The Lack of Action in a Song of Ice and Fire.
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:07 pm
Now, I know what ya thinking: "Orlion, surely you haven't gotten to the Blackwater battle yet!" To which I say, poppycock! The idea is not that Martin can not write epic action sequences, but that it seems part of the writing style is his avoidance of most swashbuckling events. I'll try and explain.
In A Game of Thrones... it's mostly that. A game. Involving thrones. It's political intrigue following political intrigue, so much so that some people lose their minds. At this point, I was wondering, "why do people complain about the lack of action in A Feast for Crows when it appears there isn't much action in A Game of Thrones? What's wrong with peoples?"
This continues in A Clash of Kings, except you know there's a war going on. But you hardly ever see the actual war, just the symptoms of it. Anything exciting, like the fall of Winterfell, though it happens in full knowledge of a point of view character, happens completely of screen. Yeah, I took Winterfell with thirty men, isn't that something? Sure is! Moving on. Come to think of it, this happened in aGoT as well when Jaime was captured. Yea, we caught Jaime! That was something! Sure was really exciting, indeed, guffaw!
So, the questions are two-fold: What's the complaints with the lack of action in later books? As far as I can tell, it's just following the formula!
And also, does Martin struggle with writing massive action sequences? Is it so hard for him that he has only the ability to write one per book, so he saves it for the end? I'm thinking mostly in reference to Erikson who seems capable of churning out action sequences like they were Model Ts.
Once again, despite the playful banter, this isn't a critic of Martin. I was riveted by the first few chapters of Against All Things Ending and love Ford Maddox Ford's Some Do Not... where all the action is always off screen.... always.
In A Game of Thrones... it's mostly that. A game. Involving thrones. It's political intrigue following political intrigue, so much so that some people lose their minds. At this point, I was wondering, "why do people complain about the lack of action in A Feast for Crows when it appears there isn't much action in A Game of Thrones? What's wrong with peoples?"
This continues in A Clash of Kings, except you know there's a war going on. But you hardly ever see the actual war, just the symptoms of it. Anything exciting, like the fall of Winterfell, though it happens in full knowledge of a point of view character, happens completely of screen. Yeah, I took Winterfell with thirty men, isn't that something? Sure is! Moving on. Come to think of it, this happened in aGoT as well when Jaime was captured. Yea, we caught Jaime! That was something! Sure was really exciting, indeed, guffaw!
So, the questions are two-fold: What's the complaints with the lack of action in later books? As far as I can tell, it's just following the formula!
And also, does Martin struggle with writing massive action sequences? Is it so hard for him that he has only the ability to write one per book, so he saves it for the end? I'm thinking mostly in reference to Erikson who seems capable of churning out action sequences like they were Model Ts.
Once again, despite the playful banter, this isn't a critic of Martin. I was riveted by the first few chapters of Against All Things Ending and love Ford Maddox Ford's Some Do Not... where all the action is always off screen.... always.