[Summer 2014] Leonard267 Hates A Game of Thrones's Prologue

Like sheep being led to the abattoir, I followed the crowd into buying a novel that many of you who are reading this might be familiar with: A Game of Thrones. I heard that the television series are popular, the books are well written and it features incestuous couples defenestrating the poor onlooker who saw them having a go at each other.

As much as I dearly wanted to know what the fuss was about pertaining to the Game of Thrones, I strongly suspect that persons like me are responsible for it adding on to the hype in the first place. Pointless digression aside, I would like to incur the wrath of many readers here by going into detail why I am thoroughly unimpressed with what little I read of the Game of Thrones, namely the prologue.

I might expect furious replies most likely those around the lines, "You can't judge the book from its cover (or in this case the prologue)". To that I would like to explain my tastes in reading. I have always thought that prologues are to introduce settings and characters through a narrative that takes place usually before the story properly begins. In fact, it can be said that the prologue is so important that if I don't understand the prologue, I would not be able to understand the chapters that proceed it.

The main argument of this article is to put forward that the Game of Thrones fails spectacularly, in the view of this reader, to come up with a proper prologue notwithstanding its reputation. So allow me to continue:

http://vk.com/doc-50747477_169577512?hash=add9da39798259c34c&dl=a66d6ae1a02f78d02e
(Here is the link)

The Game of Thrones takes place in a continent that looks a blown-up island of Great Britain (no pun intended). Hadrian's Wall, the wall that (roughly) separated England from Scotland came to mind when I saw the map showing the northern parts of the continent separated from the rest of civilization by a structure known as The Wall. I wonder how a Scot would feel though seeing the much of the land north of the Wall as uncharted territory (inhabited by Wild Men Wildlings). The Wall for your information was where the prologue is set.

I will begin by quoting the story at length and elaborate how I felt reading the prologue:

Page 1:


While it is too early to judge whether this prologue would be informative or not, I had the eerie feeling that instead of it being a proper prologue which introduces the setting of the universe through a story, it is merely a prequel or an opening chapter. To make matters worse, already there are alien terms thrown into the story that are not introduced properly. They are namely, "Wildling" and "lordling".

The last time I checked a dictionary, a wildling is what people from bygone days call a wild plant. One might think that Gared and Ser Waymar Royce were gardeners struggling against an infestation of killer weeds. I would like to ask why George Martin is reluctant to settle for Wild Men, Barbarians, Nomads, First Nations, Aborigines, Scotchman or some other English word that implies that Gared and company were dealing with people not accustomed to and alien to civilisation?

To give credit to Martin, I do have an idea what a lordling is. They are the scions of some lord, or so I thought. (Then, I checked the dictionary and learnt that 'lordling' meant a minor lord not the offspring of a lord.) What disturbs me more about 'lordling' is the sentence that contains it, namely, "He (Gared) was an old man, past fifty, and he had seen the lordlings come and go."

I know some acquaintances who are of the opinion that this piques their interest. They would want to know what was Gared's line of work which saw lordlings 'come and go'. However, in my case, that sentence elicited feelings of confusion since I have no idea what is happening! Come to and go away from what exactly? Is he an excursion teacher of sorts leading lordlings into the wild to pluck wildlings? Surely he can't be a veteran of some patrol lead by inexperienced young nobles who get themselves turned into ice zombies by the end of the watch?

In a fantasy world where the rules are not congruous or at least similar to that of the real world, it is very necessary to explain terms and universe it is set in. While Martin has a repository of wonderful ideas swimming in his head and would have no problem understanding the paragraphs he wrote, surely he knows that this reader (and most readers for that matter) can't read his mind. Could he kindly explain what a Wildling is and what Gared is doing?

But wait, it even gets more confusing from here! Instead of defining the strange terms he comes up and give us the needed character introduction, another character pops out from nowhere!

Page 1:



"Will saw them", Gared said.

