Game of Thrones books, are they well written? MOD NOTE POST 22

nyarlothothep

I'm on book two now and while I find it mildly interesting I cant say anything beyond that, there just doesn't seem to be any passion in Martin's writing and also some of the prose isn't great. Eg, so and so character "picked up their sword and went to fight some more" (this is the scene where Arya's party are waylaid by the Lannister soldiers). I know that the first book is meant to be glacial in pace, so was expecting a change but I find the way he writes is almost borne out of apathy.

Liam O

Arya is a little girl, the story is being told from her POV. Ergo he is not going to be using eloquently formed sentences when dealing with her as the POVs are designed to give a greater understanding of that character. Tyrion's chapters are subsequently beautifully written and far more full of detail. I found them to be very well written and you are probably the first I've heard make this criticism.

Jonny Blaze

I dunno man, only read the first one and thought it was good enough..

In fairness though from your username you seem to be a lovecraft fan.. and let's face it, he was a legend... but he was a **** writer!

fitz

Liam O wrote: »

I found them to be very well written and you are probably the first I've heard make this criticism.

I wouldn't bother engaging in this, tbh, it's likely the same form of either trolling, half-developed opinion or delusion displayed on this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77255228

Well spotted fitz!

Artful_Badger

Regardless of the OP and the fact that's its a fantastic story with great characters Martin isnt a great writer. Then again I thought The Road was boring, simplistic drivel that could have been written by a 6 year old and that won every literary aware going.

December2012

I think the layering, plotting and back story is amazing. I think the books are well written, in that you get to see what you should see about each character.

nyarlothothep

fitz wrote: »

I wouldn't bother engaging in this, tbh, it's likely the same form of either trolling, half-developed opinion or delusion displayed on this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77255228

So just because you dont agree with an opinion you dismiss it as the delusional ravings of a madman? How many times have we seen that and worse on boards, not by you mind, just by so many users. It's not just me who thinks this. I showed the book to a friend and he said the same thing. Martin is like Stephen King with less virility, in that he is artless with prose yet you would still turn the page but not as quickly.

I dunno man, only read the first one and thought it was good enough..

Jonny Blaze wrote:

In fairness though from your username you seem to be a lovecraft fan.. and let's face it, he was a legend... but he was a **** writer!

So many people say this but I really enjoyed his writing style. Maybe it's because I'm out of sync with modern times but writing as an art has really declined since the 20th century. It's become more mundane, more colloquial, less grand and idiosyncratic. That said I think American Psycho and Fight Club are average books from which great films were made so am probably against the consensus on that one too.

I love GoT but that doesnt mean everything about it is good or exceptional. Martin is not a great writer, he's an ok one with great ideas which could be made more interesting if he didn't convey them with such a somnambulistic air.

fitz

nyarlothothep wrote: »

So just because you dont agree with an opinion you dismiss it as the delusional ravings of a madman? How many times have we seen that and worse on boards, not by you mind, just by so many users. It's not just me who thinks this. I showed the book to a friend and he said the same thing. Martin is like Stephen King with less virility, in that he is artless with prose yet you would still turn the page but not as quickly.

I dunno man, only read the first one and thought it was good enough..



So many people say this but I really enjoyed his writing style. Maybe it's because I'm out of sync with modern times but writing as an art has really declined since the 20th century. It's become more mundane, more colloquial, less grand and idiosyncratic. That said I think American Psycho and Fight Club are average books from which great films were made so am probably against the consensus on that one too.

I love GoT but that doesnt mean everything about it is good or exceptional. Martin is not a great writer, he's an ok one with great ideas which could be made more interesting if he didn't convey them with such a somnambulistic air.

As before, vast generalisation based on scant back-up.

It's fine to prefer something else, but that's preference, and not something that should be used to make broad qualitative statements.

And I don't dismiss this or your previous assertions on genre because I disagree with them.
I dismiss them because the arguments you make are not backed up, you refuse to take valid points on board and rigidly cling to your position.
Regardless of others giving comprehensive, well thought out, and evidenced arguments to show how your point isn't really well thought through or even right...you just keep banging the drum. It's standard trolling behaviour, whether you intend it to be or not.

