Is Winter Coming?

The following is a response, written originally by Rockroi and which can also be found here, to the now infamous article in the New Yorker. It is in no way to be taken as a personal insult to George R. R. Martin. This thread is for posterity.

Hello. My name is Rockroi. I am a long-time contributor to the westeroes.org message boards and I am an avid fan and logical critic of George RR Martin, his books and most assuredly his rabid fan-base. I am writing my thoughts here because I am legitimately concerned that if I contribute to the westeroes boards I will start a discussion that will be locked with the remarkably terse and condescending lines "This topic has run its course." I like how others can decide for me when a discussion has run its course.

I also want to state this: I am a fan of GRRMartin. I liked three of his last 4 books a great deal (guess which one I did not like so much?). I am not interested in making fun of Martin who, after all, has contributed so much to my enjoyment of this genre. I am not interested in mocking George in his tastes for women, football teams, clothes etc, and I am sure not going to make fun of the man's physical appearance.

But I will take umbrage at some falsehoods and logical fallacies of George and his followers.

Which brings me to the New Yorker article.

Specifically:



This is a very stark and remarkably flawed logic line. Namely, that the reason that fans were "disappointed" with AFfC was that it was missing popular characters. This is woeful logic. Overwhelmingly, the major reason that AFfC was so disappointing was that AFfC was not a good product in and of itself. Briefly, AFfC was not as good as the other books because of: Utter lack of dramatic, sequential build up of events leading to some sort of climax; needless repetition; a needless proliferation of POVs that interrupt the overall narrative; failure to reasonably detail complex characters (Cersei, exclusively); failure to break new ground; the inclusion of wholly tangential and uninspired peoples (most notably the Iron Isles); a seeming cavalcade of hap-hazard events; stories and plots that lead nowhere (does anyone- TO THIS DAY –understand what was going on in Dorne or why it mattered?); stories seem to involve people and places the reader has very little investment in (in the case of Dorne, we actually have 0 investment); stories as pure filler; story “bait and switch’ (most notably with Sam meeting Arya but not meeting her;Brienne’s travels); how much of the book feels like its being told second-hand (ie: Dragonstone falls but we never see it).

This is not "bashing Martin." This is not merely demanding instant gratification (*see below*). Its serious, unvarnished criticism- something people in Western Civilization have been doing for 2000 years.

But to degrade that criticism by saying "Because “A Feast for Crows” followed the adventures of a number of new characters—and left the fates of several popular characters unresolved after the previous book’s cliffhanger ending—some fans were disappointed by it" is disingenuous and misses the point entirely- and one must wonder purposely. To blame the dissatisfied readers with AFfC because it did not contain old favorite characters is equivalent to saying the reason Anti-war protesters were angry at the invasion of Iraq and George W. Bush was because Bush failed to properly utilize the cruise missiles and the 82 Airborne division.

After all, had AFfC included Tyrion Lannister it would still be a lack-luster books- but now with Tyrion Lannister!

Which brings me to my second critisism:



That's not what you said.

Here's what you said:

"... all the rest of the characters you love and love to hate will be along next year (I devoutly hope) in A Dance with Dragons." Nothing about it being half finished; nothing about how you "should" be able to finish it. No. You specifically said "will be..." You also described the "pages and pages and pages of them. Chapters and more chapters" that you had written. You did more than just leave an impression that the book would be done quickly; you specified.

But worse than that: you claim that it was a "fatal mistake" to say what you said. And maybe it was. But that "guarantee" was not the problem. Do not try to paint it as if after 1-year and 1-day, the internet exploded with howling fiends demanding to know where the next book was. Far from it. The internet puttered along with people making queries into the series, your progress etc. We did not all suddenly become assholes overnight. This is a grotesque misapplication of reason. We have been waiting for this book for ... nearly six years. So even in a light most favorable to your side of the story, sir, you were off in your prediction by 600%! How, in the world, is this a "fatal mistake?" Its not. The fatal mistake was taking six years to write one-half of one book, not in your extraordinarily mis-fired prediction.

Which brings us to the "instant gratification generation." How wonderfully strange.

First and foremost, its not true. People who like your books are not simply 18-24 year olds who have been weened on the internet and fast food. Some of us are professional adults who started the books off in our twenties and then had careers, professional lives and families in the intervening DECADE. We waited something like 2 years for 1/2 a season of the Sopranos; we waited 30 years for the Star Wars Prequels - and after they were AT BEST "meh" still watched Clone Wars; we are the generation that reads more, is educated more, and is open to more new ideas than all other previous generations COMBINED!

