Game of Thrones begins....

[Slargos]

Isn't the entire point of a story to be emotionally engaging, though?

Yes.  That's exactly my point.  There are so many characters, and their stories are so broken up, that it is difficult to identify with any of them.  Identification is the key to emotional engagement.

Sure, the story could be written from a historian's perspective and there wouldn't be a need for POV at all, but how interesting would that be to read?

I recommend that you not write like this if you decide to write a novel.  Sounds like a horrible idea.  You can do appendices like that, though.  Tolkien did that, and so does Martin.  I'd restrict myself to appendices with your proposed style, were I you.

I see your point.

I've never had a problem with empathy so I don't need as coherent a story as perhaps you do. But I see your point.

[grumbler]

I just had a Fitzpatrick's War flashback. Thanks. 

I know I started that book and thought it dreadful, but nothing stayed with me.  Sorry if I opened an old wound.

[LaCroix]

Yes.  That's exactly my point.  There are so many characters, and their stories are so broken up, that it is difficult to identify with any of them.  Identification is the key to emotional engagement.

it may come down to perspective. i didn't have a problem with it, as the characters seemed to be jointly connected in some fashion by the bigger picture(tm). theon's pov, for example, helped build up the greyjoys' later interest in the events so they didn't just appear as some random force. and i loved both dorne and the new krakens even if the fourth book wasn't exactly a masterpiece

[grumbler]

it may come down to perspective. i didn't have a problem with it, as the characters seemed to be jointly connected in some fashion by the bigger picture(tm). theon's pov, for example, helped build up the greyjoys' later interest in the events so they didn't just appear as some random force. and i loved both dorne and the new krakens even if the fourth book wasn't exactly a masterpiece

I am not sure perspective is what it comes down to, so much as taste.  I like stories that tell stories - tales that seem to have been hammered out of the iron and dross that constitutes the first draft.  I can read fan fiction for the kinds of wandering, self-indulgent, publish-the-first-draft kinds of writing we get from later martin, and even the self-indulgent "let me try to make people like this character before i kill them" that constitutes the first half of the sage.  Eddard, yes.  Probably should have been done for King Robert.  But we didn't need the stories of all the characters (with more to come!), IMO.  The story can be told with a third the characters, and told better (I feel).  It isn't bad as is, mind you.  It is quite good.  But a lot of what is in the books should be, IMO, published as short stories, or on the web or via comics or other media.

[Razgovory]

Isn't the entire point of a story to be emotionally engaging, though?

Yes.  That's exactly my point.  There are so many characters, and their stories are so broken up, that it is difficult to identify with any of them.  Identification is the key to emotional engagement.

Sure, the story could be written from a historian's perspective and there wouldn't be a need for POV at all, but how interesting would that be to read?

I recommend that you not write like this if you decide to write a novel.  Sounds like a horrible idea.  You can do appendices like that, though.  Tolkien did that, and so does Martin.  I'd restrict myself to appendices with your proposed style, were I you.

Sobel did that in "For Want of a Nail".

[Slargos]

it may come down to perspective. i didn't have a problem with it, as the characters seemed to be jointly connected in some fashion by the bigger picture(tm). theon's pov, for example, helped build up the greyjoys' later interest in the events so they didn't just appear as some random force. and i loved both dorne and the new krakens even if the fourth book wasn't exactly a masterpiece

I am not sure perspective is what it comes down to, so much as taste.  I like stories that tell stories - tales that seem to have been hammered out of the iron and dross that constitutes the first draft.  I can read fan fiction for the kinds of wandering, self-indulgent, publish-the-first-draft kinds of writing we get from later martin, and even the self-indulgent "let me try to make people like this character before i kill them" that constitutes the first half of the sage.  Eddard, yes.  Probably should have been done for King Robert.  But we didn't need the stories of all the characters (with more to come!), IMO.  The story can be told with a third the characters, and told better (I feel).  It isn't bad as is, mind you.  It is quite good.  But a lot of what is in the books should be, IMO, published as short stories, or on the web or via comics or other media.

A more dedicated writer could probably easily do two or perhaps even three separate concurrent series with a common tie in to finish them all. Has it been done? Would it work? I think it might be an interesting read.

The thing I most enjoy about Erikson is how each of his books is more or less a self-contained work, and despite having a legion of characters, the individual books are more focused on a separate arc while also maintaining the grand scheme through the series.

[Martinus]

Because if they don't interact with Westeros, who gives a shit?

That's my argument.

This was a beef I had with the books.  You have these people on the other side of the world who have little effect on the rest of the story line.  I assume that toward the end several heroes will migrate to the Dragon queen chick and help her as she restores her throne.  Still, it's like having a novel about the Teutonic crusaders but some chapters are devoted to young Genghis Khan.  Sure he'll make an impact on the other characters, it just happens about 7,000 pages down the line.

It's better than a horrible Deus Ex Machina that would have happened if she suddenly appeared out of nowhere, at the head of a dragon/Mongol army, to save Westeros from the Others.

