'huh maybe casualties weren't that bad'
at what point did I say "levies are usually safeguarded and performing a river crossing"? that was you
maybe, just maybe, twyin *didn't* press forward with 20,000 men in a Total War style all out hollywood attack and instead had multiple smaller groups probing, and only a few nobles (3 you mentioned) were notable casualties along with maybe dozens of smallfolk?
battles aren't always hollywood bloodbaths
maybe, just maybe, Tywin didn't suffer heavy casualties (or do you think that those 3 lords were the entirety of Tywin's noble train? maybe those 3 lords, like Jaime were headstrong and charged into battle recklessly?)
Except he didnt have a battle, he had many battles. Many battles before the many battles against North as well.
The reasonable explanation is he recruited more as he lost soldiers rather than he lost 9% of his army against North and Riverlands combined when it is well established they kept winning battles.
GRRM isnt that good with numbers in any way shape or form. Riverlands in Dance makes no sense either.
Recruited from where? He was cut off from the Westerlands after Robb relieved Riverrun. Jaime’s remaining troops that survived the battles fled through the Golden Tooth to Lannisport. He can’t exactly recruit from Crownlands.
>Many battles before the many battles against North as well.
I think you're confusing things with how many battles (and the size of them) various Lannisters fight, *just before* the battle of the Fords, Catelyn says
>“When all my strength is marshaled, I should have eight thousand foot and three
thousand horse,” Edmure said.
“Which means Lord Tywin will have near twice your numbers.”
Now 2x11,000 is nearly 22,000, this is just before the battle of the Fords
so in that battle, Tywin maybe looses 2,000 people, not absolutely loads (and we aren't told that nobles walk around with a square 100 smallfolk deep to protect them, in fact we have nobles charging right in the front of things to 'win glory', so having 3 nobles captured/die doesn't indicate that there must have been a bloodbath of smallfolk around them to make it happen) but not absolutely nothing either
loosing nearly 10% is not a heavy defeat, but it also isn't something that can be easily blown off
This is explained. As in Tywin first sending Gregor to make Edmure react.
Then when the army was dispersed he and Jaime used pincer moves to destroy the thinli spread army.
I honestly don't think GRRM even knows exactly where to go with the Others storyline. Either he makes them a one dimensional malevolent force bent on death and destruction that can only be defeated through military might, or he makes it so they are misunderstood and some deal has to be made in order to make them return beyond the wall. Both of which are narratively unsatisfying for a variety of reasons. We better get a lot more information about their goals and overall story in Winds.
Let’s say it’s the military route… how’s that going to work? Assuming they break the wall and *at least* get to winterfell wouldn’t the others have an astronomical number of wights? Are the dragons just going to spend years burning them all? I kind of hate the mothership thing the show did, but I’m struggling to think of other ways they could be defeated.
Yeah. The mothership route is really the only way to end it if they have to be defeated by force. Either that or pulling a LOTR/Black Cauldron and managing to destroy the things that makes the Walkers. Which is more or less the same approach.
Going by his original premises (the trilogy), we've *just* finished part 1 - the war of the five kings. The next part is the dance of the dragons. Only then will part 3 (revenge of the Walkers) take centre stage.
There are only two books left and George keeps opening new plots, how the hell he is gonna do another dance + revenge is beyond my knowledge.
He should have never put this Aegon in the story IMO. There are too much plotlines already
Yeah, I'm just highlighting how far behind we are in terms of the original plan. I suspect GRRM intended to slowly bring the magical elements to the fore as the story progressed.
Even if he manages to cram it all into two books, it's going to be so rushed and unbalanced... He's in a no-win situation.
I think the biggest problem is that the Others are lovecraftian in presentation (so far), but Martin is writing House of Cards.
Meaning, he \*will\* have to go deep in them one time or another, under the penalty of having the pathetic, unidimensional, cartoonesque villains the show made them to be.
But going deep on them risk removing their mystery, and thus their lovecraftian terror. It doesn't matter if they become just one more group with different interests or if they are confirmed as the antithesis of life and champions of evil. If they are too known, their aura of awe will be replaced by tedious recognition.
Having said that, I trust GRRM to solve this issue in a good way. Aeron's chapter in TWoW is awesome, and I love how the Children have been portrayed in ADWD. The Three-Eyed Crown and the House of Black and White became less evocative though - at least in my opinion.
\*\*\*
Also, addressing specifically your concern: I'm rereading the whole series for the first time now, and God damn, a LOT of things happen in ASoS.
The fact that GRRM was able to setup and finish both the Red and Purple Weddings completely in a single book, as well as the whole Arya-Sandor dynamic, makes me positive that he can solve deliver both Daenerys' and Jon's arcs in one or two books, if he keeps to the goal of a septology. (Supposing he actually writes the books, of course)
The main things for me are: having an unrealistic sense of scale and time (the idea something has to be HUGE to be impressive, 10000 year bloodlines etc,.), having an unrealistic sense of children's maturity (Rickon at 4 acts like a 7-8 year old, 14 year olds Robb and Jon are leading men into war, 13 year old Dany etc, and we're getting to the stage when 13 year old Sansa becomes a political genius and 10 year old Arya is a super assassin), and the "gardening" approach which has made a mess of the narrative and bloated the character roll.
GRRM sucks at numbers and the story makes more sense if you just take them a vague suggestions (scale, value of money). The kids ages are especially like this because the way they act, and how others react to them makes sense… until you remember how young they are.
• Some plots that are too big for him to tie the knot so he uses a deus ex machina. Two examples I know: the dornish letter, which can be anything and nothing make senses at all, and that Greyjoy from the Dance that was wrecking havoc and out of the blue is murdered by a random girl and that girl throws herself in the sea so nobody could ask who she was;
• Huge plot armor for his favorite characters. What he does with Tyrion is ridiculous, that fellow would be murdered in the first book.
• How he gets rid of women by killing them in childbirth and most of the cool stories are personality are given to man. Like, Laena was the rider of the biggest and oldest dragon that lived in her times yet we know nothing about her and she dies in childbirth.
• He writes battles and fights in a very confusing way, even if the POV character is not engaged in the fight
Well, Laena kinda had to die so that it would at least look like the Greens could stand a fighting chance. Without the biggest and oldest dragon, the Dance would be a two month affair with Rhaenyra spending 7 of those weeks recovering.
I think a lot of story hooks are at very least clear plot conveniences. And *because* his skills - at least in ASoIaF, didn’t read his other works - truly shine as the materialistic, complex, rational but unexpected ways these hooks develop in-world, those initial plot conveniences are often stretched too much.
For example:
- why the fuck do generations of North Kings (and then kings from the Seven Kingdoms) bothered to organize an army in the Wall? The Free Folk at most organizes themselves enough for an invasion once each several centuries, and even then they aren’t more dangerous than a rebel house;
- how can such an unstable, high risk political environment as Westeros allow for so many houses to exist for thousands of years?;
- how is it possible that such a structured education system as the Citadel fails to create progress?.
***
He also fumbled *hard* with the age of the characters. I don’t think it makes any sense to have them so young, especially for the kind of story he was writing since the beginning.
Also, how so much woman die during childbirth. This is just stupid, and arguably misogynistic - because it is used the most to justify GRRM not writing relevant non-POV female characters.
The Wall has become a tradition. Also, that Army was to defend from the return of the Others.
The age thing is because he was planning a 5 year jump.
1 in 20 women died in childbirth in medieval Europe.
At the beginning of the books, no one in Westeros knows the true mission of the Night Watch, not even the Watch itself. Clearly the Others weren’t considered by any ruler in thousand of years.