Secondly, its not more than just a little bit insulting. To compare us to twitching cocaine addicts who cannot wait for Reed Rothchild to get back with the "stuff" is openly and willfully insulting. We are your fans. we are fathers and sons; mothers and daughters; we are nurses and lawyers and soldiers and carpenters. We have been with you through thick and thin. Its our fandom, our devotion, and our intelligence (stupid people would not like this series) that has helped make this series a success (it would be nothing without your brilliant writing, to say the least). Its our hard-earned dollars that buy your books, its our fat asses that sit in the seats of convention, and its our wonderment and amazement that keeps this fire burning brightly. And you insult us at your peril.

Thirdly, its illogical. We have waited- as stated -six years for one-half of one book. Only the most rabid fanboi would consider that wait mild. Its been ELEVEN years since ASoS was released- the last, I assume, "completed" book in the series. Its not like we are talking a week, a month, a year or even 3 years. Its been 6 years. In that time I have had 2 children, we have had a new President, 2 new Congresses, a new government in Egypt, and Pluto is no longer a planet. Only a mind void of logic and empathy would consider criticism of that wait to be a venture into "instant gratification." Its simply trying to frame us- your slightly disloyal following - as unreasonable. And that's not just untrue and insulting.

Its also not fair. Here we are- years later- with our eyes wide with anticipation, our wallets at the ready, our eyes waiting to read ADwD; our ears ready to hear AGoT on HBO. Does this sound like an instant gratification generation to you? No sir, we are not. And I would appreciate it if you did not stereotype us all in that manner.

Thank you.

Sweet Strunk & White! Please, please, please...learn the difference between "it's" and "its" in written English. Your missive gives the lie to this line:

"...we are the generation that reads more, is educated more, and is open to more new ideas than all other previous generations COMBINED!"

No. A thousand times, no. Even in that quote you parade your ignorance. It should be "...more open to new ideas...". If you wish to write in the open-letter form, you must learn a bit more about the mechanics of formal, written English; and this charge hold irrespective of major dialects.

Porkins, you sound as snooty as a writer for the New Yorker!

Regardless of whatever grammar issues there were, I thought it was pretty cool to see such passion from a new member

(I left the period off that last sentence to give you something to do. )

EDIT: BTW I HAVE to believe that you are either a Porkins-impersonator or that you're being sarcastic on such a high level that you've tricked me (not hard to do...).

Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek. I wanted to be GRRMlin-like. The sarcasm is implied in my post, e.g. 'hold' vs. 'holds', "Sweet Strunk & White"...because no-one ever really cared for their rules to begin with!

But I am still about as welcome as a Wild Cardzzzz! post.

Phew! I wasn't entirely sure but my eyes did linger on that "hold" for a while. Well done, Porkins, for making me briefly doubt the rightness of the world!

Thank you for reposting this.

I figure a good way to live up to the hype of this post would be to at least live up to its title. This post above is actually only a criticism of one paragraph of the article. I have not made a criticism of the entire article because, well, I have no portfolio of my own to stand on. I will say that I thought the author overly deferential to Martin while being overly critical of his detractors. Detractors are classified as being immature and a little bit narcissistic.

Well, okay but none of those people named their child Danaerys nor asked for a dictionary of High Valayrian. I’m just saying.

However, overall I was stunned that the piece actually made a very large point of describing (albeit negatively) those who are disappointed in Martin; that actually became the whole point of the article- even the title harkens to it.

At the same time, I have some nit-picking to do.

For starters, the histrionics leave much to be desired; while detractors are portrayed as rabid and volatile, Martin’s supporters are portrayed as intelligent and even studious. And yet the depiction of Elio M. García, Jr., Ran, struck me as not just a little bit off.



See, I remember when we used to call that censorship, and we considered it a bad thing. Now, apparently, any topic that was not “constructive” was getting deleted. First, we have a logical disconnect: I am a little bit miffed that any discussion wherein we would discuss long delays or a drop in book quality were, by definition, not constructive. That seems like an over-generalization. Second, that Ran was deleting posts that were not constructive. So, then, reason dictates that what would be left on the westeroes boards would be “constructive” posts. Like, you know, postulating if Renly was gay, if Ned was gay, if Hot Pie was gay, etc etc etc; who tried to kill Bran (something we have known for two books now); posts about who would be best in bed; etc etc etc. In other words, if Ran was trying to delete posts that were “not constructive” he has a lot of work still to do.

