I’m probably in the minority of Game of Thrones fans, in that I liked book 4 much more than book 5. I simply couldn’t bring myself to care all that much about Daenerys and all her governing woes, nor Tyrion and all of his misadventures. Maybe, I’m just growing less fond of them as characters. I did quite enjoy Jon and all his travails; I think that he more than anyone (well, maybe Daenerys) is really earning his growth as a character, in terms of obstacles overcome and all of that.

On that subject. One thing I have found remarkable about this book and the series as a whole is the way it meditates on power and its character. Often when reading this series I find myself thinking, “well, why doesn’t so-and-so just get to the point and do X?” Where X is a rather extreme/violet/crazy course of action that is the logical conclusion of his or her course of action. Martin’s answer to my hypothetical is usually posed as a sort of series of chess moves (or I guess, cyvasse moves, that’s the nomenclature). Attack an enemy here, weaken your defenses there; arm an ally over here and risk fraying that alliance over there. No one is more blind to this sort of dialectic than Cersei, and of course we see where that leads in this book - though I found that scene rather distasteful (of course), given how strongly gendered it was; not to mention, it was simply incorrect. (Cersei’s sin is not pride, it’s being too power-hungry, and a more appropriate scene for her character would be one that turns on that flaw. Anyway.) What is really interesting are the travails of Jon Snow, who is all too aware of this tension and tries to walk that line all the same; of course we’re left with a rather crazy cliffhanger for him.

In any event. I don’t know whether it’s intentional or not, but the political machinations and counter-machinations, the push and pull of power, are worthy of Machiavelli, and are in that sense quite a fascinating study of modern politics. But, this book can be something of a slog.