Talk:A Dance with Dragons/Archive 1

Archive 1

Quote

Basically it shows how far along he is with the book so that all the angry fanboys could keep quiet. I don´t see how it could disturb someone. Does anybody mind this quote being in the front of the article?88.196.225.96 (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be at the top of the article. One, Wikipedia articles rarely ever have quotes in the beginning like that. Two, and most importantly, that statement refers to only one aspect of the book – the production. If you were to insist on including it, the quote should go under one specific section, such as the split in publication. However, I don't think that the quote is particularly informative as it only states that he wants to finish it – it offers no information about the book or when it will be completed. That's another reason I think it should be excluded. Grey Maiden ^talk 16:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dance with/Dance of

I´m confused. The title of the forthcoming book is obviously "A Dance with Dragons"... The civil war this might be alluding to was called "The Dance of Dragons"... The article says that the original intended title was called "A Dance of Dragons" which seems to be an combination of the two... Could someone please clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.227.202 (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know the reasoning for changing the of to with. If I had to guess it would be so that readers don't automatically reference it to the civil war. Orracle107 (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The title of the novel is and always has been, Dance 'with' Dragons. The mention of the book being called 'of' Dragons is a mistaken (just changed it). The difference appears to be that the Dance 'of' Dragons was two dragons fighting/warring with one another (the civil war), whilst the Dance 'with' Dragons is an outside force fighting/warring with the dragons (something else fighting the Targaryens, presumably Dany in this case).--Werthead (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just remember what Ser Weymar Royce said at the end of the prologue of A GAME OF THRONES... ;) As the Other approached he said: "Dance with me then." I mean, I immediatedly understood what the title of the fifth book meant when I read the beginning of the first one! Goddamn pure genius. 88.196.227.88 (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The new POV

Well, in the beginning it seemed like it could be one among Sandor Clegane, Loras Tyrell and Melisandre. Then Martin stated that it would not be Sandor (http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Month/2008/04/); it seems to me that he may be removed from the list, couldn't he? Moreover, during a sign in Spain on July, 24 Martin said that the new character would not be any of the Tyrells. Therefore, I don't think it's speculation if we put Melisandre as the new POV in ADwD. Askeron (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN. Deduction and analysis by wikipedia editors should be avoided.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, GRRM has used titles to refer to characters in lieu of their names. So whilst 'Sandor' isn't a POV character, 'The Hound' or 'The Gravedigger' could be. Until the book comes out, we won't know 100% for sure. As a result, we cannot deduce that the new POV is Melisandre, although that is the most likely case.--Werthead (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Goals vs narrative direction

A fictional character certainly can have goals. A character can have a plan for what they want to do, but characters plan and the direction of the narrative are not necessarily the same thing. Tyrion in this case may not have specific goals (other than possibly escape) but a character absolutely can have goals. Just look at the characters of Varys and Littlefinger. They have had goals, even a whole agenda for the whole story. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this (though I have not made edits on the subject one way or another yet). If there are others with a strong opinion on this one way or another, please voice them here.Caidh (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but it's not a matter of "strong opinion" or even of the various plots and plans exhibited by the characters. The "goals" are known only to George RR Martin. The writer may include Tyrion's developed goals in the book, but to say that his current goals are "unknown even to him" assumes that Tyrion can "know" anything at all. As a construct from the imagination of a writer, he cannot know, think, or feel in any way. The problematic word in the original sentence is "eventual," since the author is solely responsible for the character's development. It might be fair to say that Tyrion is "without a specific goal," which keeps the focus on the end of the previous book. As it stands, though, there's nothing inherently wrong with saying that "the specific direction of his narrative is unknown."

