From an amusing New York Times essay (by David Orr) on the ascendance of George R. R. Martin:
“A Dance With Dragons” is relentlessly entertaining, and it does honor to a best-seller list previously dominated by the cornball sadism of Stieg Larsson.
(By the way, there are spoilers here, properly announced to be sure, but we're quickly coming to the point where the plot of the Martin books are so engrained in the culture that it will be assumed that everyone knows what happens.)
Posts
4 comments:
On the one hand: "Martin’s second virtue is a nearly supernatural gift for storytelling." I'd say yes please to that in any genre.
But on the other hand: "This series is long. ... Such length isn’t necessary, and it hurts Martin’s prose and his plot mechanics." Which seems to contradict point one. (Shouldn't his supernatural gift be proposing a few cuts?)
Otherwise engaged for the time being reading: "The Good Soldier," which has "jump cut" transitions as startling as anything in Godard.
Experience suggests that one should read first, then watch. Is the TV series going one season per volume?
It doesn't contradict: simply lessens the enjoyment that some feel. If it's good enough, the length doesn't matter. (That's what she said..)
The great Abigail Nussbaum is also an anti-length partisan, by the way.
http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2011/06/game-of-thrones-season-1.html
The series is one season per volume
That's good. I can consider going book, show, book, show until I get sick of it.
Post a Comment