/lit/ - Literature

I just finished watching the first season too OP. I am also now considering reading GURM.

Confederated bump.

Why don't you find out for yourself? Pirate the ebook or download a sample chapter or something.

I liked them (and I generally don't care for fantasy lit), but it all depends on your tastes.

I've heard from a couple of people in the same boat that reading the first book was a little boring after watching the show, but it's still probably worth it. The show was great, but they had to leave out a whole lot of backstory, minor characters, feelings, scenes. You really need to know what's what from the first book to read the rest of the series.

>>2004649
Only because you already know what happens.

It's definitely superior to the show though, and much better where character development is concerned.

Much better than the show, but its pretty daunting. The series as a whole has like (and i'm probably not exaggerating here) 100 different characters you should be keeping track of.
They are not your typical fantasy good vs evil type stories. If they were movies they would be R rated (as im sure you could tell by the show).
Theres more sex in the books, more killing, torture, sex, and politics. They're more political than fantasy if you break it down. Theres not much War even during the war, though its still fantastic.
Also, Martin is an asshole to the "good guys", don't expect all your beloved characters to walk out unscathed.
You know the reaction the show received when "mah nigga Ned" died? Thats nothing compared to what happens in some of the later books.

The consensus on the official forums is that the first three are brilliant. The last two have lost a bit of focus. Dance with Dragons was only completed (before edits) two months before release date, and it shows. That's not to say that the series isn't still great, but the quality declines and honestly I don't know if it will ever get back to the level it started at. Martin is too easily distracted.

>>2005076
The last half of A Dance With Dragons felt a lot fresher and better paced than the first half (which was the half he had already written along with A Feast for Crows), so I don't know about that.

I think he managed to get out of the rut he fell into in Feast. Dance and Feast seemed to be all about setting up plot lines rather than resolving them (a bit like A Game of Thrones and A Clash of Kings were mostly setups for the amazing A Storm of Swords), so I kind-of have a feeling that Winds of Winter will be great.

>>2005103

The first half was much better. Bran, Davos, and Theon more than made up for the other POVs. The second half felt too ADD to me...partly because two major climaxes were removed in the editing process, and partly because we had a lot of "update" POVs from FfC that ended up just postponing proper resolutions. The book was a mess.

You also have to keep in mind that even though GoT and CoK set up SoS, they still had very strong arc resolutions...GoT had the execution and birth of the dragons, CoK had Winterfell and the Blackwater, and SoS had...well a lot. We saw epic shit go down, and what kept our interest were the consequences, how characters would deal with it. FfC and DwD had to resort to cliche cliffhangers, ending just BEFORE epic shit is supposed to go down. It kills a lot of the intrigue and makes for a very unsatisfying installment. There are several things we should have known by the end of DwD had we followed the pacing of the first three books: how did Brienne escape? How did Cersei's trial go? Is Azor Ahai finally reborn? How did Victarion play out in the inevitable Meereen War that we also should have seen at least begin to happen before the end of the book? Was Ramsay's letter real? What the hell were Davos and Bran doing for the second half of DwD? I could probably let some of this go, but all of these cliffhangers combined makes it feel like Martin is stalling.

>>2005129
Bran and Davos had what - 7 chapters between them? And Theon's better chapters were in the second half of the book anyway. The meat of the first half of the book was a whole lot of the "main" POV characters not doing much of anything.

Don't get me wrong - the Bran, Davos and Reek chapters were great, but there was just so much stalling in the other POVs that I felt like it was dragging on.

Sure, nothing was really resolved in the second half, but it felt like it had less filler and less stalling, and it seems like all the chess pieces are in place for something huge next book. We're rid of the POV timeline split too, so I guess that's something.

>mfw every time the word "seed" is used

I am about half way through the first one. I must say that they are simultaneously simple and difficult to read. Simple in the sense that it is straightforward in story telling. Difficult in the sense that for the first 150 pages or so, you will have a hard time keeping track of all the characters and fully grasping how the whole universe works (what with all the different houses and stuff). Plus, the length can be intimidating.

Overall, it isn't an airport novel but it isn't Dostoyevsky either. I recommend it.

I think you'll enjoy them as long as you remember that words are wind. People can offer their opinions but words are wind and you'll never really know until you read it for yourself. It's not great literature, but words are wind anyway. That's my two cents anywa, but words are wind, I suppose.

>>2005210

Turn it into a drinking game.

Read Feast and the 1st half of Dance side by side and pretend the second half of Dance is its own book. It'll make both books seem considerably better.

I agree that they could've probably cut a couple hundred pages from Feast and Dance in total to resolve some pacing issues and then add the chapters that were removed from Dance.

>>2005273
I'm betting there'll be a fan-made ebook that combines the two coherently with some edits where necessary (particularly the dialog overlap between the first Samwell and Jon chapters) at some point.

I've never watched the show but yesterday I started reading Game of Thrones. I'm 200 pages in and already addicted. I can foresee that I will likely read the whole series.

Something to note is that this is my first fantasy book EVER. I'm well read in classics and philosophy (philosophy major) and I'm an attorney. Reading is my life pretty much and until this month I had never ventured into Sci-Fi or Fantasy. I read "Left Hand of Darkness" and now reading Game of Thrones and I love them both.

Anywho, I'm not sure I would be the go-to guy concerning GRRM's stuff given that I have nothing to compare it to within genre, but I really do love it so far.

pic unrelated

>>2005174
>thinking Bran wasn't around in the 2nd half of the book

ishygddt

>>2006343
>I'm 200 pages in and already addicted
that's two hundred pages of great literature you've irretrievably flushed down the swanny for yourself. hope you know that.

>>2006349
He had some presence, just no POV chapters.

Mormont's crow, the heart tree, etc.

>>2006353
>old bullshit fantasy is intellectually superior to current bullshit fantasy

>>2006366
>old bullshit fantasy
Genre really has nothing to do with it, I simply chose that as a matter of relevance and similarity to GRRM. What is important however is the relative quality and both cultural and literary importance of the texts.

