Reading 'A Game of Thrones' I

I have heard so many great things about George R. R. Martin from friends that I found myself buying the book to discover what the fuss was about. I have been reading it for a few days now and have only gotten to about page 130, but I am impressed and hooked completely. I also couldn't help but feel that this book reminded me of the movie 'A Man For All Seasons' about Henry VIII and his political battle about his divorces and the man who wouldn't agree or disagree. I realize that this book has been out for quite some time and that anything I say here has probably already been written about, but I feel compelled to talk about what I have noticed so far regardless.

Where to start...This book has so many things that have captivated me that it is difficult as I write this to choose. I suppose I should talk about what I have heard many others from my workshop group admire; the political intrigue. To discuss this I will use a few comparisons of other SFF (Science fiction and fantasy) books I have read. Firstly, I thought to compare this book with various other books David Weber has produced (The Honor Harrington Series, The Safehold Series, etc.). Actually I had just finished the third book in his Safehold series when I picked up 'A Game of Thrones.' Before reading AGOT (A Game of Thrones) I felt I had a pretty good picture of what political intrigue was and what it meant. However after reading only a few tens of pages into it I felt immersed in a way I haven't been in books like Weber's. Why is this? To be sure in Weber's books (which do deal with politics heavily) there is intrigue of a sort. There are plots, scandals, assassinations, elections, wars, treaties, inheritance, monarchies, economics, etc. but compared to this book they feel a little flat. Having thought about it for a while, and putting it in context with AGOT I feel I can answer this question. David Weber's portrayal of intrigue seem to be lacking in it's complexity and the almost stark difference between good and evil (or in most cases in his work, competence and incompetence; which amount to the same thing in some cases). I feel in his books that the characters comprising different political factions are very much similar in, not only his different books, but in regards to the other characters in the story. The good guys are largely competent (the incompetent ones are either incredibly loyal or innocent) and the bad guys are largely incompetent to be replaced by competent bad guys who are either killed or turn good. I guess what I am saying is there is not a lot of feel that there is a whole lot of internal variation which is so natural for people in general and is very hard to control. There seems to be a feeling that the two sides to a conflict largely stay on their own sides and that inside the groups there is a sense of incredible consolidation which is pitted against a group rife with dissension (due to selfishness and other flaws). While this still makes for good stories and says a lot about what reality should be like, what government and relationships should be like; it doesn't (I feel) represent what politics resemble in reality. The difference in Martin's AGOT is that here the battle lines are drawn by individuals themselves as they state what they will or will not due, and their own individuality/history plays into their decisions. In a sense I feel that the intrigue in AGOT is layered both politically and on an individual level. Every character has their own motives and beliefs and they are clearly defined against other characters motives and belief's. Even the characters who are incredibly similar in both motive and history have clearly defined differences. This is realistic because for people (At least I feel this myself) that sometimes it is those 'tiny' differences which can sometimes mean the most or have more meaning to one person than another. I love in AGOT how all the characters are constantly interacting and those interactions can be seen to have an actual affect on the political scene. There is a complexity to the intrigue in AGOT; a sense that there are a great many people with varying degrees of influence all trying to cooperate with some, oppose others, and accidentally bumping into still others. There is a sense of fluidity in AGOT; which I suppose is the best way to describe it. There is a sense that at any given point a situation might change. Of course Martin also uses random acts or individual variation in people to affect any given situation in ways no one could readily predict.

The next item that grasped me was Martin's physical, mental, and emotional description of people, places, and things in AGOT. This also is tied into Martin's 'economy of words'; He uses words with such skill that so much is said about a given item that one can get a clear picture of it. In a sense he makes a few words tell volumes about something. The easiest example that for me holds true for the rest of the book (at least so far!) was the prologue. Those first few pages were so full of description, and character development. I was hooked by how each member of the Watch party were so well defined and described, and I could visualize in my head the world around them clearly. I could feel the animosity and fear of the characters and the skill of Martin's writing so far has remained constant. This was all done in so few words that I felt I had read more than was actually written.

This technique in particular holds me in awe. I want to be able to write volumes in sentences. This is also intensely respectful to the reader as well as it assumes the reader has the intelligence and the understanding to grasp the history of people, regardless of experience.