/lit/ - Literature

Honestly for all the SO MUCH DEATH people say not that many characters he attaches you to die. In fact AFFC and ADWD seemed rather bloodless. One incident that you will be shortly spoiled about does happen in ADWD, but will inevitably be reversed somehow.

Jon Snow dies.

Someone had to say it.

Who didn't like the mountain other than a bunch of raped and killed peasants? He was a monster, but a useful one and he belonged to Tywin. He was also eight feet tall and immensely fuck huge. If anyone could crush somebody's head after being stabbed a bunch, it was him. THe poison was slow acting. And Karstark's betrayal wasn't really a betrayal. he killed the people he wanted dead, Lannisters and Robb killed him for it. ANd Walder Frey's whole schtick is he feels slighted by every little goddamn thing higher lords do to his family. So when the guy went back on his marriage promise, he got super fucking pissed. You are overestimating Robb's chances. WIth the Tyrells and Tywin his army was severely outmatched. Plus, if you look at MR. Frey, he ended Robb's rebellion (lol) in one fell swoop. Motherfucker knows what he was doing and is now highly valued by the Lannisteres. His second son is the liege lord of Riverrun.

>>2015668
>inevitably be reversed
What.
>Jon Snow dies.
WHAT.
>>2015681
I wasn't referring to Karstark, but to Bolton. The Mountain is large, not superhuman. I think you fail to realize what it feels like to be stabbed by a spear. I have no doubt his usefulness, but even other members of the Lannister family are repulsed by the mountain. I understand Lord Frey. I understand Robb was outnumbered. I understand, understand, understand. My point is that many things have occurred that are unbelievable. I have a hard time believing that nearly half the lords of the Seven Kingdoms are complete sadists, the primary one being a fucking thirteen year old. It's things like this which just make me lose track of what the hell Martin is doing.

>>2015681
Some of his sons even make good pies.

What pisses me off about this series is that GRRM kills off cool characters and keeps useless fucking cunts such as Brienne or Samwell alive. I was so relieved when they finally hanged Brienne and so disappointed when they revived Catelyn.

>>2015678
lol actually we don't know

>>2015695

How can you be disappointed they brought Cat back? I, for one, look forward to seeing her became a twisted, revenge filled stone cold bitch who will likely become a villain.

My main complaint with the series is that some secondary or even tertiary characters are more interesting than some of the characters who have chapters centered around them. Like in Game of Thrones, the scenes with Jaime/Sandor/Littlefinger/Varys were all more enjoyable to me than, say, a Bran chapter. Or in ADWD. Wyman Manderly was wayyyy more interesting than Dany bitching in Mereen for the entirety of the book or Jon's chapters which were basically the daily diary of a Lord-Commander.

>>2015737
Because I hate Catelyn. Always whining, always bitching about war and her sons who aren't even dead actually. She has never ever ever been happy in the whole series. Her thoughts are boring, her mind is depressing. She is absolutely useless. God I was so happy when they killed her. Why, why did you revive her, GRRM? Why do you keep annoying characters alive?

the series gets much worse at a frightening rate, and not even particularly the murderous aspect of it

>>2015759
>Bran chapter

Holy shit I want this useless piece of shit to be killed so much.

>>2015760
I liked her. She was basically Eddard but even more rabid about keeping her children safe. And smarter too, though she had some really fucking derp moments. But not as many as Eddard or Robb.

>>2015760
I don't see any problem with Stoneheart, considering she's not a POV character.

Catelyn was only annoying when you had to read her POVs.

>>2015768

It gets worse in the sense that you start to run into plot holes and subplots that really don't go anywhere or just run in circles.

A lot of the more important characters are pretty much sent away on a ship and don't do much in books four and five.

There is just the slightest bit more cannibalism, torture and rape though. Also, Gregor comes back from the dead lol

>>2015786

Book 5 establishes him as possibly the most important character in the series.

>>2015760

Catelyn is every female character from War and Peace wrapped into one person.

“You will never walk again, Bran,” the pale lips promised, “but you will fly.”

I'm having a hell of a time reading DwD. I don't care for Bran or Dany, or the Dorne/Iron Islands POVs. I was more interested in the politics of King's Landing and the Vale. At least I have that Melisandre chapter to look forward to.

>>2015868

I thought she was dtf Jon when I read that chapter.

Then I realized she was dtk him.... amirite?

>>2015871
I haven't read it yet, but she seems dtf everyone.

Someone who is interested in beginning reading the books here. Am I going to encounter political intrigue and back stabbing and blood fueds as the main plots, or is it more to do with other things? No spoilers, please, I'm just after the style of these novels.

>>2015868
>I don't care for Bran
Nigga, you serious? Bran's chapters have been great since ASoS, and best in ADWD.

>or Dany
Shittiest chapters in ADWD. You'll have to trudge through them.

Book gets better in the second half. You get King's Landing again (though I disliked all the King's Landing bs in AFfC) and the pace quickens.

