Mon
Sep 14 2009 1:44pm
Weddings more dangerous than battles: George R.R. Martin’s A Storm of Swords

A Storm of Swords is a very long book. This is objectively true—it’s 1216 pages, where A Game of Thrones is 716 and A Clash of Kings is 768. It’s also subjectively true, it’s very long, a lot happens in it. It’s impossible to summarize it, or to make even an impressionistic attempt at talking about everything that’s in it. It’s the third book in the series, do not read it without reading the other two first because it won’t make any sense.

When my son Sasha was younger, he used to refuse to read books with multiple points of view. His objection was that you’d have something like: The prince ducked beneath the blast of dragon-fire, drawing his sword. He prepared to stab, but his foot slipped. The dragon’s head bore inexorably down. End of chapter sixteen. Chapter seventeen. “More tea, Duchess?” inquired the archbishop. I always think of this when I read cross a chapter break cliffhanger. Martin uses these in this book for the first time. In the first two books, the chapter breaks usually have some closure. But the amazing thing is that with everything that’s in it, Martin manages to make A Storm of Swords work as a novel and not as a pile of stuff happening. It’s not just that he has a large number of point-of-view characters who all have to have a character and plot arc, there are also huge numbers of other people he needs to keep track of as they’re moving around and doing things. He makes the pacing work, and he makes the end, the multiple climaxes, work as genuinely climactic. Long and complex as this is, it is a novel.

I think this is only the third time I’ve read this book. Certainly I remembered it less well than the first two—I remembered the highlights, but there were also surprises.

Do feel free to talk about any and all the specific bits and pieces you want to draw attention to in comments. I’m just going to talk about some things that stand out.

Daenerys—in this book, she doesn’t really have anything to do. It’s as if the Young Pretender had gone off in 1749 and conquered Burma. It’s an interesting story, but it doesn’t really connect, and it feels unconnected. I’m sure Martin has a plan for Dany to come home and do something, and I wish we’d get to that. Astipor and Meereen—well, OK. But if we’re going to have another map, I’d like a map of the Free Cities. I’d like to know how that fits together.

Also, how about the seasons? Is that for the whole world, or just Westeros? And how does it work, considering they have the plants and animals I’m familiar with from Europe, growing them without seasons? Peaches need frosts, so where did Renly’s peach come from? Why am I suddenly thinking about this now, when for the previous two books I just took it for granted?

There are a lot of weddings in this book, Sansa’s, the Red Wedding, and Joffrey’s. The deaths at them works to clear away some of the excess claimants to the throne, and provides some stunning moments. I feel really sorry for Tyrion here, after everything he did in the last book, he loses everything. The Red Wedding surprised me and again impressed me on first reading—this is the sort of thing you just don’t do. Also, it leads to Arya and Sansa having nowhere to go. Arya’s wanderings in this volume take in the Brothers Without Banners—a terrific bit of work, forgotten from Ned sending them off and now so interesting—and the Hound. Arya ends up bound for Braavos. (I was delighted to discover what valar morghulis means.) Sansa’s caught up in Littlefinger’s nets and ends up in the Vale. She’s still married to Tyrion and Tyrion is still alive, I wonder if that will have consequences.

Stannis—I love Stannis’s appearance on the Wall. I want to cheer. Finally, something going the way it’s supposed to go! Except... it isn’t. The whole Night’s Watch plot here, with Jon and the wildings and with Sam is heading something towards something that it doesn’t yet reach. Jon ends up head of the Night Watch, having turned down the possibility of Winterfell. It’s made slightly too easy for him with Ygritte dying. (“You know nothing, Jon Snow.”) But there he is and there Stannis is, and there the real threat is.

This leads me to my theory. I was thinking about Melisendre and how her prophecy which she thinks is for Stannis is actually for Daenerys. I was also thinking how horrible and evil she is, and yet she’s supposedly on the side of good—and it occurred to me that there is no side of good. Not just with the human level conflict here, but at all. We see the Others and the undead, and undead are fairly icky, but we also see Beric and Catelyn raised as undead by the “good” side. We don’t have any Other point of view, but we do meet Coldhands in this book, and he takes Bran (and the crannogmen) off with him to meet the Three Eyed Crow. Are the Others perhaps not as bad as they’ve been shown? I’d have sworn there were no redeeming features to Jaime Lannister before I got his point of view, and now I see him as a flawed complex person but one I can sympathise with. This is something Martin seems to be doing generally with this series.

