A Song of Ice and Fire game revealed Comments by Robert Purchese

These are my favourite books of all time. I cannot recommend them enough if you're into that sort of thing even a little bit.

Can't really see how this can work as a game personally, and I haven't heard of this developer before, so it doesn't bode well but good luck to them.

I thought this was about a new Fire 'n' Ice game.

I leave, disappointed.

You know nothing Jon Snow.

"an ideal background for numerous genres of videogames"

Translation: we'll make a generic hack&slash with quick time events.

Ice and Fire is an awsome series and a great setting... for an RTS, at least. I guess I could see an action adventure working out too, but the low-fantasy style with very little magic is a rare thing in games today. Oblivion this is not. Zeno Clash is actually the best example I can think of for how such a game could work. That would actually be sort of great... or a stealth-assassin game... well, as the man said, there is in fact a lot of possibilities here.

I have not heard about the HBO-series either, that could be awesome... wow. Cool.

Now - back to waiting for a Dance with Dragons...

"Magic and dragons set the tone"

Not really. Yes there are dragons in it, but they have yet to play any major role after 4 books (though the next one is called a Dance with Dragons, so we may see them play a bigger role) they are generally thought to be extinct. Magic is not really believed in by most of the people of Westeros, thought by the Maesters (scientists, alchemists, scholars and political advisers) to have died out long ago.

I'd say political intrigue and backstabbing set the tone.

I've only read the first one. One of the most distinct things I noticed in this (for a fantasy book) was the LACK of magic and dragons... right up to the end. Quite interesting break from the norm. More politics etc.

Be glad to see the series as I didn't follow through onto the other books.

hah "so say all of us"

Outstanding series, outstanding. Although I'm not sure how it'll translate into a game, but that does depend largely on what type of game they choose to make out of it. The source material is there at least, no doubt about that.

Regardless of whether you are into fantasy or not, these are some of the best books you will ever read. I've recommended them to almost everyone I could already, but unfortunately most wuzz out when they see that there are currently approx 4000 pages to go through.

I've been anxiously waiting for the next book for a long time now, but the series is actually progressing nicely on HBO. Director was attached to the pilot last week, and Peter Dinklate casted as Tyrion Lannister.

Any fan should read George Martin's blog religiously for updates :) http://grrm.livejournal.com/

too bad the series will never be finished

"too bad the series will never be finished"

Hunh?

How 'bout GRR Martin sits down on his arse and finally finishes the 5th book instead of making games and blogging about football.

And like Jockie says, the books really don't start out with much fantasy. Martin wants to gradually increase the use of magic and so far he's doing a great job.

Oh, I'm waiting for the 5th book before I'll read the 4th. I'll read them at the same time.

"The things I do for love"

/pushes child out of window.

"an ideal background for numerous genres of videogames"

Am I the only one that thought kart racer? imagine the possibilities...

Better than Tolkien...

Most boring book I have ever read (well maybe after War and Peace and Bleak House). Never even considered reading book2+.

Care to share why you thought it was boring? Because I personally thought it was one of the most exciting books I've read.

Amazing series of books and I can't wait for the next installment. Hard to see any genre other than RPG really working in a game though. And even that seems a loose fit.

On fantasy series:

A tale of the malazan book of the fallen by steven erikson is better than song of ice and fire. It's bigger, darker and so far has about 7 books of the main series and 2 spinoffs written by another author with another book due out this summer. It may be showing signs of slipping in quality though. It's also a bit harder to get into as Erikson refuses to explain how anything (magic) works, and leaves it to the reader to pick up as they go along, for this reason the first book (Gardens of the moon) is a bit difficult for the first while as it starts off with a serious mage-fight.

It also has a lot more magic than ice and fire.

On the other hand, ice and fire is one of my absolutely favourite series and I can't wait for the HBO series. I just hope whatever game they decide to make does it justice, as it has some of the best charachters ever written and is not afraid to be absolutely brutal when called for. Or just because the author feels like it.

Amazing series indeed -I am not a big fantasy fan usually, really, but it's outstanding, even if GM has quite literally lost the plot in the last book. Not quite sure how you'd turn that into a game, though - the world itself is rather "normal", and the characters won't be transferred into a game easily.

Hahahaahha if you even think Martin is ever going to finish the series you are delusional. Martin is far too busy enjoying a steady diet of cheese cake wrapped in deep fried pizza while sat on his fat arse watching American football. If you go to a quiet place you can hear the shrill scream of Martins heart as it tries to keep on pumping blood which is now the consistency of lard.

