/lit/ - Literature

>>13036171
>It’s amazing how sex, senseless brutality and cynic marketing can cover up such amateur prose.
FIFY

>>13036171
yea it’s gay as hell

>>13036178
>>13036179
I like the characters and plot lines for the most part. I expected the books to be a lot stronger than the show. I’m not sure there’s any reason to read them at this point. However I’m considering writing a fantasy novel so I’ll probably push on and hope he learns how to fucking write an interesting line of prose eventually.

It doesn’t help that I just finished IJ which had genius-tier writing that blew me away every page

>>13036171
redpill alert

characters and an interesting plot are far more important than prose, unless it's offensively bad

>>13036268
I think this book is unironically teaching me that right now. Awful writing but I can’t put it down.

>>13036171
>world-building
this is literally just a nonsense term made up by jews who wanted to quantify Tolkein's work but failed miserably, simply because they don't have the DNA to understand humanity

Lol nigga if I want prose I'll read some poetry. I just want to be entertained and GRRM accomplishes that

>>13036268
I don’t think that’s true in all cases, but certainly in this one.

>>13036268

This.

>>13036334

>if I want prose I'll read some poetry

>>13036268
>plot

I agree about characters, though "charismatic" is a better word.

>>13036422
The plot is interesting in the first book, its scale is still fairly small

>>13036171
Give us a couple of paragraphs to see how badly written it is.

>>13036171
You sure are a literary critic of the highest caliber.

>>13036334
Maybe the dumbest post I've read all day. Prose =/= poetry

>>13036655
sunset found her squatting

>>13036268
truth

>>13036268
This. High lit is often has offensively bad plotting and characters that are wallpapered over with clever prose.

>>13036673
That section wasn't bad prose, it just covered an amusing moment in the plot.

>>13036665
ever heard of a prose poem

>>13036191
>IJ which had genius-tier writing

>>13036268
>he reads for the plot

Never gonna make it

>>13036268
Plot and prose are not mutually exclusive. If you can't do both, you shouldn't be writing.

>>13036328
>who wanted to quantify Tolkein's work but failed miserably, simply because they don't have the DNA to understand humanity
Only humanities majors can achieve this level of gibberish.

>>13036171
What's so bad about it? Apart from some comical sections, it's perfectly average throughout.

>>13036655
I once read a couple of pages on Amazon for keks. The sentence that really cracked me up was "No human metal had gone into the forging of that blade."

I do enjoy the TV adaptation, but couldn't imagine persisting with the books. Life's too short.

>>13037067
What's so weird about the sentence? Not very poetic, perhaps, but surely serviceable.

>>13037108
What part of "no human metal" makes sense to you?

>>13037150
it's pretty self explanatory

It's either made of a non human metal or not made of metal at all

>>13037150
Not a metal that humans use. It's obvious

>>13037067

Clearly the blade was made using a metal alloy that contained no human beings, as other metal alloys often do,

>>13037150
while something like ”no mortal hand could possibly have wrought a blade so strange” perhaps would have been better, i don’t think it matters too much. It is possible for a novel to be great only because of one quality, while lacking in others. Flowery prose is not always necessary to write something great, as the most simple words often make for the best tools.

>>13037154
>>13037158
You need to work on your reading comprehension. It's a flat-out howler that any self-respecting writer would have spotted and corrected on the first read-through.

In fact it's a sign that GRRM doesn't bother reading what he's written at all. How many drafts do you think his 800-page novels actually go through? He's shat out seven of them already, and still finds plenty of time to sit on his arse doing nothing.

>>13037194
You're just reiterating your opinion. What is so funny about such a self-explanatory phrase?

>>13037186
>It is possible for a novel to be great only because of one quality, while lacking in others

That's a fucking retarded definition of the word great you've got there. What dictionary defines 'great' as "lacking in several qualities"?

>>13037154
>made of a non human metal

what the fuck is a human metal? A metal that contains humans? Or a metal that has human-like qualities?

>>13037218
Your "self-explanatory phrase" states that humans can be metal. Why would your literary hero choose such a laughably ambiguous form of phrasing? And why are you so keen to defend it? Do literary standards mean nothing to you?

>>13037283
Now you’re just being facetious. ”Great” is not synonymous to ”perfect”. Something great does not have to be perfect, and perfection is the excellence in all qualities. Would you not call Einstein a great man, despite his many shortcomings and social incompetence

>>13037301
You blockhead, do you think human rights are rights that contain humans?