Artful_Badger

Does fantasy lend itself to great writing style though with the scale of the story ? I've read a lot of fantasy series and lets be honest very few are up there in terms of being great literature. In fact very few novels of any kind these days compare to the greats. Writers in the modern age are just not the poets of old, they are just story tellers and I suppose you have to accept that they are going to be more focused on the overall picture/stories/characters than being artistic with how they put the information across particularly in long series like this one.

nyarlothothep

fitz wrote: »

As before, vast generalisation based on scant back-up.

It's fine to prefer something else, but that's preference, and not something that should be used to make broad qualitative statements.

And I don't dismiss this or your previous assertions on genre because I disagree with them.
I dismiss them because the arguments you make are not backed up, you refuse to take valid points on board and rigidly cling to your position.
Regardless of others giving comprehensive, well thought out, and evidenced arguments to show how your point isn't really well thought through or even right...you just keep banging the drum. It's standard trolling behaviour, whether you intend it to be or not.

Lol, yeah, well I think Thomas Pynchon sucks ass and he's heralded as a great writer of our times eg emperor with no clothes. Compare Shakespearean dialogue and wordplay with the 'street level' dialogue and narration of contemporary writing...there is no comparison! There is no such thing as equality in art or culture. Any given medium will reach its zenith and then go into decline although it may reach another peak later on. Eg rock music reached its peak in the 70s, subsequent decades have witnessed a decline. The greatest lie on the internet is that there is equality between the decades.

fitz

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Lol, yeah, well I think Thomas Pynchon sucks ass and he's heralded as a great writer of our times eg emperor with no clothes. Compare Shakespearean dialogue and wordplay with the 'street level' dialogue and narration of contemporary writing...there is no comparison!

In your opinion.
Which is entirely subjective, and should not be put forward as an assertion of fact.

nyarlothothep

fitz wrote: »

As before, vast generalisation based on scant back-up.

It's fine to prefer something else, but that's preference, and not something that should be used to make broad qualitative statements.

And I don't dismiss this or your previous assertions on genre because I disagree with them.
I dismiss them because the arguments you make are not backed up, you refuse to take valid points on board and rigidly cling to your position.
Regardless of others giving comprehensive, well thought out, and evidenced arguments to show how your point isn't really well thought through or even right...you just keep banging the drum. It's standard trolling behaviour, whether you intend it to be or not.

To rephrase

"Because you dont agree with us or acknowledge that we are right and that you are most evidently wrong, you must be a troll"


AHAHAHAHA!!!!!

nyarlothothep

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Does fantasy lend itself to great writing style though with the scale of the story ? I've read a lot of fantasy series and lets be honest very few are up there in terms of being great literature. In fact very few novels of any kind these days compare to the greats. Writers in the modern age are just not the poets of old, they are just story tellers and I suppose you have to accept that they are going to be more focused on the overall picture/stories/characters than being artistic with how they put the information across particularly in long series like this one.

Exactly! I think there should be less 7 book sagas, there's so much waffle/exposition that could be trimmed. Length doesn't equal quality.

fitz

nyarlothothep wrote: »

To rephrase

"Because you dont agree with us or acknowledge that we are right and that you are most evidently wrong, you must be a troll"


AHAHAHAHA!!!!!

More like:
You make definitive factual assertions - this is the way it is.
People respond with why those assertions don't hold up.
You ignore this and re-assert.
Rinse/repeat.

The problem is you think of your preferences as grounds for making generalised statements as if they're hard fact. They're not.
If you assert something as fact, you can be shown to be wrong.
Continuing to ignore evidence that contradicts you just comes across as someone looking for a reaction, ie. trolling.

Present your thoughts as opinions or preference and not fact, or be prepared to back up your facts and accept when you're shown to be incorrect.

Until then....yeah....trolling.

fitz

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Length doesn't equal quality.

Neither does brevity.
You're doing the same as in the fantasy genre thread.
Making generalisations based on selective examples that fit your argument.

Artful_Badger

fitz wrote: »

More like:
You make definitive factual assertions - this is the way it is.
People respond with why those assertions don't hold up.
You ignore this and re-assert.
Rinse/repeat.

The problem is you think of your preferences as grounds for making generalised statements as if they're hard fact. They're not.
If you assert something as fact, you can be shown to be wrong.
Continuing to ignore evidence that contradicts you just comes across as someone looking for a reaction, ie. trolling.

Present your thoughts as opinions or preference and not fact, or be prepared to back up your facts and accept when you're shown to be incorrect.