Which leads to this: who the HELL said discussions have to be “constructive?” Who makes that standard? Shouldn’t the people IN the actual discussion make that determination for themselves? Who the hell are you- even the moderator of the board- to decide for ANYONE what topics are constructive and which ones are not? Leave me and my discussions alone.

Unless, of course, its all just a cover. Let’s hope it’s not.



This has to be the most misapplied use of the term “dragged into” in literary history.



However, we don’t even demand that. There is nothing about the fan-base that expects anything Mr. Martin does to be “prompt.” The wait itself beguiles that standard. All we expect is that he will try hard to finish the books and not insult his readers with empty excuses- the 5-year gap; the Meerian Knot, etc. Frankly, we expect some delays; Rome was not built in a day and only shitty songs like “Like a Bird” are written fast. But to claim that somehow we are critical because we are impatient is to paint use a very broad brush.

And we do expect consistency. Wow. We must be complete assholes. “Consistency” is really something that is now a burden? Look, ask any professional baseball team: do they like a wide or a narrow strike zone? You know what answer you will get: they don’t care. Call it narrow the whole game or call it wide the whole game: whatever. Just so long as you are consistent for the whole game and hopefully over the course for many games and seasons. Is consistency so much or too much to ask?



And we are. You are an incredible writer. Don’t forget that, ultimately, that’s what we are pining after.



That sort of behavior is disgusting and should be frowned upon.

And you would readily agree is remarkably rare. Nobody wishes you harm nor relishes in your demise.

And at the same time you must admit that there is some concern here, the parallel to Jordan, but having nothing to do with mortality.

Jordan’s books grew exponentially longer and more fragmented, less focused. POVs proliferated, main characters became lost in a jumble of ancillary characters; plot points and developments were buried; time seemed to stand still; nothing happened worth writing about, and yet books grew as thick as the Torrah, one after another after another with no end in sight. Even after Mr. Jordan tragically passed away, the new author predicted it would take one book to wrap up the series and then, predictably, shelved that idea and one book begat three books.

That criticism sounds EERILY familiar to what many fans thought of AFfC. I agree that saying to Mr. Martin that he “better not” die is boorish, volatile, invective, and worst of all rude. And is thankfully very rare. However, saying that Martin better not needlessly extend the series when it is so good just the way it is now is something else entirely.



Nah- that didn’t sound condescending at all.



This may be the best thing written about the detractors but even then it misses some of the point. Yes, it is clearly true that detractors are demanding something more than just “the next book.” This is NOT simply an author who has not written a book in X years; this is a series where the author knew he could attract a far greater audience and reap a far bigger prize should the series take off, which is why he wrote a series. And that series is not complete. It’s the difference between seeing a movie and then being pissed a sequel has not come out yet and a movie stopping half way through. It’s not like being pissed that Rocky III has not come out yet when Rocky II had been out for many years. No. It’s like watching Godfather and then the film breaks right in the middle of the scene where Michael returns from Sicily. I mean… are we supposed to really just say, “Okay, we can stop here because the first two hours of this movie were masterful”? That’s, again, disingenuous. That's not the deal.



And this misses the point ENTIRELY. Because, ultimately, Martin's flagging in this area has left such a bad taste in my mouth that I will never again begin a series until the last book has been released. And I am not alone on this. Its why I have not read "Name of the Wind" because the author claimed the series was finished before the first book was released then, suddenly, it took 3 years to release book 2. The reality is that this type of authorship can be abused and why I will now wait for the end before I start the beginning.

All we demand is that the books be written. We do not even need a satisfactory conclusion- most notably because many of us have widely varying opinions on what that final conclusion would be (some want Jon Snow on the Iron Throne; some want there to be democracy; some want Sansa the Queenmaker; some want the Others to wipe it all out). All we want is the product on par with what we have grown accustomed to. And being irked at having to wait ten YEARS for one full book (according to Martin himself- AFfC was merely half of one book) can hardly be considered outrageous.