This is something of a moot point anyway, since we will know Tyrion's goals as soon as the book is published, at which time this silly sentence will be deleted or rewritten. ∅BRIT 14:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You make a good argument on this, and the more I think about it - even if I think the character can have goals, in terms of encyclopedic content - its definitely not needed. I'm fine with leaving it as the current sentence (your edit) is.Caidh (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Release date

It's been suggested that the fact that Amazon has listed a publication date for the book is worth mentioning in the article. It really isn't. Various Amazon sites have listed the book for years, with an assortment of essentially random publication dates. If there's no data available, Amazon literally makes something up. (Their UK site says it's coming out in April, which by now is impossible.) Only the author and possibly his editors have any reliable information on how the book is progressing and when it is likely to be done- until he or they announce a date, it's all a guessing game. Amazon's information on this point is no more useful than individual speculations. Best, Brendan Moody (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the new Random house release date even be in the side bar? Sure, his publisher is more reliable than Amazon, but as of his Mar. 18th blog post, even GRRM himself was not sure it would be ready by then.

The book is not done, no release date has been set, only best guesses, so I'm removing the date for now.--Werthead (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And removing it again. Please do not add anything to the release date section until the book is completed, as confirmed by GRRM on his website. Even then, a final release date will not be confirmed until a few weeks later when Voyager and Bantam have the manuscript and juggled their release slots around. Neither Amazon nor Voyager nor Bantam's release dates mean anything whilst the book remains incomplete, as it does as of this time. Also note that the page count remains speculative until the book is finished.--Werthead (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Any release date anyone puts there is a guess. It would be a guess if I put my opinion, that the book will never come out, in the article also. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven

Only three years, and already people despairing that the book will ever be released? Tsk. In my day, we waited five years between installments, when we weren't walking uphill to school in blizzards. We stuck through title changes, endless missed benchmarks, publication splits- and we liked it! Kids these days don't know they're born. Brendan Moody (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Another missed publication deadline. Now (July 2009) the old curmudgeon is apparently distracted with producing a "Game of Thrones" TV pilot for HBO on speculation. We'd better start in now with the fan fiction, just for our own satisfaction and sanity. Otherwise it might turn out like Dickens' "Mystery of Edwin Drood". [lynxx in Southern California] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.248.94 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been a member of ASOIAF forum for four years now, and it's basically become a place where I can blog on politics, MMA, and association football. I've completely forgotten that it once had anything to do with books. Pretty soon I'll forget that the TV series had anything to do with books either, but at least it explains the delay. It actually looks like the pilot will beat the book to market this fall. Unak78 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Jan 29 GRRM blog

Hi all, I realise that the new posting of a cover for Dance, the text "nuff said" and the mood emoticon "accomplished" on GRRM's blog sounds promising [1]. However, we should wait with interpreting that this means completion of the long awaited book, as such speculation is original research from our part. The posting may mean a lot of other things such as: final book cover unveiled, another chapter finished, solving of the meereenese knot GRRM has been struggling with. As long as we have no reliable sources we should not speculate on what it exactly means. Arnoutf (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

He just updated his blog with a new post [2]. Unfortunately, the book isn't finished. --WakiMiko (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Or just a good day; we do not even know whether it was a good day writing, or whether snow referred to Jon or the white stuff. It seems in fact that GRRM himself is upset about the speculations based on his 29-1 post. Good call WakiMiko.

Let's just wait it out, we have had practice enough in waiting by now. Arnoutf (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Character list monikers

To head off an edit war or something over this issue, I wanted to open up the topic for discussion. In A Feast for Crows, some chapters were dubbed with character euphemisms like "The Kraken's Daughter" rather than their first name, as is typical for Martin. The same is expected for A Dance with Dragons. The character lists in the Feast article and this one have, until recently, listed the name used as the chapter heading first, followed by actual name if necessary. Some editors have argued for the characters to be listed first and the monikers added as needed for clarification.