Could he mean to do that? All shades of grey, no black and white, even in the big picture? In the endless night and the Battle for the Dawn, the epic battle between Ice and Fire that we’re supposedly headed for, which side is the right side? And that led me to thinking about The Armageddon Rag, which remains my favourite Martin. “When Armageddon comes, both sides will think they’re fighting for right, and they’ll both be wrong.” “The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity.” Could Martin be doing that with this? Could we be heading for an ultimate conflict in which both sides are wrong and the right answer is being human and choosing the excluded middle? Wouldn’t that be cool if it were the case?


Jo Walton is a science fiction and fantasy writer. She’s published eight novels, most recently Half a Crown and Lifelode, and two poetry collections. She reads a lot, and blogs about it here regularly. She comes from Wales but lives in Montreal where the food and books are more varied.

19 comments
Arachne Jericho
2. arachnejericho
I mostly remember OMG the Red Wedding. I swear A Storm of Swords is one of the best mid-series books ever written, with respect to stories that are one epic tale. Usually the middle is disappointing, but incidents like OMG the Red Wedding help keep plot impact from lagging like it usually does.

I think there is quite a lot of shades of gray and little black and white; but the OMG Red Wedding was pretty evil. It's not all gray.

In Feast for Crows, we get to have fun with the Lannister twins where shades of gray ( or not) are concerned.
Marcus W
3. toryx
One of my favorite things about this series is the way Martin can twist my perspective of a character so effectively. I loathed Jaime until I got to Storm of Swords and while I don't really like him, I now understand him. He's no longer just a symbol of a lot of traits I don't care for in people...he's a person who has a lot of personality traits I don't care for.

I wouldn't want to be his friend, I'd likely stand on the opposite side of a battle with him but now he's more real than ever. Now I know he's truly human. I've never quite seen an author do that so effectively. Stephen King has come close but even his monsters are monsters through and through.
Elio García
4. Egarcia
I think the main connection point for Dany to the broader storyline is that in her effort to get home, she creates a great deal of violent chaos out of her good intentions... and then she realizes that she has to own her failures, and she needs to use it as an opportunity to learn how to rule; how can you be a queen if you can't protect people and rule wisely, etc. So that's what she sets out to do.

GRRM has remarked that in its original conception, A Feast for Crows would compare and contrast Daenerys and Cersei in relation to being women in power.

A map of the Free Cities is due for the next book, but basically they're on the western coast of the continent where Dany's chapters take place, while I guess Slaver's Bay might be roughly at the halfway mark for the continent. GRRM has said that the long seasons take place there as well, but because the continent is oriented a bit further south than Westeros, the long winters are less severe.

I recall George on a panel at the L.A. Worldcon remarking negatively on the Big Bad Unmitigated Evil being used so often post-Tolkien, and naturally someone in the audience asked him, "What about the Others?" And he more or less said one would have to wait and see, as I recall.

I very much agree with your theory regarding Melisandre. She is a misguided, self-righteous zealot, but I do believe she believes she's serving prophecy by aiding Stannis. She's willing to kill and to lie to twist prophecy in the direction she wants it -- consider her rigmarole with the leeches, claiming she'd kill Balon Greyjoy, Robb Stark, and Joffrey Lannister; clearly, she foresaw their deaths in her flames, and used that to trick Stannis into believing she had so much power if only he gave her the "king's blood" she wanted.

(Alas, I fear for poor Shireen in A Dance with Dragons...)

Like you, I believe she's very much wrong, and that Daenerys is the Prince Who Was Promised and so on and so forth.
Jo Walton
5. bluejo
Toryx: Yes, Martin is amazingly good at making characters sympathetic even when you'd think the circumstances were all against them. The only other writer I can think of who manages this as well is Cherryh.
tim
6. darkhunter
i have a theory of the whole series. I haven't been able to comment yet because i have been to busy. I believe in the first book (might have been later) the book mentions there being a three headed dragon. Of course the three headed dragon is danny's dragons. Also in that same mention i believe it said there would be three humans with it, one for each dragon head. Of course Danny is one of the humans. I believe Tyrion will be the second. Right now he is off in that direction and many times during the series he mentions dragons and hows he infatuated with them. I believe Tyrion is going to become Danny's general to invade with Danny's army she "purchased". I believe that the last person of the "dragons heads" is Jon Snow. First he has the most need of a dragon to fight the north. Secondly, i believe he is the mad kings son. Ned always said he had stark blood in him which i believe is his sisters. When Ned's sister was with the mad king, i believe he raped her and thus Jon. That is one big reason why Ned never told anyone of Jon's parentage because if the king knew that Jon had the dragon heritage he would've been killed immediately.

