Talk:A Game of Thrones/Archive 1

Archive 1

1st Edition / 1st Impression?

It's listed as "first edited in August 1996" however a US hardback book reads "September 1996" and no other information regarding being a reimpression nor 2nd edition. What's this about? Who's correct?? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.132.54 (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary?

I've added some additional information on the awards the book won and was nominated for, and altered the opening paragraph so it was slightly easier to read. The plot summary is okay but rather 'over-sensitive', in that it is rather vague on what is happening (i.e. we don't find out what hatches from Dany's eggs). I agree that the plot summary should not be extremely in-depth, but it could be rewritten to actually tell the story of what is happening the book in greater detail. The plot summaries for the next three books are even worse, basically just being the publishers' blurb. Any objections to this?--Werthead 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening scene (the direwolves)?

Seems to me that, given the symbolic meaning of that opening scene, it should be in the plot summary. Though I agree it does little to move the actual plot... --Paul Willocx 21:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I also added the scene where Will, Waymar and Gared meet the Others to the Wall section, since establishing the Others early on is a good idea I think.--Werthead 17:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete “Writing” section?

It seems as if the Writing section has found its way to A Song of Ice and Fire (where it belongs). Should we just remove it from here? I don't think there is much to be said about the theme, style, technique, or history of A Game of Thrones that does not belong at least as naturally to the top article. Arbor 07:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Paul Willocx 08:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I was going to delete it from here but forgot.--Werthead 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Linking to the board game ?

There is a board game with the same name as this book (it also plays in the A Song of Ice and Fire universe). There should be some link pointing there ( A Game of Thrones (board game) ).

There is now at least to boardgames in the A Song of Ice and Fire universe. A Game of Thrones (board game), and a game build upon the BattleLore (board game). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.242.2.194 (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Policy concerns

I'm concerned that the current page may be in violation of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. It would be extremely borderline, but at the moment, much of the non-summary information is in the form of a list. Adding another written section or so would put this firmly in the acceptable camp. Perhaps taking some of the information from the reviews link, and writing a paragraph explaining the serie's significance would be in order? Or would that be too POV? MPoint

The article does mention awards won and translations of the book. It would be nice to discuss critics' analysis of the book, but I don't know how much analysis has been done of it. It's not exactly The Brothers Karamazov. That said, I agree that the summary is quite long. A lot happens in the books, but we should still be able to summarize in less space. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary condensed

Per main page's invitation to edit, I condensed the plot summary considerably. If this was not correct, please feel free to revert to previous version. Thanks. 173.51.18.204 (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated, thanks Yoenit (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers in summary

There are spoilers for the next books (war of the five kings, anyone?) in the summary. Surely they should be deleted?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.92.67 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no "anti-spoiler" policy on WP, but anything from future books which has not yet been featured in the series is basically speculative (the series could excise plot or otherwise diverge from the source material) and therefore inappropriate. Readers interested in "knowing what happens" can got the articles for the novels themselves.— TAnthony^Talk 23:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm this is the novel article. To the IP adress above, as an encyclopedia we seek to give complete information and that may include the occasional spoiler from future books. Besides naming the war of the five kings I don't see any spoilers from future books in the summary though. Yoenit (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Also the plot changes really quick with so many twists it may be a spoiler but it changes so quick who knows what would happen. Nhog (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Reduce TV-series info in lede?

Now that the TV series is in progress, I think this is too detailed: "In November 2009 HBO completed filming of a pilot episode for the television adaptation.[3] This was followed by a ten-episode full season, which premiered in April 2011.[4][5]". I'd suggest just adding a mention to the previous sentence, as follows:

The novel lends its name to several spin-off items based on the novels, including a trading card game, board game, roleplaying game, and television adaptation.