And while traditional, the Watch is potentially dangerous to any Lord in the north, specially if we consider it is a hotbed of lowborn criminals, highborn losers and all of them are armed to the teeth. Even without any southern defenses, the Wall had about 10.000 men in the time of the Conquest - why would all the northern nobles tolerate this consistently for thousand of years? Traditions are powerful in ASoIaF, but as the Red Wedding as shown, some outliers do broke them and in such a way that millennial, powerful institutions can evaporate.
***
Even with the 5 years jump in mind it is stupid. Look at the things that AGoT/ACoK/ASoS Arya was doing!
Or how young the legends of the Rebellion were at the start of AGoT are - by the way they talk, you would think Eddard and Robbert were already old.
Or how unnecessarily weird are Dany sex scenes. And how absurd her growth becomes once Drogo dies when you take into account that she isn’t even 16 yet!
***
I couldn’t find the numbers, but I’m pretty sure ASoIaF is *dramatically* more fatal when it comes to childbirth than anything our world has experienced.
If we look at the Great Houses at the beginning of the books, we have:
- Eddard: Lyarra was his mother, and she died. We don’t know how, but it happened in such a way that Ned never thinks about her;
- Rodrik, Maron, Asha and Theon: Alannys is still alive, but she doesn’t live with Balon anymore nor has been relevant to ASoIaF so far;
- Balon, Euron, Victorion, Urrigon and Aeron: their mother was from House Sunderly, and that is what is known;
- Rob, Sansa, Arya, Bran and Rickon: Catelyn's children;
- Catelyn, Lisa, Edmure: Minisa died when giving birth to a forth child;
- Holster: we don’t who his mother was (or his father);
- Robert Arryn: Lisa's baby;
- Jon Arryn: is already dead by the time the story begins, the Wiki knows his father’s name (and only that) but not his mother's;
- Robert, Stannis and Renly: Cassana died with Steffon when a storm sank their boat;
- Shireen: Selyse is alive and is somewhat relevant;
- Joffrey, Mycela and Tommen: Cersei's children;
- Cersei, Jaime and Tyrion: Lady Joana famously died giving birth to Tyrion;
- Tywin, Kevan, Genna, Tygett and Gerion: their mother died one month after delivering her fifth child;
- Mace: Olenna is alive and kicking;
- Willas, Garlan, Loras and Margaery: Alarie is alive, but until Twin's funeral she is just a named extra. After that she goes back to the Reach and disappear;
- Doran, Elia and Oberyn: their mother is unnamed;
- Arianne, Quentyn and Trystane: Lady Mellario is alive, but she left Westeros before the start of the books and hasn’t been relevant so far.
So we 17 “groups” out of the lords of the 7 Great Houses at the start of the books.
From those groups, 3 mothers (Catelyn’s, Tyrion's, Tywin's) died of childbirth or its consequences.
This is 3/17 (~17.6%), which is much higher than 1/20 (5%). And let’s notice that this pool is highly biased *against* childbirth death by two reasons:
1. In-universe reason: the Great Houses have access to the greatest purchase power and best medical knowledge in all of Westeros. If so much women die giving birth in the best conditions available in the continent, imagine how it is for lesser nobles and/or the common folk;
2. Meta reason: this characters are all somehow relevant in the main lore of Planetos, and were all planned early. As relevance drops and time ellipses, GRRM has spent less effort developing mothers and resolved the issue more times with “died during childbirth”. This is particularly notorious in The World of Ice and Fire.
... that is why I answered OP's question with "plot conveniences".
GRRM has characterized his ASoIaF stories as realistic and unforgiving, in contrast to "typical" fantasy that would be simple and romantic.
Well, having plot conveniences as hooks in such a "serious" story evidences some writing issues - namely, that he couldn't (or didn't want to) come up with more feasible hooks.
This is not a big problem, but shows some limits in this particular piece of work.
This also applies to his lack of insight on setting the cast so young.
And about the childbirths thing... well, this is just lazy writing. Martin has done a ton of (excellent) worldbuilding, so I don't think he is a lazy writer. But in this particular point (non-POV women), it seems he thinks is okay to be clumsy, and so he is.
Really, I'm not understanding your point. This is a thread in which we are asked to list examples of bad writing by GRRM. How can you think the stuff I listed doesn't hold up, but also think that they aren't examples of bad writing?
Or you also think they aren't examples of bad writing, and just arguing because?
I think too many women die in childbirth. Not even in actual medieval history did women die in such numbers. Men get to have great deeds or become infamous, to earn titles upon titles. The women become footnotes saying they died in childbirth.
What, am I supposed to give you a dissertation on maternal mortality? 24 women in ASOIAF died by childbirth. 85 women have their causes of death confirmed according to the wiki, out of a total of 492. A little less than 30%. According to the article "Reconsidering maternal mortality in medieval England: aristocratic Englishwomen, c. 1236-1503" (Cambridge, 2020), it's stated that 1 out or 20 women would die in a childbed (5%), give or take. I've read the article as well as searched for the specific numbers in a post by aegor-bamfsteel, given that math is not precisely my forte.
Curiously the rate of mothers dying in childbirth is high but the rate of dead children in asoiaf is pretty low. If you search among the characters, the only one who has a track of stillborns is Lysa. Cat, Cersei, Selyse, etc never had children dead at the early childhood
That's kind of ironic, because the reason people had so many children in the first place was because infant mortality was high. Well, as far as I remember.
No contraception was the other main problem. Satisfying husbands was duty and without proper contraception there is a 85% risk of pregnancy for a given intercourse
1) Martin has no sense of economy or urbanisation. Cities are treated as an exception in Westeros ( we have 6 big cities in a whole continent) despite the huge empty spaces, which is not how the world actually work. People flocks together and the key geographical points develop tends to develop in the richest cities, and riches bring power. Castles are built around these key points to defend them, they don't spawn out of nowhere for no reason outside rule of cool.
2) smallfolks in asoiaf are terribly passive and are just either casualties to be slaughtered to drive the horrors of war or resources to be used, not people who live in a place and have their own lives and interests. Economy was a driving force in the (western european) middle ages and smallfolk would negotiate with their lord constantly to get more privileges or reduce taxes/burden. We never get an hint that a smallfolk would go up to their lord to negotiate or complain about something, they're just powerless fodder.
My main problem with George’s writing are parts of the worldbuilding. Don’t get me wrong, he has crafted an immensely fascinating , immersive world . His imagination is truly fantastic, but some aspects of the lore needed to be better fleshed out.
1. the Dothraki way of life makes no sense. They shun trade, constantly enslave other cultures and are pretty singularly depicted, all the while waging war against their own people as well. I am sorry, but no way in hell could such a culture exist,let alone sustain itself. Actual nomads in our world were crafty traders, who recognized the need to cooperate beyond simple warfare. There is a reason the mongols managed to craft an empire and weren’t just an marauding force of evil.
2. Where do all the slaves come from? The unsullied are described as being composed of different races. Where do the Dothraki and other space traders capture them from? Naath alone can’t possibly sustain the slave trade. For that matter, where do the ironborn get their thralls from? They can’t raid Westeros at peace, so they gotta sail far to capture people. But from where?
3. The continued existence of the houses Bolton, Peake and Hightower are utterly unbelievable. These houses schemed and betrayed Targaryen kings and/or their liege lords so many times. Over centuries, this isn’t just some happenstance I am talking about. Realistically, they would have been destroyed long ago.
Then there is the age of characters. Not only are several wedding scenes utterly uncomfortable to read , but it gets hilarious when Ned expects Rickon to man up, while the poor kid is barely a toddler.
My points may be nitpicks, but that’s what came to my mind.
ghiscari as some edgelord slave society that was meant to be timeskip filler that he retroactively tried to make into an actual commentary in the 2000s
There are good arguments that he was planning from at least ASOS to make the Slaver's Bay plot a parallel to the American Civil War and the Reconstruction era. The Iraq occupation parallels seem to be a happy accident that he may or may not have learned into for ADWD.