>>13037108
>human metal

>>13037326

rights are not materials. The ambiguity is much less when using the word with some concept like rights, which are inherently a human concept. Of course I can deduce what the writer means, but that's not the point. Any sensible reader would at first sight of that sentence wonder at the strange phrasing. Of course they know what he means, that doesn't mean it isn't bad writing.

>>13037322

You would call Einstein a great physicist, or a very intelligent man. To describe him as a great man is indeed strange and inaccurate use of words, for in many ways he was not a great man (literally, for example).

>>13037283
kek

In regards to the metal sword shit I am assuming he meant it as the sword was forged from metals mankind had yet to discover / create. Probably some magic shit or a super isolated metal that some mystic race discovered. Still a shit line though as it could have easily been re-written to be more precise

>>13037322
I would call Einstein a fraudulent personally whom was opposed to european liberty, but to each their own.

>>13037371
...what?
Einstein was a genious who inferred the most esoteric parts of our reality almost a century before the technology to directly observe said phenomena existed.
In what way did he accelerate the degeneration of european culture and law?

>>13037393
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MHHTqZ-6Y
and
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-celebrity-scientist-albert-einstein-used-fame-denounce-american-racism-180962356/

>>13037347
TLDR: There's a difference between knowing what he means and enjoying what he means.

Seriously, anyone who has ever read a scientific paper on any subject will know the difference between a paper that flows well as you read it and one that simply conveys information in a bland fashion.

Tolkien wrote like he was doing a dull case-study of his own made-up nations. Reading LoTR is like letting a cat lick your eyes.

>>13037464
have sex

>>13037464
Nobody is claiming to enjoy that mediocre sentence, but it sure as Hell isn't a "howler" that makes people "kek". It is completely average and functional

>>13037494
>It is completely average and functional

No it isn't. Its glaringly bad.

>>13037504
No, it does its job. Teenagers and children read his books and understand the sentence.

>>13037301
A metal not used by humans or native to earth, compare to an alien metal

>>13036171
>such amateur prose
I bet you are one of those Gene Wolfe fags. When it comes characters, plot devices, genre tropes and world-building his books are equivalent to Brandon Sandersons overgeneric fanservice hero-fantasy, the only exception is that Gene Wolfes prose is supposedly good, which in my book is worth jack shit when it comes to SF&F, in these genres tone is infinitely more important than style, if anything flowery prose just distracts from the characters and events unless its used in careful moderation.

>>13037515

>that metal was like super rare like the blade was forged with metal that was real cool and special, you know?

That also does the job. People understand the sentence.
If you criterion of good writing is "people are able to understand the meaning", what are you doing on /lit/?

>>13037591

That fact that you think that prose exists on a spectrum running from 'bad' to 'flowery' shows that you're a special kind of dumb.

>>13037635
not him but it does exist on a spectrum from concise and workmanlike to elaborate and flowery though.

If a piece of fiction uses a lot of metaphors/similes for example it takes a lot of brainpower/attention to interpret those

>>13036268
This only holds true for pulp fiction.

>>13037673
applies for anything but literary fiction and literature, which is 99% of books

>>13037673
this anon knows. fuck sffg scum.

>>13037635
>you think that prose exists on a spectrum running from 'bad' to 'flowery'
Amazing, what kind of mental gymnastic did you use to come up with that interpretation of my words?
I repeat: SF&F, in these genres tone is infinitely more important than style.

If you want to read high quality prose, you should stay as far away from sci-fi & fantasy as you can, people do not read those genres to jerk off to the use of language. They read them to lose themselves into a fantastic worlds full of wonder.

>>13037630
Again, nobody is saying it's masterfulwriting. And it was your entire point was that it's bad because it's hard to understand

>>13037723
>we want wonder but don't write anything wonderfully

>>13037673
do you think Aristotle had pulp magazines in mind when he wrote that plot was the most important element

>>13037734
>we want wonder but don't write anything wonderfully
Are you literally retarded or just trolling?
Let me repeat for the 3rd time: SF&F, in these genres tone is infinitely more important than style
Let me clarify that: Preferring one does not exclude the other.

>>13036268
I agree, but the problem is most prose is offensively bad. And ASOIAF has a shit plot, and a lot of forgetable characters.

>>13037150
>/lit/ can't understand anything but the most straightforward and literal use of words
No, it isn't good. But it isn't nonsensical or unclear either.