>>2006353
i mean, deep&edgy is a proper cunt and all but he's right

>>2006373
What you don't understand is that the reason people read fantasy is mainly for entertainment. No one's looking for the meaning of life in the pages of a GRRM book - just an enjoyable escape from reality.

Beowulf, The Odyssey, The Divine Comedy, etc. gave something similar to the people they were written for. Obviously, they have more historical significance (to us) than anything written today and reading them certainly would give one a better understanding of both the cultures they came from and the literary minds they later influenced, but when it comes down to it, they're just stories with themes that have been repeated again and again through the centuries. You won't gain any sort of profound enlightenment by reading them any more than you would from reading Harry Potter. If you did, your average self-important English major wouldn't be so worthless.

>>2006428
>You won't gain any sort of profound enlightenment by reading them any more than you would from reading Harry Potter.
No, but they're great pieces of literature with huge significance, and they're entertaining. Thats 2 more things they have than GRRM books.

>>2006353
>reading about sirens and demons and things that don't exist instead of science textbooks that actually matter

I know it's /lit/, but ISHYGDDT.

deep, in all the time you've spent on here, you could've learned a new language. Swanny, etc.

>>2006353
This chart would make a lot more sense if the eight books below ASOIAF were actually superior to ASOIAF. As it stands, they aren't.

>>2007646
maybe you don't like literature, that's fine

>>2007658
what makes you think they're not

>>2007665
Ancient stilted purple garbage, all of it.

>>2007667
What makes you think it's ancient stilted purple garbage?

>>2007670
Said garbage.

>>2007672
What makes you think it's ancient stilted purple garbage?

>>2007673
Said garbage.

Read them.

Start with the first book.

>>2007637

What does huge significance on literature matter to an individual who isn't interested in studying literature but merely reading it?

Also you can't know if these books are entertaining, you haven't read them. At least a few months ago you hadn't.

>>2007688
What makes you think it's ancient stilted purple garbage?

>>2007690
Said garbage.

>>2007691
>What does huge significance on literature matter to an individual who isn't interested in studying literature but merely reading it?
It matters quite a bit if you want to develop your appreciation of literature. If you're not interested in refining your tastes then I guess it doesn't matter to you, but the image was sort of directed towards anyone who doesn't willingly and knowingly wish to wallow in pigshit.

>Also you can't know if these books are entertaining, you haven't read them.
And I also can't know if the world is round because I haven't circumnavigated it myself? What do you think knowing amounts to? First-hand experience necessary in each and every case?

>>2007694
What makes you think it's ancient stilted purple garbage?

>>2007705
Said garbage.

>>2007703

What are you saying? A person who judges books on their own merit is "wallowing in pigshit" ?

>>2007708
What makes you think it's ancient stilted purple garbage?

>>2007703
>First-hand experience necessary in each and every case?

Nah, just the cases where first-hand experience is necessary, such the as the quality of books.

A tard of a different color, this one.

>>2007712
Said garbage.

>>2007713

Why is first-hand experience necessary to gauge the quality of a book?

>>2007710
>What are you saying?
If you're not interested in refining your tastes then I guess it doesn't matter to you, but the image was sort of directed towards anyone who doesn't willingly and knowingly wish to wallow in pigshit.

>A person who judges books on their own merit
What's judging a book on its own merit?
What is a book on its "own merit"?

>>2007713
>Nah, just the cases where first-hand experience is necessary, such the as the quality of books.
Who said anything about the quality of books? All you and I were talking about is whether they're entertaining or not. Besides that, why would first-hand experience be necessary to know whether a book was entertaining for someone or not? You'll note that you said
>Also you can't know if these books are entertaining, you haven't read them.
but you didn't specify for who, as if books are wholesale entertaining for each person on the planet or something

>>2007721
Because there is no other means of gauging its quality.

>>2007723
But I didn't say any of those things.

>>2007730
what things?

ITT: [SPOILER] Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls [/SPOILER]

>>2007736
Everything from here on:
>All you and I were talking about

>>2006353
Beowulf
Odyssey
Canterbury tales

not defending martin, but ugh
i hated these and high school and I still hate them

examples of bad things the education system makes you read, nicely done

>>2007723

>What's judging a book on its own merit?

Why do you ask questions you already know the answers to?

A book's merit is obviously comprised of several factors including how well-written it is, how well does it keep the reader's interest, how poignant and logical the message of the book is and how well is that message presented.

>>2007744
Sorry, but I don't care whether you or someone else said them in that case, my point still stands for whoever deems it relevant.

>>2007745
What makes you think they're bad?

>>2007752
What makes you think they're not bad?

>>2007752
What point?

>>2007756

>>2007749

Who am I to judge a book's merit? What do I know?

>>2007749
>how well-written it is
But that's got nothing to do with the book as it is in itself. You can tell something is well-written only through social and cultural linguistic values and a book's intertextual relationship; by reference to external norms and procedures in short. None of these are a book's "own merit". You'll note you didn't say "judging a book's merit", you said "judging a book on its own merit", which are entirely different.

>how well does it keep the reader's interest
What reader? A 6 year old or a college undergrad? The ideal reader?

>how poignant and logical the message of the book is
How do you tell what message the book has?
Poignant for who? What if the message of the book is a indictment of logic and thus anti-logical?

I'm not seeing the "own merit" bit in any of these things bro

>>2007752
Beo is much too short to have done anything particularly innovative. Typical hero archetype that kills monsters like Grendel and Dragons. He's pretty much Anglo-Saxon Superman, and there's certainly nothing to love in the written prose (or the translation, rather) that makes it a very tempting piece. tl;dr it's just not that deep. I mean, I guess I remember the symbolism of gold, but really? No one gives a shit

Odyssey is frustrating in itself, but excusable because it's fucking old. Typical hero archetype that gets all his men killed (or they do, it makes no difference really) in such a fashion that it's particularly facepalmy. Also falls for like 2 different women, making for especially boring dull points in the narrative (Circe and Calypso). The final episode is extremely morally disturbing, and makes it so that there's really no worthwhile themes or messages to take away with from it.