>>2015906
ASOIAF is pretty much all political intrigue. Maybe 10% of it is other stuff. And food/clothing descriptions.

cunt

>>2015786

You know what killed the series for me? The reason I never finished AFfC, and will never read ADwD?

Cersei as a viewpoint character.

Why would you do this to us, Martin? I guess it's a good thing Joffrey got killed when he did, because you'd probably have used him instead you sadistic fuck.

>kill likable characters
>make hated characters vp's
>make likable vp's boring

God damn it.

>>2016253
>Why would you do this to us, Martin?

Because nudity and sex scenes, man. Gotta draw in the neckbeards somehow.

>>2016253
I liked watching Cersei self-destruct, tbh.

Though maybe she had too many POV chapters.

>>2015653
>I just finished the third book.
>Should I keep reading this series?
STOP. STOP NOW. Make up your own ending. You can probably guess where it's all going by now, anyways. A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons are simply dreadful, and I don't see Martin pulling out a winner with the next 2/3 books in the series, IF he even finishes them.

>>2016294
you guys suck

ADWD was amazing - riding dragons, talking through trees, secret winterfell missions,et tu bowen,face changing, reaving and burning shit, redempton for another hated character,and dat Varys action say keep reading.......

Coldhands will definitly turn out to be Benjen Stark...

>>2015906
>>2015906

Yes its mostly intrigue, but the series kind of pans out to a bigger picture. Also it has separated storylines which have different settings in the same world, if you get what I mean. So spoiler free, I can say the first book gets you stuck into political intrigue in the west, and an outsider experiencing a less developed culture in the west which has more simple tribal politics, this however does not make it less interesting.

Sup guys.

>>2016885
THAT'S CERTAINLY TRUE, BUT THE TIME YOU'D NEED TO INVEST TO READ EACH GROUPING CONSIDERABLY DIFFER, SO IT ISN'T REALLY ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PAGES AT ALL.

PRETTY YOU'RE YOU'D BE ABLE TO READ AN (ASSUMED) DIALOGUE DRIVEN SERIES COMPARED TO THE MAJORITY OF THE POETRY LISTED THERE

>>2016888
CONSIDERABLY FASTER COMPARED TO*

>>2016885
Someone should remember to post this whenever a thread about this nerdy waste of time is posted. Sometimes you see thread about this shit in the front page. It's ridiculous!

>>2016898
>>2016885

That's your opinion

>>2016898
This should also be posted

>>2016898
>>2016885
sup samefag

>>2016905
While I agree with that picture, people are allowed to enjoy what they like. Actively joining discussions of no interest to oneself and trying to tell people off as idiots is fucktarded arrogance though. It's like you are trying to find validation in acting superior to other people.

>>2016885

So instead of books about made-up stuff happening to made-up people I could be reading *other* books about made-up stuff happening to made-up people?

Thanks, Anon. You've certainly given me a whole new perspective on life.

>>2016917
>Actively joining discussions of no interest to oneself and trying to tell people off as idiots is fucktarded arrogance though

Think of it more like just another day in the school canteen where you can hear the cool kids (who are all from wealthy backgrounds and are star pupils and athletes) laughing at you and the stupid shit you're doing over from their table.

you should be used to it i guess

>>2016935

Oh, that's just precious.

Yes, you sure hung out with the cool kids, didn't you, D&E?

>>2016935
I guess my initial impression was somewhat accurate. Oh well, whatever.

>>2016924
Are you implying that biographies are the only form of literature where a hierarchy of quality might be established, all fiction being equal?

>>2016943
he understands it well because he was a victim

now we are the victims of his...whatever it is people do to annoy/masturbate each other on the internet

>>2016952
>he understands it well because he was a victim
>implying anyone in high school made fun of me for reading third rate fantasy and cautioned me that I could have been spending my time more productively as a discerning appreciator of literature by reading seminal texts in the western cannon

yeah dude i wish

>>2016954

Yeah, D&E, we know.

It *is* a well-knon fact that all the cool kinds major in English Philosophy and/or Literature, after all.

>>2016905
You, sir, have no idea how logic works.

The quality of a table depends on its usefulness. If it falls into pieces when you put stuff on it, it's completely useless. If it doesn't, you may put much stuff on it and the more you can put stuff on it, the more it's useful.

The quality of a diet depends on its impact on your health. Something that will get you fat and ill (which you probably are) is considered "bad" and something that keeps you healthy is considered "good".

Now, about music: being more virtuous and masterful does not equal being better. I for one have played the piano for many years and I've learned to play a shitload of pieces, some of them were easy as hell and some of them were really difficult and time consuming. When I played in front of people, their reactions were very different: I happened to perform some really hard pieces and people were like "cool, you're good", and some easy ones and people were like "my god... it's beautiful". Do you see the difference? If there are standards regarding the virtuousness of a piece of music, it doesn't mean that piece of music is better. It just tell how hard it is to play, and how skilled is the musician playing it.