At that point of time, I thought that Will, whoever he is, was not likely part of Gared's and Ser Weymar Royce's company. Perhaps I would have an idea what he is at the very next line.

Will had known they would drag him into the quarrel sooner or later.

It turns out that was not the case. In fact, the introduction of Will felt jarring to me. Without any explanation of who he is, we are now seeing this story from his point of view. If I tried skimming through the first page, chances are I would miss Will completely.

The story continues from his point of view. It appears that finally we have some exposition to make sense of the story. I will enclose those bits in a spoiler...



It seemed to explain matters. Yet, after reading that I had even more questions.

What is the Night's Watch? Does it have anything to with Crime Watch? Were they trying to watch out for people having a hanky panky at night in the woods? Were they an occult group on the search of the supernatural?

What is a ranging? I don't think ranging is a noun the last time I checked that word in a dictionary. Could you explain it Mr. Martin?

Why were they hunting down wildling raiders? Ah... Perhaps that is what the Night's Watch does, hunting down wildling raiders, whatever they are. However, I can't be too certain. Also, could you explain what a wildling is?

What is so safe about the Wall? In fact, other than a map, Martin hasn't given us a proper explanation of what the Wall is, its significance and so on.

For all the words put into explaining that something felt wrong, I still have no idea who they were, what they were and why they were doing what they do.

All I know is that they were part of the Night's Watch, an organisation that I have never heard of, that they do rangings, which I never heard of, that they come from the Wall, a place I never heard of, and that they hunt wildling raiders, an endeavour that makes no sense to me since I don't see that many wildling plants behaving aggressively. Surely, these have to be addressed first before continuing the story? Otherwise, why should I care about them feeling uneasy?

Page 2, Introduction of Ser Weymar Royce:



This appears to be yet another proper introduction. However, this reader being pedantic and picky does not equate physical descriptions of him in oxymoronic 'gleaming black (?)' chain mail or that he is as concerned about his appearance as a teenage female brat hours before prom night with a proper character introduction.

This is because who he is and what he does is not made clear enough with 'the youngest son of an ancient house with too many heirs' and 'a Sworn Brother of the Night's Watch' being the only proper exposition about him.

Even then, from which 'ancient house' (or more importantly what is the significance of that house) is he descended from and why is he doing menial tasks that ought to be left to veterans like Gared? I understand that Ser Weymar Royce might be a minor character who turns into the Game of Thrones equivalent of the undead and not worthy of further exposition but at least telling which country he belongs to and explaining the nature of his job establishes the setting of the universe which he inhabits!

Even then, Ser Weyar Royce is not only part of the Night's Watch of which I never heard of, but he is also a Sworn Brother as well. I feel as if I should say, "Good for him!" but I am restrained by the lack of knowledge of the significance of a Sworn Brother of the Night's Watch of which I never heard of. After all, the term "Brother" has very unpleasant connotations ranging from the criminal to the homosexual. From Martin's rather detailed explanation of his physique and his wardrobe, I can't help but to detect homosexual overtones and the term "Sworn Brother" does little to ameliorate those niggling thoughts.

Here's hoping that Will's introduction would make more sense!

Page 2. Will's introduction



Can I list down the terms I don't understand and complain about it?

Mallister freeriders? : Makes about as much sense and sounds like "My Sister is a freeloader." Why the insistence on introducing someone I don't know by using yet more terms I don't know? Who on earth is Mallister?! What on earth is a freerider?! I understand that promiscuity is one of the dark topics covered in the Game of Thrones (allegedly) but I hope a freerider is not someone who rides for free and I really hope that Mallister isn't the name of a brothel or a company of pimps!

Black Brothers: First we have the Sworn Brothers, now we have the Black Brothers. Do Negros exist in this world of George Martin's? Would we be treated to the dynamics of racialism in the Game of Thrones universe a hundred thousand pages after this? Should Martin add one more clause explaining what the Black Brothers were these thoughts would not be distracting me to the extent that I resisted reading his novel after the chapter on Bran that follows the prologue!