Canterbury Tales is utter shit. Frame story isn't impressive. He just described a shit ton of characters in 'insightful' ways (ohoho clergy wasn't always honest...sooooo clever >_>). He never got the chance to finish a substantial number of tales, make it even less justified as a major part of western canon. The frame in itself barely enforces the themes, messages, or symbols since other caravaners only act in arbitrary ways to someone else's story

The other 5 are, perhaps, much better than these 3 >_>

>>2007767
Lol these fools won't even accept that they're being schooled.
Just accept it guys, you read and enjoy shit books.

>>2007770
Why do you think they're shit?

>play vidya
>tell others to read better books
People never believe me when I say it, but there was a time Deep had something to say.

about half way through the 1st book. really enjoying it so far. one odd thing that has stood out to me though... so many parts of the book take place while characters are eating!

>>2007768
>Typical hero archetype that kills monsters like Grendel and Dragons
So something is supposed to be bad because it's typical?

>He's pretty much Anglo-Saxon Superman
What's wrong with this? Don't like anglo-saxon supermen?

>there's certainly nothing to love in the written prose
Have you read the Heaney translation? There's a lot of admirable uses of alliteration, and his intertextual celtic flourishings really make it a formidable piece of work.

>Typical hero archetype that gets all his men killed (or they do, it makes no difference really) in such a fashion that it's particularly facepalmy
You haven't told us anything about the quality of the text though. You've just told us a quick summary of the story, thrown in the word 'typical' and said 'facepalmy'.

>Also falls for like 2 different women, making for especially boring dull points in the narrative (Circe and Calypso).
That doesn't tell us anything about the quality of the the text, it just tells us you didn't like the part where he falls for like 2 different women. That's not an argument.

>. The final episode is extremely morally disturbing, and makes it so that there's really no worthwhile themes or messages to take away with from it.
Themes are of relative value, they don't tell you anything about textual quality.
>there's really no worthwhile themes or messages to take away with from it
You don't take themes away from texts. What do messages have to do with good literature?

>Frame story isn't impressive
Maybe you're not impressed by something that makes literature great? Maybe you also can't bridge historical horizons?

>He just described a shit ton of characters in 'insightful' ways
Is insightful your word for cleverly and masterfully?

1/2

>>2007786
The difference is, I don't think Deep is pretentious about what video games he plays, I've never heard him declare his video games as high art or anything the same way these faggots do.

>>2007792
>He never got the chance to finish a substantial number of tales, make it even less justified as a major part of western canon.
but that doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the text

>The frame in itself barely enforces the themes, messages, or symbols since other caravaners only act in arbitrary ways to someone else's story
What does enforcing a theme, message or symbol have to do with a text's quality?

2/2

lol only on /lit/, people wouldn't believe it, some asshole thinks he can decry the greatest works of literature on the planet that have been the subject of an ocean of spilled ink in the space of a few fucking badly written vacuous paragraphs

>>2007792
my god you are an idiot

I find it funny that this one particular tripfaggot posts an image advocating not wasting time in favor of reading good literature, and here he is on 4chan spewing his written diarrhea everywhere.

>>2007796
Not that guy, but the books you suggested are pretty bad. Sorry man.

d&e wastes more time on 4chan than faggot fantasy dweebs do reading their shitty books

>>2007796
>in the space of a few fucking badly written vacuous paragraphs
pot, kettle, etc. etc.

>>2007799
so guys is this more of a tu quo que or an ad hominem

>>2007802
why do you think they're bad?

>>2007767

>social and cultural linguistic values

Yes obviously you have to be part of culture and understand the language to understand a book. Within these parameters the book has merit. You seem to imply that because I said "book's own merit" I was talking about merit that exists by itself disconnected from reality or some shit.

>and a book's intertextual relationship

Intertextuality is irrelevant and a pointless exercise.

>You'll note you didn't say "judging a book's merit", you said "judging a book on its own merit", which are entirely different.

Only if you're autistic and jump to ridiculous conclusions instead of actually trying to discern what the person is trying to say.

>What reader? A 6 year old or a college undergrad? The ideal reader?

The intended demographic of the book which divides into three categories: children, teens and adults.

>How do you tell what message the book has?

By reading it. Again, why do you ask questions you know the answer to?

>Poignant for who?

A thought or an idea can be poignant whether you agree with it or not. Personal values don't come into play.

>What if the message of the book is a indictment of logic and thus anti-logical?

I don't understand what this means.

>>2007807
Well, because they're ancient stilted purple garbage.

>>2007807
It isn't an argument since you are, demonstrably, a faggot.

>>2007793

I have never heard someone trying to claim ASoIaF is "high art" on /lit/.

At most people have tried to argue that there are themes in the story, which is valid. Doesn't mean it's high art.

>>2007807
It's neither. Merely a reaction to your tu quo que.

>>2007792
>So something is supposed to be bad because it's typical?
Yes
>What's wrong with this? Don't like anglo-saxon supermen?
No
>Have you read the Heaney translation? There's a lot of admirable uses of alliteration, and his intertextual celtic flourishings really make it a formidable piece of work.
It's a poem, that's expected. Nothing impressive here
>You haven't told us anything about the quality of the text though. You've just told us a quick summary of the story, thrown in the word 'typical' and said 'facepalmy'.
The ways in which Odysseus got him men killed (or his men got themselves killed) would be viewed as stupid and unacceptable by modern standards (see: giants episode)
>That doesn't tell us anything about the quality of the the text, it just tells us you didn't like the part where he falls for like 2 different women. That's not an argument.
It breaks the pace of what is essentially an adventure narrative and then shits on the vow of returning to Penelope since he cheats on her twice, making the message extremely weak. Do I have to do all the thinking for you?
>Themes are of relative value, they don't tell you anything about textual quality.
If you're going to make 'textual quality' the basis of your argument you better as hell define and standardize it. It's about as loose as 'their own merit'
>What do messages have to do with good literature?
HAHA OH WOW
>Maybe you're not impressed by something that makes literature great? Maybe you also can't bridge historical horizons?
Not an argument

>>2007807
It's the truth bro. Why are you wasting your time here when you could be refining your literary tastes?

