Hanis’s comment > Likes and Comments

Really?
Ice and Fire is littered in symbolism throughout the entire series.
Dragons and Direwolves.
Starks and Tagaryan.
The North and the South.
Everything in the series is balanced between the two. I have my own theory as to how they are linked in a much more literal way...
but yeah, such an amazing series...

Well yes, I am aware of the symbolism. It's just that the actual Song felt like a capitalised Song to me and there's barely a reference to it that I remember (only once, but there's probably more). Best I know is that it is a prophecy of some kind..

I see the story itself as the song.

Would you mind elaborating on that one?

A metaphorical song. In the way that 'Dance with Dragons' is a metaphorical dance, and 'Game of Thrones' is a metaphorical game. To me, it makes perfect sense that 'The song of...' could be a story rather than an actual sung song. The metaphor plays on the fact that a song has all these parts, bass, melody, beat, etc, and rhythms, and counterpoints, etc. etc., which you can read across to all the characters' fortunes rising and falling and themes coming in and out.

So the whole thing is the story of Ice (Stark and/or Others) and Fire (Targaryens and/or Red God). I think he's playing around with connections; I do that all the time when I title stories - the more levels on which it works, the better. So of course there's also the specific actual reference to 'His is the song of ice and fire'. Which, while minor now, will - I think - grow in importance.

IT's more poetic than calling it a 'Saga' of Ice and FIre. To me the title implies the oral storytelling tradition, and songs that tell of legends and historical events (such as the oft mentioned "Rains of Castamere" in the series).

That's a very interesting point Casey. That would explain it. By the way Terry, I appreciate that you did reply at length, though you may have overlooked the fact that The Dance Of The Dragons is actually referenced in the series (don't remember where). It supposedly refers to Targaryen siblings fighting, ie Dany and her brother. All the titles to me are less metaphorical than they are actually events in the the book which was why I am annoyed that he chose this particular name for the entire series, teasing out bits of possible actual Songs and not explaining it outright.

All this adds to my sense of disappointment in the series. GRRM still adheres to the basic moulds of fantasy, while adding cheap (to me) hooks like killing off of major characters .

All this adds to my sense of disappointment in the series. GRRM still adheres to the basic moulds of fantasy, while adding cheap (to me) hooks like killing off of major characters . "

I don't understand this constant complaint. The deaths of major characters seems to be angering more readers than it is making happy, so how is it a 'hook'? I would say all the fantasy novels where everyone is supposedly surrounded by danger and war and in which NO major characters die are the ones that are engaging in ridiculous manipulation.

Perhaps shock is a better fit. The main death that really bugs me is the Red Viper. He (and his family) deserved all the justice he could get from an impossibly evil villian and yet, he was given a sick, cruel end. I liken this to watching a horror or thriller. The shocks are what draws people to watch them in the first place, hence I used 'hook'. Is this realistic? After all, far worse atrocities have occurred in real life. The problem, I think, is about emotional payoff, ie it is severely lacking. Like one character? He's dead soon enough. Even the ones that survive go through immense suffering and all for nothing as yet.


Considering the genre, I'm sure there will be some sort of closure at the end but it takes so long to get there. Others before me have commented that there is so much unneccessary fat that barely contributes to the overarching story.

P.S. I think the kidnapping of Tyrion was the pivotal moment that sparked off the war though I concede Ned's death was the point of no return.

I agree very much with all Whitney says here. I think all the title work on more than one level, as metaphor and as direct story reference; which is exactly what I like a good title to do.

I also think that his willingness to kill off characters is a major plus point. I think it's brave, realistic, and adds a lot of spice to the series. I see emotional payoff left right and centre throughout the books. I don't see justice everywhere, but that's life, and if his approach gives us scene as emotional and wrenching as the Red Wedding, Gregor vs. Oberyn, Ned's final scene in GoT, etc, I'm very happy.

+1 for Terry. The series is more like history than like fantasy fiction in the way s*** happens to just about everyone, including the most powerful. Justice depends on who’s in charge and how they’ve manipulated the facts of history.

Also, like history, people just die because that's the way things went. Some king gets a lance in the eye during a joust and a weaker king ends up on the throne. The good guys are our guys, but in /their/ history, they’re the bad guys.

And if GRRM adheres to the moulds of fantasy, well that's because that's what he's writing. He's still interested in the progress of character, in character arc, if you will. He's still interested primarily in telling a ripping good tale with lots of action and lots of complexity.

Believe me, I understand what you mean by the usual tropes of fantasy. That GRRM kills characters actually is what makes use of those tropes palatable for me. It's not a predetermined exercise for the reader. I like that things are as unpredictable as they are in life. I like that things aren't tidy, that you can love and despise the same character at the same time, that emotional payoffs are mostly in the smaller moments, again, as they are in life. I like that some (nearly all) characters are doomed to tragic ends.

As in life, the payoff is not some big comeuppance catharsis, but in how characters can take what has happened to them, and what they've done, to reshape their lives. Continually.

I think GRRM will surprise many in the way he wraps up.

If killing off major characters is cheap, then Shakespeare was the King of the Cheap. ;)

BTW, my main problem is with zombies. I'm so sick of the zombie and vampire culture of the last decade. Although I'm anti-undead, I'm giving GRRM a chance to find a narrative purpose for his. I have theories, but we'll see.

To be fair, the Others debuted over fifteen years ago... ;o)

Hanis: You mentioned "better fantasy novels" What are your recommendations?
Thanks in advance

OK Warren first: I'm in love with Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. It is however, a pretty polarising book. Read a sample chapter or two and see if you like it. I enjoy Neil Gaiman too (My sensibilities are quite British in this case). Guy Gavriel Kay's Tigana was also something I liked.

Terry: I'm thinking the problem lies with my expectations. The series was hyped to the stratosphere, like it was War And Peace of the modern times. I'm not normally a fantasy reader, having been put off by the neverending and sex-obsessed (EVERY ritual HAS to be done in the nude) Wheel Of Time series. So I came in expecting something genre-bending. And it simply wasn't there. It was written well enough but there was nothing that made it memorable for me.

JS&MN is awesome, as is Neil Gaiman.

Horses for courses, I guess. ASoIaF for me has been so refreshing that it's made me see most of the rest of (straight) fantasy in a very bad light -- I don't read much now. I used to enjoy Tad Williams, Robin Hobb, et al, but there's just not the quality and freshness there (or in many places) for me. I read mainly literary/magic realism/fantasy-cross now (which of course includes Gaiman very squarely). I've never been attracted even slightly by The Wheel of Time.

So yes, it all depends where you come from, but for me it's the best (and most original) that straight-up fantasy has to offer. It's not really genre-bending, more raising the bar very very high for the genre as a whole.