Until then....yeah....trolling.

In fairness fitz you're derailing this thread because of a different thread in a different forum. You've made no attempt to discuss the topic of this thread at all.

You could also just as easily take someone's opinion as an opinion and not as an attempt to call if fact if you so wish. People dont have to end every sentence with "imo" for you to know its just an opinion.

Mickeroo

I think they're reasonably well written books. On a purely entertainment level they're brilliant and the first three books in particular were a great experience.

I think Martin's shortcomings are more apparent in the last two books, the main one being he could do with restraining himself a bit of at least get an editor who will do the restraining.

I do find his language a little simplistic at times too and the way he writes violence and sex in particular can feel a bit juvenile but it's not something that really bothers me.

Also though I love a lot of the characters I never get the feeling Martin does, and for that reason I don't have as much of an emotional connection to a lot of them as I have in other series I've read. Though certain things have been surprising/shocking I've never gotten a real sense of loss from a character death (

bar Ned, but I can't be sure how much of that was down to the show tbh as I had seen season 1 & 2 before I started reading

)

Ever since the RW I've also found the series a little predictable too, it's gotten to the point that I just expect something to go wrong whenever someone sets out to do something and it nearly always does.

He's quite fond of cheap tricks to leave the reader hanging too which always pretty much have the same outcome. Generally if

he tells you a character is dead but doesn't describe it happening on the page then they're not dead. Also if a chapter ends looking like a character is dead/about to die they'll survive.

fitz

Artful_Badger wrote: »

In fairness fitz you're derailing this thread because of a different thread in a different forum. You've made no attempt to discuss the topic of this thread at all. So you're in no position to be calling anyone else a troll.

You could also just as easily take someone's opinion as an opinion and not as an attempt to call if fact if you so wish. People dont have to end every sentence with "imo" for you to know its just an opinion.

In fairness, if someone puts forward an argument based on reading the first book of a series, making assertions that the author isn't a great writer, I expect more back-up for that assertion than "lacks passion", or that it's slow paced. I'm attacking the post here, and asking for those making a statement to back it up.

The fact that the difference in writing style between child and adult characters in POV chapters in the book seems to have eluded the OP just re-enforces my opinion that they've just posted this to be controversial.

I don't expect "imo" to be used everywhere, of course not.
But it's like me saying someone like Beyonce is a sh*t singer because I don't particularly like her music. She's clearly a very technically capable singer, and people would be too right to tell me my assertion was bullsh*t.

Artful_Badger

fitz wrote: »

In fairness, if someone puts forward an argument based on reading the first book of a series, making assertions that the author isn't a great writer, I expect more back-up for that assertion than "lacks passion", or that it's slow paced. I'm attacking the post here, and asking for those making a statement to back it up.

The fact that the difference in writing style between child and adult characters in POV chapters in the book seems to have eluded the OP just re-enforces my opinion that they've just posted this to be controversial.

I don't expect "imo" to be used everywhere, of course not.
But it's like me saying someone like Beyonce is a sh*t singer because I don't particularly like her music. She's clearly a very technically capable singer, and people would be too right to tell me my assertion was bullsh*t.

The title of this thread is a question and the OP uses the words "I find", "seems to be" etc. Its clearly an opinion to start a discussion. You didnt even give the thread a chance as your first post was encouraging people not to engage and calling the guy a troll based on a different thread in a different forum.

I think this thread has been derailed enough so I dont want to continue this conversation and further derail it.

Elmidena

I read all the books, I think the general tapestry is interesting (particularly the first couple) but the actual threads are worn and in need of repair. There's an awful lot of filler in them, and there's no real sense of urgency in the books, and a lot is predictable as someone else commented already. I could tell what was going to happen with the Red Wedding from the buildup, but that was the only part of the saga where I thought "I really want to read some more!" and the rest was more reading at a normal pace, no great incentive to find out what happens.

I don't think the OP is trolling at all. I think that, like myself, they felt disappointed with the hype of the books and surprised at how poorly it is written in places. As I said, decent on the whole part but is in need of a preen.

calex71

MOD NOTE

Please stay on topic, Fitz if you have issue with someones post or think they are trolling report them, please do not derail the thread further

fitz

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The title of this thread is a question and the OP uses the words "I find", "seems to be" etc. Its clearly an opinion to start a discussion. You didnt even give the thread a chance as your first post was encouraging people not to engage and calling the guy a troll based on a different thread in a different forum.