About literature: since reading stuff requires no skill whatsoever when you're over the age of 2-3, you can't apply the previous music analogy to it. In other words, there is no such thing as a virtousness standard regarding readers. Maybe you apply such a standard to a writer, but it's completely different. Would you be able to write something as big as A song of ice and fire? Would you be able to write anything at all that isn't utter and absolute shit that no one would like to read? I can't. You may hate GRRM, but you can't deny he has some skills since he gets many people to read his stuff. Do you have that same sort of skill? I don't think so. People call a book "better" because they enjoyed it more, that's all.

There you are: you showed four examples that used a different definition of "better", then you merged them together in order to grant yourself some kind of entitlement to arbitrary judgement. But that's stupid. People won't stop liking a book because you said so.

>>2016253

Really? I found her VP's to be pretty awesome in Feast, and I loved them in Dance. I was incredibly happy GRRM didn't go the Jaime route and make us relate to her, and find out she's not as bad as people think.

Though, I do kind of hope she can still fuck Margery over. Fuck that cunt.

>>2016950
All fiction is not equal. People have preferences.

>>2016956
>The quality of a table depends on its usefulness
Tables don't have usefulness, it is their relative relation as products to individuals in which their "usefulness" is instantiated, and so to one who has no appreciation for fine craftsman and is simply concerned with "base" utility (being able to hold up shit), a plain table will be less useful (or rather, he won't see any more use in an ornate plain table) to him than an individual with a keen aesthetic taste in carpentry who appreciates more than simple utility. What is useful to one (the non-discerning scrub with no aesthetic sense) is not useful to the other (the expert in carpentry who appreciates good materials and individual masterly craftsmanship)

>The quality of a diet depends on its impact on your health. Something that will get you fat and ill (which you probably are) is considered "bad" and something that keeps you healthy is considered "good".
So? That's not something I didn't say

>f there are standards regarding the virtuousness of a piece of music, it doesn't mean that piece of music is better. It just tell how hard it is to play, and how skilled is the musician playing it.
You don't know the difference between the quality of a composition and its performance. yawn.

>>2016954
>telling people what books you read
What kind of arrogant prick are you?

>>2016958
>since reading stuff requires no skill whatsoever
I'm not talking about reading stuff, I'm talking about literature.

>there is no such thing as a virtousness standard regarding readers
I'm not talking about readers. I'm talking about literature.

>you showed four examples that used a different definition of "better"
No, I showed four examples that used methodologies in arriving at critical evaluation. You don't seem to have understood anything.

>>2016958
>About literature: since reading stuff requires no skill whatsoever when you're over the age of 2-3, you can't apply the previous music analogy to it.

Absolutely wrong. Literary junk food can be entertaining, but really rewarding books are frequently challenging or inaccessible.

>>2016958
you don't have to be able to play an instrument to know when someone performing in front of you is good or bad

it's like,

"Well, you can't play like Jimi Hendrix, so you can't criticize him!"

totally bunk, sir

>>2016966

>You don't know the difference between the quality of a composition and its performance. yawn.

Who told you that? I'm saying that people may like something that looks less virtuous because it sounds better to their ears. If you play something virtuous, they will admire your skill. If you play something they like, they will admire the quality of the piece of music.

>>2016950

No, I'm saying you can blab all you want about "great themes" and "human condition" and all that jazz, but it won't change the fact that any work of fiction no more than figments of a single person's imagination.

>>2016972
and so, what's your point?

Will you two shut the fuck up?

Nobody gives a shit.

>>2016956
>reading stuff requires no skill whatsoever when you're over the age of 2-3

You can always continue developing reading skill. I could make an argument for expanding vocabulary, but it doesn't end there. You can take classes on grammar and meaning in college that would be far beyond any understanding an average HS student would be able to grasp, let alone a 2-3 year old.

Taking Latin or German, for example, would illuminate the English language in ways someone who only knows English can't understand. Investigating the roots and limits of grammar and vocabulary surely is an example of increasing reading skill.

This is less strong of an example, but you can also speed read as a way to increase reading skill.

>>2016971

>really rewarding books

Do define exactly what "rewarding" consists.

In concrete and objective terms, please.

>>2016971
If you have trouble reading books you call "rewarding", you're not used to read. That, or you actively seek authors that write in an incomprehensible and/or boring style in order to masturbate with your mind. Welcome to pseudo-intellectualism, good sir.

>>2016974
>I'm saying that people may like something that looks less virtuous because it sounds better to their ears.
People may also like something that is more masterful less so because they cannot appreciate the complexity and flourishes apparent in the piece as uneducated listeners.

Everything you're saying is stupid and vague:
>If you play something virtuous, they will admire your skill. If you play something they like, they will admire the quality of the piece of music.
Who? People who know nothing about music or people who know a lot, or people in between or what?

>>2016984

So what's the definition of "masterful", D&E?

>>2016977
You're saying that someone who can't write a fantasy saga has no basis for judging its quality. I disagree. Also:

>you can't deny he has some skills since he gets many people to read his stuff.

So popularity is a reflection of skill? By this logic, Stephanie Meyer and Dan Brown are better writers than Martin. Ergo, Twilight is better than A Song of Fire and Ice.