What do you guys think? I haven't read the series in over a year, so correct me if I am wrong. This is an awesome series and i cant wait til a dance with dragons finally gets done.
Falstaff
7. Falstaff
@6: Much as I love both Tyrion and Jon as characters, the prospect of the two of them being Dany's dragonriders seem anti-GRMM, as it borders too much on conventional expectations. And the series is anything but.

Still, I am very much looking forward to Tyrion meeting Dany in ADWD (and the multiple courtships of the "Mother of Dragons" by Westeros nobles as foreshadowed in AFFC) and Jon dealing with Melisandre.

And, hopefully, we finally get to read about Lord Howland Reed and perhaps gain a new perspective on the death of Lyanna Stark and/or the possible parentage of Jon. The theory that Jon is Lyanna's and Rhaegar Targaryen's (not Mad King Aery's) son is very popular and, such as it is, supported by both text and sub-text.
Falstaff
8. BrennanP
I really enjoyed this series right through this book...

And then every single side is equivalent, magic monks hop out of nowhere, massive new forces show up, rebalancing a world that is remarkable in its stable multipolarity.

Few characters to care about, and since the world is now utterly arbitrary, why bother? New major characters and arcs are sure to come about yet again (how many in book 4!)

And that, for me, is the downside of the direction Martin took. I understand it, but in the end, there is not a single thing that makes me want to read anything other than the end of the next couple of books.
Falstaff
9. Peter S.
Here's my theory about Melisandre and Davos.

So far, Melisandre has been more or less portrayed as on the side of evil, and Davos as on the side of good (for example, he stopped Stannis from killing Edric Storm). I think that Stannis is going to plan to do some truly, truly evil thing (he's done a number of evil things already). This makes Melisandre realize that she was wrong all along, and that Stannis is not the Prince who was Promised. She will try to stop Stannis' evil plan; while Davos, purely out of his loyalty to Stannis, tries to make it happen. No predictions as to who wins.

Martin has set this up very well, portraying Melisandre's fanaticism and Davos's loyalty. I'm looking forward to this struggle (assuming I'm right) and to all the readers' reactions when they suddenly find themselves cheering for the opposite side.
Jo Walton
10. bluejo
Peter S: But as of A Feast For Crows Davos is dead, his head and hand on the walls. Or do you think that's a feint?
Elio García
11. Egarcia
Jo,

I vote the latter. I've high hopes for Lord Manderly remaining loyal enough to the Starks and the North to not kowtow to King's Landing and that awful Roose Bolton for too long.
Jo Walton
12. bluejo
Egarcia: There's only so many times you can do that trick before it stops working and the reader stops believing that anyone is dead. There are an awful lot of question marks after RIPs in this series, not even counting bringing people back to life.
Falstaff
13. peachy
I like my corpses to stay corpsified, too. At least Martin's better about it than Jordan was - he kills more characters, and a higher percentage remain dead. (If I ever become a writer - ha! - I promise to not have any resurrections whatsoever.)
Falstaff
14. Peter S.
Egarcia: I don't think Manderley is loyal; he's playing both sides. Davos isn't reappearing until Manderley needs to curry favor with Stannis.

bluejo: I think Cercei telling Manderley that she doesn't need to see Davos's body is good evidence that Davos is alive: this is going to turn out to be yet another of Cercei's many mistakes.
Falstaff
15. liedra
It'd be nice if the reviewer could spell the names properly. "Melisandre" and "Astapor" in this example. It distracts from an otherwise interesting review.

As for the seasons, I don't try to think too hard about that, because it makes a lot of things like that in the world impossible. The best I can do is to think "well, perhaps in that world, peaches don't need frost" -- changing the construction of the items in the context as well as the context itself :)
Jo Walton
16. bluejo
Peter S: You're right, Davos isn't dead, Martin says in the afterword that he'll show up again in A Dance With Dragons. Don't believe anyone's dead unless you've seen them burned.
Elio García
17. Egarcia
Jo,

Maybe you can only do it so often, but I think George'll be doubling down with Davos. The whisperings of little birds...

Also, remember, Dance starts roughly at the same period where Feast did; GRRM saying Davos shows up doesn't mean he won't be killed part way through, in time for the news of his untimely death to be reported to King's Landing. I don't think he'll be killed as reported, but his being in the book isn't a guarantee.
Falstaff
18. Maviscruet
Surely "Meanwhile in Bavaria...."?
Falstaff
19. wickedkinetic
Ha @16!!!! HA! When you see them burned you can be sure their dead... that's for sure!!!!! (Until the next book came out.......)

Subscribe to this thread

Receive notification by email when a new comment is added. You must be a registered user to subscribe to threads.
Post a comment