"Executive" bullet points:

Quote from: Skarg;988469* I [don't] read looking for the heroes-who-will-live. [I'm not surprised if that's not the majority way.]

* Did GRRM misrepresent somewhere that none of the chapterhead characters would be ones who happened to survive a long time through sometimes-long odds?

* I'd rather not be told which [characters are going to die sooner rather than later].

* I also don't see it as negative that we get the perspectives of characters who die at some point, or that we get the mundane background and previous orientation of characters who survive and develop.

* I think the TV version has certainly degraded the whole ... series (except the visuals and some nice bits), especially after it outpaced the books, and in term of unexpected plot, character details and deaths. [But] I also wouldn't put it past even the TV show to end with a bloodbath.

* The deaths and survivals in the books seem mostly surrounded by circumstances where they make decent sense, certainly moreso that most pop fiction where smiling inexperienced teens suddenly have amazing skills and don't mind randomly risking their lives with cocky cool confidence since they're the hero [and they often give little/no reason for it].

Were I inclined to run it, I'd use Toon.  I'm not saying that would be a faithful adaptation, but for me it would be far more enjoyable that the original.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;988481GRRM also falls into the (very common) epic fantasy trap of not wanting ANYTHING to happen off-screen after the first book or two, making the main plot slow to a anemic crawl.  (Wheel of Time did the same thing.  Far more actually happened in the first 5 books then the rest combined.  As did Sword of Truth.  And...)

Game of Thrones' are just even more annoying because so many of the rabbit holes feel like they're there just to make you sad when their perspective dies horribly.

It is rather odd as he started out as a sf/horror short story writer with an absolutely great grasp of pace and plotting in stories like Nightflyer or Sandkings.

Quote from: Voros;988614It is rather odd as he started out as a sf/horror short story writer with an absolutely great grasp of pace and plotting in stories like Nightflyer or Sandkings.

And Wheel of Time was started specifically designed as a 6 book series.  For whatever reason - it's an easy trap to fall into for fantasy specifically, though I've seen some sci-fi do it to a lesser degree.

Likely other genres don't have the problem because it largely comes from a desire of the author to show off 'this awesome world which I've spent so long working on' rather than just showing us the tip of the iceberg. Sometimes having awesome backstory hinted at is better than explaining it even aside from pacing reasons.  *cough* midichlorians *cough*

M. John Harrison's essay on the excesses of worldbuilding encapsulates that well.

I wonder how many readers actually like having huge books with a low/slow plot-to-page ratio? It seems to me that with paper publishers being so corporate and accepting so few things, that they and/or their audience might have something to do with it? I know there's an attraction for some readers with having a series of long books to have something to chew on for a long time without having to re-learn a new context.

For me, it depends on how much I'm enjoying the setting that's being lingered in. If I actually like the setting, characters and situation, I don't mind having 1000-2000 pages of lazy-paced hanging out with it. But if I'm not liking it so much and am wading/skipping through it looking for the interesting bits, not so much.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;988481GRRM also falls into the (very common) epic fantasy trap of not wanting ANYTHING to happen off-screen after the first book or two, making the main plot slow to a anemic crawl.  (Wheel of Time did the same thing.  Far more actually happened in the first 5 books then the rest combined.  As did Sword of Truth.  And...)

Game of Thrones' are just even more annoying because so many of the rabbit holes feel like they're there just to make you sad when their perspective dies horribly.

That's something of an exaggeration, though. While there are many more details than needed, especially if one would prefer a concise and focused plot (the books could be 1/5th the length or less), they don't describe everything that happens to the main characters. Rob's campaigns against the Lannisters could have been detailed but most of them are given only cursory descriptions, for example. And if a reader _is_ attached to a character and _interested_ in seeing details of the world and events (and not already very familiar with fantasy settings) then they might be entertained by the details.

Yes, there are tons of detailed passages for many characters, with travel details and other specific descriptions. My theory is he put them in because he finds them interesting and/or thinks a good part of his audience will find them interesting and _immersive_ (that favorite term everyone agrees on ). He's providing the perspective and experience of a variety of characters.

I think I'd use BRP. Second choice would be original D&D with custom races and classes.

Quote from: Skarg;988679That's something of an exaggeration, though. While there are many more details than needed, especially if one would prefer a concise and focused plot (the books could be 1/5th the length or less), they don't describe everything that happens to the main characters. Rob's campaigns against the Lannisters could have been detailed but most of them are given only cursory descriptions, for example. And if a reader _is_ attached to a character and _interested_ in seeing details of the world and events (and not already very familiar with fantasy settings) then they might be entertained by the details.

Yes, there are tons of detailed passages for many characters, with travel details and other specific descriptions. My theory is he put them in because he finds them interesting and/or thinks a good part of his audience will find them interesting and _immersive_ (that favorite term everyone agrees on ). He's providing the perspective and experience of a variety of characters.

When I re-read the first three books, I read them by taking a viewpoint character and reading all of his or her chapters in order. Reading a character's chapters was almost like reading a novel. It was even more of an improvement as skipping huge bits of each book, which was how I did my second and last re-read.

If I ever thought of running ASOIAF/GOT I'd use Pendragon 4e with some tweaks here and there.

Burning Wheel all the way with GOT.  Looking over the last seven seasons, the BITs are just crying out.

Quote from: Skarg;988442GRRM's deaths don't seem arbitrary or particularly high to me, except compared to heroes-always-triumph expectations. I see at least as many unexpected survivals as deaths, and the deaths pretty much all made sense at least until the show outpaced the books.

They may be high for fantasy literature, perhaps.  They're certainly not high by the standards of an RPG campaign.

This literate video titled "Game of Thrones; Or The Pain Of Falling Out Of Love With A Story" seems like a pretty accurate (to my judgment, anyway) assessment of the collapse of writing quality in the GoT TV show since they out-paced the books.

Quote from: Skarg;988671I wonder how many readers actually like having huge books with a low/slow plot-to-page ratio? It seems to me that with paper publishers being so corporate and accepting so few things, that they and/or their audience might have something to do with it? I know there's an attraction for some readers with having a series of long books to have something to chew on for a long time without having to re-learn a new context.

For me, it depends on how much I'm enjoying the setting that's being lingered in. If I actually like the setting, characters and situation, I don't mind having 1000-2000 pages of lazy-paced hanging out with it. But if I'm not liking it so much and am wading/skipping through it looking for the interesting bits, not so much.

I wonder...there seem to be a lot of very long books in the genre now where not much happens for long periods. When I compare the page count to things like the D'Artagnan Romances by Alexandre Dumas (about 3,500 pages split over 5 books in the paperback from Oxford World's Classics, but such a page-turner with so much happening that I only stop because I run out of time to read), it just seems like lazy writing or deliberate page-count inflation for an audience that wants it for whatever reason. I'd be curious to know. Is it because a superstar writer can veto his editors who might otherwise have drawn red lines through prolix passages? I can't comment on Martin, though, as I haven't read his books; honestly I read the first few pages and if nothing interests me I go no further and that was the case with his stuff.

Bloated prose and poor plotting seem to be the thing in a lot of modern fantasy writing. Everything has to be at least a trilogy with a usually pointless bridge book in the middle where nothing really happens. The 4-6 book series are even worse.

An unfortunate side-effect of LotR's massive success. Anderson was able to pack an entire savage, moving saga into the compact The Broken Sword. Too bad that wasn't the model.