Please not that I don't actually believe what I typed up there, it's just showing how your argument is untenable.

>>2016985
A family resemblance of relative conventions continually in flux relative to the specialised form of life at hand

>>2016980
When you read stuff with new vocabulary and/or grammar structure, you learn to use them. It increases your reading speed, but not your ability to read.

>>2016988

And how is that applied to music?

>>2016991
what do you mean 'applied'?

>>2016984
>he thinks people need to be educated about music to appreciate it

You've never composed or performed anything, amirite?

>>2016993

How do you apply that definition of "masterful" to music? What does "masterful" music consist of?

>>2016994
>he thinks people need to be educated about music to appreciate it
I never said you had to be educated about music to appreciate it, anyone can appreciate anything for any reasons whatsoever. Of course, I'm not talking about mere appreciation, I'm talking about critical appreciation, which is not of course to spit on mere appreciation or anything, don't get me wrong.

>>2016984
>insults
>being blatantly pretentious and arrogant

>>2016982
It's not a matter of 'having trouble'. Some books just take more effort to appreciate fully. I'll skim through something like ASoIaF because the pleasure comes from finding out what shocking thing happens next - the plot is everything and I want to find out as soon as possible. Dwelling on the prose would just increase my irritation at Martin's verbosity and use of cliches. If I'm reading Joyce or Pynchon or Saramago, on the other hand, I will frequently pause and reread to admire a well put together sentence. If I read it too quickly, or without the expected effort, not only is there a good chance I'll find myself five chapters in without knowing what the fuck is going in, I'll be denying myself most of the pleasure of reading in the first place.

>>2016997
>How do you apply that definition of "masterful" to music?
through critical and conceptual analysis

>What does "masterful" music consist of?
A family resemblance of relative conventions continually in flux relative to the specialised form of life at hand. Do you have trouble reading or what?

>>2017000

>which is not of course to spit on mere appreciation or anything

...Riiiiiight, it's not like you post on ASoIaF threads specifically to do just that or anything, now is it?

>>2016989
I'm not talking about reading "already written" stuff with new grammar/vocabulary, I'm saying one could take classes and learn ABOUT grammar. See the rules explained and laid bare. Same applies to vocabulary, syntax, etc.

This doesn't necessarily increase speed, but it does increase comprehension.

History and mythology are two other easy examples. Someone well verse in Anglo mythology would be a better reader of Tolkien than someone who is in complete ignorance of Anglo mythology.

>>2016999
>shitting your pants over insults

hi pizza

>>2017004

Can you give me a concrete example?

>>2016982
>That, or you actively seek authors that write in an incomprehensible and/or boring style in order to masturbate with your mind.

You consider these authors incomprehensible or boring because you haven't put in the effort to appreciate them. You're like a teenager who insists coke tastes better than wine and everyone who claims otherwise is just a poser.

>>2017008
How could I possibly give you a CONCRETE example of something that is by its nature conventional and which I've already told you is relative and constantly in flux?

>>2017010

Can't you think of a single piece you would say could be considered as masterful?

>>2017012
Sure, but I'm heading out now so I don't have the time to discuss it. I'll be back later, if the thread's still active I'll bring it up.

>>2017009
Seeing that I didn't point anyone as incomprehensible and/or boring, your whole point is null and void. Unless your point is that there are no incomprehensible or boring writers.

>>2017009

Or it could be, I don't know... because there's no objective, intrinsic quality about anything at all that says it just *has* to be enjoyed by all who try it, otherwise they're just not trying hard enough?

No, can't be. That's a completely preposterous notion.

>>2017015
You said that they exist, though. That's enough for his point to stand.

>>2017017
So you really think there are absolutely no incomprehensible or boring authors? Well I give up, kind sir. I try to be as open-minded as I can and I try not to judge anything, but you certainly beat me to it.

>>2016970
You sure seem to hold that "literature" thing in high respect. But if it isn't about reading stuff, what's it about? If it's not about enjoying what you're reading, what's its use? What is it that doesn't make it completely worthless and useless?

>No, I showed four examples that used methodologies in arriving at critical evaluation.
But these four methodologies are different. Check this out, you might learn something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Also, insulting people at the end of every fucking post looks retarded. You could have tried not to make it that blatant.

>>2017017
It could be about Stephenie Meyer, in which case the guy who said ">because you haven't put in the effort to appreciate them" looks like a retard.

>>2017024
Nononono. What you said is that, "There are boring and incrompensible authors that pseudo-intellectuals use for mind masturbation"

then some other dude said

"Those boring and incrompehensible authors are probably not boring and are in fact comprehensible, but you are not patient nor willing enough to understand them"

Then you said his point was moot, but it wasn't.

I'm not saying there AREN'T boring and incomprehensible authors, surely there are some. I'm just saying that the other guy's point still stands. What you think of as boring and incomprehensible are probably books that have a lot of literary value but you put the book down because you're just too confused to appreciate what's going on.