Already, I hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing about a popular novel that has been adapted into a successful television series that was so obviously based on the War of the Roses with zombies, incest and an iron throne that looks like my face? How dare I stir up trouble by pointing out that the prologue fails in its purpose to make sense of the setting of the story with its penchant for confusing this reader with unelaborated outlandish terms? How dare I display such insensitivity to the feelings of those who already understood the nomenclature of Martin's universe which are also alien, misleading and confusing to the fresh reader? To that I say, I have more issues with the prologue of that story!

Putting aside my distaste for how little things are explained and how inadequate I felt the introduction of the characters of the story were, perhaps the prose of this story might (not) help me to make sense of it. This brings us to this part of the story which follows the introduction of Will:



With respect to the words that are not struck off and are bolded, I have this to say:


I realised that in order to make sense of how the camp was relevant in the grand scheme of things, I had flip back to one or two pages or go back one or two paragraph. I reminded myself that our soon-to-be dead heroes were hot on the heels of a few wildings, which I don't know about, when Will found a few of them dead instead of being turned into ice zombies. There was a lot of (needed) digression to introduce the characters (unsatisfactorily I might add).

Then, I returned to the previous paragraphs that preceded it and found Ser Waymar Royce saying, "Tell me again what you saw, Will. All the details. Leave nothing out." Followed by an introduction of Will so awkwardly placed that I forgot what Will is responding to. That aside, it seemed that Will was responding to Ser Waymar Royce.

(I have to add that the act of reading this book where I can only make sense of what was happening but constantly referring to the previous pages was rather frustrating. Do spare a thought for imbeciles with poor memories such as myself, Mr. Martin.)

Now I return to that eyesore of a response that led to my outburst in big, bolded and red font, “The camp is two miles farther on, over that ridge, hard beside a stream,”

How was that a proper response to Royce's question about what he saw? It seemed to be as if Will was giving directions which Royce did not ask for.

I also thought to myself what camp it was? Did it belong to the wildlings that I don't know about? Was it the camps belonging to that of the Night's Watch which I don't know about? The answer appeared to be of the former but I found that writing style of Martin's very confusing.

Another example of that was Martin's technique of explaining matters using dialogue like the following lines:



I personally would have preferred a few sentences in between lines of dialogue that explained what the conversation was about. The interrogation of Will saw went from the discovery of the camp, weapons and the position of the bodies, all of which I thought were a bit challenging to associate with each other. Were they at the same place? Are they strewn all over the place.

I could have placed one or two sentences in between dialogue to explain things if I were Martin. For example:

“Did you see any weapons?”, Ser Waymar asked for he had a fetish for weapons wielded by the wildling plants.

“Some swords, a few bows. One man had an axe. Heavy-looking, double-bladed, a cruel piece of iron. It was on the ground beside him, right by his hand.”, Will replied.

Ser Waymar's necrophiliac urges begun to kick in and he asked that very strange question, "Did you make note of the position of the bodies?"

Furthermore, it is difficult to read dialogue. The characters know they are talking about and would leave out details which they already know but not known to the reader. Expecting this reader to figure out everything based on dialogue with their fragmented sentences and lack of context is too much for him.

The best example of such dialogue is the very first line of this story,



Head back to where? Who are the wildlings? Where are they? These are the things that ought to be explained either awkwardly by the characters themselves or in third person. Leaving the dialogue as it is makes for confusion for this reader.

I prefer dialogues that are effectively monologues that provide exposition without any interruption. This means I am more comfortable reading Will's descriptions of the camp without Ser Waymar's introductions.

In addition to mistaking opening chapters for prologues, another problem I had with this author, and I suspect many other contemporary authors as well, is their reluctance to spell out what is happening in the story. Instead they leave the task of explanation to very confusing lines of dialogue.