I don’t know anyone nor have I read anyone who believes either of these things. I do know some people question that maybe HBO has put some pressure on Martin to finish the book- that’s not an insane conspiracy- it’s just good business. However, I do know people who claim that Martin has “…lost all interest in the series and now I just want to do other stuff.” And that fear, tragically, would be more well-grounded than the others. At the same time, I will readily admit that its probably not true. Martin created this universe and it must be his wildest and most cherished dream to see it come true- both in print and in HBO. I think its more than a little odd that he would have “lost all interest” in the series.

But what about “as much interest?” In other words, Martin does not have “as much interest “ in the series as he did in 1995? Other matters, it would appear, take up a lot of his time: conventions, travel, speaking engagements, award ceremonies, and now production on the HBO series- each one of these competes with actual writing. That criticism is valid.

And its only natural: the success of the series provides GRRM with the opportunity to do these things. And that’s the whole point of reaping the fruits of one’s own labor. That’s the whole point.

And in that vein, while it may be okay to criticize Martin for this, it’s one I have never been able to join. The man likes the conventions, the interaction with fans, and the joy of these pursuits. I cannot begrudge the man his enthusiasm for his other pursuits. It’s not fair.

But just make sure to dedicate the time necessary to complete the task at hand. That cannot be too much to ask.



“There. Now that wasn’t such a chore now, was it.” – Ray Stanz, (Dan Akroyd), Ghostbusters.

And all those points I reiterated during the interview. To no avail.

It's funny how, with a series that is so grey, the press can be so black and white.

Welcome Rockroi. I've read your musings on Westeros and I enjoyed your response to the New Yorker, it's a shame that no one there will read it or publish it. It actually wouldn't matter if they did the GRRiMlins would shout it down and as usual play the man and not the ball (Aussie Rules expression, it means attack the poster, not the content).
In reference to Neil Gaiman, he was not dragged into this as Ms Miller asserts, he chose to respond to a poster and decided to use a phrase that at the time sounded like a great comeback to him. He wasn't dragged into the debate, he inserted himself.

I've been at this so long that my initial complaints have basically degenerated into snark and fat jokes, for which I am greatly admired the world over, I'm sure. However, we've had quite a few of these types of well thought out, reasonable posts on IWC ver. 1.0 and 2.0. I even wrote my fair share of them, detailing why our gripes are legitimate and downplaying the childish side of our little cadre of ingrates. Back then, it felt like we were simply talking to ourselves. Now, I think people are listening. Maybe not agreeing, or understanding, but at least listening.

Rockroi, I really would like you to send this to the author of the New Yorker article. If you're interested in maintaining your anonymity, I will submit it in your name, or better yet Slynt could do it, seeing as how he already has had contact with her.

First off, congrats on the press and excellent new forum (although registration process is kind of a joke - how many times must I pass on entering my telephone number and home address and receiving unwanted solicitations simply to become a member?). Glad to see IWC has moved on from the intolerable Aimoo server.

These are extremely well-written posts that raise excellent points, and I'd encourage you to submit them to the editor either by yourself or through one of the IWC mods, as suggested, and if for no other reason than to keep the dialogue going.

I actually got into very similar points on the Brooks Forum some time last week. I'm in agreement that there are many legitimate grievances with Martin and that we don't simply troll the interwebz for lulz. Now, I do think that exists, including here, and without any intention of that's part of the reason I've sort of retired from associating with any type of detracting, even the type that is about the writing and what not. But Lori Petty sent me a PM about the publicity and new site, so I thought I'd stop in and say hi when the proper moment presented itself, and I think this is it. Again, reallly well-written, corrects many of the misassumptions, and highlights legitimate grievances. Well done!

Welcome back Revolvery. Sorry about the hassle of registering. Other than that, this place is pretty cool though.

Hope to see you here more often than not.

Welcome back Revolvery! Yes, it seems with the move (and the recent "press") we are maturing a little big again. Okay, so I mostly make fat georgie jokes but that's only because at the moment I cannot be arsed to put a lot of effort into my writing. Just like George oyoooooooooo!

Anyyyyway, hope you stick around!

Excellent post, Rockroi, and always good to see you, Revolvery. It does bother me that our position is so often dismissed and misrepresented. Why not engage us on our grievances instead of knocking down your strawman? In the end, it won't affect what we all care about--the books--and it would make for good discussion.

Because we are of the night...