I don't give a fuck if this thread was completely derailed by a the king of faggots, I'm replying to the OP.

>He crushed a dudes face in the last minute of a duel, and I'm supposed to believe he could when he's POISONED AND STABBED IN TWENTY PLACES. HOLY SHIT, MARTIN.

The poison may have started having some slight effects but it wasn't fucking cyanide, come on. The stab wounds can be accounted to his sheer beastliness and utter APATHY towards pain.

>And when nearly every character in the damn series is a complete immoral douchebag

Maester Luwin, Sansa Stark, Jeor Mormont, Qhorin Halfhand, Maester Aemon, Donal Noye, Bran Stark, Robb Stark, Jon Snow, Maege Mormont, Dacey Mormont, Genna Lannister, Loras Tyrell, Olenna Redwyne, Ned Stark, Catelyn Tully, Stannis Baratheon, Gendry, Thoros of Myr, Beric Dondarrion, Brynden Tully, Davos Seaworth, etc etc. Need I go on?

>Am I really supposed to believe that two of Robb's bannerman would betray him when he had the upper hand in the war?

What? Are you reading the same series I am? Robb was clearly in trouble. He even says it himself (I'm winning every battle but losing the war). Maybe he could stand a chance against the Lannisters alone but Lannister + Tyrell? No chance in hell. Bolton and Frey were certainly not retarded by changing sides, it was clearly the best thing for them to do. Frey probably did it out of spite too but Bolton probably just saw the practicality in it. Whether it was moral is another matter.

Everybody stop talking to this Deep&Edgy guy. He is on here 24/7 and shows up whenever anyone mentions GRRM, posting that same image and going through those same arguments.

He's a hypocrite (wastes time he could spend reading those literary classics trying to convince random people not to enjoy a book) and an attention whore.

kongregate.com/games/Leviathan278/terminal-velocity-prototype

>>2017036
>What you think of as boring and incomprehensible are probably books that have a lot of literary value but you put the book down because you're just too confused to appreciate what's going on.

Well, that's wrong. At the very least, you would have to prove it. Let me get this straight:

I made only one assumption: there are some authors that are either boring or incomprehensible or both. Then this guy replied, saying "you are not patient nor willing enough to understand them". The problem is that my assumption didn't target anyone. It just implied the existence of such authors. If you don't try to invalidate this, your point is moot. The rest of your post is a strawman.

>>2017057
Boring authors are certainly real, but if you're accusing people of 'pseudo-intellectualism' then it's fair to assume you're talking about the canon, i.e. books people might conceivably read to look smart.

>>2017057
And a very shitty strawman, because you changed my point to "I'm thinking of some authors that are incomprehensible and/or boring", but you couldn't counter it because you couldn't possibly know who I would have in mind (assuming I had someone in mind, just like the strawman says).

>What you think of as boring and incomprehensible are probably books that have a lot of literary value but you put the book down because you're just too confused to appreciate what's going on.
>probably

Well, don't expect this to have any kind of credibility.

>>2017037
>Maester Luwin, Sansa Stark, Jeor Mormont, Qhorin Halfhand, Maester Aemon, Donal Noye, Bran Stark, Robb Stark, Jon Snow, Maege Mormont, Dacey Mormont, Genna Lannister, Loras Tyrell, Olenna Redwyne, Ned Stark, Catelyn Tully, Stannis Baratheon, Gendry, Thoros of Myr, Beric Dondarrion, Brynden Tully, Davos Seaworth, etc etc. Need I go on?

Sure, there are characters who are normal people, but you can't deny that Martin gets a lot of mileage out of the Sadistic Noble Brat archetype. Viserys, Joffrey, Robin, Ramsay... as soon as he kills one off he gives you another one, and each is as flat and unconvincingly characterised as the last.

>>2017057
Okay, this makes sense to me. I suppose the disagreement arises because we haven't given an example of a boring or incomprehensible author. I'm thinking you're one of those types that would put down Faulkner or Joyce after reading 8 pages. Then if anyone would ask you why you dislike Faulkner or Joyce you'd say "Those authors are incomprehensible, boring and for pseudo-intellectuals who don't enjoy reading them and just do it to look smart."

If you were to say, however, Dan Brown was a boring author, I would probably agree.

>>2017060
Well, if people read a book for the sole purpose of looking smart, they're certainly try-hard pseudo-intellectuals. But that's another point.

>>2017012
something by mozart maybe

>>2017033
>But if it isn't about reading stuff, what's it about?
Reading is certainly a constitutive feature of literature, but it is by no means the entire two sides of the coin, of which one is clearly and obviously WRITING.

>If it's not about enjoying what you're reading, what's its use?
Of course it's about enjoying what you're reading, it's just that a wide range of people are capable of enjoying features of a written text on widely differing levels - a toddler cannot appreciate/enjoy alliteration, a high-schooler (speaking generally) cannot appreciate/enjoy double-voiced discourse, an expert can. Purely as an aside, perhaps (and I say "perhaps" only in order to avoid some useless, opportunistic shitheel walking in and deciding to argue on the one point that is irrelevant and that I have no interest in discussing in this thread) the converse is also true such that as one becomes more and more capable of appreciating, and actually does rather than simply having the capacity to, the higher elements, one derives less and less from the lower. So of course enjoyment is all it's about; but never be so dumb as to assume unquestioningly that enjoyment of anything on any level is universal.