Oh dear. i can see the games being really really average, which would reflect badly the quality of the series. unfortunately, as someone else pointed out ,the chances of the series ever being finished (by the original author at least) strike me as highly unlikely.

Funnily enough i've just finished reading the first book and really enjoyed it. Got to wait until i go to Cambridge to get the next one in Galloway and Porter for £2.99 - bargain!
Could be quite a good game as there's plenty of hack and slash moments. Quite like a 'crusade' setting but fantasy. Quality. Now i've just got to wait for the TV series of the Dark Tower series and all's good.

Well, I hope at least one book comes out after the game hits ... the game itself is probably going to be very mediocre and I don't want it to be my last experience of A Song of Ice and Fire.

"A tale of the malazan book of the fallen by steven erikson is better than song of ice and fire. It's bigger, darker and so far has about 7 books of the main series and 2 spinoffs written by another author with another book due out this summer. It may be showing signs of slipping in quality though. It's also a bit harder to get into as Erikson refuses to explain how anything (magic) works, and leaves it to the reader to pick up as they go along, for this reason the first book (Gardens of the moon) is a bit difficult for the first while as it starts off with a serious mage-fight."


Can't agree. Malazan is ok but its fallen a long way from its peak, which was books 2 & 3. And even those two books contained warnings of the horrors that were to come. Tons of identikit weary cynical soldiers, irrelevant subplots, books that contain all the actual interest in the last fifth, overly smug and mary-sue characters and constant one-up-manship on who is the most badass character.
Erikson badly needs an editor.

better than tolkien my furry tits. Quite apart from the appallingly generic and lightweight research into anglo saxon based medieval warfare and socioeconomic structures, juxtaposed effectively with the almost zilch research on the quasi middle eastern/asian/african setting of the far continent the girl and her dragons is on, the books, starting with so much promise, end up with 'Feast' being as far from editorial control as Deathly Hallows. The vivacity with which the environment, the life of the people, the challenges of battle and the landscape are drawn, not to mention any differentiation of culture across a landmass as big as the main continent (in comparison with such differences as existed across Europe in the real periods on question, is primitive to say the least.

Overlong, dull two dimensional characterisation, a convoluted plot of so many cast members spouting the most dull procedural dialogue/exposition, very ordinary writing at best, a poorly characterised history and mythology that grounds the whole thing. It could only appeal to serial fantasy enthusiasts who take this kind of beating with a similar aplomb to those MMO enthusiasts who put up with crap player character rigs, quest mechanics, grinding and uninspired gameplay as part and parcel of that addiction.

I found myself consulting maps to figure out what river was where, who's stronghold was on it, and who was running from whom to whom, fighting whom with whom and so on because none of it made it out of the sea of generic fantasy names gloop to register with me due to some attempt at deriving some signifier that would help ground this imagined universe in my head. Lesson number one for all fantasy novels is ignored. At least Howard dismissed the travel in favour of the action and spared us.

It's not that Tolkien was much if any better technically as far as narrative and dialogue goes, but the world depicted, the characters and mythology and how they relate to the metaphysics of fate he instils into the fabric of this world through the painstaking backlog of myth and genealogies etc. is all so much more direct, easy on the mind, vibrantly colourful and to some extent Dickensian re: the elements of caricature that accompany, intentionally the events, and perhaps unintentionally the prose depicting it. You don't have to read the Silmarillion, but the fact it exists to that depth effortlessly informs his prose with the character of the world he's describing and placing his story in.

In god knows how many books from Martin we've had buckets of intrigue and double crossing and so on, but it doesn't feel like it's got anywhere, then he has the gall to say that the next book goes over the same amount of time but follows Daenerys!?!?!

Has this man got an editor? Has he got anything like a focus? Tolkien was lambasted for keeping it to two strands once the fellowship splits, Frodo/Sam and the rest, but this guy has chapters dancing around as many characters as I'm finding make up a single sentence in this protracted rant.

Best characters ever written? who? the short fat Lannister and Daenerys are about the only ones who stands out, the Starks fall and presumably rise is the key arc (Daenerys and Bran get it together perhaps?) but even with them (Rob, Jon) I struggle to see how characterisation has been developed, where is their development?

Like with Pratchett, the first novel is full of energy, the initial big release of his imagination in published form, but while Pratchett eked it out over 4 or 5 decent novels with the Discworld setting, Martin struggled into his third book.

