Talk:A Song of Ice and Fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Fantasy task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to A Song of Ice and Fire. For guidelines see WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Archive
Archives
*Archive 1 - August 2006 to January 2006


Contents

[edit] Pronunciation guide

The pronunciation guide, although an excellent idea, is not helpful at all to people who can't read the phonetic language... which is almost everyone. I would do this myself, but I don't know the exact pronunciations. So will someone who can read this or who already knows the sounds write them there? For example - Cersei: Sir - sigh (if indeed that is how that name is pronounced). Thank you!

  • Um this may sound dumb but ʒ what is this? I wanted to learn how to prounouce and that is one of the "letters" I saw, is it my brouser?
    • Guys, it's just IPA. It's the standard way of representing pronunciations here. It's the same way pronuncations are indicated all over the wiki. If you don't want to bother learning it - as I certainly don't - you can always just keep an IPA reference open as you read the pronuncations. Sniffnoy 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Problem is the stupid IPA symbols don't even display correctly in all browsers, as the anonymous poster before you has discovered. When half of the pronunciations show up as several ʒ symbols instead of what they're supposed to show up as, all the references in the world aren't going to amount to a hill of beans. Whoever decided wiki should only ever use IPA did plenty of users a tremendous disservice. 76.226.99.12 (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • ...what? ʒ is a perfectly valid IPA symbol, it's the symbol for the "zh" sound. "dʒ" indicates a j sound. Was it used incorrectly? Sniffnoy (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the entire pronounciation guide's presence is a bit dubious since GRRM himself has said there is no set pronounciation for the books. The pronounciations he uses when reading are different from what his audiobook readers use, for example. There are a couple of pronounciations he insists on = 'Jaime' is pronounced like 'Jamie', not 'JAY-MA' - but overall I'd say the pronounciation section can be culled, at least until such time as GRRM releases an 'official' guide.--Werthead (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Summary

Is there any justification for Westeros being described as a "South American sized continent"? Reading the books, it seemed more like it was an island the size of Britain. Indeed it seems like a fantasy world version of feudal Britain, down to the Viking-like groups on small islands off the coast (Orkneys, Hebrides), the protective wall to the north (like Hadrian's Wall) and the wild painted people beyond that wall (a.k.a the Picts/Scots). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.63.218 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's modeled on Britain in some ways, including those you mention, but Britain itself would be far too small for the scale of the series' action. The South America comparison comes from the author himself; I've added a reference. Brendan Moody (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
In addition, the Wall by itself is 300 miles long, half the length of the island of Britain. You can use the Wall as a scale bar (GRRM confirmed this is valid on this week's Barnes & Noble forum Q&A). This gives a distance from the Wall to the south coast of Dorne of approximately 3,000 miles (South America is about 4,000 miles from the Panama Canal to the southern tip of Chile), with an unknown amount of land north of the Wall.--Werthead (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HBO Adaption

Breaking news, perhaps, but surely this should be mentioned in the article somewhere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.3.0.12 (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

It is, in the Spinoffs section. Brendan Moody 18:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewording was nessary. People cannot be expected to read the wording "It was announced...etc..." with out asking the question Who announced it. Also as it is not yet cut in stone, it only remains a possibility. Like many other of GRRM's books that have been optioned. When it is produced, then it is considered a series to be aired and not simply a possibility. Slso adding the term "expected" is proper and we do not yet know more than what they expect or wish to do. It could well turn out that they break up a book into two seasons or use two books per seasen. At this point "expected" is the only realiable wording that works. Mystar 05:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent touches Keven and Brenden Well statedMystar 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I changed the heading is because it is not calling for a theatrical or film adaptation, it called for a TV series only. WLU 19:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the section heading back to TV adaptation because I think headings should refer to what is currently in the article, not what might (and is pretty unlikely to) come in the future. If more adaptations do come up, we should change the main heading to "Adaptations" and have subheadings for each type, like the Spin-offs section. -Captain Crawdad 19:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weapon Replicas

Added a subsection on the planned weapon replicas to the Spin-offs section. 195.235.227.10 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Grey Wolf