>But these four methodologies are different.
Of course they are, moron, I never said they weren't. We don't value a good table because it reads like a fucking dostoevsky novel after all you fucking idiot. But there are clear common features in each case, i.e. the recognised presence of differing levels of skill and appreciation rather than the total subjection and denigration of said levels and skill to some vacuous "subjectivity".

>>2017037
Jeor Mormont, Olenna Redwyne...seriously??

Jeor is a slaver and a traitor, Olenna is the "Queen of Thorns" and was in on the plot to kill Joff.

>>2017069
>a toddler cannot appreciate/enjoy alliteration, a high-schooler (speaking generally) cannot appreciate/enjoy double-voiced discourse, an expert can

well actually I just said that to make GRRMfags feel good about themselves, really this is within the grasp of any semi-spirited garden variety Eng Lit undergrad, make no mistakes

>>2017068
The thing is, books people read to look smart are usually good books, or they wouldn't be critically acclaimed. Not always mind you, I know a girl who use to go on and on about the literary genius of Paulo Coelho, bless her.

But anyway, getting back to the original point, a famous novel that has a reputation for being difficult or boring is usually a genuinely good book that demands more patience to read than your average slice of genre fiction, and you're being an enormous cunt if you dismiss anyone who likes their literature weighty and obtuse as a pseudo-intellectual.

>>2017069

>But there are clear common features in each case, i.e. the recognised presence of differing levels of skill and appreciation

Diets and carpentry are based on objective, concrete, scientifically demonstrable facts. Care to name any such facts about "critical appreciation" of literature?

>>2017066

But princes like Viserys, Joffrey and Robin have existed throughout history and aren't unrealistic. They were brought up with completely distorted views of the world.

Ramsay is a tough one to swallow but not inherently "unrealistic". Even sicker people than him exist in this world right now. And out of the cast of characters Ramsay IS a clear oddity. Only a few other ones out of hundreds of character are that sadistic and sociopathic (Gregor, Rorge, The Tickler, Some Bloody Mummers, maybe Euron Greyjoy)

>>2017080
>scientifically demonstrable

ugghhhhhhhhhhh

>>2017069
>Of course they are, moron, I never said they weren't. We don't value a good table because it reads like a fucking dostoevsky novel after all you fucking idiot. But there are clear common features in each case, i.e. the recognised presence of differing levels of skill and appreciation rather than the total subjection and denigration of said levels and skill to some vacuous "subjectivity".

But that's not the point. You think that because some standards can be applied to carpentry, food, music, there should be one regarding literature. Not only that remains to be proven, but even from a 7-year-old point of view that looks retarded. Your picture is basically saying that Ulysses is better than A Storm of Sword because a carpenter is entitled to judge a table's quality.

>>2017082
No, I think they are unrealistic. Perverts and sadists crop up with implausible frequency in Martin's work.

>>2017080

>>2017088
>You think that because some standards can be applied to carpentry, food, music, there should be one regarding literature
I don't think there should be, I think there is

>Not only that remains to be proven
I've already shown it; it gets shown every time you walk into a english literature class

>even from a 7-year-old point of view that looks retarded
of course it does, because the 7-year-old knows fuck all about literature

>Your picture is basically saying that Ulysses is better than A Storm of Sword because a carpenter is entitled to judge a table's quality.
No, you missed the part where I showed how literature is critically evaluated within its own methodology

>>2017071

You're confusing Jeor with Jorah but I'm willing to argue for Jorah not being a "complete immoral douchebag" too. Traitor? Since when did that brand had any real importance in ASoIaF? Robb Stark is a "traitor" to the crown too. Jorah didn't try to sell off those thieves to slavery because he liked it or didn't think there was anything wrong with it, he did it because he was desperate as fuck to please his wife's monetary desires.

Olenna Redwyne obviously knows what's up. Notice I was arguing the claim of characters being "complete immoral douchebags". Not all the characters I listed are as immensely noble as Donal Noye. Nevertheless Olenna Redwyne is, from what I can tell, quite a good person. She didn't participate in killing Joffrey out of greed for power or some cold-blooded calculations but because she had learned he was an absolute devil child and she didn't want her granddaugther marrying such a beast.

>>2017093

>No, you missed the part where I showed how literature is critically evaluated within its own methodology

Which is based on conventions which are based, when you really come down to it, on *fuck all*, while a table is evaluated on its capacity to *actually hold shit*.

But yeah, it's definitely the same thing.

>>2017089

No, they really don't.

Also, if you're directly comparing the frequency of these things in the world of ASoIaF to your surroundings right now in your own life you're an idiot.