Perhaps the influence of Stephen Donaldson was too great?

I'm not going to pretend that these books aren't a good deal better than most of Eddings's and Brooks's output, but the comparison renders them beneath contempt. What next, Warhammer licensed fiction?.....er, oh.

Tyrion Lannister, greatest fictional character ever ;p

As it happens I'm just re-reading these books and I'm blown away how a fantasy series can have me glued to the page, seeing as I'm not into fantasy that much. Best series I've read, ahead of the early Clancy books.

If the games are even just one per cent as great as the books then they'll probably be the best games ever... likelihood of this happening though? Hmmmm...

"Overlong, dull two dimensional characterisation,"


Absolute nonsense. For someone who championed Tolkien someone who, with a few exceptions, produced laughably cookie cutter characters to say this?!?!
Merry & Pippin, dull dull dull. Legolas? About as generic an Elf as one could get. Boromir? The film massively improved him. Faramir? Able to turn down the Ring without any trouble whatsoever, something that is supposed to be able to corrupt any mind. Incidentally the people who turn down the Ring vastly outnumber the people who don't.


"a convoluted plot of so many cast members spouting the most dull procedural dialogue/exposition, very ordinary writing at best, a poorly characterised history and mythology that grounds the whole thing."

Ah keep the subjective arguments coming. If you find the high number of characters too confusing perhaps you should stick to something easier and more simple.

"I found myself consulting maps to figure out what river was where, who's stronghold was on it, and who was running from whom to whom, fighting whom with whom and so on because none of it made it out of the sea of generic fantasy names gloop to register with me due to some attempt at deriving some signifier that would help ground this imagined universe in my head. Lesson number one for all fantasy novels is ignored. At least Howard dismissed the travel in favour of the action and spared us."

As opposed to Tolkien's world I suppose? Which might be linguistically well researched but is geographically and economically woeful.
Societies need trade JRR. Next time pay attention to that in your maps.


"In god knows how many books from Martin we've had buckets of intrigue and double crossing and so on, but it doesn't feel like it's got anywhere, then he has the gall to say that the next book goes over the same amount of time but follows Daenerys!?!?! "

Again, your comparison seems to be a guy who spent 3 thick books describing walking to a mountain.


"Has this man got an editor? Has he got anything like a focus? Tolkien was lambasted for keeping it to two strands once the fellowship splits, Frodo/Sam and the rest, but this guy has chapters dancing around as many characters as I'm finding make up a single sentence in this protracted rant. "

Again if you find it too confusing perhaps stick to Harry Potter.

"Best characters ever written? who? the short fat Lannister and Daenerys are about the only ones who stands out, the Starks fall and presumably rise is the key arc (Daenerys and Bran get it together perhaps?) but even with them (Rob, Jon) I struggle to see how characterisation has been developed, where is their development? "

Tyrion, Daenerys, Jaime, Catelyn, Arya, Brienne and Sansa are all vastly better characters than just about anyone in Tolkien, and frankly just about anyone in fantasy fiction.
And even the more minor characters like Sandor Clegane, Oberyn Martell and Roose Bolton are much more interesting than most you'd find in other works.

This has got to be my favourite book series ever but I'm getting bored waiting for the next book.
Would any of you have any recommendations for other series?
I'm going to check out the works of Steven Eriksson soon.

I hope the movie and the game will get George R.R. Martin interested in finishing the series again!

@Skywise

Other book series that i've really enjoyed and would recommend are the Brethen/ Crusade/ Requiem trilogy by Robyn Young (I think that's her surname). Historically accurate based around the Crusades and Knights Templar.

Or the Dark Tower series of books by Stephen King. Wild west meets apocolyptic future! Even better if you're a King fan as there are references to other King books but enjoyable even if you don't know the connections.

My favourite series of all time though is the Master & Commander series (20 books and 1 unfinished as he died). They are by Patrick O'Brian. Historically accurate and they're about naval warfare. The film with Russel Crowe (Far Side Of The World) is based on the tenth book but was Hollywood-ised sadly. Still a good film but not to the book.

These news come just weeks apart from the announcement that the wheel of time novels are going to be into games and movies in various forms. There seem to be some interest in more adult-oriented fantasy at the moment which isn't a minute too late since the interest in fantasy movies among the generel public is waning and has for some time. The success of the Lord of the rings-movies never actually generated any particular interest in fantasy litterature outside the core audience or among "adults" never exposed to fantasy before.