[Martinus]

it may come down to perspective. i didn't have a problem with it, as the characters seemed to be jointly connected in some fashion by the bigger picture(tm). theon's pov, for example, helped build up the greyjoys' later interest in the events so they didn't just appear as some random force. and i loved both dorne and the new krakens even if the fourth book wasn't exactly a masterpiece

I am not sure perspective is what it comes down to, so much as taste.  I like stories that tell stories - tales that seem to have been hammered out of the iron and dross that constitutes the first draft.  I can read fan fiction for the kinds of wandering, self-indulgent, publish-the-first-draft kinds of writing we get from later martin, and even the self-indulgent "let me try to make people like this character before i kill them" that constitutes the first half of the sage.  Eddard, yes.  Probably should have been done for King Robert.  But we didn't need the stories of all the characters (with more to come!), IMO.  The story can be told with a third the characters, and told better (I feel).  It isn't bad as is, mind you.  It is quite good.  But a lot of what is in the books should be, IMO, published as short stories, or on the web or via comics or other media.

A more dedicated writer could probably easily do two or perhaps even three separate concurrent series with a common tie in to finish them all. Has it been done? Would it work? I think it might be an interesting read.

The thing I most enjoy about Erikson is how each of his books is more or less a self-contained work, and despite having a legion of characters, the individual books are more focused on a separate arc while also maintaining the grand scheme through the series.

You are making a mistake there.

[Slargos]

it may come down to perspective. i didn't have a problem with it, as the characters seemed to be jointly connected in some fashion by the bigger picture(tm). theon's pov, for example, helped build up the greyjoys' later interest in the events so they didn't just appear as some random force. and i loved both dorne and the new krakens even if the fourth book wasn't exactly a masterpiece

I am not sure perspective is what it comes down to, so much as taste.  I like stories that tell stories - tales that seem to have been hammered out of the iron and dross that constitutes the first draft.  I can read fan fiction for the kinds of wandering, self-indulgent, publish-the-first-draft kinds of writing we get from later martin, and even the self-indulgent "let me try to make people like this character before i kill them" that constitutes the first half of the sage.  Eddard, yes.  Probably should have been done for King Robert.  But we didn't need the stories of all the characters (with more to come!), IMO.  The story can be told with a third the characters, and told better (I feel).  It isn't bad as is, mind you.  It is quite good.  But a lot of what is in the books should be, IMO, published as short stories, or on the web or via comics or other media.

A more dedicated writer could probably easily do two or perhaps even three separate concurrent series with a common tie in to finish them all. Has it been done? Would it work? I think it might be an interesting read.

The thing I most enjoy about Erikson is how each of his books is more or less a self-contained work, and despite having a legion of characters, the individual books are more focused on a separate arc while also maintaining the grand scheme through the series.

You are making a mistake there.

In talking to grumbler? Or relating things I enjoy in story telling?

I know you don't mean the enjoyment itself, because it would be morbidly stupid to call that a mistake.

[Camerus]

I like Martin's frequent shifts of perspective and character.   Yeah sometimes it can be frustrating when the chapter suddenly ends before an important development, but ultimately it keeps the reader's perspective broad and aware of developments in what is supposed to be a dynastic civil war of enormous complexity.  It's also lends for a lot of interesting contrast between how characters are viewed by others vs. how they see themselves.  And, it lends more room for speculation and imigination (which, given the lengthy time delays between books is almost a must.   )

The problem is that a few characters just aren't that interesting.  Brienne is an infamous example of this.  Although as it happens, I rather enjoy the Daneryes sub-plot, even though up til now it has had little bearing on the main chain of events.

[Slargos]

I like Martin's frequent shifts of perspective and character.   Yeah sometimes it can be frustrating when the chapter suddenly ends before an important development, but ultimately it keeps the reader's perspective broad and aware of developments in what is supposed to be a dynastic civil war of enormous complexity.  It's also lends for a lot of interesting contrast between how characters are viewed by others vs. how they see themselves.  And, it lends more room for speculation and imigination (which, given the lengthy time delays between books is almost a must.    )

The problem is that a few characters just aren't that interesting.  Brienne is an infamous example of this.  Although as it happens, I rather enjoy the Daneryes sub-plot, even though up til now it has had little bearing on the main chain of events.

Slashing a bunch of characters from POV might make the story more streamlined, but single (or few)-protagonist fantasy books are thirty in a dozen, and I certainly agree that the many viewpoints we're served makes for a broader experience of the war.

[Martinus]

it may come down to perspective. i didn't have a problem with it, as the characters seemed to be jointly connected in some fashion by the bigger picture(tm). theon's pov, for example, helped build up the greyjoys' later interest in the events so they didn't just appear as some random force. and i loved both dorne and the new krakens even if the fourth book wasn't exactly a masterpiece

I am not sure perspective is what it comes down to, so much as taste.  I like stories that tell stories - tales that seem to have been hammered out of the iron and dross that constitutes the first draft.  I can read fan fiction for the kinds of wandering, self-indulgent, publish-the-first-draft kinds of writing we get from later martin, and even the self-indulgent "let me try to make people like this character before i kill them" that constitutes the first half of the sage.  Eddard, yes.  Probably should have been done for King Robert.  But we didn't need the stories of all the characters (with more to come!), IMO.  The story can be told with a third the characters, and told better (I feel).  It isn't bad as is, mind you.  It is quite good.  But a lot of what is in the books should be, IMO, published as short stories, or on the web or via comics or other media.