I think this thread has been derailed enough so I dont want to continue this conversation and further derail it.

Fair enough A_B, I'll leave it there.
Just have noticed a pattern of deliberately "controversial", broad generalisations from nyarlothothep in the past....

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Eg rock music reached its peak in the 70s, subsequent decades have witnessed a decline.

Case in point.

Gbear

They're beautifully written in places up until AFFC.

Feast and Dance just after the others is a jarring experience. It almost feels like it was written by another person.

fitz

Gbear wrote: »

They're beautifully written in places up until AFFC.

Feast and Dance just after the others is a jarring experience. It almost feels like it was written by another person.

I think that's down to the split.
The balance of character POVs and plot progression just didn't work...as Elmidena said...on those two books, it felt like he needed more ruthless editing.
I think Martin's decision to split them was detrimental to the standard he had set to that point. ADWD is far better than AFFC, but I'm expecting (hoping?) that TWOW will be something of a return to form.

Mickeroo

fitz wrote: »

I think that's down to the split.
The balance of character POVs and plot progression just didn't work...as Elmidena said...on those two books, it felt like he needed more ruthless editing.
I think Martin's decision to split them was detrimental to the standard he had set to that point. ADWD is far better than AFFC, but I'm expecting (hoping?) that TWOW will be something of a return to form.

I agree. I've said this before on here a few times, but it was painfully obvious the last two books were supposed to be one. It wouldn't have been so bad if he had just split it into 2, but he split it into 2 and moved the climax into the The Winds of Winter (

basically the battles that Dance spent the whole book building up to

.

Though the series is "one big story" the first three books did a great job of having their own individual impetus. They all built up to a resolution of sorts in their own right, and I think that's a big part of the reason they were superior books.

Paramite Pie

I think the style of prose in general is a lot different these days. In the past a writer was expected to write in upperclass English whereas now colloqial everyday language has become 'du jour'.

I cringe when some modern fantasy books try to sound too much like Tolkien just because it's set in a medieval world. The irony of that is the fact that Tolkien used language that was considered simple, straight forward and contempory for his time, rather than medieval. Yet his style was very elegant.

As the way we use our langauge changes so will books. While I think Game of Thrones builds upon the LOTR style pretty well it's biggest success in my opinion is making the medieval fantasy interesting again for me.

Therefore I think it's overall good writing (bar excessive descriptions or occasionally forced exposition). I don't mind a slow pace when I feel it pays off in the end.

Sleepy

TBH, I found Tolkien's prose so painful I gave up about 200 pages into Lord of the Rings.

Martin's writing clearly needs editing. In places, his prose is exceptionally good, and in others he descends into over-use of expressions like "nipples on a breastplate", "nuncle", "boiled leather" etc.; needless over-description of food, heraldry, scene setting etc. The first three books suffer far less from this, both from having better structure and, I'd argue, less pressure to get them published.

Within the fantasy genre, I've yet to find a writer to match the likes of the great prose writers of our time. A Wheel of Time, while still massively enjoyable, suffers from writing far poorer than George RR Martin's. I remember Anne Rice's novels as being beautifully written but tbh, I was in my teens reading them so my memory of them may suffer heavily from rose-tint glasses. And, while he sometimes has fantasy elements to his writing, I don't think Douglas Coupland (who would be my personal favourite author in terms of the quality of his prose) really qualifies as a "fantasy writer".

Artful_Badger

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, I found Tolkien's prose so painful I gave up about 200 pages into Lord of the Rings.

Martin's writing clearly needs editing. In places, his prose is exceptionally good, and in others he descends into over-use of expressions like "nipples on a breastplate", "nuncle", "boiled leather" etc.; needless over-description of food, heraldry, scene setting etc. The first three books suffer far less from this, both from having better structure and, I'd argue, less pressure to get them published.

Within the fantasy genre, I've yet to find a writer to match the likes of the great prose writers of our time. A Wheel of Time, while still massively enjoyable, suffers from writing far poorer than George RR Martin's. I remember Anne Rice's novels as being beautifully written but tbh, I was in my teens reading them so my memory of them may suffer heavily from rose-tint glasses. And, while he sometimes has fantasy elements to his writing, I don't think Douglas Coupland (who would be my personal favourite author in terms of the quality of his prose) really qualifies as a "fantasy writer".