Instead of generally describing that the bodies in the wildling camp have disappeared and Ser Weymar Royce would like them tracked down believing them to be still alive, I was treated to lines of dialogue between Ser Weymar and Will. I believed that I missed out quite a lot of information not only for the reasons that the characters know what they were talking about but due to the fact that it is harder to get information from dialogue rather than a proper paragraph.

I can't help but to feel that the important points that mattered to me like what that drives the plot are told in dialogue. The discovery of dead wildlings, musing about the possibility of how they died, heading for they were encamped and searching for their missing animated corpses among them.

What is not told in dialogue but in third person are long descriptions of the scenery and what people might call immersing the reader into the universe. Here is a very long example where Will discovers that the bodies are missing:

Pg 5 There are no bodies:



It doesn't immerse this particular reader though. If I can't understand what is going on, it is not possible for me to be indulge in George Martin's fantasies fantasy world. All of these descriptions are better off being replaced by exposition of what important terms like the Night's Watch and the Wall are.

Now, let me whine about part about the prologue which I am beginning to develop a huge loathing for. It is the climax of the story and the inconclusive conclusion. Sure enough, it was a combination of the two things I disliked about Martin's prose, the refusal to explain terms exclusive to his world and the reluctance of getting straight to the point:



Yes indeed! What did Will see and what on earth did I read? The Others were thrown out of nowhere like Aemon, like Mormont, like the camps, like the wildlings, like Mallister Freeriders, like the Black Brothers, like the Sworn Brother of the Night's Watch, like the Wall and The Others the others that I missed out.

I also missed the descriptions of The Others because it did not explain on the spot what they were after Will first laid eyes on them. Here is the evidence, not crossed but bolded:



One big and fat paragraph stood in between the introduction of that ice zombie (I am going to use that to describe The Other. It is easier to understand that way.) and the description of that ice zombie when it ought to be done immediately after the line, "The Others made no sound."

Also, it is not made clear whether the wildlings Ser Raymar Royce and Will were looking for were turned into ice zombies.



Yet again, the ice zombies may not be the wildlings they were looking for, seeing that there are 6 of them, including the one Ser Waymar Royce is confronting. (There were 8 wildlings, 2 of them children) Maybe to keep other readers in suspense and keep this reader in confusion, Martin does not tell what happened to the bodies or say outright that Will is fibbing about seeing bodies of dead wildlings.

The prologue ends off with Ser Waymar Royce turned into an ice zombie and even that was not made clear. I would like a sentence around those lines, "Ser Waymar Royce has been turned into The Others." More descriptions were introduced instead that one can so easily misinterpret:



Putting aside this nitpick of these sentences, "Lying dead like that, you saw how young he (Ser Waymar) was. A boy. He found what was left of the sword a few feet away, the end splintered and twisted like a tree struck by lightning." where it could be misinterpreted that it was the dead Ser Waymar who found the sword, I thought Ser Waymar Royce survived and wanted to kiss Will.

The prologue ended rather inconclusively. We didn't know for sure that Will turned into an ice zombie and the prologue gave up describing what happened to Gared, leaving that for the next chapter.

These are my impressions of the prologue when I first laid my eyes on it. I then read through the first chapter titled "Bran" in order to make sense of the story so far and I ended even more confused than ever for the similar reasons I have stated in the many paragraphs above this one.

If anyone wishes to know how I understood the plot despite the awful prose of this story, he might be (un)happy to know that most of my knowledge of A Game of Thrones came from very well written summaries that ought to replace the original text.

The book begins as three men of the Night’s Watch, Waymar, Will, and Gared, search for a small group of wildlings, uncivilized people who live north of the giant wall that protects the Seven Kingdoms. Scouting ahead, Will finds the wildlings dead. He returns to Waymar and Gared with the news and tells them the wildlings appear to have frozen to death. The recent weather, however, has not been nearly cold enough to kill a person. Will and Gared sense that something is wrong, and Gared suggests they build a fire. Waymar arrogantly demands that they press on. The three head to the location where Will found the bodies, but they are gone. A group of ghostly white figures, known as the Others, surround Waymar. He duels with one of the figures while Will silently watches from a tree. Waymar is killed, but when Will climbs down, Waymar’s reanimated body rises up and strangles him.

