Just in case anyone’s wondering what I’ve been up to…

June 11, 2014

I tried to read the first Game of Thrones book last month (maybe last month? it seems like longer ago) and failed out of it 80% of the way through. I’ve been recovering by reading Georgette Heyer, and I’m not done yet.


  1. I’ve never read the books or seen the series. Only so many hours in a week…. Hope you recover soon!

    • Yeah, I expect it’s worth it for a lot of people–people who are more into fantasy and everyone being miserable than I am–but it wasn’t for me.

  2. Well, you did better than I did. I gave up on it after about 100 pages.

    • That was probably a wise choice.

  3. I couldn’t finish reading GoT either. I think it’s GRR Martin’s writing style, which I found somewhat pedestrian. He has these sweeping dynastic storylines, but the style isn’t up to the same level. Whereas someone like Heyer can take a relatively flimsy plot and transmute it into an unputdownable novel simply because of her inimitable style.

    • I dunno. In my case it was simply that I hated all the characters. Every single one of them was obnoxious.

      • I actually agree completely with both of you. But I could have dealt with Martin’s flat writing style if I hadn’t hated everyone. I kept thinking, “Aren’t the characters all supposed to die? Can that happen soon, please?”

  4. I can’t handle epics. Trying to remember all the characters in ONE book is hard enough.

  5. I didn’t even bother starting G o T. Just not into all that violence against women.

    I so wish Georgette Heyer had written more. I can’t reread her (entire romance oeuvre minus Powder and Patch which kind of sucked) more than once per year without some of the pleasure diminishing.

    I did recently read the Dinny Gordon series (1960s YA fiction for girls, but with a twist). It was pretty good!

    • I feel like everyone who knew better than to start Game of Thrones is smarter than me. I don’t think I’m going to be going back to it.

      Aw, I love Powder and Patch. Or I guess it’s more accurate to say that I love the middle of Powder and Patch? I don’t care much about the beginning or the end, but Philip’s time in France is incredibly delightful to me.

      • I’ve only read it once, but it read like an early work where she didn’t realize that her ingenues would be much better secondary characters that bring comic relief and perhaps a macguffin for the two actual (more mature) main characters who we actually care about because they’re not too stupid to live. In fact, I think in Devil’s Cub she actually does reuse the female main character who is just too ridiculously silly. When she reuses the male main character as a secondary character I’m pretty sure he never gets the girl in the end. In short, when plot is driven by the two main characters refusing to communicate with each other, it’s a pretty poor story. (Venetia is precisely the opposite, and one of our favorites on our blog as we approach middle-age.)

        But maybe I should give Powder and Patch another chance. After all, it is the *only* one of her historical romances that I’ve only read once. Well, I still have only reread Civil Contract once but that’s because I’ve only owned it for a little over a year and still remember it too well. That one is also the opposite of Powder and Patch but requires being even more elderly to appreciate than Venetia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: