Interesting post about culture-specific story shapes.

[TheWinterEmissary]

I think the argument would be that the failure of those messages to get through is part of the problem.

I'm not sure that I could safely say that based on the author's text.  But if the author, or anyone else, were to make that claim then I would certainly agree. 

And I think that it's a problem that goes both ways.  If the only U.S. culture that is reaching you is THE BIG HIT SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER then it's definitely a "part of the problem".  But the problem isn't that that is all that the U.S. culture is creating.  It's a problem that that's what is being most effectively sold and marketed by U.S. corporations and then is being bought by other nations' media buyers and being consumed in sufficient quantities to perpetuate the cycle. 

For example, I'm more familiar with U.S. television then I am with movies.  I know that the CSI brands sell, and then rate, quite well in a number of different markets.  When shows like those are some of the bigger successes, then it helps to keep them being made in the U.S. and seems to show the media buyers in those markets that those are the sorts of properties that the buyers should continue to look for.  For a long time Baywatch was far more popular in many other countries than it was in the U.S. and so imo those non-U.S. consumers should certainly share some responsibility for that particular "contribution" to the world culture.  I'm absolutely not disputing that the U.S. content producers, sellers and some portion of the American people play a part in that which the author was complaining of.  But I do believe that there is more to the equation than they discussed.  In the same way, I can't believe that every Canadian should be responsible for Justin Bieber.   

[TheWinterEmissary]

I would argue, in that specific case, that the cumulative build through the series is more important than in many series.

 

I really am reluctant to give this series any more of my time.  But, in order to go the extra kilometer to ensure that I am giving it a fair chance, I purchased "A Betrayal in Winter" today.  I have quite a lot of books waiting to be read, but I will try to read it when I can, and reevaluate my impressions if necessary. 

Though I would also disagree with you on the quality of the characterisation, so some of this may well be down to taste.

Could be.  It is my belief that there are a number of factors that people use, sometimes consciously and sometimes not, in order to arrive at their final estimations of "good", "bad", "excellent", "a failure", etc.  I believe that without quite a bit of context and insight into each person's thought processes, those evaluations are nearly (or even completely) worthless.  I have seen seemingly intelligent people who prefer brevity in terms of characterization and seemingly intelligent people who prefer that characterization be written in as much depth as possible.  The fantasy author Robin Hobb is a good example of the latter preference, someone whose writing very much appeals to a portion of the audience, though at the same time there are readers who are very much put off by her style, sometimes with a passion.  I don't know if you are familiar with her work, but it struck me as a good example to contrast with Abraham's.       

[TheWinterEmissary]

I'm not willing to work on a basis that denies the existence of quality altogether.

Imo, "quality" is one of those terms like "attractive".  It often means different things to different people.  Sometimes dramatically so.  I think that it exists, but it can take a lot of effort for two people to understand each other well enough to employ it in a useful way.