>>2007809
>Yes obviously you have to be part of culture and understand the language to understand a book. Within these parameters the book has merit
So within the parameters of merit outside the book, not the book's own merit, which would be non-existent

>Intertextuality is irrelevant and a pointless exercise.
How is it irrelevant, or pointless?

>The intended demographic
Why should authorial intent by a guiding literary principle?

>By reading it
But what if two people read a book and derive two different message from it? What is the actual message that the book conveys?

>A thought or an idea can be poignant whether you agree with it or not.
Maybe for someone else, but that doesn't mean the thought itself is poignant, it means that it's poignant for someone.

>Personal values don't come into play.
I'd like you to demonstrate one instance of literature appreciation in which personal value has no role in.

>>2007821
>Is insightful your word for cleverly and masterfully?
Please, there's like 2 paragraphs for each character. Nothing to remember any one them by
>but that doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the text
See above
>What does enforcing a theme, message or symbol have to do with a text's quality?
See above
why should I devote more than 5 minutes to arguing literature on the internet when you're so obvious an elitist and your definition of good literature has nothing to do with any of the various components of the story (plot, theme, morals, message)? Good literature to you means a bunch of old white men got around a table and decided it to be so. You went further with an ad hominem attack. I never insulted you, I insulted the literature. Grow up

>>2006366

omg gaspar noe for president

> replying to a dying tripfag
> 2011

Srsly, u guise, srsly.

>>2007821
>Yes
Why is something typical supposed to be bad?

>No
What does you not liking anglo-saxon supermen have to do with the quality of the text?

>It's a poem, that's expected. Nothing impressive here
Except there's a lot of admirable uses of alliteration, and his intertextual celtic flourishings really make it a formidable piece of work. If you don't find skillful use of alliteration or intextual devices impressive maybe you don't like things that make literature great.

>stupid and unacceptable by modern standards
Maybe you just trouble bridging historical horizons

>It breaks the pace of what is essentially an adventure narrative
But saying it's an adventure narrative doesn't actually tell us anything about how it's written or the quality of the writing. You didn't say whether breaking the pace well written or not.
>making the message extremely weak.
What does the message have to do with anything? I got an entirely different message.

>f you're going to make 'textual quality' the basis of your argument you better as hell define and standardize it
see pic

>HAHA OH WOW
what do messages have to do with good literature. Or for that matter, good furniture, good video-games, good paintings, etc?

>Not an argument
I know it isn't, I'm suggesting that perhaps you don't have a very developed appreciation of literature. Why would I argue that you are impressed by something when you're not? lol

I see D&E being his pretentious hipster self and hating that he doesn't understand.

>>2007825
>Please, there's like 2 paragraphs for each character. Nothing to remember any one them by.
Maybe you don't remember them because there was nothing about them you were capable of appreciating, from the manner in which they were written to the contexts in which they were described

>See above
Yes, and as I've already said, it tells us nothing about the textual quality, it just tells us you didn't like what you read.

>See above
see above, you're not very good at explaining your reasons for stuff beyond "i didn't like it"

>why should I devote more than 5 minutes to arguing literature on the internet when you're so obvious an elitist and your definition of good literature has nothing to do with any of the various components of the story (plot, theme, morals, message)?
So I'm an elitist for liking well-written books? My definition of well-written literature is only concerned with the syntactical features of literature, thus the mechanics of the actual object of critical evaluation; this includes plot and theme. It does not include message (which is one and the same thing as moral) because that is an overt ideology that is projected upon a text rather than a feature that constitutes it.

>>2007835
>If you don't find skillful use of alliteration or intextual devices impressive maybe you don't like things that make literature great.

What do those things have to do with literature being great?

>Maybe you just trouble bridging historical horizons

Not an argument.

>But saying it's an adventure narrative doesn't actually tell us anything about how it's written or the quality of the writing. You didn't say whether breaking the pace well written or not.

Read the post again.

>What does the message have to do with anything?

It inheres in the text.

>I got an entirely different message.

What does that have to do with anything?

>what do messages have to do with good literature. Or for that matter, good furniture, good video-games, good paintings, etc?

What do furniture, games, and paintings have to do with literature?

>I'm suggesting that perhaps you don't have a very developed appreciation of literature.

Suggestions are irrelevant.

Fo realz. D&E maybe a bit on the hyperbolic side of things but what can I say other than:
>Jeez* plebz.
Dissect something worthwhile
*All that is holy in Archimedes I should eliminate the use of slang-in up a Jesus.

>>2007847
>Maybe you don't remember them because there was nothing about them you were capable of appreciating, from the manner in which they were written to the contexts in which they were described

Not an argument.

>Yes, and as I've already said, it tells us nothing about the textual quality, it just tells us you didn't like what you read.

Elaborate.

>see above, you're not very good at explaining your reasons for stuff beyond "i didn't like it"

What ought I explain?

>My definition of well-written literature is only concerned with the syntactical features of literature, thus the mechanics of the actual object of critical evaluation; this includes plot and theme.

What do plot and theme have to do with good writing?

>>2007823

>So within the parameters of merit outside the book, not the book's own merit, which would be non-existent

Yes congratulations, you took my words, assumed they meant something completely preposterous and defeated that position. This is a running theme in your posts it seems.

>How is it irrelevant, or pointless?

It's basically looking for trivial references and allusions to different texts. I don't see the point. It's like calculating how many times a certain word appears in a book. Pointless.

>Why should authorial intent by a guiding literary principle?

Because that's who the author wrote the book for. It is a mission to accomplish for the book.

>But what if two people read a book and derive two different message from it? What is the actual message that the book conveys?

The messages are either there or they're not. If the author accidentally writes something that is a clear message then it should be taken into account but don't give me any bullshit about there being messages that only some people can see.

>Maybe for someone else, but that doesn't mean the thought itself is poignant, it means that it's poignant for someone.

It's poignant if it's logical and makes sense.

>I'd like you to demonstrate one instance of literature appreciation in which personal value has no role in.