Source: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/a-game-of-thrones/section1.rhtml

So all that said and done, let me summarise my criticism of the prologue of A Game of Thrones.

This prologue really isn't a prologue at all. Prologues are meant for to enlighten not to confuse. Prologues are expository not embellishments or gimmicks to 'immerse readers' with descriptions of the scenery or a character's wardrobe. So many terms and so many names were unexplained in the story set in a universe different from ours. I don't even know where for sure where the story takes place other than 'a nine day ride from the Wall, which I don't know what it is'. It is more of an opening chapter rather than a prologue.

It is also a prologue that is pointless I thought after reading that Gared had been beheaded for leaving Will and Ser Waymar Royce to the ice zombies and learning that most of the story is about Westerosian (the world that is place is set in) political intrigue. Even a possible invasion of Westeros of these ice zombies would at best serve as a distraction to the main plot. Someone told me that they managed to understand the story even without reading that so-called prologue. You may as well begin by reading the first chapter.

Above all, I believe my criticism of the Game of Thrones prologue centres on my dislike of George Martin's style of writing which seems to me to treat explanation and exposition as secondary in story telling. I am of the belief that he thinks that it would be too banal and awkward to say things in a straightforward manner.

It puzzles me why third person exposition is avoided like the plague in stories that I read these days. Story telling by its nature ought to be expository in nature. Far from ruining the pace of the story, it is really an exposition of a fantasy world which I am unfamiliar with that enthralls me and motivates me to continue. Letting the task of exposition take a backseat confuses me because I don't know what is happening. If I don't know what is happening why should I care and why should I continue on with the story?

Quality review. 10/10, would interpret each and every one of the sentences again.



He was obviously thinking of tappingthem/10.

thinking it again i enjoy these. it gives me a new perspective about what's going on.

well reading the excerpts alone, i can somehow be interested, but it's most likely that I won't remember the details even if it's kind of entertaining. add that in what appears to be a long novel, i'd probably give up at the starting parts.

maybe at first i do find the style bland because i'm more familiar with expository words which explains a lot by short writeups and those who rhythmically rings like a poetic prose that conveys everything to be easily understood merely be feeling up the words.

still, even if i do kind of find it interesting, i probably won't read it because i don't have all the time to read something extremely long. second, its because im a really lazy reader, when things doesn't interest me to continue, i most likely won't continue even if its the greatest book of all time. third, it doesn't fit my preferences.

I'm really picky when it comes to books, since it requires lots to read and i don't like feeling disappointed, the same with all other forms of media. there are lot of things out there, many lots, to justify my extremely choosy attitude on finding the right kind of stuff. i also felt like i don't wanna be burdened by stacks of things to do because it's recommended by others too.

not saying that the book was bad. i'm just looking for something else to have fun. and reading doesn't take my top priorities, that's for sure. i'm kind of intrigued by you western and developed countries people on why you guys love reading so much to be honest.

in my case, I learned stuff from games. some of them i also from books, at first i read a lot of them in the past, not because i like it, but it's because I had no internet at that time and its the only thing i can do besides playing games!

oh well, rants and complains aside. I enjoyed this review, well done.

If you ever, ever understand the Game of Thrones, please tell me.

well if you're asking me, i kind of understood a bit. it's similar vibe i got when i was reading Eragon lotsa years back (and dropped it midway because i felt kinda lazy continuing on).

one reason why i didn't wanna continue was because of my picky stuff. but if i'm actually an avid reader, i'd probably go for it even if it means just merely reading to poke fun of it!

Why did you crop off George's middle finger? That was the best part of the picture of that interview.

Though initially grating at first, I think Martin's writing style works perfectly for the universe. Perhaps it's because I was already familiar with a lot of medieval terming and such, but "Wildlings" to me initially rang as "Wild people", like how in "Lord of the Rings" there were Easterlings, which meant "People from the east". Another example is "ranging". I assume you know the term "Ranger", right? A ranger goes on rangings. It's pretty much scouting--leaving a base to go out into the wild and see what's going on. None of the terms really made me stumble except for "The Night's Watch", which I assumed to be a group somehow tied to the Wall. Group of men who call each other brothers near a giant wall who's job is to hunt Wildlings.

I didn't really expect an info-dump, and I don't think it was necessary. It was cohesive enough to me (admittedly stilted character introductions aside, I think he didn't need them at all) and performed what I believe to have been the most important job it could've: it highlighted that there are indeed fantastical and otherworldly things in this world that is otherwise so rooted in reality despite the fact that it's a "fantasy" world. The correct terminology and things like a veteran ranger deferring to a lordling simple because the man was a lordling and he was base-born provide a contrast to the otherworldly characteristics of the Others, which is more standard high fantasy fare.

The rest comes with the story, and with how much Martin ends up going into his world building, it helps that he kind of shoves it down your throat at first. I don't know who Moremont or Mallister are, but I assume that they are noble families. Perhaps this was just personal, but I knew enough of the societal structure and organization of the European feudal system that I was able to understand without knowing the actual character yet. I understood what I as a new arrival to this world needed to, and I was interested enough in the through-line that is the story of the Stark family that I learned what I needed to while I followed it.

I respect your opinion, Leonard, and I might share it if I didn't pick up quickly on the terminology, but there are two points I'd like to make overall.

1. "Game of Thrones" is simply the first book, not the series. The political intrigue of Westeros is a small part of the overall story, and the intrigue is a primer to the reader so they are familiar with greater lords, who rules where, and what foreign bodies are involved with what's going on. The greater tale actually is about much more than who sits on the Iron Throne.

2. Martin eschews a lot of devices used for normal plot progression. He follows many people who aren't main characters and kills off people you believe to be main characters. I personally love it because it gives the tale a dose of realism. Just because the story follows a character for a while doesn't mean they're a main character. It means they're an effective perspective to build the universe.

To finish, I obviously love the series "A Song of Fire and Ice" and I could pretty easily explain the entire plot-line to you, as well as name an absurd amount of characters because Martin's writing style helps them stick in your mind so well. Your review was very well worded and made good points. I hope this did the same. Unlikely, but a guy's gotta try.

A Game of Thrones (I am not referring to the entire series here), strikes me as historical fiction. Stories like these will have many, many characters and would require quite a bit of explanation. Given the span of time and the many theatres where historical events happen, it can only make sense to tell the story in the point of view of many characters. I wouldn't call Martin's writing style unique but necessary.

Take for example, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms (not in English) begun very poignantly, musing that an empire long united will be sundered, an empire long sundered will be reunited and followed up with a summary of over a thousand years of history to back that statement up. Even War and Peace begun with quite a lot of exposition. You may remember the first chapter where the Russian lady noble Anna Pavlovna went into monologue about how the Austrian Empire and England refused to cooperate with Russia to stop Napoleon. (I must add that with the possible exception of Napoleon, all of the characters are given a proper introduction.)



So, I see the Martin's series sorely in need of exposition (which it did not provide) because of its nature. At least he must explain what the Wall is and under whose jurisdiction does that Wall belong to. I don't really mind lordling or wildling not defined clearly but I do really mind that important places and important characters in the story aren't explained.

His style of switching from one character to another was something I found frustrating because it felt as if I was reading another story altogether. Take the chapter on Bran that follows the non-prologue for example. Gared wasn't named though he made an appearance partly because Martin insisted on telling the story from the view of a young, innocent and ignorant princeling. At least War and Peace did not jump from one character to another for every single chapter. Quite a few chapters were in the point of view of Anna Pavlovna.



I don't even know for sure just by reading the prologue that we are in a universe similar to Europe of the Middle Ages. Ser Waymar, Will and Gared had some kind of subordinate relationship to Mallister, Aemon and Mormont but it is quite a leap for me to say that they are from noble families. As I snidely pointed out in the review, they could be pimps running a chain of brothels that are manned by enslaved Wildlings.



Do enlighten me! I think it boils down to a matter of taste. If I am not allowed to understand the story, it will be nigh impossible for me to remember, let alone be impressed, by the characters. I complained about Martin's style of writing especially his penchant for refusing to say outright what had happened. Instead of saying that the zombiefied Ser Waymar was strangling Will, he goes for 'long slender fingers touching Will's neck'.



Thank you but alas is it alright if I disagree with you that as well? It was really a collection of my thoughts as I read through the GOT prologue. I personally thought that it was rather haphazard but I do hope that it sheds some light on my tastes in reading. I wish others could share their tastes in reading as well.

Once again, thanks for the reply. Would love to argue discuss with you the contents of that novel.



Alas, I am a prude! I choose to describe vulgar things in a very roundabout manner. There is quite a fair bit of some of that in my 'review' of the prologue of A Game of Thrones.

Well, as for that interview, it gives me even more reason to dislike Martin doesn't it?

The way I see it, Martin just uses prologues and epilogues to unique effect. They specifically never follow a character that has even been introduced before, and end (often mortally) within that encapsulated scene. That approach is a crap-shoot for a first installment, but I thought he expounded on enough in the following couple chapters that it was fine. Benjen Stark (a sworn brother of the watch) comes to Winterfell to talk to King Robert about sending more men to the Night's Watch. Jon Snow is also considering joining and because of that they explore what the Night's Watch is and mention lines like "A Stark has manned the Wall for thousands of years", implying that the order is tied to the Wall.

I don't expect exposition in the prologue or the immediate first chapter to follow because I personally wouldn't do that either. If an author answered questions the second a reader asks them then I feel like it breaks immersion. I wouldn't have liked it if instead Ser Royce, Gared, and Will are all out ranging looking for wildlings and when Will gets scared he's like "Hey guys, let's get back to the Wall, where we, the Night's Watch are stationed and serve as guardians of the Wall from what is north of it.". Even if you worked something in with the narrative, it would reek of an info dump, no matter how small. In my opinion (which, as you say, is all this boils down to) it's better to explain things as a focal character approaches them. Like I said before, Martin does this in the instance of The Wall and the Night's Watch with Benjen's visit and Jon Snow's arc, not to mention Tyrion Lannister's. Every chapter of Jon's and a few of Tyrion's are completely about the Night's Watch, and now the Watch is thoroughly explained in the first book for the next 4+ to come. The pacing for it works for how long the series is.

Put this book next to "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring". The Shire is explained and all the set-pieces of their journey are explained to Frodo and the other hobbits because none have ever left the Shire and the whole world is new to them. It gives an excuse to include info dumps. In "Game of Thrones" every character has been living in the world that has existed before the story picks up. There is no character that is new to everything in the world. Eddard Stark is new to King's Landing as the Hand of the King, but that is to give an excuse to include info dumps for intrigue. Jon Snow is new to the Night's Watch, and finds out it's different than he's been told, so there's an excuse to include info dumps. Daenarys Targaryen is new to Khal Drogo's khalasaar which works like nothing mentioned before in the book, so there's an excuse to include info dumps. If the author took a second to fill me in whenever someone said something I wasn't familiar with, I'd get frustrated beyond belief very quickly. I can use context clues, and if my suspension of disbelief is in full swing, I'll keep going. I should want to read more and find out by reading. However, if the writing style isn't to a particular reader's liking, then it all goes up in flames anyway, don't it?

There are ways to put in exposition without the interrupting the flow or pace or how the story reads. I think the Lord of the Rings did that very well. Although it did occur to me that you might dislike the LOTR prologue and the "Shadow of the Past".



