Well, that much is correct. I am thinking that this is what somewhat derivative fantasies patterned on George Martin rather than Tolkien are likely to look like (Acacia: Game of Thrones :: Sword of Shannara : Lord of the Rings). More political intrigue, a darker moral world with many shades of grey, a grimmer arc of character development.
Acacia is not terrible, as far as these things go. But it sure could be a lot better than it is, and most of the problem comes down to the basics of the prose. And that in turn maybe comes down to a bad combination of missing editorial input plus the genre-fueled need to bloat fantasy stories up to 600+ pages as if the heft of a paperback is what establishes it as a part of the genre.
I though the exact same thing when I read Acacia. I would give it a B-. There is also some more positive assessment of R. Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing series. I agree that The Darkness That Comes Before (book 1 of The Prince of Nothing) is a more polished piece of prose than Acacia, though the trilogy was a bit anticlimactic. Also, Bakker's work is original in that it has a noticeable science fantasy dimension, and one of the most richly texture portraits of malevolence which I've encountered in fantasy, and an extremely thick cultural and historical context.
H/T, appropriately, The Elf.
- Log in to post comments
I OD'ed on s & s years ago, probably because of a nearly twenty year diet of it (among other things).
I would like your, or anyone else's, opinions on Martin's Wild Card series. I've enjoyed most of them though I found them dragging with the whole Bloat storyline.
Is the George R.R. Martin stuff any good?
Should I bother to start reading a series that isn't finished yet?
George RR Martin is awesome and is definitely worth getting into. It's a series like no other.
However, I'm less concerned if people start imitating it. It should launch a new genre of realpolitik style fantasy that isn't based on the old stale formula of the young messiah discovering they need to save the world. His books are complex, the stories don't have neat conclusions and nothing of what you expect will happen happens. They rock.
Oh, and by the way, winter is coming
The first three are unbelievably good, and definitely worth reading.
1) Game of Thrones
2) Clash of Kings
3) Storm of Swords
The third is particularly well-done. The series as a whole tight-knit, fast-paced, full fleshed out, etc. The world "breathes", and has a history.
The 4th, "Feast for Crows" was a bit of a disappointment, but the hope is that the 5th "Dance with Dragons" will make up for it.
That hope is based on the fact that Martin, after the success of the 3rd book, broke the subsequent story in half, giving you the full story for one set of characters in "Feast", and promises to deliver the full story for the remainder of the story in "Dance".
I found the characters left out of "Feast" more interesting than the ones in it, so I was a bit disappointed. Plus, the tightness of Martin's game is a bit down in "Feast". He indulges himself a bit.
That being said, the whole series "Song of Fire and Ice" is about as good as it gets for contemporary Tolkien-esque writing.
Best,
Is the George R.R. Martin stuff any good?
Should I bother to start reading a series that isn't finished yet?
yes & yes.
I just finished reading the 4th book, "Feast for Crows" today, and while it may not have been the best in the series, I'm still left with the same feeling as when I finished the other three: I want more! I agree with MarkH that I won't mind seeing a new genre of Fantasy Politik -- especially if the imitators are as smart and creative as Martin.
I really rather liked Acacia and I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the series. Prince of Nothing is very good in many ways, but I felt that the philosophising had a tendency to be a bit over the top at times. I think Bakker actually agrees with this sentiment as he has said that the next installment of the series, The Judging Eye, will tone it down a bit:
Another error I think I made in The Prince of Nothing as a whole is that I think I focused too much on interior action - I spent too much time knocking around in my characters' heads. This is one thing that I tried to rectify in The Judging Eye: there's still plenty of internal action, but I like to think I've done a better job balancing it with external action.
http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-r-scott-bakker-interview…
Martin is one of the few modern fantasy writers whose new work I always look forward to, my main interests having shifted to new baroque space opera and purely idea-driven fiction a la Egan, Stross and Sterling. So, yes, I recommend the series (and for that matter, his earlier work: he was one of the brighter science-fiction/space opera authors in the 70's) wholeheartedly.
I love the George R. R. Martin books, but I'm afraid you can't hold A Song of Ice and Fire up as an ur-text in the way you can The Lord of the Rings. GRRM's politically sophisticated work itself owes a great deal to the ground broken by Guy Gavriel Kay's early historical fantasies - Tigana in particular.
If what you're talking about is an unfeasibly large cast and characters getting knocked off by the dozen, then fair enough, Martin's your man, but in terms of grown-up, shades-of-grey political intrigue-filled fantasy, then I'd have to say that started with Kay.