A more dedicated writer could probably easily do two or perhaps even three separate concurrent series with a common tie in to finish them all. Has it been done? Would it work? I think it might be an interesting read.

The thing I most enjoy about Erikson is how each of his books is more or less a self-contained work, and despite having a legion of characters, the individual books are more focused on a separate arc while also maintaining the grand scheme through the series.

You are making a mistake there.

In talking to grumbler? Or relating things I enjoy in story telling?

The former.

More so than normally, too. His posts seem to imply that the kind of writing he enjoys is "good writing", and stuff he dislikes about the SOIAF series (which, for example for me, is what sold me on the books) is "bad writing". It's rather pointless to engage him.

[Slargos]

it may come down to perspective. i didn't have a problem with it, as the characters seemed to be jointly connected in some fashion by the bigger picture(tm). theon's pov, for example, helped build up the greyjoys' later interest in the events so they didn't just appear as some random force. and i loved both dorne and the new krakens even if the fourth book wasn't exactly a masterpiece

I am not sure perspective is what it comes down to, so much as taste.  I like stories that tell stories - tales that seem to have been hammered out of the iron and dross that constitutes the first draft.  I can read fan fiction for the kinds of wandering, self-indulgent, publish-the-first-draft kinds of writing we get from later martin, and even the self-indulgent "let me try to make people like this character before i kill them" that constitutes the first half of the sage.  Eddard, yes.  Probably should have been done for King Robert.  But we didn't need the stories of all the characters (with more to come!), IMO.  The story can be told with a third the characters, and told better (I feel).  It isn't bad as is, mind you.  It is quite good.  But a lot of what is in the books should be, IMO, published as short stories, or on the web or via comics or other media.

A more dedicated writer could probably easily do two or perhaps even three separate concurrent series with a common tie in to finish them all. Has it been done? Would it work? I think it might be an interesting read.

The thing I most enjoy about Erikson is how each of his books is more or less a self-contained work, and despite having a legion of characters, the individual books are more focused on a separate arc while also maintaining the grand scheme through the series.

You are making a mistake there.

In talking to grumbler? Or relating things I enjoy in story telling?

The former.

More so than normally, too. His posts seem to imply that the kind of writing he enjoys is "good writing", and stuff he dislikes about the SOIAF series (which, for example for me, is what sold me on the books) is "bad writing". It's rather pointless to engage him.

Oh. What can I say.. I may sometimes come across as a misantropic pessimist, but in my heart I am an inveterate optimist, and even though my exchanges with grumbler are usually not very constructive or pleasant, I recognize that from time to time he's able to switch off the rabid little bitch act he's got going.

It never hurts to keep trying to have a civil conversation. 

[Razgovory]

Because if they don't interact with Westeros, who gives a shit?

That's my argument.

This was a beef I had with the books.  You have these people on the other side of the world who have little effect on the rest of the story line.  I assume that toward the end several heroes will migrate to the Dragon queen chick and help her as she restores her throne.  Still, it's like having a novel about the Teutonic crusaders but some chapters are devoted to young Genghis Khan.  Sure he'll make an impact on the other characters, it just happens about 7,000 pages down the line.

It's better than a horrible Deus Ex Machina that would have happened if she suddenly appeared out of nowhere, at the head of a dragon/Mongol army, to save Westeros from the Others.

I imagine a decent author could figure something out between those two extremes.

[LaCroix]

I am not sure perspective is what it comes down to, so much as taste.  I like stories that tell stories - tales that seem to have been hammered out of the iron and dross that constitutes the first draft.  I can read fan fiction for the kinds of wandering, self-indulgent, publish-the-first-draft kinds of writing we get from later martin, and even the self-indulgent "let me try to make people like this character before i kill them" that constitutes the first half of the sage.  Eddard, yes.  Probably should have been done for King Robert.  But we didn't need the stories of all the characters (with more to come!), IMO.  The story can be told with a third the characters, and told better (I feel).  It isn't bad as is, mind you.  It is quite good.  But a lot of what is in the books should be, IMO, published as short stories, or on the web or via comics or other media.

you're right, i should have said taste--i thought about that in class as the professor rambled on 

-spoiler below-
i like how the events are fleshed out by presenting points of view that may as well be fluff. more parts of the world are explored, shown instead of told, by the characters. without theon, davos, etc, i don't think many of the battles, betrayals, actions, diplomacy, and so forth across westeros would have as much impact to the audience. the story also changed throughout the course of the series for the readers. the whole of the first book essentially tries to mask what the series is about, with everything leading up to the fatal execution of ned and the birth of the dragons. in a quick stroke the story expanded beyond its previous scope, and the povs/soon-to-be povs support it. it's sloppy in places, no doubt, but overall i think it achieves its purpose