The Lord of the Rings prologue is a huge info-dump that resembles an encyclopedia entry or a textbook chapter. I liked it very much and consider it a proper prologue. The first chapter "A Long Expected Party" made sense all the more thanks to it. The next info-dump is "The Shadow of The Past" where Gandalf tells Frodo the history of the Ring. Gandalf did an effective monologue with little to no interruption from Frodo.

As for how the prologue could have been better, for me, it is quite simple. Go into third person exposition for the prologue instead of using it to describe the scenery (I know you made it clear that you hated that style of writing),

"The continent enjoyed an uneasy peace after Robert the Kingslayer usurped the throne from the mad King... The story begins at the northernmost frontiers of the continent at the Wall which kept the Seven Kingdoms safe from The Wildlings..."

To quote SparksNotes:

"Three men of the Night’s Watch, Waymar, Will, and Gared, were in search for a small group of wildlings, uncivilized people who live north of the giant wall that protects the Seven Kingdoms."

It would definitely be a better read or make more sense than what I was presented. I think it is a matter of taste. You would find my suggestions jarring but I would find them very interesting because it is giving me information about an alien world.



Finding hints in the story, which are most likely embedded in some dialogue where each line is a fragmented sentence and you almost can't tell who is saying what, makes reading very difficult for this reader. And yes, you are right, for me, if I am confused, I wouldn't want to read any further. This is a shame though. The story looked very interesting from the summaries which I quite liked.

I think Martin dispenses with narrative exposition because it intentionally wasn't written as a story being told. Because of his jumping around he stringently sticks to a third person limited perspective.

I agree, this is a simple matter of taste. I've been learning that I like minimalism, so it would stand to reason that I'd like Martin's style, or at the very least not mind it.

I have a suggestion of a book you might like, too. I think it's another effectively done world-building example, but for sci-fi instead of high fantasy. It's called "A Signal to Noise" by Eric Nylund. I'd be interested in seeing what you think, seeing as how our opinions tend to be on opposite sides of the coin.

I see where you're coming from leonard. I'm going to have to say I'm in the same boat as many other people, in that I don't have a problem at all with the prologue (if anything, it's the actual plot progression that irks me.)

All the jargon and terms being thrown around are actually used to immerse you in the world. You don't have to know perfectly what they mean, it's left up to your imagination. You get all these unknown terms flying around, giving you the impression that this world is vast and unexplored, and has a history of its own.

As for what you suggest, your preferences are telling rather than showing. By doing what he does, Martin attempts to show the reader ie. let them see for themselves and figure out what happened/is happening, instead of flat out telling them the history of the world like an encyclopedia.

With that said, it is actually a good review as you clearly spent a lot of time deconstructing it from your point of view. I think we can agree to disagree on this one - it's simply a matter of stylistic preference.

You don't really need to devote a paragraph to explain what a Mallister Freerider is. If the author just stated that they were bounty hunters or an elite group of fighters serving some political entity in one sentence or clause it would suffice as an explanation. I have a problem with throwing outlandish terms to immerse the reader in its universe. Imagine if I replace Mallister Freerider with Big Black Hoe or some other gobbledygook. This is how those outlandish terms if left unexplained feel like to me -- plain nonsense.



I take back what I said in my previous comments in the thread. It is more than just disliking the style. I found this style of writing indecipherable. I couldn't tell what is happening at all due to pointless digression like talking about how it feels like to freeze to death, the constant changing of POV and the style of describing things like the refusal of the author to state plainly that Weymar Royce had turned into an ice zombie or even introduce what is "The Other" properly. (And unlike Mallister Freeriders, "The Others" actually have a huge bearing on the plot where this prologue is concerned and so warrant an explanation or at least a proper introduction)

How on earth can someone understand what is happening in that prologue is beyond me. If this were a submission in a writing competition and I so happened to judge it, I would throw it out!