Tolkien said the same, after all. And there's nothing wrong with a good story well told. I just want more. Soaps have been evoking visceral reactions for decades, but they don't do much more so I don't waste my time with them. Not when I can have my cake and eat it, too.

I do not want to debate the merits of ASoIaF vs. TWoT, because let me assure you my distaste for the former is far in excess of yours for the latter. After all, you clearly still read TWoT, but I gave up on ASoIaF after the first book. After the first half, actually, but I'd already paid for it and said I'd read it, so I finished it. I find few if any of the characters credible because it seems like the ones who aren't evil to the core are dumb as posts. The only one I really liked was Ned, true to his honor at any cost (so unlike the characters in TWoT, I know) right up until his one inexplicable break with honor killed him and destroyed his family. I might have accepted that if it weren't so painfully obvious what Cersei would do to him once he gave up the only leverage he had over the situation. He actually expected a creature like that to keep her word when she had no incentive to do so and every reason not to do so, and I thought he was smarter than that if not better. But... well, TVoLT has said he hopes to see some chance of victory for the Shadow in TWoT, an example of "evil always wins because good is stupid" and my suggestion would be to look at the other series for plenty of examples.

I'm sorry if that sounded harsh, because I didn't mean it to be, it's just the way I feel. It's ironic to me you find TWoT characters so implausibly idealistic because implausible characters is what drove me from ASoIaF. Despite their failings, which are many, characters in TWoT usually resist temptation because they know submission jeopardizes all the things really important to them. Even Perrin wouldn't make the mistake Ned did (probably, he's gotten to be an awful yutz over Faile) not because he's so much more noble, but because he'd have recognized sacrificing his principles wouldn't save Faile, and would lose her in addition to everything else. That's the key, you see: Characters in TWoT, the ones who don't destroy themselves, act as they do not because they're so idealistic, but because when morality fails enlightened self interest is there to backstop it.

But, no, this thread is not intended as a defense of TWoT in the abstract or to compare it favorably to other works. It's specifically directed at the notion the visceral level of a good yarn is all that TWoT is, which I strongly dispute.