Aside from the fact that Benioff is incapable of writing a female character who isn't leered at (which was a huge turnoff for me: this is not a book that welcomes readers who aren't horny boys/men), I initially thought this was a really lovely story. Its structure is elegant, it has a satisfying arc and conclusion, and it is peppered with visceral moments. Many of the events are absurd, but - especially when prefaced with the old "truth is stranger than fiction" adage - they are believable.

Of course a military leader would spare two condemned men's lives in exchange for a personal favor, of course that same leader hedged his bets and wound up with an unfair surplus of extravagant food while his countrymen starved around him, of course friendly fire kills one of our leads. Of course of course of course.

I did a little digging after reading and realized that the forward - which explicitly says that the book is based on actual events - is fiction. I have always loved stories that play with the line between truth and fiction. I am a strong believer that fictional stories can sometimes do a better job of getting at the truth of a historical event than a recitation of facts. But this preface strikes me as dishonest. It uses the "truth is stranger than fiction" adage as its excuse to tell an oftentimes unbelievable fictional story. 

My TLDNR is this: Making a horny war story is a weird fucking choice. Especially when it's not grounded in the truth you promise your readers.