[edit] Computer games section

This section piqued my interest, it mentions that mods were made, but only lists the games they're based on, not the mods themselves. Including these would be nice, because...well, I'm interested. Leedeth 13:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Posting the names of the mods themselves or anything else pretty much amounts to advertising. I was part of a team developing a PW for ASOIAF using Neverwinter Nights, but 'advertising' here just seemed kind of wrong. The project is on hold, since I'm currently heading up a popular Wheel of Time PW, and no one else seemed to have the energy and desire to continue.JCSeer (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Those references to Machiavelli are thin in my opinion, perhaps they should be removeed. But i'll leave the decision to someone else70.111.23.108 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Done. Indrian 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever even read The Prince? They are direct references to specific chapters. Check your own research. Orracle107 19:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Chapter 17 - CONCERNING CRUELTY AND CLEMENCY, AND WHETHER IT IS BETTER TO BE LOVED THAN FEARED

[1]

  • Chapter 18 - CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH PRINCES SHOULD KEEP FAITH[2]
It's not that it's wrong, you are no doubt right. The problem is, to put it simply, in order for it to not be original research somebody else has to say it first, and in a reliable source outside of wikipedia. I know it seems obvious but we are not allowed to put forth our own observations as fact at wikipedia. NeoFreak 20:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Orracle107 20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Have you thought about joining the Song of Ice and Fire wikiproject? We could use some new editors that are interested in working in this subject. NeoFreak 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline correct?

Is the timeline in the overview section correct? It seems to me that the dragons had been gone from the world for several hundred years before the time of the novel - and if House T had only conquored the land 280 odd years ago, they would have only had dragons for less than a hundred years - and that seems at odds with the number of dragon skulls in the red castly and really seems to compress the time that breeding the dragons in the dragon pits making them smaller and weaker each generation.

First, I think that the reason the Targaryens were able to conquer much of Westeros in the first place is that they had dragons - Vhagar, Meraxes and Balerion. Aegon, Rhaenys and Visenya had dragons when they began their conquering. --Pyreforge 12:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
But that still doesnt address my question of the aparent compression of the time that is implied - If the Targaryens conquored the continent 280 years ago and dragons have been gone from the world for 200 years, that leaves 80 years of rule under dragons, which would be, say, 4 generations in which the dragons to have gone from imposing monsters to extinct. There seems to be too many dragon skulls in the castle basement for that timeline to work.
The Targaryen conquest was about 300 years before the time of the novels: the Targaryen succession listed at the end of the appendix to A Game of Thrones places Aerys' death 283 years after Aegon's Landing, and the series commences fifteen years after that. The same succession listing also dates the death of the last dragons to the reign of Aegon III, about 130-160 years (not 80) after the landing. Dragons have only been gone from the world for about 150 years when the series starts, not 200. References in the text to "hundreds of years" are rounding or hyperbole. Brendan Moody 03:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, the Targaryens were on Dragonstone for 200 years before the Conquest, presumably during which time they also had dragons. The oldest dragon skulls are said to be 'thousands' of years old, suggesting that the Targaryens brought some of the most noteworthy ones with them from Valyria to Dragonstone, and later to King's Landing. Presumably they considered them important heirlooms of the house.--Werthead (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "At least" seven novels?

I have removed the phrase "at least" from the top of the article. There is no evidence anywhere (at least officially) that the series will expand beyond this, and GRRM isn't suggesting it. Therefore I consider it misleading. 74.225.243.175 02:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] A Song of Ice and Fire Inspriration

I thought it was a different story that inspired Martin to write A Song of Ice and Fire. Can anyone confirm the story? [REL] 2007 August 10

No, it was Memory, Sorrow and Thorn that made GRRM think that an epic fantasy series could be written to appeal to a more mature audience than contemporary authors (I assume he was thinking of the likes of Terry Brooks and David Eddings). I gather his impression was that the last proper, 'adult' epic fantasy series was Thomas Covenant a deacade earlier. It's in the So Spake Martin part of Westeros.org somewhere. I'll see if I can look it up when I have more time.--Werthead 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Response

This really is just a shoddy section. It makes it seem like A Feast For Crows was a terrible book, that was reviewed awfully. While some readers dislike the character of Brienne, it seems unneccesary to include in a criticism, especially because we don't know if her chapters will have any deeper meaning later in the series. I suggest scrapping the section and writing the actual critical response to the novels from actual critics, not just a critical response to the novels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.48.201 (talk) 04:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

AFFC is actually the most consistently well-reviewed book in the series. Even A Storm of Swords got some bad reviews on release, but all the major print reviews of AFFC I read (SFX, Dreamwatch, Starburst etc) were unanimous in their praise of it, and it was nominated for the Hugo. I am also removing the 'self-published' template as the only source mentioned in that section is SFX Magazine, which is published by Future Publishing (one of the UK's largest publishers) and is Europe's biggest-selling science fiction magazine. Not sure what that template was doing there.--Werthead 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:2005 SoS cover.jpg

