Talk:A Dance with Dragons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Fantasy task force. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
-
- 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)