>>13036191
This is exactly what I thought, Martin is good at weaving an intricate plot, but his prose is workman-like.

>>13036268
This is correct.

>>13038056
Not really. I think he started out well enough, but as the books became more popular both he and his writing became bloated. Plots became too intricate and too numerous, to such an extent that he had no idea where anything was going in the last two books. And now of course he’s completely incapable of ending the series.

>>13037494
It's a syntactically invalid sentence that would have been absurdly easy to correct. He could have written "no metal known to man" instead of "no human metal." But he couldn't see his mistake, or didn't bother with proofreading, or just couldn't give a fuck. Whatever the case, he's a hack.

>>13037926
>it isn't nonsensical
It is, and that's the whole point. A meaning can only be inferred if you correct the sentence on the author's behalf. This should be his job, not the reader's.

>>13037723
>Amazing, what kind of mental gymnastic did you use to come up with that interpretation of my words?
Not him but let me try to try to figure out why he interpreted you in that way. You said:
>Gene Wolfes prose is supposedly good
>...
>if anything flowery prose just distracts
I think he interpreted this as:
>Gene Wolfes prose is supposedly good, and like all good prose it's flowery, and if anything flowery prose just distracts
Now, you didn't put that middle bit in there, but I think he added that bit in there himself, in his head. I think he skimmed the bits were you talked about SF&F and tones vs style. Then, when he needed to connect the earlier fragment, which was talking about good prose, and the later fragment, which was talking about flowery prose, he added that middle bit.

>>13036673
>He missed the Pynchon reference

one edgy boi on internet forum vs cash money George in his mansion

>be /lit/
>2019
>have a thread long discussion if GRR Martin is a hack depending on a single sentence without context made in a universe with another logic, culture, ressources, and other intelligent species
>sentence being "No human metal had gone into the forging of that blade." (said by narrator or charactor who knows)
this is a dumb discussion yet still above average for /lit/ standards since there is a book involved

>>13036334
> this is /lit/

IJ.. as in IJ parker?

>>13036171
i posted a thread about this the other day and the thread devolved into shit.

i'm about 20% in and i don't hate the book but i didn't realize it was mostly drama and political posturing in a medieval setting. had i known that i would've just re-read lotr which is more fun.

i would rather the camera focus on fewer characters. the narrative jumps are kind of jarring until you get used to the characters.

so far 6/10. as of right now i doubt i'll read the rest of the series unless it gets better. i'm not hating on the book though. it's not a bad book. maybe all the hype for the hbo show that i've not seen has fucked with my expectations.

>>13037316
Not that anon, but you literally have the IQ of a vegetable. The phrase is as simple as it can be.
>"No human metal went into forging of this blade"
Which means that its origin is magical, it's advanced and it is not known to human.

>>13037174
based

>>13037067
If you enjoy the tv show you have no right to complain about the books, you have no right to complain about any books. Imagine still watching television

>>13038982
You have to understand that the political intrugue and general harshness were a fresh change of pace when the book was released in 1996. But yeah they're not bad books by any means if you just want a fun story with nice characters, people hate on them way too much due to the popularity of the show. There's lots of worse fantasy books around.

>>13036957
He's not wrong faggot

>>13037051
I thought it was slightly below average if I'm being honest. Like C- level. Not horrible but a few times I was legit surprised at how poorly his sentences flowed and how forced some of his diction is. I think my expectations were way too high.

>>13037150
Yeah this is the exact shit I'm talking about. Just sloppy

>>13037591
I don't read much sci fi as it's mostly autistic and gay as aids. Being a fantasy novel doesn't excuse it from being written like shit

Philip Pullman strikes a good balance and achieves the moderation you're blathering about

>>13038702
>thinking cash matters over everything
back to /biz/ faggot. I am 40 years younger and infinitely more handsome than that disgusting sack of wrinkled flesh. There is NO amount of money or fame that would convince me to switch places. We will be alive for 200 years because of LE. Imagine the shit I am going to see and experience while this nigga is pushing daisies
>inb4 cope
kys, there is literally no counterargument

>>13038706
No one is saying he's a hack. He definitely isn't a strong writer. He is a great storyteller with cool characters and excellent spacing, I couldn't stop reading

>>13038982
Yeah i have the same vibe. The show is good for what it is particularly the first 4 seasons before it gets cucked by late 2010s identity politics. But there's just too much shit going on