Image:2005 SoS cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was fixed by re-uploading the image with a smaller one (<300x300) that satisfies the Fair Use guidelins. WLU (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently not, as all the cover images are now gone. I haven't a clue on how to work with cover images but I think this needs to be fixed.--Werthead (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I fucking hate image use. I think we may be able to use the same cover as A Game of Thrones - it's used twice already and has a fair use rationale that seems to support its use on List of fantasy novels. I'm surprised I wasn't notified when SOS was deleted. One cover isn't as good as all 4, but it's better than none. I'll ask the guy who deleted the old images. WLU (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The thing that BetacommandBot looks for is a fair use rationale for every article that the image is used in. Image:2005 SoS cover.jpg only had a template, which needed to be supplemented by a rationale. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

Does anybody know if there is the Full Plot of the Song of Ice and Fire on Wikipedia?? And if not, then where can I find it?.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soshial (talk • contribs) 09:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You can find the full plot only by reading the individual book articles. Orracle107 (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images straw poll

So I've been talking to an admin and there are a couple options for the covers. The lowest option is having a single cover image of one of the books (probably AGOT since it's got the best fair use rationale to date I think). The best is having multiple covers as a collage, a la Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, which I could probably make without too much trouble. So the debate becomes, should we have a set of a single batch of covers, or the US/UK covers (i.e. standard fantasy versus the more abstract images, not sure if it is edition or country lines that splits them though) or the set of those two, plus the pretty bad-ass Australian covers [3]. So, what is people's preference? If I can't get it done today, it'll have to wait until March as I'm on wikibreak next week. WLU (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just pick a set. In fact, if there's agreement on which set, I could whip one up in no time. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd go for the American covers on the grounds that they are the most commonly-available and there are more of them in print, plus the American cover for A Dance with Dragons is now available (whilst the UK one isn't, yet) and that can be added to the image. Just to note that I am planning a major revamp of the ASoIaF page using some of the Featured Article pages (like Lord of the Rings) as a guideline. The page at the moment is okay, but I think we really want to go to town on it and make it look as excellent as possible ;-) I also think that the 'spin-off' section - which is now the largest part of the article - should be reduced to a summary and a dedicated page listing those spin-offs should be created instead. SFX also had a major article by Joe Abercrombie on the series in last month's issue which can be used as a sourced for exploration of the series' themes. Abercrombie also posted a second article on the series on his own website, which can also be sourced. With ADWD coming out this year (hopefully) interest in this page should rise again.--Werthead (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, I say go ahead with the American covers. If it's not done by tomorrow, I may try to do it (but don't let that stop anyone else from taking care of it first). Werth - I'm sure you are aware of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction), WP:BOOKS, WP:NOVEL and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate? There's probably other guidance as well, and you could ask User:Kevinalewis for help or guidance - he's been very good about discussing with me in the past. WLU (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Brit cover for ADWD is up as well, but ir does occur to me that that could be confusing, with two volumes for ASoS. The US covers seem the way to go. I tried putting a combo image up here

Image:WikiFullASoIaFSizeEdit.JPG

but I couldn't get the size right and the only image manipulation software I have is, err, Paint, which tends to pixellate the image when you shrink it and make it look rubbish. I may try this again but it's been tedious work so far, to be honest.--Werthead (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • There is a convention in publishing is that the 1st edition is the most significant - so the first edition covers should be those used. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
For AGoT, I agree. However, the Wikipedia convention on series overview articles (such as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings etc) seems to be that a consistent style is preferred. As such the latest editions of the series make the most sense.--Werthead (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
One thing I don't like about the current images is the white line that stretches across all the books, looks odd to me but I don't mind being over-ruled. Aside from that I think you did a great job with the picture, particular given you had to use paint (feel your pain, paint sucks). From my understanding of image use, a small image is preferred so we don't violate copyright or something, and it's going in the infobox anyway so it doesn't have to look good up close. I resized to 200px and I think it looks OK, I say good job and have no hesitation about putting it on the page. Kevin, is the first edition mandatory, or just a best practice? I do prefer the current image 'cause I don't have to make a new one : ) and I think its less busy and tacky. Plus, do they even make the old traditional fantasy covers for the most recent publications? WLU (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Added image, let me know if there's any concerns. I think it's more than adequate, I think it's good. WLU (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)