>>2017100
>Which is based on conventions which are based, when you really come down to it, on *fuck all*
No, they're based on the capacity of the object to improve qualitatively or quantitatively human flourishing, either of token, type or "species", which is what the function of even the most rudimentary table aspires to as well. It's just that some people such as yourself can't see beyond mere utility in what is actually a multiplicity of strong values that can be instantiated as a means to the improvement of human flourishing.

>>2017090
>mathematics is a set of conventions
Actually these conventions are called axioms. And most of them are just defining stuff and stating the existence of stuff (otherwise we couldn't do math at all). They are not arbitrary rules, they just give mathematicians tools to start proving stuff. Also, even though science relies on conventions (scientific method and all that shit) we're using them because the results they gave us actually work in the real world (if they don't, we question these conventions). On what grounds do you keep your conventions about literature?

>>2017100
>Which is based on conventions which are based, when you really come down to it, on *fuck all*,
You seriously think literary conventions are based on absolutely nothing?

>>2017110
>They are not arbitrary rules, they just give mathematicians tools to start proving stuff.
He already said this in the image he posted. One of those literary conventions would be clarity of subject, something your poor reading comprehension skills apparently can't identify anyhow.

>>2016890
>>2016888
Shut up, Owen Meany.

>>2017103
I'm not, though I'm not convinced that a gritty medieval setting would necessarily encourage sadistic perverts. People took a great deal of care to teach princes proper courtly behaviour, after all.

But 'realism' is not my primary concern. What bothers me is using the same one-dimensional character so many times, and also the author constantly trying to one-up himself in grossing the reader out.

>>2017110
>They are not arbitrary rules, they just give mathematicians tools to start proving stuff.
They are arbitrary, in the sense that one can choose any axiom whatsoever to begin from in order to prover whatever one so wishes, and as I've said, it is the natural conventions we adhere to and the relative ends we mean to fulfill to which directs our choice of axiom, this does not mean they are somehow not arbitrary; because it is wholly our choice of what we want to achieve and the means by which we achieve it.

>we're using them because the results they gave us actually work in the real world
Actually, they work only because they adhere to conditions we presuppose in the first place in order to say of them that they "work" to begin with.
Our literary conventions work perfectly well for those of us with literary appreciation in the real world as well.

>>2017109

>No, they're based on the capacity of the object to improve qualitatively or quantitatively human flourishing

Yeah, that's a very beautiful way to say nothing at all.

>>2017112

Nothing that could be taken seriously as objective standards to base a theory on, no.

>>2017123
>Yeah, that's a very beautiful way to say nothing at all.
how is that nothing at all, you ignorant fucking dipshit.

>>2017123
>Nothing that could be taken seriously as objective standards

milk cow hopping fences flowers don't bloom
they eat shit like a wanglerflauff
kaputt he said cause that's german
we dont need no damn punctuation

According to you, what I posted above is a story.

>>2017126
how is that anything at all, you fucking ignorant dipshit

chalk up another owned retard

>>2017129
Well, yes. According to me, it's a shitty story.

>>2017117

Viserys, Joffrey and Robin were all brought up in a similar environment by mentally unstable people. It makes sense they have similar personalities.

I'm not going to claim Viserys is very multi-dimensional character but I do think his story is very sad and interesting. Joffrey I find very entertaining too but this is beside the point.

>>2017122

I like how D&E takes what he learned in his english lit. class during the day and comes here and spews it out.

>>2017132
>they're based on the capacity of the object to improve qualitatively or quantitatively human flourishing

Let me break it down to monosyllables for you, because you're stupid:
Good comes from a thing if it helps us to live in a more good way and we can see it is more good or it helps more of us good.

AAAAAAAAH SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

>>2017129
milk cow hopping fences flowers don't bloom
they eat shit like a wanglerflauff
kaputt he said cause that's german
we dont need no damn punctuation

needs more wibbledywobbledy

>>2017135

>>2017137
You are yet one more person who doesn't know what you're talking about.

>>2017144
No, I'm sure clippety-clops would improve it much better.

>>2017139
>Viserys, Joffrey and Robin were all brought up in a similar environment by mentally unstable people.

And that's lazy writing in itself.

>>2017150
You suck Obama's dick on a daily basis. You see, I can make insulting unproven assumptions too!

>>2017156
>unproven
The difference here is that mine is proven. You're saying that there is no objective standard for literary conventions. This is demonstrably false.
I already demonstrated it. You did too, by stating that it was a shitty story.

>>2017167
>The difference here is that mine is proven. You're saying that there is no objective standard for literary conventions. This is demonstrably false.
I already demonstrated it. You did too, by stating that it was a shitty story.

Seriously, google "proof" and "logic", you need it.

>>2017156
Look, we both know you know jack shit about literary conventions anyhow. You don't know what you're talking about. You'd have to use Google to name me any sort of topic or concept which has a place in the discussion of literary quality. I'd put money down on the table right now you couldn't name three functions of poetics.

>>2017153

How so?

I didn't mean to imply they were brought up by exactly the same kind of people, just by not people like Ned Stark.