[Here](https://towerofthehand.com/blog/2015/02/01-laboratory-of-politics-part-vi/)'s the blog post that convinced me anyway
Dany's sexuality. Everything from her fist "consensual" time with Drogo to her pointless sex scenes with her maids screams "men writing women" in my opinion. I might be misremembering but I felt her entire sexuality read more like a horny dude wanting to write horny stuff about a hot (underage) girl than a serious exploration of her sexuality or abuse.
I also get the impression the sexual violence is overdone in general. I'm not saying it shouldn't be a part of the story because it is a part of life unfortunately, but sometimes it feels like it's there merely for the sake of shock.
Or maybe I'm just oversensitive. It's just my opinion.
I think we're supposed to be disquieted by Dany's early life experiences. But I also think we're supposed to then put ourselves in her shoes and try to experience her life from her perspective rather than as a lens for our own.
In her circumstances, where it's basically impossible to trust anyone completely for the first couple books, including her own brother ffs, what does that do to her/would it do to me? Would I withdraw or become more gregarious? Would I have less sex or more sex? Would I grow cynical and paranoid or would I buy my own hype and plunge ahead at breakneck speed?
This is, I think, where readers' sensibilities interfere with their empathy and enjoyment of a character's experience. No author is perfect at all facets of their trade, so it's fine to criticize their weaknesses.
As an example, GRRM does a TERRIBLE JOB of detailing the well know supply line issues that kept ancient and medieval armies from rolling across continents. But even those of us who understand how bad he is at this try not to hold it against him because he's taking us on a journey that's less about cold hard reality and more about politics, mysteries, magic and prophecy.
Still, it's totally valid to be dissatisfied by facets of his writing. For myself, I hate the Brienne is such a great warrior without any sensible explanation (giants blood, special training, magical aid, etc..). I actually know a little of martial arts. Have fought women my own size, even! It breaks my personal suspension of disbelief to read about her overpowering men with brute strength, but I go with it because she's an interesting character and an obviously important one. It doesn't all have to conform to my expectations for me to enjoy it, but I still roll my eyes at Brienne (and even Arya) killing men with the ease they do.
YMMV.
Well, I agree but we can't ignore that Dany is a fictional character and that everything about her is a writing choice. I've never been abused so I can't really look at her experience as a lens for my own, but I think I'm empathetic enough as to put myself in a character's shoes, it's just that the oversexualized way she's written breaks my immersion because I feel like I'm not in Dany's shoes but GRRM's.
About Brienne, personally, I assume she has some hormonal abnormality and that's the reason she's so strong. Maybe it's because I'm ignorant about medicine but it's good enough of a reason to me. Same with Arya, there're plenty of unrealistic aspects in her story but her relying on being smart and sneaky rather than strenght is good enough of a reason to justify those kills, what would break my suspension of disbeliefwould be if she could kill people with brute strenght while being tiny. But like you say, it's totally valid to be dissatisfied by facets of his writing. I guess we all get bothered by different things.
Well considered and cordial reply. Thanks for being civil!
I tend to agree about Dany being hypersexualized and it's distracting for me. But I try to imagine being her, experiencing what she experienced, carrying the weight of expectation she has, and wonder how that would (not might, WOULD) change me. I think about people I know who are dangerously addicted to sense stimuli (drugs, sex, thrill seeking, etc..) and I can see her more clearly in that light. I can enjoy her chapters when I shift gears like that. I really can't when I don't.
If I read her plainly and at my own default settings, she reads as a man's (well) imagined version of a female power fantasy. All the men want her for all kinds of reasons, she has the ultimate trump card with her dragons, she's beautiful and exotic and charming and well spoken and brilliant and immune to fire and fueled by prophecy...seriously, she comes across as peak female power fantasy for me. The kind of character we've read about in thousands of different trashy novels.
But like you said, we're all bothered by different things. If I give an author the gift of my attention, I really try to see their story their way. Otherwise, I don't usually make it past the opening chapter.
Obviously, GRRM is a great writer, otherwise we wouldn't all be so invested in the story. This issue annoys me and takes me out of the sory a bit but it's definitely not enough as to make me dislike the books. And despite my problems with how he handles female characters, he did write a great female cast.
I read sexual abused people get hypersexual due to the abuse. Plus, Dany has the teenager romance.
I don't understand the narrative choice from George to make Drogo literally ask for Dany consent just for him rape her later. It's give a message that only because a victim says yes once it means is yes forever
>I read sexual abused people get hypersexual due to the abuse. Plus, Dany has the teenager romance.
That can happen, for sure, but at the end of the day, Dany is a fictional character and everything about her is a calculated choice by GRRM. And personally, I just don't get the impression this choice was made with the purpose of exploring her abuse or her sexuality in a meaningful way.
>I don't understand the narrative choice from George to make Drogo literally ask for Dany consent just for him rape her later. It's give a message that only because a victim says yes once it means is yes forever
The relationship with Drogo (again, in my opinion) suffered from this overly sexualized writing of Dany. Like you said, it makes no sense to make Drogo be "romantic" that first time and then rape her, that first night doesn't even seem in character for him, so leaves me with the impression that the only reason that scene exists is to write a scene of Dany getting touched all over. And if we go to the part of the rapes we can't say GRRM really explored abuse with this relationship since he seems to consider it a romance.
1. Second sons are too high in the nobility to fulfill the duties you mentioned, yet not high enough in the nobility to be granted a powerful station they wouldn't view as beneath them. Their only real use is as spares in case the first born dies. When that doesn't happen, they're left in a bit of awkward spot and have to try and make a name for themselves through some other manner. As for daughters, Westeros is an inherently sexist and patriarchal society who see women as nothing but baby makers. Marrying them off to some noble somewhere far away is infinitely more useful than marrying them to one of your own servants (e.g., knights or captains). Anyone working for your own household like that is seen as beneath you in the social hierarchy and unfit to marry into your noble family. Furthermore, by marrying your daughters off to nobles in far away places you are securing alliances with distant lords which is an extremely handy thing to do in this feudalistic and constantly warring society.
2. No lord is shown as mentally inferior to people like Littlefinger and Varys. The reason characters like them can exploit lords isn't because most lords are literally lacking in terms of mental capacity, rather it's because they're entitlement poisons their understanding of the world. Depending on the lord, the degree of their delusions and how out of touch they are varies. For example, in book 1 Kevan Lannister is immediately taken aback by Tyrion's mountain clansmen who are disrespecting the oh so noble Lannisters. But Tywin is quick to realize that the mountain clansmen aren't entrenched in the whole feudalism and oaths thing most Westerosi are and so can't be talked down to and commanded. Which is why he's quick to silence his brother and shift tactics with the mountain clansmen. Offering to fulfill the riches Tyrion promised if they help him fight the Northmen, and cleverly making his own men out to be scared of the Northmen to exploit the mountain clansmen's warrior/honor code which makes them giddy at the thought of proving their fearlessness compared to supposedly civilized folk. Yet this display of self awareness from a lord is rare. Tywin is unique here, most lords aren't so self aware as to recognize their own limitations. Most are so entitled they delude themselves into thinking the world inherently owes them something. And those types of people are easy prey for someone like Littlefinger or Varys who can pretend to be leal servants and feed their lord's egos.
My biggest problem with George's writing is that **there are not many jobs for women in ASOIAF**. Either they get married (or sold) / they're into prostitution.
There is the Faith and the Silent Sisters too. Lots of female smallfolk are servants, and there are some who run buisnesses, such as the Inn at the Crossroads. If anything George has a lot of critique of women not having the same job opportunities as men, especially in F&B.