Of course, you're back to your old tactic of taking my words and interpreting them to mean the most outlandish things. I'm guessing here when I talked about personal values affecting judgment you took it to mean that when I say personal values I mean anything that ever affects how a human thinks.

>>2007849
>What do those things have to do with literature being great?
They are part of a family resemblance of mechanics that contribute towards the production of more and more skillful pieces of writing

>Not an argument.
I know it's not, I'm suggesting reasons for why you fail to appreciate something in literature. You seem content not to explicate your position on any of these features beyond stating your displeasure for them.

>It inheres in the text.
I'd like you to give me an example of a message that is inherent in a text

>What does that have to do with anything?
It means that different messages can be got from a text, which raises the issue of how we are to decide what the message of a text is. This is important to address if you want to say of any text that it conveys a certain message.

>What do furniture, games, and paintings have to do with literature?
They're all objects of critical evaluation.

>Suggestions are irrelevant.
Why are suggestions irrelevant?

>>2007850
>A 'comma' and a 'period' are on their respective periods.

>>2007799
He is committing http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Double%20Standard

so is pizza bored at work again or what?

>>2007850
get the fuck out of here with that guy, don't you start shit in this thread with him

>>2007857
>Yes congratulations, you took my words
Yes, which were totally different to "a book's merit". You'll forgive me for not considering "merit" and "own merit" logically identical.

>It's basically looking for trivial references and allusions to different texts.
Sure, but a basic explanation like that fails to do any justice to the rich enterprise of intertextuality, which includes but is not limited to studying how texts influence each other. I don't know about you, but as someone who appreciates literature I think that's a pretty important aspect; how one book influences another. Now why would you think trying to get a better understanding of that would be pointless? Maybe because you don't know a lot about literature? (this is not an argument, it is a suggestion)

>Because that's who the author wrote the book for.
What author? You seem to have this nasty habit of substituting vast and timeless generalisations for linguistic functions and concrete individuals such as the author (function)

>The messages are either there or they're not.
Where, can you show me some bit of writing where the message is "there"?

>It's poignant if it's logical and makes sense.
So I'm not allowed to find the Jabberwocky poignant?

>you're back to your old tactic of taking my words and interpreting them to mean the most outlandish things
It doesn't really help when you make outlandishly vague statements like this:

>Personal values don't come into play.
So let me try again, I'd like you to give me an example of something in which personal values don't come into play.

man pizza must be bored as hell today or something

>>2007870
Where are I committing a double standard fallacy in this thread?

>>2007858
>They are part of a family resemblance of mechanics that contribute towards the production of more and more skillful pieces of writing

What does that have to do with whether or not something is a skillful piece of writing?

>I know it's not, I'm suggesting reasons for why you fail to appreciate something in literature. You seem content not to explicate your position on any of these features beyond stating your displeasure for them.

Still not an argument.

>I'd like you to give me an example of a message that is inherent in a text

"Go buy socks."

>the issue of how we are to decide what the message of a text is

Author.

>They're all objects of critical evaluation.

And?

>Why are suggestions irrelevant?

Why aren't they?

>>2007875
>>2007799

>>2007878
>What does that have to do with whether or not something is a skillful piece of writing?
They are the manner in which the literary community of authorities determine whether something is a skillful piece of writing.

>Still not an argument.
I know it's not, I'm suggesting reasons for why you fail to appreciate something in literature. You seem content not to explicate your position on any of these features beyond stating your displeasure for them.

>"Go buy socks."
Where's the inherent message in that?

>Author.
That's not a sentence, I don't even know what you're talking about here

>And?
And in none of those cases (furniture, etc) does the concept of "message" have anything significant to do with the quality of the object of critical evaluation. And neither does it in the case of literature.

>Why aren't they?
They're not because you've failed to explain yourself on a number of positions, so as far as I am concerned it's incumbent on me to suggest reasons you might have for holding those positions.

D&E is right, what separates a masterpiece painting from a scribble, a symphony from a whistled tune, a piece of literature from an amusing anecdote, is the collection of insights and analyses into the artistic crafts that elaborate and expand on the mechanics which inform them.
The greatness of a piece of literature can be correlated with the ingenious variation on and use of these mechanics.
If you take away all the theory of colour that preceded Van Gogh and that he elaborated on, his greatness would vanish.

You might say that the value of a work of art is dependent only on the aesthetic pleasure that it produces in you, but that sense of beauty was predetermined by the artist and he used his knowledge of the craft to achieve it. If you knew more about the mechanics of the craft then your aesthetic appreciation of its works would likely increase too. You may only know that it's beautiful, but an artist knows why it is beautiful, and that's part of what makes him an artist.

>>2007871
>Sure, but a basic explanation like that fails to do any justice to the rich enterprise of intertextuality, which includes but is not limited to studying how texts influence each other. I don't know about you, but as someone who appreciates literature I think that's a pretty important aspect; how one book influences another. Now why would you think trying to get a better understanding of that would be pointless? Maybe because you don't know a lot about literature? (this is not an argument, it is a suggestion)
What's intertextuality got to do with whether a book is good or not?

>What author?
The author of the book.

>You seem to have this nasty habit of substituting vast and timeless generalisations for linguistic functions and concrete individuals such as the author (function)
Not an argument.


>Where, can you show me some bit of writing where the message is "there"?
The kind you're reading right now.


>So I'm not allowed to find the Jabberwocky poignant?
Who said Jabberwocky wasn't logical?

>It doesn't really help when you make outlandishly vague statements like this:

>Personal values don't come into play.
So let me try again, I'd like you to give me an example of something in which personal values don't come into play.
Being shot in the head.

>>2007883
But that's not even one of my posts. Where have I committed a fallacy of double standard?

/tv/ has better Game and Thrones discussions it would seem

>>2007891
Who said anything about being an artist?

>>2007878
>What does that have to do with whether or not something is a skillful piece of writing?
They are the manner in which the literary community of authorities determine whether something is a skillful piece of writing.

>Still not an argument.
I know it's not, I'm suggesting reasons for why you fail to appreciate something in literature. You seem content not to explicate your position on any of these features beyond stating your displeasure for them.