Any objections? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

add "a upcoming video game" to that list. That being said, the lead is very short for an article this size, so I would not object either if somebody rewrote it completely with more information about everything. Yoenit (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It only needs a single sentence about the TV series and spin-off items here. I can rewrite the lead but won't get to it immediately. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've trimmed the plot and removed the tag, but will return to tighten a bit more. I've also reworked the lead a bit - I haven't linked properly b/c I'm not familiar with all the subpages, so would be grateful if somebody else could do that. I think the infobox is too long; because there are so many editions, we can't possibly put information for all the editions in the infobox, so I think it should be kept a lean as possible. The section about foreign versions of the book needs considerable trimming; there's simply no reason for us to present all the translations. Instead we should be looking for sources about the themes, the plots, and the reception. This novel was first published many years ago and the last installment in the series is about to be published, so it would be nice to see this page cleaned up a bit. Also, I'm thinking that quite a few sources will be available in the wake of the TV show, and in anticipation of the final installment of the series. Will keep an eye here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The fifth book is the latest one, not the last one. The series is currently expected to run to seven volumes.--Werthead (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

In the part about the POV characters, the character (Will) of the prologue is mentioned. All other characters are mentioned as well. However, the character in the epilogue (Theon Greyjoy) is not mentioned. And since the chapter of Theon allows the reader to guess what will happen in the second novel, I think Theon should be included there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.209.143.171 (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Again in the part about the POV characters. I just finshed reading A Clash of Kings and looked back in my English copy of A Game of Thrones and Theon Greyjoy is not a POV character in this book. He starts being a POV character in A Clash of Kings. So mentioning him here is a factual error. He isn't mentioned as a viewpoint character in A Game of Thrones on A Wiki of Ice and Fire either.Fredrik9999 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I came to this page to try to determine the number of books in the series and it wasn't clear. At the bottom there are links to the pages for each book, but it might be nice if the summary mentioned something like "The first in a series of five books, with two more forthcoming".

Novel plot vs. HBO plot

It often happens that novels are made into films. When this happens, often the plot differences between film and novel are large (think of the Bond books) and occasionally they are small (Lord of the Rings and this Song of Fire and Ice series). But no adaptation can be perfect. Thus, we should either leave out parts of the plot where novel and HBO production differ, or else follow the novel plot. I had the distinct feeling that those doing the plot of this book had seen HBO series once too often. For example, there are several attempts on Danny's life, not just the one shown on HBO.

While I admire the economy with which the plot has been condensed, if some words are used, they need to be explained, and I've added bits explaining "wildlings", "taking the black" and so on. SBHarris 23:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Link to Night Watch - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Watch_(Lukyanenko_novel)

The Others and the Lord of Light seem to be taken from the Night Watch novel. Should there be a reference to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.208.130 (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a Reliable, notable 3rd party source that has made this connection then yes. If you just hav a list of page numbers from both books that show similarities, then no. Ashmoo (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Translations section

Is the long translations section necessary? We already have a forked article for the list and readers can also click on the list of wikipedia-languages on the left to find the name in any other language. Which is pretty much all the section does. I think the section should only include translations that are somehow notable for some other reason. Ashmoo (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

On the plot summary again

I've trimmed the Seven Kingdoms section somewhat, trying to cut down on unnecessary in-universe jargon and details that seem too specific or too insignificant for a brief summary. The big sticking point I can see about the new version is that it doesn't mention the direwolves at all. Personally, I think that their importance in the first book is more thematic than narrative, so a discussion of them would be more appropriate to a themes section (which the article sorely needs), but if someone wants to add them back into the plot summary I won't complain. Possibly more attention should be given anyway to the Arya/Sansa/Joffrey/Mycah debacle, which felt over-described in the previous summary but to which I may have given too short shrift. Brendan Moody (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Núria Perpinyà

I've moved this recent addition to the article here until: a) we can determine if it is an analysis of the novel or the TV series, and b) someone can extract some part of the commentary that actually is useful to this article.

In her 2014 essay "Ruins, Nostalgia and Ugliness", Spanish novelist Núria Perpinyà relates A Game of Thrones to the Romantic medieval tradition and analyzes why people in the 21st century are still interested in the Middle Ages.