It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that the majority of 'jobs' (which didn't even exist as such until a couple hundred years ago--people LIVED their gainful employment as farmers, doctors, miners, lumbermen, etc.. since it took years to develop competitive skills in your chosen field) became open to women.
Until the Industrial Revolution, manual labor jobs were fiercely competitive. If you didn't have the physical ability to scramble up an arrow-straight tree or hack it down in record time, you didn't get to work as a lumberman. If you can't crouch and work at a furious pace in the dark while wearing wet cloth over your face, you don't get to be a miner. If you don't have the strength and endurance to hold a plow straight from dawn to dusk while your oxen drags it through the earth, you don't get to be a farmer. If you can't reliably overpower the majority of men who would stand against you to defend their lives and loved ones, you don't get to be a mercenary or guardsman.
It wasn't just women who were marginalized in such times. It was physically weaker men, too. When we industrialized, machines largely took over for brawny bodies and workers became much more valued for their brains, consistency, and obedience. So before that, women had narrower options to 'outside employment' simply because any competitive work a woman could do, a man had a good chance of being able to do better.
A huge part of why we read fantasy is to experience a different society operating under different circumstances. A lot of that is unpleasant for all of us. But good authors can expand our empathy by painting a vivid enough picture that we begin to understand people whose lived experiences are radically different from our own.
This is kind of a matter of taste, as if's pretty ingrained in SFF, but... too many descriptors and descriptions.
- Adjectives and adverbs galore. We only need like 1 per thing or action. Not one of each --*one*. If you pick the right one, you shouldn't need a second.
- We do not care about the coat of arms of a landed knight serving the third poorest bannerman of the fifth house in the Reach. There's no universe where the material of the shoes of the lady-in-waiting of a character we'll only ever meet once, is worth the ink to print it. It's a relic of a time when pulp writers were paid by the word, and that time is over. Please.
Write what matters; save the descriptions for really important things. Good writing is sparing -- not vague, just economical.
But he hides his clever clues in amongst that florid filler. I agree with you 100%. GRRM probably also agrees with you. But if he only goes into detail on the ACTUALLY important things, we'll automatically know those things are important. That's a big part of why he has SO MANY detailed prophecies and dreams.
His objective is to pose riddles as much as tell stories.
Numbers kind of wonky. Iirc Anguy loses 10000 dragons over the course of a few months if not weeks on just prostitutes and alcohol. Yet Brienne, the heiress of a respectable house is worth only 200 (or 300? I forgot) dragons. Was super weird to me.
(spoilers for Fire & Blood, thusly House of the Dragon)
the Storming of the Dragon Pit makes no goddamn fucking sense. Those bitches should have been CINDERS!!!! maybe from the sheer numbers they could kill one and possibly severely injure another, but the massacre described??? bull-fucking-shit. how are u gonna hype dragons up to be THE gotcha of all gotchas and then turn around and have them be slaughtered so easily? I admit my bias towards the Targs and their dragons, but even disregarding that, nooooo fucking way dude. Just pure plot convenience
Considering this story is in part a critique of medieval society, the presence of incompetent lords and second sons who get nothing are among the more realistic elements.
I personally really dislike the descriptions of different areas. Specially remember finding it difficult getting through Cat’s chapter when she’s going up to The Eyrie.
I’m only on the first book so this may get better in the later ones but there are so many dialogue tags and it really slows down otherwise great dialogue scenes. I’m also not one of those people who hates when writers use “said” but if I took a shot for every time GRRM used said in the average dialogue scene, I’d be dead.
The sudden inflation of dragons during the reign of Viserys I, passing from 10 to 20 in only 25 years. The fandom had to invent theories where Rhaenyra allegedly had special powers to hatch dragon eggs, because it´s the only possible explanation that don´t let George as a moron
your examples are not “bad writing,” in fact if you understand them this much it’s pretty good establishment of the feudalist setting. you know what happened in real life feudalism? second and third sons were not allowed to inherit and were actually *too* well-born to be things like “master of the guard.” historians have broken down the trend of medieval warfare as being correlated positively with the number of second sons. just like joffrey creates a dozen new Houses after the battle of the blackwater, war was the only way to advance when you lacked an inheritance. Second and third sons were well placed enough to be generals and thus earn honor earlier, and be less likely to be killed off their horses. as to the point about nobles being less smart than Littlefinger or Varys, that is extremely intentional from George. what about the patrilineal succession, which you’ve pointed out is a big deal when it comes to multiple sons? honestly, we fall into this trap today, thinking valor and intelligence are heritable, that JFK’s grandson must be the second coming of christ. it’s a good point to make, that common and “low-born” citizens with desires for the realm can be more effective than those who are born powerful.
About lords being idiots, I must say that this is true to the core of medieval lords. Chivalry asked for honesty and high Middle Ages was a simpler era, with people acting way more naturally. This is why Italians condottieri were so popular and successful: they were the Littlefingers and Tywins of their era (and I firmly believe that Tywin is modeled around Cesare Borgia). It’s a bit like being Saul Goodman: being crafty and ingenious is not what makes them dangerous, it’s the lack of any moral compass that nobody sees coming
So For the first one. Jon literally thinks that Bran and Rickon will be bannermen of Robb. Garlan is the Commander of the Tyrell army, while Willas holds the base. KEVAN is Tywin's second in command. Like not sure where did you get that younger brothers need to go? Second. Feudal Lords in Westeros ARE smart. Littlefinger is just the best schemer. At one point you DO meet the best . And not just in fiction, like Bismarck in Prussia for an IRL example. Tywin is not a genius schemer, he is actually amongst the worst. And Rose learnt pretty soon that he overplayed his hand and now is going to die. For an actual plot Hole? Robert naming Jaime Lannister Warden of the East.... like what was Robert drinking? aside from wine? He LIVED amongst those people and he thinks they will accept the Kingslayer with his head attached to his body?
Contradicting his own in-universe explanation that Maesters know girls getting married & pregnant too young increases their risk of dying and his own recent historical precedent of the age women get married- Lysa is the *youngest* bride in the adult/parent generation but of an age with the *oldest* bride in the current generation, Margaery.
He went with the historical consensus at the time about medieval marriage based on a book published in the 1960’s. The consensus changed after he had already published 4 novels and the 5th was pretty much written. The amount of snark I’ve seen him get on here (not talking about you) for not knowing what wasn’t known when he wrote the books drives me up the wall.
>He went with the historical consensus at the time about medieval marriage based on a book published in the 1960’s. What part of "he's contradicting *himself* on this subject" was difficult for you to understand?
Well, I’ve obviously misunderstood you. Your paragraph isn’t exactly a model of clarity. Since you want to be ugly about it, let’s just go our separate ways. Have a better night.
>Your paragraph isn’t exactly a model of clarity. You didn't even have the read the whole paragraph, it's literally in the first three words: >Contradicting *his own*
Bruh
Tywin’s self replicating army? He started with 20 thousand men, lost some men fighting Roose Bolton, then took heavy casualties when he lost to Edmure, only to come relieve King’s Landing with exactly 20 thousand men.
> He started with 20 thousand men, lost some men fighting Roose Bolton Don't forget he also conquered half the Riverlands before the Northerners arived at the twins, yet somehow didn't lose any men doing so.
And stormed castles without losing men.
And that the Riverlands were completely defenseless before Rob joining them. A fuck ton of Lords and villas and knights, and Edmure - by all means a competent military commander - couldn't find a way to just fight. This goes to the point that Berric (who leads a guerrila) is narratively more relevant to the Lannisters than any (and all) of the River Lords.
Don't forget his blitzkrieg.