I think I agree that this is a list of characters, and so should list them in a standardized, easy-to-understand way. The somewhat in-universe nickname scenario would surely be confusing for the casual reader, and across Wikipedia I doubt we could find an article of decent assessed quality that does anything like this. It's probably notable to mention the moniker thing in that section since it is somewhat unusual for Martin's standard pattern, but otherwise I think it's trying to force WP to conform to the book rather than the other way around. And obviously, I think the Feast article should be changed as well.— TAnthony^Talk 15:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just going to start this discussion when I saw that TAnthony was kind enough to start it already. As an encyclopedic article, I believe having the character names and not the in-universe names are much more important as the 'primary' listing. Having the nicknames is useful, but not as the primary name for the character. I would agree with changing the Feast for Crows article as well but I won't go and edit it if there is no consensus here.Caidh (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my edit summary, I obviously agree. It is a list of characters who will have POVs in the book, not a list of chapter headings. -Rrius (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Amalthea 22:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Accidental early release

As it turns out, amazon.de had a problem during the last two days and accidentally sent out a number of books, instead of holding them back till 12 July. Lucky for me, according to the delivery status of my packet I'll be getting it either today or tomorrow. Can be a problem for us though.

Posting this here mostly for notification, but I believe the US and UK publishers have banned any book reviews prior to release; normal customers will of course not be affected by that, but do we have a moral or editorial reason to try and hold back any early plot summaries? Amalthea 07:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

-- I was wondering about this as well. With the book being leaked we now know the identity of the last two PoV's. Obviously their identities would be considered spoilers, but then again so are all the PoV identities, in a way. So is there a reason to wait until the book before editing the page more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.62.159 (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Really, Caith, this is bad style. If you think that there shouldn't be spoilers in an encyclopedia, you could have censored them without deleting my whole post. The book is out. Perhaps not in North America, but I think that we germans should also count as part of the civilized world.

As I already said, there is a problem with verifiability of any plot details as there are only a few people who read the book yet, but it is possible. And as this is an encyclopedia and not an internet forum, every relevant detail regarding this book should be mentioned. And the plot is such a detail. --129.70.6.236 (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with spoliers when the book has been officially released. As far as I am aware, the book was released prematurely in Germany. Once the book is officially released (July 12th I believe is the world wide release) then there won't be any problems. If you want to mention in the article that the book was prematurely released, that's fine. Placing plot information before hand is completely unnecessary.Caidh (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Reek

The character Reek is not identical to Theon Greyjoy (as can be seen here: http://www.towerofthehand.com/reference/k/00263/index.html), so the line "Reek: Theon Greyjoy, presumed-dead son of recently deceased King Balon Greyjoy of the Iron Islands, a captive of Ramsay Bolton and now tortured, starved and barely sane." is definitely wrong. Is it safe to remove the word "Reek" altogether, as was discussed above under "Character list monikers" or is there actually evidence of there being chapters with a Reek POV? --Fibbo (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The previous 'Reek' was killed and Bolton captured Theon and made him take his place. This was revealed in a sample chapter previously released by Martin. Its not on Martin's website anymore (that I can find at least, since he has changed the sample chapter to one based on Jon Snow), but it is Theon. From that sample chapter: “His hair’s gone white and he is three stone thinner, but this is no serving man. Have you forgotten?” The crookback lord looked again and gave a sudden snort. “Him? Can it be? Stark’s ward. Smiling, always smiling.” “He smiles less often now,” Lord Ramsay confessed. “I may have broken some of his pretty white teeth.”--Caidh (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The advance Theon chapter is on Amazon UK and the link is actually a citation in the article. I haven't read my Kindle copy of DWD yet so I'm not sure if it made it into the novel intact. — TAnthony^Talk 19:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It is explicitly stated in DWD that Theon and the new Reek are one and the same. -Rrius (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Plot

Several points seem a bit misleading, as written. One part mentions "Selmy, now a viewpoint character, becomes convinced that Hizdahr was trying to poison Daenerys...", (the correct way to describe the situation) but at least two other places (once in the Synopsis section: "Shortly after their marriage, Hizdahr attempts to poison Daenerys with a bowl of honeyed locusts." and once in the Plot section: "Alas, he arrives too late, finding Dany about to enter into a political marriage (see below), and is then left in a bad position when her new husband tries to have her poisoned—a tactic notorious to Quentyn's uncle Oberyn.") flat-out say that Hizdahr was the poisoner (the incorrect way, I think, since the characters in the book themselves are unsure if it was actually him; WP should not be more certain than the book is).