They all have a different reason for their specific personalities.

Viserys because he was made to believe he is a God among men merely because of the fact that he's a Targaryen.

Joffrey because he was exhibiting sociopathic tendencies since he was a little boy and because Cersei filled his head with the kind of shit you see in the HBO show ("the truth will be what you make it")

Robin simply because he was completely inseperable from his mother who was extremely unstable herself.

>>2017167
Oh my god are you pulling this shit too? Seriously man? Seriously?

Just so I understand exactly what you're arguing before I insult you: What exact objective criteria exist for evaluating fiction? What do they tell us, and how do we know that they're objective, that is, factual and true for all people? Also, how can you say that something is an 'objective convention'? Isn't that an incredibly oxymoronic thing to say? Surely a convention by it's very nature CAN'T be objective?

You're a smart guy so I hope you're not arguing something dumb but it looks like you are so

>>2017185
>What exact objective criteria exist for evaluating fiction?
Syntax, just for starters.

>What do they tell us, and how do we know that they're objective, that is, factual and true for all people?
Let's keep going with syntax.
If what you write makes no sense in the language you've chosen due to poor syntax, it's factual and true that it does not work for its purpose. This is objective.

>Also, how can you say that something is an 'objective convention'?
That's not what I said. I said there are objective standards for a literary convention. Standards can be objective. The conventions are where debate begins.

I take a slightly different tack than D&E, and I disagree with him on some points, but the idea that there is no objective reasoning behind criticism is ridiculously stupid.

>>2017175
I wrote an objectively bad story. You agreed with me. Anybody who saw it would agree with me. For starters, the syntax is poor in it.

>>2017198

Yes I can see how you use a different tack than D&E whereas he is a pretentious hipster you go for the presumptuous hipster.

>>2017206
It gets me more pussy.

>>2017210
Pussy? I doubt you get any Behemoth, as I'm sure that's an allusion to your physical size, fatty.

>>2017198
If syntax is the kind of thing you're talking about as an 'objective literary standard', that seems incredibly banal, because syntax and things of that type are little more than things agreed upon to make life easier. Generally, when you talk about objective literary standards, you want to be able to say "Heard of Darkness is objectively bad and anyone who disagrees with me is objectively, logically wrong". There are certainly aspects of literary criticism which are based around technique and more or less objective - you can say someone has no command of meter and be right or wrong about that. But at the base level of aesthetic criticism as to whether something is good or bad art, no, you can't do that. And I don't mean to slight criticism by saying this, because I think criticism is totally valid and worthy, but a lot of it comes from analysis and intelligent understanding of a text to derive some sort of meaning from it, and that doesn't really come from needing objective standards for literary quality.

I think. Basically what I'm saying is that you're correct as far as it goes but kind of banal

>>2017214

>>2017218
>But at the base level of aesthetic criticism as to whether something is good or bad art
>it comes from analysis and intelligent understanding of a text to derive some sort of meaning from it
You don't see the connection here?

>that doesn't really come from needing objective standards for literary quality.
That's exactly my argument. There are objective standards that aid analysis and understanding of a text. You already provided a perfect example by mentioning meter-- prosody (meaning only the study of meter here, of course) is an objective standard when looking at poetry. If the text does not meet objective standards that aid in analysis and understanding, we know right from the beginning it is bad. And objectively so.
Use of poetics, use of rhetoric, clarity of language, on and on and on the list goes and they are objective standards for prose: things which are defined not by the person but by what they are and do as a standard. The debate begins in the subjective when we criticize how these objective standards are used, or where or when or why etc.
I'm not saying that one person's criticism is objective. I'm not saying that criticism is objective. I'm saying that there are underlying principles of criticism that are objective which a critic uses.

And yes, that is a banal point for you or I, but for some asshole who's going to sit there and spout a bunch of horseshit about there being *fuck all* basis to criticism, it's a point novel to him.

>>2017236
>You don't see the connection here?

Nope.

>I'm not saying that one person's criticism is objective. I'm not saying that criticism is objective. I'm saying that there are underlying principles of criticism that are objective which a critic uses.

I mean, you're not wrong, there are definitely standards which objectively exist. Just think that talking about 'objective standards for literature' implies something higher but hey I guess that's why I asked what you were talking about instead of just calling you a fuckhead immediately.

>>2017142

>Good comes from a thing if it helps us to live in a more good way and we can see it is more good or it helps more of us good.

And, of course, nothing helps people live better than made-up stories about made-up people.

>>2017242
>Nope.
Aesthetic criticism is based upon that analysis. If something can't be analyzed, or meaning can't be derived, it's bad. Think about a mixed metaphor for a second and you might see what I'm getting at.
Now, of course this immediately gets into the subjective, but it begins with an objective standard, clarity. But that's also opening up a huge can of worms on hermeneutics, so I'll concede the argument here.

>>2017245
The Boy Who Cried Wolf

>>2017249
I see where you're coming from but disagree but whatever. Cool cool cool.

>>2016885
10/10