I found Tolkien to be quite good, I agree about Jordan though, I couldnt get through the Wheel of Time series it just frustrated the hell out of me particularly his woeful descriptions of fight scenes. David Eddings too I find a bit lacking. Steven Erikson is a class above the rest though imo.

Boom_Bap

The genius behind the writing style in the books is it is simple, rich with imagination and engaging.
Anyone can pick up the books and start to read, enjoy and not be overwhelmed by an author with an amition to re-write the English language.

You rarely hear of people who start the series and give up because the books were too hard to read.
There would be confusement of characters for some, but that can happen in any book.

To compare to another high profile writer, Dan Browns books sold so well because the simpliicty it took to read them, and the rollercoaster ride that was happening throughout.

So both Brown and Martin do not pigeon-hole thier intended audience and give something simple but fun to read.

Sleepy

Ah now, comparing him to Dan Brown is a bit harsh. The man can barely string a sentence together.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

Ah now, comparing him to Dan Brown is a bit harsh. The man can barely string a sentence together.

Ah Dan is sound leave it out.

Boom_Bap

Describing the style of writing, how it is generally simple and flows together.
As opposed to comparing Martin to David Foster Wallace, which are worlds apart.

nyarlothothep

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, I found Tolkien's prose so painful I gave up about 200 pages into Lord of the Rings.

Martin's writing clearly needs editing. In places, his prose is exceptionally good, and in others he descends into over-use of expressions like "nipples on a breastplate", "nuncle", "boiled leather" etc.; needless over-description of food, heraldry, scene setting etc. The first three books suffer far less from this, both from having better structure and, I'd argue, less pressure to get them published.

Within the fantasy genre, I've yet to find a writer to match the likes of the great prose writers of our time. A Wheel of Time, while still massively enjoyable, suffers from writing far poorer than George RR Martin's. I remember Anne Rice's novels as being beautifully written but tbh, I was in my teens reading them so my memory of them may suffer heavily from rose-tint glasses. And, while he sometimes has fantasy elements to his writing, I don't think Douglas Coupland (who would be my personal favourite author in terms of the quality of his prose) really qualifies as a "fantasy writer".

I'm still on book 2 so dont know how excessive he gets with the detail but I thought the descriptions of the clothes and food were a standout feature, almost reminiscent of American Psycho.

Another thing, I think his references to Daenerys as Dany really jars, the latter moniker sounds like an Americanisation of a name that's meant to be classical, also in book 1 he refers to her "butt" which is another Americanism totally out of place in a medieval fantasy setting.

calex71

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I'm still on book 2 so dont know how excessive he gets with the detail but I thought the descriptions of the clothes and food were a standout feature, almost reminiscent of American Psycho.

Another thing, I think his references to Daenerys as Dany really jars, the latter moniker sounds like an Americanisation of a name that's meant to be classical, also in book 1 he refers to her "butt" which is another Americanism totally out of place in a medieval fantasy setting.

To be fair to American Psycho that detail added to the book and was a running theme throughout it, down to the suits, "hard bodies" the porn he rented etc etc GRRM isn't BEE to be fair he doesn't go OCD with the descriptions. Or talk about the discography of Genesis

I even see some Dan Brown references further up, there is a lot of unwarranted snobbery towards him imo, but I will go on the record saying this when I read through the Song Of Ice And Fire books I had just come from reading the lost symbol by DB , under the dome by Stephan King and his Dark Tower saga, and Blood Meridian by C Mc and on more than one occasion I had a thought as to how sub par the writing was by GRRM compared to them, not always but there were a few occasions where I thought as a reader "this is B grade writing" I actually struggle to think of another time I felt this way about an author or book.

Edit: Just to clarify not the story over all just how it was delivered letter and verse as opposed to other things I have read over the years.

Gbear

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I'm still on book 2 so dont know how excessive he gets with the detail but I thought the descriptions of the clothes and food were a standout feature, almost reminiscent of American Psycho.

Another thing, I think his references to Daenerys as Dany really jars, the latter moniker sounds like an Americanisation of a name that's meant to be classical, also in book 1 he refers to her "butt" which is another Americanism totally out of place in a medieval fantasy setting.

"It was all he could do to avoid retching" is another one.