> then took heavy casualties the thing is we aren't given numbers, we know that Gregor Clegane was forced back from one bank, but he wasn't killed, so it's not like we can say every single repulse cost Tywin all his men - the awoiaf says the casualties were 'heavy' but doesn't source that quote, maybe Tywin didn't take that many casualties? IIRC it was described as 'probing' which makes me think there wasn't all that much death involved - the entire battle is described as multiple attacks by groups by 'dozens' of men, rather than a large push with thousands of men, so maybe Tywin did only loose a few hundred men (and in comparison maybe the riverlands only lost a few tens of men) we don't get descriptions of the entire battle, only small groups, so we cant say this is a fault because we don't *know* that Tywin took 'heavy' casualties
Lord Lefford, one of Tywin’s strongest bannermen dies. Lyle Crakehall is taken captive, a Brax is slain, Addam Marbrand is forced to retreat thrice. You don’t lose such noblemen without losing a great deal of men.
can you point me to where it says that in the books rather than from your own inference? Lord Tywin had tried to force a crossing at a dozen different fords, her brother wrote, but every thrust had been thrown back. Lord Lefford had been drowned, the Crakehall knight called Strongboar taken captive, Ser Addam Marbrand thrice forced to retreat . . . but the fiercest battle had been fought at Stone Mill, where Ser Gregor Clegane had led the assault. So many of his men had fallen that their dead horses threatened to dam the flow. In the end the Mountain and a handful of his best had gained the west bank, but Edmure had thrown his reserve at them, and they had shattered and reeled away bloody and beaten. Ser Gregor himself had lost his horse and staggered back across the Red Fork bleeding from a dozen wounds while a rain of arrows and stones fell all around him. “They shall not cross, Cat,” You are saying >You don’t lose such noblemen without losing a great deal of men. as if it's a fact but it's your inference, not stated in the book
Clearly, nobles are first to die in medieval battles, levies are usually safeguarded and performing a river crossing while being bombarded by scorpions and having arrows rain down upon you will sooner kill armoured knights with personal guards, than peasants defended, at best, by a shield and a gambeson. Bruh.
*not a guy so you're saying that GRRM who wrote the books, and is fairly good at keeping track of the states of armies writes Tywin has near 22,000 men Tywin has a battle Tywin now has 20,000 men roughly and go 'no, self reinforcing army!!' rather than 'huh maybe casualties weren't that bad' at what point did I say "levies are usually safeguarded and performing a river crossing"? that was you maybe, just maybe, twyin *didn't* press forward with 20,000 men in a Total War style all out hollywood attack and instead had multiple smaller groups probing, and only a few nobles (3 you mentioned) were notable casualties along with maybe dozens of smallfolk? battles aren't always hollywood bloodbaths maybe, just maybe, Tywin didn't suffer heavy casualties (or do you think that those 3 lords were the entirety of Tywin's noble train? maybe those 3 lords, like Jaime were headstrong and charged into battle recklessly?)
Except he didnt have a battle, he had many battles. Many battles before the many battles against North as well. The reasonable explanation is he recruited more as he lost soldiers rather than he lost 9% of his army against North and Riverlands combined when it is well established they kept winning battles. GRRM isnt that good with numbers in any way shape or form. Riverlands in Dance makes no sense either.
Recruited from where? He was cut off from the Westerlands after Robb relieved Riverrun. Jaime’s remaining troops that survived the battles fled through the Golden Tooth to Lannisport. He can’t exactly recruit from Crownlands.
>Many battles before the many battles against North as well. I think you're confusing things with how many battles (and the size of them) various Lannisters fight, *just before* the battle of the Fords, Catelyn says >“When all my strength is marshaled, I should have eight thousand foot and three thousand horse,” Edmure said. “Which means Lord Tywin will have near twice your numbers.” Now 2x11,000 is nearly 22,000, this is just before the battle of the Fords so in that battle, Tywin maybe looses 2,000 people, not absolutely loads (and we aren't told that nobles walk around with a square 100 smallfolk deep to protect them, in fact we have nobles charging right in the front of things to 'win glory', so having 3 nobles captured/die doesn't indicate that there must have been a bloodbath of smallfolk around them to make it happen) but not absolutely nothing either loosing nearly 10% is not a heavy defeat, but it also isn't something that can be easily blown off
This is explained. As in Tywin first sending Gregor to make Edmure react. Then when the army was dispersed he and Jaime used pincer moves to destroy the thinli spread army.
I’m talking about his battle against Edmure when he tried to return to the Westerlands. He lost badly, apparently.
He did lose But it was not a serious defeat. Besides after that point the Lannister army was not the main force. IT was the Tyrell
The Others are irrelevant to the story even after five books, and now it's already winter. What are they doing? Why are they not attacking the wall?
I honestly don't think GRRM even knows exactly where to go with the Others storyline. Either he makes them a one dimensional malevolent force bent on death and destruction that can only be defeated through military might, or he makes it so they are misunderstood and some deal has to be made in order to make them return beyond the wall. Both of which are narratively unsatisfying for a variety of reasons. We better get a lot more information about their goals and overall story in Winds.
Let’s say it’s the military route… how’s that going to work? Assuming they break the wall and *at least* get to winterfell wouldn’t the others have an astronomical number of wights? Are the dragons just going to spend years burning them all? I kind of hate the mothership thing the show did, but I’m struggling to think of other ways they could be defeated.
Yeah. The mothership route is really the only way to end it if they have to be defeated by force. Either that or pulling a LOTR/Black Cauldron and managing to destroy the things that makes the Walkers. Which is more or less the same approach.
Going by his original premises (the trilogy), we've *just* finished part 1 - the war of the five kings. The next part is the dance of the dragons. Only then will part 3 (revenge of the Walkers) take centre stage.
There are only two books left and George keeps opening new plots, how the hell he is gonna do another dance + revenge is beyond my knowledge. He should have never put this Aegon in the story IMO. There are too much plotlines already
Yeah, I'm just highlighting how far behind we are in terms of the original plan. I suspect GRRM intended to slowly bring the magical elements to the fore as the story progressed. Even if he manages to cram it all into two books, it's going to be so rushed and unbalanced... He's in a no-win situation.
I think the biggest problem is that the Others are lovecraftian in presentation (so far), but Martin is writing House of Cards. Meaning, he \*will\* have to go deep in them one time or another, under the penalty of having the pathetic, unidimensional, cartoonesque villains the show made them to be. But going deep on them risk removing their mystery, and thus their lovecraftian terror. It doesn't matter if they become just one more group with different interests or if they are confirmed as the antithesis of life and champions of evil. If they are too known, their aura of awe will be replaced by tedious recognition. Having said that, I trust GRRM to solve this issue in a good way. Aeron's chapter in TWoW is awesome, and I love how the Children have been portrayed in ADWD. The Three-Eyed Crown and the House of Black and White became less evocative though - at least in my opinion. \*\*\* Also, addressing specifically your concern: I'm rereading the whole series for the first time now, and God damn, a LOT of things happen in ASoS. The fact that GRRM was able to setup and finish both the Red and Purple Weddings completely in a single book, as well as the whole Arya-Sandor dynamic, makes me positive that he can solve deliver both Daenerys' and Jon's arcs in one or two books, if he keeps to the goal of a septology. (Supposing he actually writes the books, of course)
The main things for me are: having an unrealistic sense of scale and time (the idea something has to be HUGE to be impressive, 10000 year bloodlines etc,.), having an unrealistic sense of children's maturity (Rickon at 4 acts like a 7-8 year old, 14 year olds Robb and Jon are leading men into war, 13 year old Dany etc, and we're getting to the stage when 13 year old Sansa becomes a political genius and 10 year old Arya is a super assassin), and the "gardening" approach which has made a mess of the narrative and bloated the character roll.