>"Go buy socks."
Where's the inherent message in that?

>Author.
That's not a sentence, I don't even know what you're talking about here

>And?
And in none of those cases (furniture, etc) does the concept of "message" have anything significant to do with the quality of the object of critical evaluation. And neither does it in the case of literature.

>Why aren't they?
They're not because you've failed to explain yourself on a number of positions, so as far as I am concerned it's incumbent on me to suggest reasons you might have for holding those positions.

>>2007892
>What's intertextuality got to do with whether a book is good or not?
Because the quality of a text is informed, and the capacity for the evaluation of texts is fundamentally made possible by, a multiplicity of texts and their corresponding relations.

>Not an argument.
I know, I'm just making an observation.

>The kind you're reading right now.
Where's the message in it, though?

>Being shot in the head.
Being shot in the head is motivated by the personal values of some individual (the shooter).

>>2007898
Delete your post and then I will delete this one, because they are both equally worthless.

>>2007871

>I think that's a pretty important aspect; how one book influences another.

I don't see how.

>Now why would you think trying to get a better understanding of that would be pointless?

It's trivial and won't affect the way I judge the book, only the author (if it's a case of clear plagiarism)

>Maybe because you don't know a lot about literature?

I don't know much.

>What author? You seem to have this nasty habit of substituting vast and timeless generalisations for linguistic functions and concrete individuals such as the author (function)

No idea what you're talking about here.

>Where, can you show me some bit of writing where the message is "there"?

Usually not because authors don't condense the messages in their books to a few paragraphs. It's too preachy and implies the reader is too stupid to pick up on the message.

>So I'm not allowed to find the Jabberwocky poignant?

I haven't read it but if you do posit it is poignant you'd have to show why.

>So let me try again, I'd like you to give me an example of something in which personal values don't come into play.

Whenever a person uses logic to deduce whether an idea is logical and internally consistent.

>>2007883
That's got to be one of The most anti-didactic use of the double standard!
>Be a composer whom loathes shitty music, it is consider'd shitty musique to teach students how to compose by showing them rudimentary chords.

>>2007890
>literary community of authorities
Irrelevant.

>I know it's not, I'm suggesting reasons for why you fail to appreciate something in literature. You seem content not to explicate your position on any of these features beyond stating your displeasure for them.
Not yet an argument.

>Where's the inherent message in that?
Within the words "go buy socks."

>That's not a sentence, I don't even know what you're talking about here
The author of the text.

>And in none of those cases (furniture, etc) does the concept of "message" have anything significant to do with the quality of the object of critical evaluation.
So?

>And neither does it in the case of literature.
Literature isn't furniture.

>They're not because you've failed to explain yourself on a number of positions, so as far as I am concerned it's incumbent on me to suggest reasons you might have for holding those positions.
Why is it incumbent on you to suggest reasons I might have for holding these positions?

>>2007905
Not an answer. Your post was directed towards artists. This thread has nothing to do with that.

>>2007908
Strawman, irrelevant.

>>2007913
>Your post was directed towards artists.

No, it was addressing how the worth of a piece of art is evaluated, which also has nothing do with this thread as this thread is about Game of Thrones.

>>2007919
>which also has nothing do with this thread
There you go.

>>2006353
>examples of the highest art in literature
>beowulf
No.

>>2007923
Beowulf isn't even art. It's a historical document. It has no aesthetic value. Tolkien wanted tenure.

>>2007906
>I don't see how.
Well then you don't appreciate as fully the same thing as me; literature.

>It's trivial and won't affect the way I judge the book, only the author (if it's a case of clear plagiarism)
Of course it's trivial to you

>I don't know much.
I'm glad we cleared that up

>No idea what you're talking about here.
That's not a surprise

>Usually not because authors don't condense the messages in their books to a few paragraphs. It's too preachy and implies the reader is too stupid to pick up on the message.
Who are you to say anything about literary messages or authors when you don't know much about literature?

>I haven't read it but if you do posit it is poignant you'd have to show why.
I posit it's poignant to me because it's nonsensical and illogical.

>Whenever a person uses logic to deduce whether an idea is logical and internally consistent.
But using logic is derived from the pursuing a personal value.

>>2007910
>Irrelevant.
Why would what people who've spent their entire lives have contributed to our knowledge about literature be irrelevant? Maybe because you don't know much about or appreciate literature?

>Within the words "go buy socks."
Sorry dude, all I see within words are letters.

>So?
So there should be no reason why the similar object of critical evaluation of literaute should be no different.

>Literature isn't furniture.
I never said it was.

>Why is it incumbent on you to suggest reasons I might have for holding these positions?
Because you're not explaining yourself.

>>2007893
>'Prolly not
>Just signifying that I read prior to some errors of finding the appropriate pic after a few editz. . .
I could really write a book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7p9QdxjiZ4
About the book I read, which I read ironically:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDQinQvWTXk
Turns out it was a blank as my back pages from Micro-Megas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVTRVZRYxc0

>>2007924
>Beowulf isn't even art. It's a historical document. It has no aesthetic value
Have you read the Heaney translation? There's a lot of admirable uses of alliteration, and his intertextual celtic flourishings really make it a formidable piece of work.

>>2007926
>Why would what people who've spent their entire lives have contributed to our knowledge about literature be irrelevant?
Why wouldn't it be?

>Sorry dude, all I see within words are letters.
Incorrect.

>So there should be no reason why the similar object of critical evaluation of literaute should be no different.
Why not? Literature isn't furniture.

>I never said it was.
I never said you said it was.

>Because you're not explaining yourself.
Pot, kettle.

>>2007928
who are the people who argue with deep&edgy?

seriously, you guys are fucking retarded, go read a book or leave the house

>>2007928
I have read the Heaney translation. The Heaney translation is a translation of a historical document. It has no aesthetic value. Tolkien wanted tenure.

>>2007931
>Why wouldn't it be?
Because our accomplishments and our field of knowledge are inextricably bound up and measured in part by and with with the work of others.

>Incorrect.
incorrect

>>2007935
Not an argument.