Another part says "She has no idea how to tame her dragons, which are ranging far and wide and eating whatever they feel like, including children." Again, there is a bit of uncertainty here as to whether the child was actually eaten by a dragon (although Daenerys seemed convinced, so I won't argue too hard there), but it was still only one specific dragon involved (who was repeatedly described as more monstrous than the other two) - Drogon - and one child, not "children"; it just seems a bit misleading as worded, for those who perhaps hadn't read the book.

The last point is Ramsay Bolton's final letter to Jon Snow. Again, the writing seems a bit misleading and speculative as written here. There are two mentions in the Plot section - "At last report—a gloating letter in Ramsay's handwriting to Jon Snow—Stannis' host was smashed and the king slain." and again near the bottom of that sub-section: "Theon is able to flee with her and eventually arrives at Stannis' host; Ramsay's letter mentions that he wants his wife and Reek back, suggesting that at least Jeyne and Theon were able to escape the slaughter he describes in his letter to Jon Snow." Both sentences seem to take Ramsay's word at face value - although it seems reasonable to assume Mance and his spear-wives were captured (as Jon mentions, those are details Ramsay should not be able to know otherwise) and that Theon and Jeyne escaped, we don't actually know what happened to Stannis and it is possible Ramsay is bluffing as part of some scheme (a recurring theme in the book is that the best lies have a bit of truth in them). The second sentence from above is speculation and, yes, all the stuff I just typed is speculation also, but my point is that we should not include speculation at all (except maybe speculations made in the book itself) and it would be better to just quote the letter itself or just summarize the cirsumtances plainly, without commentary or overly colorful language. Xarmy of meX (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Pale Mare

I thought the term 'pale mare' was the common name the Eastern peoples call the bloody flux, and not a recent term that came about from the current situation?Halbared (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"This is a falsehood"

The section "This is a falsehood, as it was revealed in A Feast for Crows that Brienne knows Arya was last seen at Saltpans, and that the Hound, Sandor Clegane, is no more. Her motivation in this lie has yet to be explained. Given her actions at the end of A Feast for Crows, it is presumed she is leading him to Lady Stoneheart." doesn't belong on the article. For a start, another of the band is now calling himself The Hound, plus Brienne doesn't have to be referring to Arya - she was on the trail of Sansa at first, if you recall. As a knight, Briene's honour won't allow her to lie. There's something else going on, so calling it a falsehood is simply wrong. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am also challenging the following statement:

This is a falsehood, as it was revealed in A Feast for Crows that Brienne knows Arya was last seen at Saltpans, and that the Hound, Sandor Clegane, is no more. Her motivation in this lie has yet to be explained. Given her actions at the end of A Feast for Crows, it is presumed she is leading him to Lady Stoneheart.

This is a fantasy novel and while that conclusion might be valid it is still speculation in my opinion. Given the twists and turns in the series it is not conclusive that the hound is dead, and at this stage we do not know what has occurred between Briennes hanging and her meeting Jamie. It should stick to what we know for certain. AIRcorn (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it was speculation\original research. Amalthea 13:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot Summary