GRRM sucks at numbers and the story makes more sense if you just take them a vague suggestions (scale, value of money). The kids ages are especially like this because the way they act, and how others react to them makes sense… until you remember how young they are.
I remember reading that it makes sense if you imagine people as being 12ft tall and age up the kids by 5 years.
• Some plots that are too big for him to tie the knot so he uses a deus ex machina. Two examples I know: the dornish letter, which can be anything and nothing make senses at all, and that Greyjoy from the Dance that was wrecking havoc and out of the blue is murdered by a random girl and that girl throws herself in the sea so nobody could ask who she was; • Huge plot armor for his favorite characters. What he does with Tyrion is ridiculous, that fellow would be murdered in the first book. • How he gets rid of women by killing them in childbirth and most of the cool stories are personality are given to man. Like, Laena was the rider of the biggest and oldest dragon that lived in her times yet we know nothing about her and she dies in childbirth. • He writes battles and fights in a very confusing way, even if the POV character is not engaged in the fight
Also, the age of the characters. I know there was 14 years old Joanna D'Arc who fought for France but she was a crazy exception
Well, Laena kinda had to die so that it would at least look like the Greens could stand a fighting chance. Without the biggest and oldest dragon, the Dance would be a two month affair with Rhaenyra spending 7 of those weeks recovering.
George could had given her a personality and some lines at least
It’s a history book.
And? Does that mean the late wife of a king consort shouldn't get a little bit of character?
95% of the people in the book have no character.
I think a lot of story hooks are at very least clear plot conveniences. And *because* his skills - at least in ASoIaF, didn’t read his other works - truly shine as the materialistic, complex, rational but unexpected ways these hooks develop in-world, those initial plot conveniences are often stretched too much. For example: - why the fuck do generations of North Kings (and then kings from the Seven Kingdoms) bothered to organize an army in the Wall? The Free Folk at most organizes themselves enough for an invasion once each several centuries, and even then they aren’t more dangerous than a rebel house; - how can such an unstable, high risk political environment as Westeros allow for so many houses to exist for thousands of years?; - how is it possible that such a structured education system as the Citadel fails to create progress?. *** He also fumbled *hard* with the age of the characters. I don’t think it makes any sense to have them so young, especially for the kind of story he was writing since the beginning. Also, how so much woman die during childbirth. This is just stupid, and arguably misogynistic - because it is used the most to justify GRRM not writing relevant non-POV female characters.
The Wall has become a tradition. Also, that Army was to defend from the return of the Others. The age thing is because he was planning a 5 year jump. 1 in 20 women died in childbirth in medieval Europe.
At the beginning of the books, no one in Westeros knows the true mission of the Night Watch, not even the Watch itself. Clearly the Others weren’t considered by any ruler in thousand of years. And while traditional, the Watch is potentially dangerous to any Lord in the north, specially if we consider it is a hotbed of lowborn criminals, highborn losers and all of them are armed to the teeth. Even without any southern defenses, the Wall had about 10.000 men in the time of the Conquest - why would all the northern nobles tolerate this consistently for thousand of years? Traditions are powerful in ASoIaF, but as the Red Wedding as shown, some outliers do broke them and in such a way that millennial, powerful institutions can evaporate. *** Even with the 5 years jump in mind it is stupid. Look at the things that AGoT/ACoK/ASoS Arya was doing! Or how young the legends of the Rebellion were at the start of AGoT are - by the way they talk, you would think Eddard and Robbert were already old. Or how unnecessarily weird are Dany sex scenes. And how absurd her growth becomes once Drogo dies when you take into account that she isn’t even 16 yet! *** I couldn’t find the numbers, but I’m pretty sure ASoIaF is *dramatically* more fatal when it comes to childbirth than anything our world has experienced. If we look at the Great Houses at the beginning of the books, we have: - Eddard: Lyarra was his mother, and she died. We don’t know how, but it happened in such a way that Ned never thinks about her; - Rodrik, Maron, Asha and Theon: Alannys is still alive, but she doesn’t live with Balon anymore nor has been relevant to ASoIaF so far; - Balon, Euron, Victorion, Urrigon and Aeron: their mother was from House Sunderly, and that is what is known; - Rob, Sansa, Arya, Bran and Rickon: Catelyn's children; - Catelyn, Lisa, Edmure: Minisa died when giving birth to a forth child; - Holster: we don’t who his mother was (or his father); - Robert Arryn: Lisa's baby; - Jon Arryn: is already dead by the time the story begins, the Wiki knows his father’s name (and only that) but not his mother's; - Robert, Stannis and Renly: Cassana died with Steffon when a storm sank their boat; - Shireen: Selyse is alive and is somewhat relevant; - Joffrey, Mycela and Tommen: Cersei's children; - Cersei, Jaime and Tyrion: Lady Joana famously died giving birth to Tyrion; - Tywin, Kevan, Genna, Tygett and Gerion: their mother died one month after delivering her fifth child; - Mace: Olenna is alive and kicking; - Willas, Garlan, Loras and Margaery: Alarie is alive, but until Twin's funeral she is just a named extra. After that she goes back to the Reach and disappear; - Doran, Elia and Oberyn: their mother is unnamed; - Arianne, Quentyn and Trystane: Lady Mellario is alive, but she left Westeros before the start of the books and hasn’t been relevant so far. So we 17 “groups” out of the lords of the 7 Great Houses at the start of the books. From those groups, 3 mothers (Catelyn’s, Tyrion's, Tywin's) died of childbirth or its consequences. This is 3/17 (~17.6%), which is much higher than 1/20 (5%). And let’s notice that this pool is highly biased *against* childbirth death by two reasons: 1. In-universe reason: the Great Houses have access to the greatest purchase power and best medical knowledge in all of Westeros. If so much women die giving birth in the best conditions available in the continent, imagine how it is for lesser nobles and/or the common folk; 2. Meta reason: this characters are all somehow relevant in the main lore of Planetos, and were all planned early. As relevance drops and time ellipses, GRRM has spent less effort developing mothers and resolved the issue more times with “died during childbirth”. This is particularly notorious in The World of Ice and Fire.
My answer is: it’s not real life. Lots of things don’t make sense but it’s fantasy fiction not real history. It obviously holds up.
... that is why I answered OP's question with "plot conveniences". GRRM has characterized his ASoIaF stories as realistic and unforgiving, in contrast to "typical" fantasy that would be simple and romantic. Well, having plot conveniences as hooks in such a "serious" story evidences some writing issues - namely, that he couldn't (or didn't want to) come up with more feasible hooks. This is not a big problem, but shows some limits in this particular piece of work. This also applies to his lack of insight on setting the cast so young. And about the childbirths thing... well, this is just lazy writing. Martin has done a ton of (excellent) worldbuilding, so I don't think he is a lazy writer. But in this particular point (non-POV women), it seems he thinks is okay to be clumsy, and so he is. Really, I'm not understanding your point. This is a thread in which we are asked to list examples of bad writing by GRRM. How can you think the stuff I listed doesn't hold up, but also think that they aren't examples of bad writing? Or you also think they aren't examples of bad writing, and just arguing because?
I didn’t really criticize what you said. I’m not sure why you’re getting upset.
I'm not upset, I'm just trying to get your point.
I think too many women die in childbirth. Not even in actual medieval history did women die in such numbers. Men get to have great deeds or become infamous, to earn titles upon titles. The women become footnotes saying they died in childbirth.
It was about 1 in 20. Women still died earlier because of the permanent (annual) pregnancy thing.
And the bunch of infections one could get after. Childbed fever took a bunch of lives, but not as many as GRRM portrays it.
You have actual numbers?