Whether there is any interest left in fantasymovies will become apparant when the Hobbit enters the cinema.

Eurytus, analysis of fiction is essentially subjective, even with regard to which critical methodology you adopt. However:

The best literature in the world doesn't contain an enormous cast of characters. Finding it difficult to track who was who is hardly an evidence of weakness on my part, rather it suggests that the time spent flipping through chapters in this book where I read it a few days apart from the last, something I don't have a problem with in almost all literary fiction, and Tolkien, suggests Martin does have a problem engaging me that few much more lauded writers have.

Perhaps there's a reason why casts are limited, e.g. empathy and involvement can be more clearly defined, with less guesswork.

You then line up a bunch of characters many of whom I can't recall a single vivid moment regarding and decide that they hold up to pretty much anything by Pullman, Ursula LeGuin, Robert Howard, Lovecraft et al. As for any of them being more interesting than the Fellowship, we must just disagree. Daenerys is interesting, as I said, Brienne is no more vividly or interestingly motivated than Legolas, her blueprint is straight from Arthurian chivalry, but the chapters afforded her in Feast smack like so many others of 'here's what every character I gave any time to has done in this chapter, and this and this, and in the intervening chapters I progress in a linear fashion all the other plots for all the other characters who hover around this tale of a continent.'

They're diluted. Easy as.

I've got to say, 3 books walking to a mountain seems a whole lot more racy and fluent than 4 or 5 books about, well, other than Rob Stark being killed, nothing really, just things happening. Jesus, Tom Holland in the Rubicon manages to capture the entire history of the Roman Empire and all it's subplots and intrigue with pace and panache, and while he also outdoes Tolkien in this regard, given his narrative of events follows a similar subject matter of plotting and counterplotting and continental warfare, I can't see how we can justify thousands of pages for Martin's shot at this. At least where Tolkien is comparable is in the weft and warp of the history of his people speaking through and within the characters in their dialogues and motivations, and again, as above, the metaphysics ties in very closely in ways familiar to us from mythological narratives. Here lies the depth, not just complexity, but depth.

Societies also don't necessarily need trade btw, where the hobbits are primarily self sufficient agriculturally, Rohirrim are nomadic horse cultures with strongholds they retreat to in times of war, mirkwood elves live off their forest as do those in Lothlorien, Dale contains fishermen living off the lake there and the surrounding land. That these areas don't have a feudal economy doesn't mean they don't have economies per se, I don't see how pre feudal economic structures are incompatible with what he wrote.

If we're looking for economically and geographically woeful as regards economies and societies it would behove Martin to consider numerous elements in the spread and divergence of societies in teh world he creates, both in terms of transmittance of agricultural methods across climate zones and not up and down (see Europe vs. Africa) also monsoonal wind systems vs. open sea wind systems found in the Indian Ocean vs. Pacific as key drivers in how regions grow in trade and knowledge and wealth.

I see no evidence in Martin's work that the geographical and natural factors that come into play regarding climate and weather systems in ocean going trading, agriculture and religion drive the nature of the power structures laid out, and if we're looking for realism in his work as evidence of superiority over Tolkien's it is found just as wanting from that view.

"The best literature in the world doesn't contain an enormous cast of characters. Finding it difficult to track who was who is hardly an evidence of weakness on my part, rather it suggests that the time spent flipping through chapters in this book where I read it a few days apart from the last, something I don't have a problem with in almost all literary fiction, and Tolkien, suggests Martin does have a problem engaging me that few much more lauded writers have."

Dickens for starters has large casts in his books.
As indeed does a lot of mythology.

"Perhaps there's a reason why casts are limited, e.g. empathy and involvement can be more clearly defined, with less guesswork."

The fact that ALL the major characters in ASOIAF are better written than every single member of the Fellowship does not support this viewpoint.


"You then line up a bunch of characters many of whom I can't recall a single vivid moment regarding and decide that they hold up to pretty much anything by Pullman, Ursula LeGuin, Robert Howard, Lovecraft et al."

YOU can't recall a single vivid moment. The umpteen thousands who love the books don't have that problem.