The plot summaries are too long and often focus on on details. For example, is it necessary to mention that Lord Connington is relieved to die among his ancestors? This section is nickle and dimed with too many small inconsequential details. Regarding "inconsequential", the author has a reputation for misdirection and he flushes out his setting well. It is tempting to document every detail for a love of a the setting and a hope to document a details that is later revealed to be important. I encourage the contributors to give the gist of the action as it relates to a climax. This article can be amended to include details a later book reveals is a key plot element. An example of excess information: the Sea Lord comes and goes in the book. His court is not key to past or future events. He deserves little more than a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.20.224.11 (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't even think we need that section at all. There's a "synopsis" section and a "plot" section. Why? Seems to me that the synopsis alone is all this article really needs. There's a wiki for ASOIAF (actually, there's at least two that I'm aware of) that can get into the gritty details of the "plot" section. --DarthBinky (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, fixed. 122.176.246.251 (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

General Edits

I see someone faster on the uptake edited in the new info from GRRM's latest update. Thanks. One slight change: Sansa Stark is not confirmed to be in the book. GRRM has only 100% confirmed that Arya and Asha are carrying on from AFFC. He has indicated that he may be able to revisit characters from AFFC at the end of ADWD, but the feeling was that he meant those characters who literally ended on a cliffhanger (Brienne and Cersei) so we wouldn't have to wait 4 years or more to find out their fates. He hasn't commented again on this, though, so it's still up in the air. As for the incomplete info box: the book's cover illustration has not yet been released, so it would be difficult to use put it up yet.--Werthead 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

About the "An old, or "retired", POV will be returning.", can we speculate that this is Theon? Or is that unencyclopedic, even when written as speculation? - LPOP

We don't know Theon will return, and even if he does, I wouldn't call him "old" or "retired." I think that is speculation, and should be left out of the article until we receive more definitive information from GRRM. Arwen undomiel 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it is Theon. GRRM has stated that we won't get an undead Cat POV and that Eddard is definitely dead and not coming back. So Theon is the only possible option. He is an 'old' POV because we haven't seen a POV chapter from him for over eight and a half years and 'retired' as he didn't appear in Books 3 or 4. That said, this is probably not enough of a Wikipedia-acceptable basis to name him on the list, so we should hold off until the book is released or GRRM confirms it somewhere that Theon appears.--Werthead 15:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It would fall under original research right now, so I'll second what Werthead said about holding it on the back burner for now. --Darkbane ^talk 15:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And official confirmation: Theon's first chapter is included in the Spring 2008 edition of the Bantam Spectra Pulse Magazine.--Werthead (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Unexpectedly, GRRM has confirmed that Sansa will in fact be in ADWD as well. Very interesting!--Werthead (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The page lists Jon Snow as Eddard Stark's bastard son, but there are enough quotes throughout the books to sufficiently cast a great cloud over this statement imho. http://towerofthehand.com/essays/chrisholden/jon_snows_parents.html198.12.16.4 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

edit request

uh... it may be wrong but I would think that including the fact Stannis has probably lost against Bolton might be good. Ramsay's letter to Jon states that Stannis has lost, and his sword is now taken. The passage only includes that Stannis's army is snowbound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.209.143.171 (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its worth mentioning. Its speculation to know what exactly happened (especially considering the source of the message. Until that is shown to have happened in the books, I don't think it has to be mentioned.Caidh (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of "Frankenstein's monster" in section "King's Landing"

This phrasing seems out of place here, although the logic behind the statement seems sound. Agreed, from earlier hints, particularly conversations between Qyburn and Cersei, it does seem likely that "Robert Strong" is some sort of artificial being constructed or re-animated by Qyburn. Also, based on the sheer size of the new knight, it seems likely that Gregor Clegane ("The Mountain") was the source of the body (and whose head? looking forward to finding out...). However, the phrasing "speculated to be a Frankenstein's monster assembled from the corpse of Gregor Clegane and other prisoners" seems too strong, and specifically likening the creature/being to Frankenstein's monster does not seem fitting. A better phrasing would be something like "implied to be an artificial being created by Qyburn." This communicates what is actually known, but does not over-speculate, and does not add confusion by incorporating a second, unrelated fantasy milieu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.221.22.71 (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)