>>2007936
>The Heaney translation is a translation of a historical document. It has no aesthetic value.
All works of art are historical documents, but not all historical documents are works of art. The burden of proof is on you to show how Beowulf has no aesthetic value.

>>2007926

>Well then you don't appreciate as fully the same thing as me; literature.

Yes, I don't appreciate things like intertextuality, which I know is an important subject in academic study of literature, because I don't see it as having any relevant value. It's value is constructed out of thin air from my point of view.

>Who are you to say anything about literary messages or authors when you don't know much about literature?

People can use logic when faced with an issue without actually studying said issue academically you know.

>I posit it's poignant to me because it's nonsensical and illogical.

I don't understand.

>But using logic is derived from the pursuing a personal value.

I don't understand.

>>2007938
>Because our accomplishments and our field of knowledge are inextricably bound up and measured in part by and with with the work of others.
Define "our."

>Incorrect.
Not so.

>>2007946
>Define "our."
Why would I do that?

>Not so.
incorrect

>>2007944
>The burden of proof is on you to show how Beowulf has no aesthetic value.

Burden's on you to show that it does.

...

>>2007935

The problem is that when you argue against him on one thing he strikes back hard and if you don't respond to the (usually elongated) retort you look like a loser regardless of what is actually being said.

>>2007950
>Burden's on you to show that it does.
What are you talking about?

>>2007948
>Why would I do that?
Elucidation.

>incorrect
N.

>>2007955
The burden of proof. Read.

>>2007952
where have you been

>>2007953
>look like
>anon

here and there

>>2007971
Here there and everywhere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km5BBFQo3dc
Musique --- IT IS THE CLOSET WE'LL get to a trans-humanist xp. 'O ye muse sing to me!' says le homme back Home.
Fettering more than acoustics to my deteriorating ears, yet to my losing a-bit of ketchup along the way in composing 'till the day it is lost.

can someone give me a quick run-down on this "Dionysus_Spinoza_Faux !!nd/jmcT/oLN" character??

>>2008028
>Comma up on! Capitalizing 'dem titles to become a self tit'd LP.

>>2008028
i like it

>>2008033
He's a master of language. /lit/ doesn't appreciate him. I thought you weren't coming back lol -hakas

>>2008033
>can someone give me a quick run-down on this "Dionysus_Spinoza_Faux !!nd/jmcT/oLN" character??
gods insinuates goes to college

>>2008039
i saw a d&e thread on the site frontpage believe it or not.

>>2008042
lol

>>2008035
The musiques or the lovely prose whit many allusions?
Here's a brief explanation:
>Fettering more than acoustics
Fettering: Something that serves to restrict; a restraint.
Used to show that this is all you have of the greatest of (-)isms
>. . . more than acoustics.
Perhaps electronic musique or the idea of trans-humanism, which was previously stated.
>. . . to my deteriorating ears
Someone's going deaf, perhaps an allusion to Ludwig Van?
>. . . yet to my losing a-bit of ketchup along the way in composing 'till the day it is lost.
Someone hasn't composed enough
>ketchup
cliche' to say that one horrid joke that had something to 'whit a potato.

>>2008033
Fuck I thought you were dead.

>>2008042
>>2008039
>>2008033
Here's me quoting myself:
My aim is always true* and is always to teach, I shall be a professor of 'pretension' by the age of 27 ---- my posts are filled w/ comedy mixed w/ tragedy and every soft science [-ology] one can muster up, ie they are to be dissected ergo, enlightening one [that means you] to acquire critical thinking and culture.
*Somebodies debut:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfZ5m-oGmtQ

Let's get some detectives running down, paying no mind to Borges, Chesterson or Stevenson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO_sDtI2bYk&feature=related

>>2008072
how do you come to want to be like this? what country are you from?

>>2008078
Ireland.
USA: Bay area. Ya know the SF, Berkeley and Oakland cities. . .

>>2008078
>how do you come to want to be like this?
lol'd
he's gonna write the sequence to finnegans wake

>>2008086
Dionysus_Spinoza_Faux for /lit/ king!!!

WHO'S WITH ME??!??!?!?@!@!>!!>

>>2008089
I got some really obsessively arse'd up concepts that'll surpass even that, whilst all our eyes are leaning on microscopes to see a-bit more of accessibility.

>>2008094
My eyes showing the same amount of appreciation eh?
-Too much. Too mucho-cheese bequeath'd me.
>Danke Monsieur*.
>Merci Herr or Frau.

*For the French are all pussies por their poesies
>I wonder why that is. . .

Jesus Christ, this thread turned into a pseudo-intellectual tripfag circlejerk.

Pic related - it's /lit/'s tripfags about to eat their own shit because they heard it had artistic merit.

>>2008214
>buttmad from when D&E owned them

>>2008214

Pic kind of related

>>2008214
Not that they can define artistic merit. Or formulate an argument.

>>2008947
>>2008947
Come to me again in the cold, cold nuit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5iMJ1Fc6bU
>Nein repost! There's an eminent twist!

Wait, why does Deep and Edgy think GRRM's books are bad?

What a wasteland of a thread, just fucking leveled by a handful of idiots. You are really shitty people.

So, why don't we talk about that ASOIAF now that the literary snobs and their contenders seem to have left this thread. So, who else enjoyed the subtext about Manderly baking those freys into pies?

>>2009499
Reminded me of Titus Andronicus, which was probably the point.

>Looking for ASOIAF thread
>Find ASOIAF thread
>Over 100 posts
> megusta.jpeg
>Scroll down a bit
>nothing but literary snobs debating what constitutes a good book
>not even talking about ASOIAF anymore

>>2009477
From what I gather, it's because they were written at least half a millennium too late to be considered serious business.

>>2009499
>So, who else enjoyed the subtext about Manderly baking those freys into pies?
I think I totally missed that. Can anyone elaborate? When was this? I'd like to re-read that bit.

>>2009549
It's never explicitly said but very strongly hinted at. When Manderly requested the song about 'Rat cook' that was when most people realised what was happening. Rat cook was the story about a guy who fed a lord or a king his son.