"As for any of them being more interesting than the Fellowship, we must just disagree. Daenerys is interesting, as I said, Brienne is no more vividly or interestingly motivated than Legolas, her blueprint is straight from Arthurian chivalry, but the chapters afforded her in Feast smack like so many others of 'here's what every character I gave any time to has done in this chapter, and this and this, and in the intervening chapters I progress in a linear fashion all the other plots for all the other characters who hover around this tale of a continent.' "

How many females in fantasy are portrayed as Brienne is portrayed?
You may get some women fighters but they are invariably ludicrously portrayed as slender graceful beauties.
Not the more ostracized reality that is Brienne.

Put simply Martin's depiction of female characters craps all over Tolkiens and indeed most fantasy writers. Catelyn Stark alone is a far better written character than pretty much any other female character in fantasy. Sansa, Danerys and Arya are all well written also.

"They're diluted. Easy as."

Nope.

"I've got to say, 3 books walking to a mountain seems a whole lot more racy and fluent than 4 or 5 books about, well, other than Rob Stark being killed, nothing really, just things happening."

I recommend actually reading the books. You appear not to have bothered.


"Societies also don't necessarily need trade btw, where the hobbits are primarily self sufficient agriculturally, Rohirrim are nomadic horse cultures with strongholds they retreat to in times of war, mirkwood elves live off their forest as do those in Lothlorien, Dale contains fishermen living off the lake there and the surrounding land. That these areas don't have a feudal economy doesn't mean they don't have economies per se, I don't see how pre feudal economic structures are incompatible with what he wrote. "

Populations as large as some of Tolkiens require some form of food gathering. Given the complete absence of settlements in Gondor outside of the large ones and seemingly no trading partners of note he hasn't given any consideration to it. He also falls victim to the fantasy cliche of vast tracts of empty land in fertile areas. Despite umpteen hundreds (even thousands) of years of relative peace seemingly no-one decides to populate them. Lazy.


"If we're looking for economically and geographically woeful as regards economies and societies it would behove Martin to consider numerous elements in the spread and divergence of societies in teh world he creates, both in terms of transmittance of agricultural methods across climate zones and not up and down (see Europe vs. Africa) also monsoonal wind systems vs. open sea wind systems found in the Indian Ocean vs. Pacific as key drivers in how regions grow in trade and knowledge and wealth. "

You might want to bear in mind that the climate of Westeros is different to our world. For starters in the normal course of events, no winter. That makes a massive difference in how things develop. Given the climatic variation between the North and Dorne nothing is portrayed as out of place.
And we don't have enough information about the other continents to form an opinion.

Been meaning to read this series.Think I'll go buy the first book today. Now, wheres my Malazan Book of the Fallen game?

"Dickens for starters has large casts in his books.
As indeed does a lot of mythology. "

Not as large, not by a long way. Not even the Pantheon is as tortuously smeared on my eyes as this arena of feudal families.

"The fact that ALL the major characters in ASOIAF are better written than every single member of the Fellowship does not support this viewpoint. "

I disagree :) There's a reason the lord of the rings is voted britain's favourite book, and wins numerous such awards. He created modern archetypes that pretty much spawned the genre. I see the same praise recycled for the first book on numerous of Martin's sequels. I don't know that the umpteen thousands who enjoy Martin's book would prefer it to Tolkien's, but you appear to imply it, and while they might recall better the events in those books after a similar time since their release, that doesn't mean they can't recall the events of Tolkien's book better irrespective of the films, i.e. any time up to the late 90s. And there's a reason for that.

"Catelyn Stark alone is a far better written character than pretty much any other female character in fantasy. Sansa, Danerys and Arya are all well written also. "

I can't believe you've read The Mists of Avalon yet if you're spouting this, but a defense can be mounted for the cross racial love of Arwen, and the frustrations of Eowyn in her role, not to mention Nienor in the Children of Hurin.

"I recommend actually reading the books. You appear not to have bothered."

Of course I have, I'm just giving you my opinion on how much less memorable it all is, I won't be getting the new one because I can't give this guy any more time in my life, I did it with Donaldson and wasn't rewarded come the third trilogy. Same with Pratchett, I read about 5 discworld novels and wished he'd done something new and more suitable to his obvious powers of wit and writing.

"You might want to bear in mind that the climate of Westeros is different to our world. For starters in the normal course of events, no winter. "

This only proves my point. If you're going to have no winter, then how on earth do we have even the remotest similarity with the essential grounding in reality he seems to implicitly assume with regard to anything related to economies and foodstuffs and the patterns and cycles of these that define them. The ecosystem's differences would surely have a more radical effect on the fabric of his world than it does. The obvious answer to all this is that it's fantasy, but if you allow that, then you concede the original point by default.