There's a few more. They're immersion-breaking. It seems like he doesn't know they're americanisms. Not obvious unless you're not from America to be fair.

TimeToShine

I would agree that his writing ability is not revolutionary by any means but the world he has created is truly amazing in terms of depth and detail and it would take quite poor writing to screw it up. His writing is good, his material is fantastic.

Shout Dust

I think overall they're well written, but he can overindulge on the descriptions of fairly pointless stuff like food, especially in AFFC. You could guarantee that if he started describing a meal you could skip 2 paragraphs and miss nothing. He also overused certain phrases that seems to have just discovered, particularly in the last two books, 'nuncle' in particular got on my nerves.


Regarding the op, its a fair question, but the op has in the past admitted to deliberately trolling different forums just to get a reaction or to see how people responds (experiments I think he described them as, ever the faux-intellectual), which is why I think he probably stuck in the bit about the first book being glacial in pace, don't think I've hear it described as that before? AFFC is slow going alright, although some characters are good, but if you are genuinely reading the books, the second half of Storm of Swords goes at almost breakneck speed.

A Neurotic

Gbear wrote: »

"It was all he could do to avoid retching" is another one.

There's a few more. They're immersion-breaking. It seems like he doesn't know they're americanisms. Not obvious unless you're not from America to be fair.

The weirdest and most stark example of this immersion-breaking language has to be in ADWD when Asha describes her lover as having a "swimmer's body". I mean what the f*ck.

Gbear

A Neurotic wrote: »

The weirdest and most stark example of this immersion-breaking language has to be in ADWD when Asha describes her lover as having a "swimmer's body". I mean what the f*ck.

To be fair, I'm not sure if swimming was a common ability to have for your average joe in medieval culture.

So people who swam a lot might well have looked Phelpsian and worthy of comment.

iamanengine

I watched the tv series up to date then decided to pick up the books. I think it's a great testament to the series as a whole that I am absolutely engrossed in the books even though I know exactly what is going to happen. I still can't put the thing down.

gokogo

I've read all so far, waiting for The Winds of Winter is killing me!! :-P

OneOfThem Stumbled

Tbh I found Game of Thrones (i.e. the first book) hard going.

Skipped to Storm of Swords and found the prose style had much improved imo. Suppose it's natural to think that Martin would improve over time ...

But why does he have so many POVs be from non-major characters? Okay, checking in occasionally with Bran, for instance, is fine, but you might have just a couple of chapters of Davos (and therefore Stannis) or Dany in an entire book! Crazy :eek:

And why none of the five kings is ever a POV is beyond me... :pac:

December2012

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Tbh I found Game of Thrones (i.e. the first book) hard going.

Skipped to Storm of Swords and found the prose style had much improved imo. Suppose it's natural to think that Martin would improve over time ...

But why does he have so many POVs be from non-major characters? Okay, checking in occasionally with Bran, for instance, is fine, but you might have just a couple of chapters of Davos (and therefore Stannis) or Dany in an entire book! Crazy :eek:

And why none of the five kings is ever a POV is beyond me... :pac:

But Dany is....

GerB40

Different strokes for different folks. If you like his writing style stay reading. If you don't like his style don't read his books. He's by no means up there with Joyce or Dickens style wise but the story he's telling is so engrossing the he can be forgiven for going on about food for a page or two.

Washington Irving

December2012 wrote: »

But Dany is....

Dany isn't one of the five kings...

iamanengine

That doesn't necessarily make them a main character in the overall scheme of things Jon Snow or Dany etc are far more important to the story.

TimeToShine

I'm pretty sure it was intentional for none of the POVs to be one of the five kings...the "game" part of the series is about the path to the throne moreso than those who think they are already on it.

As it stands 4 of the 5 kings are dead and I'm pretty sure that Stannis will also die come last book but I stand to be corrected.

December2012

Also no pov chapter in the books from any Tyrell yet, which I think is interesting as a style - we only know what's happening by observing them.

Boom_Bap

December2012 wrote: »

Also no pov chapter in the books from any Tyrell yet, which I think is interesting as a style - we only know what's happening by observing them.

Did Margaery Tyrell not get a few at the time she came to Kings Landing?

Mickeroo

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Did Margaery Tyrell not get a few at the time she came to Kings Landing?

No not at all, she's hardly in the books. We only see her when Sansa, Cersei or whoever else interact with her.