References

As it stands, I can't see how this is of any interest or use to us.— TAnthony^Talk 23:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The promo for this essay on the author's page links to Game of Thrones, the TV series. Perhaps this info should be added to the "Reception" secton of that page. 172.162.6.142 (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ping TAnthony ... 172.162.6.142 (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Limited Editions

Thus far, two signed and numbered limited editions have been produced. One by Meisha Merlin and one by Subterranean Press. I added a lot of information about these two editions since I believe it will be of interest to many. However, TenTonParasol reverted my revision saying "It is not necessary to detail EVERY bit of information here. It comes off as a little promotional." To which I don't agree. I don't see how it is promotional and secondly they are both out of print and not for sale anyway. Regardless, I believe that the more information we can provide the better. Also, if I missed a limited/special edition, please feel free to add it. Astropi (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

TenTonParasol is correct, your entry is overkill. Try something brief, one sentence per book, and those interested can find the details at retail sites. WP is not necessarily the host of all information on a topic, it is more often a starting point for further research. Speaking of which, citing Amazon and Subterranean Press in this way is indeed promotional. If these volumes are notable there will be other reliable sources that talk about them. — TAnthony^Talk 20:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So because a publisher produces a limited edition, you consider that promotional? I completely disagree. I also see you took it upon yourself to just revert to the previous two lines which says: "The novel has been published in multiple editions in hardcover, paperback, e-book, and audio book form. In June 2000, Meisha Merlin published a limited edition of the book, fully illustrated by Jeffrey Jones." Do you realize that the first line is all but pointless? Any successful book, and numerous unsuccessful ones, are printed in hardcover, paperback and electronic editions. Also, rather pointless to say "WP is not necessarily the host of all information on a topic, it is more often a starting point for further research." Clearly. There are numerous discussion on the limited editions on the web, but if someone just stopped by this page they would not even know the limited editions existed thanks to your editing. Myself, I realize it's not worth my time trying to improve this page.Astropi (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The tone of your entry is promotional, and I simply reverted back to the original text, as did TenTonParasol. You can try a rewrite, but to assert the notability of these editions you need to show sources that do not exist primarily to sell the works. I hear your argument all the time about how WP should basically include every detail on every topic that someone thinks might be of interest. Well that's not the case, and policy backs me up. Now of course I'm sure these limited editions are notable but you're just not presenting them in a proper way, and I willing to help you do that. But please try not to be so indignant.— TAnthony^Talk 21:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There isn't much for me to say aside from what TAnthony has already said. But for the first sentence of the section being useless, in an ideal world, the section would open with that sentence and then list noteworthy editions and etc. and so forth. The section is incomplete and needs to be filled out in a way that sticks to WP:WEIGHT. In regards to your statement on your talk page, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is simply enough to note that the edition exists. As for "numerous discussion[s] on the web", if these are reliable sources proving that the particular editions are of some weight, then they can be used to add these to the articles. I myself know nothing about limited editions, I just felt that listing every single bit of information about the Subterranean Press edition sounded promotional. Your change read very much like a sales listing; it being out of print does not affect whether or not its in a promotional tone. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Where is today's situation?

1.The information is out of date that, how many books has been published? and the relationship between the book and TV series. The book went to 6th. But TV series already faster than that. And as directer mentioned the TV series will end in two seasons. What will happen to the book?

2.resource 10 already out of work. It should be edit or removed.

3.For edition section, it should having more information. The following link have all the edition this book have.

https://www.goodreads.com/work/editions/1466917-a-game-of-thrones

Saveword (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't say I understood all of your comments, but I've fixed the dead citation with an archived url.— TAnthony^Talk 23:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe in your comment #1 you may be referring to the novel series as a whole, which is covered in A Song of Ice and Fire. This article is about the first novel in the sequence only.— TAnthony^Talk 23:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Game of Thrones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817124223/http://grrm.livejournal.com/496185.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/496185.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217085054/http://grrm.livejournal.com/312483.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/312483.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)