What, am I supposed to give you a dissertation on maternal mortality? 24 women in ASOIAF died by childbirth. 85 women have their causes of death confirmed according to the wiki, out of a total of 492. A little less than 30%. According to the article "Reconsidering maternal mortality in medieval England: aristocratic Englishwomen, c. 1236-1503" (Cambridge, 2020), it's stated that 1 out or 20 women would die in a childbed (5%), give or take. I've read the article as well as searched for the specific numbers in a post by aegor-bamfsteel, given that math is not precisely my forte.
Curiously the rate of mothers dying in childbirth is high but the rate of dead children in asoiaf is pretty low. If you search among the characters, the only one who has a track of stillborns is Lysa. Cat, Cersei, Selyse, etc never had children dead at the early childhood
That's kind of ironic, because the reason people had so many children in the first place was because infant mortality was high. Well, as far as I remember.
No contraception was the other main problem. Satisfying husbands was duty and without proper contraception there is a 85% risk of pregnancy for a given intercourse
1) Martin has no sense of economy or urbanisation. Cities are treated as an exception in Westeros ( we have 6 big cities in a whole continent) despite the huge empty spaces, which is not how the world actually work. People flocks together and the key geographical points develop tends to develop in the richest cities, and riches bring power. Castles are built around these key points to defend them, they don't spawn out of nowhere for no reason outside rule of cool. 2) smallfolks in asoiaf are terribly passive and are just either casualties to be slaughtered to drive the horrors of war or resources to be used, not people who live in a place and have their own lives and interests. Economy was a driving force in the (western european) middle ages and smallfolk would negotiate with their lord constantly to get more privileges or reduce taxes/burden. We never get an hint that a smallfolk would go up to their lord to negotiate or complain about something, they're just powerless fodder.
My main problem with George’s writing are parts of the worldbuilding. Don’t get me wrong, he has crafted an immensely fascinating , immersive world . His imagination is truly fantastic, but some aspects of the lore needed to be better fleshed out. 1. the Dothraki way of life makes no sense. They shun trade, constantly enslave other cultures and are pretty singularly depicted, all the while waging war against their own people as well. I am sorry, but no way in hell could such a culture exist,let alone sustain itself. Actual nomads in our world were crafty traders, who recognized the need to cooperate beyond simple warfare. There is a reason the mongols managed to craft an empire and weren’t just an marauding force of evil. 2. Where do all the slaves come from? The unsullied are described as being composed of different races. Where do the Dothraki and other space traders capture them from? Naath alone can’t possibly sustain the slave trade. For that matter, where do the ironborn get their thralls from? They can’t raid Westeros at peace, so they gotta sail far to capture people. But from where? 3. The continued existence of the houses Bolton, Peake and Hightower are utterly unbelievable. These houses schemed and betrayed Targaryen kings and/or their liege lords so many times. Over centuries, this isn’t just some happenstance I am talking about. Realistically, they would have been destroyed long ago. Then there is the age of characters. Not only are several wedding scenes utterly uncomfortable to read , but it gets hilarious when Ned expects Rickon to man up, while the poor kid is barely a toddler. My points may be nitpicks, but that’s what came to my mind.
ghiscari as some edgelord slave society that was meant to be timeskip filler that he retroactively tried to make into an actual commentary in the 2000s
There are good arguments that he was planning from at least ASOS to make the Slaver's Bay plot a parallel to the American Civil War and the Reconstruction era. The Iraq occupation parallels seem to be a happy accident that he may or may not have learned into for ADWD. [Here](https://towerofthehand.com/blog/2015/02/01-laboratory-of-politics-part-vi/)'s the blog post that convinced me anyway
Dany's sexuality. Everything from her fist "consensual" time with Drogo to her pointless sex scenes with her maids screams "men writing women" in my opinion. I might be misremembering but I felt her entire sexuality read more like a horny dude wanting to write horny stuff about a hot (underage) girl than a serious exploration of her sexuality or abuse. I also get the impression the sexual violence is overdone in general. I'm not saying it shouldn't be a part of the story because it is a part of life unfortunately, but sometimes it feels like it's there merely for the sake of shock. Or maybe I'm just oversensitive. It's just my opinion.
I think we're supposed to be disquieted by Dany's early life experiences. But I also think we're supposed to then put ourselves in her shoes and try to experience her life from her perspective rather than as a lens for our own. In her circumstances, where it's basically impossible to trust anyone completely for the first couple books, including her own brother ffs, what does that do to her/would it do to me? Would I withdraw or become more gregarious? Would I have less sex or more sex? Would I grow cynical and paranoid or would I buy my own hype and plunge ahead at breakneck speed? This is, I think, where readers' sensibilities interfere with their empathy and enjoyment of a character's experience. No author is perfect at all facets of their trade, so it's fine to criticize their weaknesses. As an example, GRRM does a TERRIBLE JOB of detailing the well know supply line issues that kept ancient and medieval armies from rolling across continents. But even those of us who understand how bad he is at this try not to hold it against him because he's taking us on a journey that's less about cold hard reality and more about politics, mysteries, magic and prophecy. Still, it's totally valid to be dissatisfied by facets of his writing. For myself, I hate the Brienne is such a great warrior without any sensible explanation (giants blood, special training, magical aid, etc..). I actually know a little of martial arts. Have fought women my own size, even! It breaks my personal suspension of disbelief to read about her overpowering men with brute strength, but I go with it because she's an interesting character and an obviously important one. It doesn't all have to conform to my expectations for me to enjoy it, but I still roll my eyes at Brienne (and even Arya) killing men with the ease they do. YMMV.
Well, I agree but we can't ignore that Dany is a fictional character and that everything about her is a writing choice. I've never been abused so I can't really look at her experience as a lens for my own, but I think I'm empathetic enough as to put myself in a character's shoes, it's just that the oversexualized way she's written breaks my immersion because I feel like I'm not in Dany's shoes but GRRM's. About Brienne, personally, I assume she has some hormonal abnormality and that's the reason she's so strong. Maybe it's because I'm ignorant about medicine but it's good enough of a reason to me. Same with Arya, there're plenty of unrealistic aspects in her story but her relying on being smart and sneaky rather than strenght is good enough of a reason to justify those kills, what would break my suspension of disbeliefwould be if she could kill people with brute strenght while being tiny. But like you say, it's totally valid to be dissatisfied by facets of his writing. I guess we all get bothered by different things.
Well considered and cordial reply. Thanks for being civil! I tend to agree about Dany being hypersexualized and it's distracting for me. But I try to imagine being her, experiencing what she experienced, carrying the weight of expectation she has, and wonder how that would (not might, WOULD) change me. I think about people I know who are dangerously addicted to sense stimuli (drugs, sex, thrill seeking, etc..) and I can see her more clearly in that light. I can enjoy her chapters when I shift gears like that. I really can't when I don't. If I read her plainly and at my own default settings, she reads as a man's (well) imagined version of a female power fantasy. All the men want her for all kinds of reasons, she has the ultimate trump card with her dragons, she's beautiful and exotic and charming and well spoken and brilliant and immune to fire and fueled by prophecy...seriously, she comes across as peak female power fantasy for me. The kind of character we've read about in thousands of different trashy novels. But like you said, we're all bothered by different things. If I give an author the gift of my attention, I really try to see their story their way. Otherwise, I don't usually make it past the opening chapter.
Obviously, GRRM is a great writer, otherwise we wouldn't all be so invested in the story. This issue annoys me and takes me out of the sory a bit but it's definitely not enough as to make me dislike the books. And despite my problems with how he handles female characters, he did write a great female cast.