There's a big difference between finding it important to tell the reader about every small settlement along a journey and screwing up the whole of nature while ignoring almost all of its consequences. At least Donaldson had a stab at it with the rapidly cycling seasons and how it affected the land, it changed the character of the world of previous instalments in the chronicles of thomas covenant beyond compare.

One guy writes a trilogy that is lauded the world over and defines the genre we're arguing within, the other writes a series of books that disappear up their own arse, garnering a fraction of the critical acclaim along the way. How many more umpteen thousand enthusiasts would that be? How many more tales of the why and wherefore, of which mine is one?

NERD DEBATE!

Unless you are a massive literary snob, like HUGE, like Swisstony here, Ice and Fire novels are amazing and should be read. Amazing characters. Swisstony: The characters ARE the plot. If they don't cut it for you, I just don't know what to say, they are amazing, for the most part (I'll concede Brienne not being amazing, and some of the one-off POV characters). Even someone like the Hound, who seems like the simple cruel badass type of guy, has so much depth to him.

Also I will say Feast was too slow, especially the first third, and it seems like he could've easily combined the story arcs of all the characters in one book like he did before if he simply cut a whole bunch of the Brienne stuff which didn't amount to much of anything, really. But I still really enjoyed the book, regardless.

Well, I'll confess to a few things.

I am a literary snob, I mostly read stuff wot gets great reviews in TLS and the New York Book Review etc. Your Ian McEwans, Cathy Ozicks, Annie Proulxs, Thomas Pynchon etc. These books are just better written and more compelling than vast tracts of the stuff in the fantasy books section of Waterstones.

Secondly I'm not so anti GRRM as all that, I just fancied a rant, over-egging my disappointments to pass some time. The first 3 books I quite enjoyed if I'm honest, but Feast for Crows was a complete disaster, so much weaker than the others, so much more bloated, it was hugely disappointing, and I wasn't expecting quite such disappointment. People should indeed get these books and read them, but I'm warning you, it slows down to a crawl as the books go by. A bit like Seasons 2 and 3 of Lost.

I agree with you that it's a character driven plot, but with such a vast cast of so many competing whims, plots, deceits and so on I found myself caring less and less what happened to anyone, I think it's a big focus problem. I don't have a problem with him having a vast plot, he's the author, knock yourself out etc. but I don't think such a vast canvas succeeds in maintaining the emotional engagement. It's like Eastenders with 4 times as many principle characters. It's easy to get lost and he's not a good enough author to find a way through it outside of brute force detail over thousands of pages.

It is a lot better than most stock fantasy, as I've alluded to, it's good as far as the standard 'map of world on pages 3 and 4 for reference' fantasy novels go, but for invention and imagination there are better authors in the genre. For complex plotting on a grand scale, there aren't.

I'm glad somebody agrees with regard to Feast, the whole thing feels like it could be concluded more quickly but AS effectively, such as Bran's arc and Daenerys's arc. I found myself thinking SOFAI was about the fall and rise of the Starks with some effective threads around the rise and fall of the Lannisters as counterpoint and the wild card of Daenerys thrown in, but instead those elements are stretched thinly over so much other content that doesn't add enough for my money. If indeed those threads aren't what the point of these novels is about, that would explain my dissatisfaction, because that was what I thought was coming through strongly as the narrative focus for this series in the first couple of books.

You're entitled to your opinion Swisstony, but I wouldn't call A feast for Crows a disaster. Although slightly below the first three books it was still good read. Anyway, the next book has got a lot more chapters devoted to Tyrion and Dany, so as the interenet would say..A Dance with Dragons will be an EPIC WIN! ;p

His books are without any doubt the best fantasy reading out there, or at least one of the best.
What *really* piss me off is the pace at which the last book(s) seems to be written. There is the risk he will never finish them at all.
And I don't know if it's because of the love of his work (read: he wants quality) or because he doesn't give a fuck anymore and prefers to spend his time elsewhere.

"Secondly I'm not so anti GRRM as all that, I just fancied a rant, over-egging my disappointments to pass some time"

I see. You were trolling. Debate over then.

well, i'd hardly call hyperbole and unqualified opinion a debate, but trolling? it was a crime of passion m'lud.

You sound like Tyrion, the way you squirmed out of that one. I can just imagine Bronn laughing his ass off ;p