>>2009549
There's three Freys missing at Ramsay's wedding, the ones supposed to come over from White Harbour. The other Freys suspect Manderly killed them, but he's like
>Freys? What Freys?
>I gave them their guest-gifts and sent them on their way, I know nothing of your three Freys bro
>Here, enjoy a slice of these three giant meat pies, aren't they delicious?
>I know I'll have six servings myself
>HEY SINGER, GIVE US THAT SONG ABOUT THE COOK KILLING PEOPLE AND PUTTING THEM INTO PIES

>>2009774
Even if he believed the guy about the Others, he'd still chop off his head for being a deserter.

>>2009775
He could have had him escorted back to Lord Mormont.

>>2009777
in the book, the deserter didn't actually say anything.
so it's a moot point

>Victarion put the slavers to the sword, then sent his men below to unchain the rowers. "You row for me now. Row hard, and you shall prosper." The girls he divided amongst his captains. "The Lyseni would have made whores of you," he told them, "but we have saved you. Now you need only serve one man instead of many. Those who please their captains may be taken as salt wives, an honorable station." The perfumed boys he wrapped in chains and threw into the sea. They were unnatural creatures, and the ship smelled better once cleansed of their presence.

I'm with Victarion, fuck the gays.

>>2009914

Why does Victarion Greyjoy just happen to do EVERYTHING right?

>>2008042
YESSSSS D&E IS BACK!!!!!!!

>STOP LIKING THINGS I DON'T LIKE

>MY OPINION IS OBVIOUSLY FACT

>I HAVE NO LIFE, AND WILL GREEN TEXT YOU TO DEATH

the biggest fucking tripfag asshole on 4chan -
know him, hate him,

BUT DON'T FUCKING ARGUE WITH HIM IT'S POINTLESS

also, Arya's gonna hear about Ramsey - she already knows Roose......
it will be EPICCCCCCCCCCCCC

>>2012157
We all hate D&E. However he did once troll the shit out of /mu/ which was pretty funny.

>>2012163
well he trolls the shit outta everybody
but that doesn't make him cool it just means he's gotta gtfo of his mom's house for ten fucking minutes

this thread kinda pissed me off, otherwise I would just ignore him like usual

I say we have our asoiaf threads on /tv from now on

>>2010473
That's Euron, Vic seems to be a guy that, while awesome, will an idiot of himself sooner or later; but one of the guy's arms has gone all Evil-Dead so I'll cut him some slack.

I for one was dreading the Melisandre chapter in the latest book but found it, and the implications from that chapters final page, to be one of the better bits.

Also. Did anyone else think that Dance was slow drudgery until about page five hundred or so?

>>2009774
Well, in the books the old guy is only noted to talk nonsense, being driven mad by his experince.

In the TV series will is mostly shocked and looks more as if he just wants to end the whole thing than to warn anyone.

>>2012175
the only slowness I thought was the one Jon chapter
(kill the boy) And Danys chapters somewhat

The Barristsan chapters, victarion, and theon more than made up for that

" the North remembers, Ser Davos...."

>>2012196
Jon gonna get himself a set of glowing blue eye's I bet.

And SOMEONE is going to warg themselves into a dragon sooner or later, count on that. Bran will 'fly' indeed sir.

>>2012198
I don't think so, but I have NO idea what up with bran

one for dany
one for ageon (I think hes real)
and one for jon
azzor azzhai, the PTWP, and the third head

>MFW the Quentyn chapters

In my opinion the best things GRRM could do to shake things up would be

Kill Dany
Make Cersei's prophecy in reference to Sansa

But that would ruin 5 books of setup. Still, would make things way less predictable than they are now.

>>2012231
valanquar mrans little SIBLING

I think Arya stops in KL first on her way to reave on the boltons.........

So does anyone else suspect Messandei of sinister shit?

I for one do not trust little girls who give seasoned knights good council out of the blue. I also look foreword to the raging kill-boner Victarion is going to get when he finds a city with its queen missing...

Nothing's happened to Gendry right? RIGHT???

>>2012256
He''s working as a smith in some inn in the Riverlands.

>>2012243
YES

Somethig is def up with Missandei......child of the forest????? read the description of HER EYES

I just hope vic gets in some reaving and fire-arming (lol)
inb4 mareen

>>2012235
I meant as the queen who is prettier than her, takes over her throne, etc.

>>2012243
>>2012269
It would make sense for the Harpy to be female but her being it would make less sense, though she is more wise than most and quite a little spy-master. I more suspect the Green Grace of being the Harpy personally, it seemed to me quite plain that she is.

Also judging by Dany's last chapter she has the fucking plague and it's going to goddamn heal her of her sterility somehow, I just fucking know it.

>>2006353
hipster

>>2012292
I thought she just miscarried.

anyone else thinks that jon's death was a pretty perfect, if heart-wrenching and tragic, ending to his plot? he matured, growed, fought some epic fights, brought much needed change on the wall, but as always, fuckers fucked- hence tragedy.
yfw when next prologue pov is ghost. and you know what happens in prologue povs.

>>2012424
That'd probably make me put down the book for a few days. Happened after a certain wedding.

>>2012424
change jon's name to ned, robb, rheagar or julius freakin ceasar and it still make sense- same story. feels bad man.

So... 184 posts later, is it worth to read the books?

>>2012450
If you liked the HBO series and are curious, yes. The first book was very similar (identical where it mattered) to the first season, but reading the books gives you a much better view into the characters.

You will definitely enjoy the first three books. They get better and more exciting with each volume. Sadly, the 4th book (Feast for Crows) was horrible and I haven't bothered to read Dance with Dragons. I don't think I will, either.

>>2012424
YFW Jon becomes a Wight, just like Robb judging from Melisandre's chapter.

YFW Jon retains his mind like Cold Hands and fights against the Others.

YFW the Night's Watch's faces when.

>>2012589
Feast is my favorite of them.

I like an entire book of plot development and people fucking themselves over unlike Dance which only advanced the plot and got people fucked in the ass in the second half.

Step 1. Ask pretentious questions using Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness on 4chan
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Profit!