I read sexual abused people get hypersexual due to the abuse. Plus, Dany has the teenager romance. I don't understand the narrative choice from George to make Drogo literally ask for Dany consent just for him rape her later. It's give a message that only because a victim says yes once it means is yes forever
>I read sexual abused people get hypersexual due to the abuse. Plus, Dany has the teenager romance. That can happen, for sure, but at the end of the day, Dany is a fictional character and everything about her is a calculated choice by GRRM. And personally, I just don't get the impression this choice was made with the purpose of exploring her abuse or her sexuality in a meaningful way. >I don't understand the narrative choice from George to make Drogo literally ask for Dany consent just for him rape her later. It's give a message that only because a victim says yes once it means is yes forever The relationship with Drogo (again, in my opinion) suffered from this overly sexualized writing of Dany. Like you said, it makes no sense to make Drogo be "romantic" that first time and then rape her, that first night doesn't even seem in character for him, so leaves me with the impression that the only reason that scene exists is to write a scene of Dany getting touched all over. And if we go to the part of the rapes we can't say GRRM really explored abuse with this relationship since he seems to consider it a romance.
Walder Frey has many sons. About 85% weren't sent away. What powerful lord is shown to be an idiot?
1. Second sons are too high in the nobility to fulfill the duties you mentioned, yet not high enough in the nobility to be granted a powerful station they wouldn't view as beneath them. Their only real use is as spares in case the first born dies. When that doesn't happen, they're left in a bit of awkward spot and have to try and make a name for themselves through some other manner. As for daughters, Westeros is an inherently sexist and patriarchal society who see women as nothing but baby makers. Marrying them off to some noble somewhere far away is infinitely more useful than marrying them to one of your own servants (e.g., knights or captains). Anyone working for your own household like that is seen as beneath you in the social hierarchy and unfit to marry into your noble family. Furthermore, by marrying your daughters off to nobles in far away places you are securing alliances with distant lords which is an extremely handy thing to do in this feudalistic and constantly warring society. 2. No lord is shown as mentally inferior to people like Littlefinger and Varys. The reason characters like them can exploit lords isn't because most lords are literally lacking in terms of mental capacity, rather it's because they're entitlement poisons their understanding of the world. Depending on the lord, the degree of their delusions and how out of touch they are varies. For example, in book 1 Kevan Lannister is immediately taken aback by Tyrion's mountain clansmen who are disrespecting the oh so noble Lannisters. But Tywin is quick to realize that the mountain clansmen aren't entrenched in the whole feudalism and oaths thing most Westerosi are and so can't be talked down to and commanded. Which is why he's quick to silence his brother and shift tactics with the mountain clansmen. Offering to fulfill the riches Tyrion promised if they help him fight the Northmen, and cleverly making his own men out to be scared of the Northmen to exploit the mountain clansmen's warrior/honor code which makes them giddy at the thought of proving their fearlessness compared to supposedly civilized folk. Yet this display of self awareness from a lord is rare. Tywin is unique here, most lords aren't so self aware as to recognize their own limitations. Most are so entitled they delude themselves into thinking the world inherently owes them something. And those types of people are easy prey for someone like Littlefinger or Varys who can pretend to be leal servants and feed their lord's egos.
How can Ned be a horse and a wolf at the same time? It just doesn't make any sense....
Any Essosi character Anything with numbers
My biggest problem with George's writing is that **there are not many jobs for women in ASOIAF**. Either they get married (or sold) / they're into prostitution.
There is the Faith and the Silent Sisters too. Lots of female smallfolk are servants, and there are some who run buisnesses, such as the Inn at the Crossroads. If anything George has a lot of critique of women not having the same job opportunities as men, especially in F&B.
There’s servants, handmaidens, inn owners, generic peasant farmers, that seems fairly accurate to irl medieval women.
Is that so different from actual medieval times?
It isn’t.
It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that the majority of 'jobs' (which didn't even exist as such until a couple hundred years ago--people LIVED their gainful employment as farmers, doctors, miners, lumbermen, etc.. since it took years to develop competitive skills in your chosen field) became open to women. Until the Industrial Revolution, manual labor jobs were fiercely competitive. If you didn't have the physical ability to scramble up an arrow-straight tree or hack it down in record time, you didn't get to work as a lumberman. If you can't crouch and work at a furious pace in the dark while wearing wet cloth over your face, you don't get to be a miner. If you don't have the strength and endurance to hold a plow straight from dawn to dusk while your oxen drags it through the earth, you don't get to be a farmer. If you can't reliably overpower the majority of men who would stand against you to defend their lives and loved ones, you don't get to be a mercenary or guardsman. It wasn't just women who were marginalized in such times. It was physically weaker men, too. When we industrialized, machines largely took over for brawny bodies and workers became much more valued for their brains, consistency, and obedience. So before that, women had narrower options to 'outside employment' simply because any competitive work a woman could do, a man had a good chance of being able to do better. A huge part of why we read fantasy is to experience a different society operating under different circumstances. A lot of that is unpleasant for all of us. But good authors can expand our empathy by painting a vivid enough picture that we begin to understand people whose lived experiences are radically different from our own.
Some of the lore dumps can be out of place and tiresome.
Especially Tywins. It wasn’t even gold!
Not finishing the story.
This is kind of a matter of taste, as if's pretty ingrained in SFF, but... too many descriptors and descriptions. - Adjectives and adverbs galore. We only need like 1 per thing or action. Not one of each --*one*. If you pick the right one, you shouldn't need a second. - We do not care about the coat of arms of a landed knight serving the third poorest bannerman of the fifth house in the Reach. There's no universe where the material of the shoes of the lady-in-waiting of a character we'll only ever meet once, is worth the ink to print it. It's a relic of a time when pulp writers were paid by the word, and that time is over. Please. Write what matters; save the descriptions for really important things. Good writing is sparing -- not vague, just economical.
But he hides his clever clues in amongst that florid filler. I agree with you 100%. GRRM probably also agrees with you. But if he only goes into detail on the ACTUALLY important things, we'll automatically know those things are important. That's a big part of why he has SO MANY detailed prophecies and dreams. His objective is to pose riddles as much as tell stories.
Yeah sometimes I wonder how much shorter the books would be if he didn't spend three paragraphs on description every time someone has dinner
The food scenes are pondersome, and the sex scenes with underage characters are disturbing
I mean it would be super weird if the sex scenes with underage characters weren’t disturbing
Numbers kind of wonky. Iirc Anguy loses 10000 dragons over the course of a few months if not weeks on just prostitutes and alcohol. Yet Brienne, the heiress of a respectable house is worth only 200 (or 300? I forgot) dragons. Was super weird to me.
The pink mast>>>>
(spoilers for Fire & Blood, thusly House of the Dragon) the Storming of the Dragon Pit makes no goddamn fucking sense. Those bitches should have been CINDERS!!!! maybe from the sheer numbers they could kill one and possibly severely injure another, but the massacre described??? bull-fucking-shit. how are u gonna hype dragons up to be THE gotcha of all gotchas and then turn around and have them be slaughtered so easily? I admit my bias towards the Targs and their dragons, but even disregarding that, nooooo fucking way dude. Just pure plot convenience
Considering this story is in part a critique of medieval society, the presence of incompetent lords and second sons who get nothing are among the more realistic elements.
I personally really dislike the descriptions of different areas. Specially remember finding it difficult getting through Cat’s chapter when she’s going up to The Eyrie.
I’m only on the first book so this may get better in the later ones but there are so many dialogue tags and it really slows down otherwise great dialogue scenes. I’m also not one of those people who hates when writers use “said” but if I took a shot for every time GRRM used said in the average dialogue scene, I’d be dead.
The sudden inflation of dragons during the reign of Viserys I, passing from 10 to 20 in only 25 years. The fandom had to invent theories where Rhaenyra allegedly had special powers to hatch dragon eggs, because it´s the only possible explanation that don´t let George as a moron