/lit/ - Literature

>>2055508
And if I've already read those books? There is a reason his books are popular, for all you know in 40 years people could be talking about his books.

I've never read them, but you offer no valid argument as to why one should or should not, other than "there are classics to read" which comes off arrogant and stupid.

Anyone with a post that makes a valid point ... thank you.

>>2055517
if you like fantasy, then yes, it's worth reading. definitely the best fantasy being written right now, probably the best series in a long time.

>>2055517

>other than "there are classics to read" which comes off arrogant and stupid

How is that either arrogant or stupid?

>>2055520
I hope you only watch movie classics.

Don't eat anything new either, the best foods were proven long ago.

>>2055517

The man writes well and the story is creative. The universe is vast and while there are slow points, chapters, characters, etc, the reading is well paced. Not going to say go out and buy them - just get the epub if you have a reader.

I never read fantasy novels and generally won't go near a series (I'm more of the one-off books like Raw Shark Texts or The Sun Also Rises), but I'm halfway through the third book and quite looking forward to the rest of the series.

Worth it? Yes.
Adult reading? Very much so.

Think more general politik than fantasy. There are fantasy elements, but they serve mainly the plot lines and drivers and when considered against the rest of the story, they're more off in the wings acknowledged with a nodding head rather than given a starring role.

>>2055517
>And if I've already read those books?
Way to waste a small part of your life

>There is a reason his books are popular
Popular, not good.

>for all you know in 40 years people could be talking about his books.
I wouldn't be surprised, unfortunately

>you offer no valid argument as to why one should or should not
This isn't about arguments, or telling someone what people should or shouldn't do. If you want to develop the best appreciation of literature, then a necessary sufficient precondition for doing so is to avoid when reading shit, and to read and understand the best works of literature.

>"there are classics to read" which comes off arrogant and stupid.
Lol, of course; "there are the best works ever written in human history to read" comes off as arrogant and stupid, sure thing. Jesus christ, do you clueless idiots even think for a second about what you say.

>>2055531

>I hope you only watch movie classics.

I do, actually.

>Don't eat anything new either, the best foods were proven long ago.

Now you're being silly.

Also, you didn't answer my question.

>>2055531
>I hope you only watch movie classics.
Yeah, I only watch good films.


>Don't eat anything new either, the best foods were proven long ago.
The best ingredients for dishes for differing diets aren't really that much of a controversy any more, although master chefs are constantly coming up with great new dishes. That would be for someone who was a gourmand or something: I have no interest in developing a superior taste in cuisine. I'm perfectly fine with boring, bland food so long as fulfills my high protein diet

>>2055536
I've already read all those books that you listed I could read instead. Your reading comprehension leads me to think you might not actually understand anything you do read, and so I am flushing your opinion down the internet toilet.

>>2055560
>I've already read all those books that you listed I could read instead.
Oh I thought you meant the GRRM series. That's great for you, here's some more

http://sonic.net/~rteeter/grtbloom.html

they're all better than anything GRRM has ever written.

good luck

>>2055560

If you've already read everything good, why are you diluting it by reading that which is bad?

PROTIP: Ignore people who give themselves names on an anonymous image board.

He's probably not read page 1 of any of those books and will die off like the mental dinosaur he is. The books themselves are worth a read, and entertaining. More political than fantasy, but definitely one of the best series out now.

Deep & Edgy proving again why he is deserving of that title.

Carry on.

>>2055574
>an anonymous image board.

>4chan is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images. 4chan's collaborative-community format is copied from one of the most popular forums in Japan, Futaba Channel. Different boards are dedicated to different topics, from Japanese anime, manga, and culture to videogames, music, and photography. Users do not need to register a username before participating in the community.

It doesn't say anything about anonymity there, slick. Stop spreading misinformation and stick to guy fawkes masks and ddosing scientology sites, kthx.

You know, I bet OP really just wanted to hear some sold stuff to see if the book his good or not. Now I never read the book either and it seems like there is just a pissing contest going on where no one is really talking about the qualities or flaws of the book.

>>2055590
>[/lit/] seems like... just a pissing contest going on where no one is really talking about the qualities or flaws of the book.

truer words

>>2055590
this

>>2055536
I'm not the guy you're quoting but...
>If you want to develop the best appreciation of literature, then...
Where did anybody om this thread mention that he/she wanted to "develop the best appreciation of literature" (whatever that means, given it's entirely subjective nature)?
No one here is claiming that GRRM is "good" or "bad" literature. We all know he's basically the literary equivalent to LOST.

Besides, whether or not a piece of media is objectively/critically/whatever-ly considered "good" or "bad" (in this case, of high quality or low) has no bearing on how much a given person will enjoy or take pleasure from that piece of media.

>>2055614
>We all know he's basically the literary equivalent to LOST.

I don't know that. In fact, I would very much disagree.

>>2055614

>given it's[sic] entirely subjective nature

Oh boy, here we go.

>>2055536
>This isn't about arguments, or telling someone what people should or shouldn't do. If you want to develop the best appreciation of literature, then a necessary sufficient precondition for doing so is to avoid when reading shit, and to read and understand the best works of literature.

>best
>shit
>popular, not good
Classics are popular, and that says nothing about whether they're good or not. They're classics because they're popular. That's it.

http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/

>>2055614
>Where did anybody om this thread mention that he/she wanted to "develop the best appreciation of literature"

No-one stated it, therefore I clearly phrased such a sentence as a conditional. If you're not interested in
such and end it doesn't apply to you.

>whatever that means
It means being incredibly familiar with the tools of the literary trade

>given it's entirely subjective nature
What do you mean by 'subjective'?

>>2055627
>Classics are popular, and that says nothing about whether they're good or not.
Classics are popular, but that doesn't mean that everyone who they are popular with are capable of appreciating them. Something that's popular doesn't mean that it is also capable of being appreciated. Millions of people on the earth may know or have heard of Dostoevsky, Joyce, Camus or Pynchon, but maybe only 10% of that million has read more than one book, of that 10% maybe 5% has done some academic work, and maybe 1% having done PhDs on any of them. Popularity does not tell you anything about appreciation. So of course it doesn't tell you anything about them, but that's not why they're good, it's a necessary byproduct in most cases. A family resemblance of critical methods and an entire history of critical and cultural traditions show us why it's good.

>>2055647
>*10% of that million has read more than one book by them

if any, at all

>>2055631
Subjective, in this particular instance, means there is no value in a literary work besides that which the individual gives it.

>>2055631
I am convinced that Deep&Edgy is quentin under a different trip.

They're the same poison in different drinks.

>>2055624
Go for it, disagree. I am perfectly ok with that.

>>2055631
>implying anything other than the dietician and carpenter examples are really relevant in that comic

If it isn't practical, it's entertainment, and if it's entertainment, it's all opinion.

>>2055662

And neither should be imbibed.

>>2055647
With that logic, I can say Twilight is good; just not everyone knows how to appreciate it. Your posts are shit, bro.

So I've never been to /lit/ before and I see this tripfag jerking himself off super hard on the internet.

So he's kinda like /lit/'s village idiot?

>>2055676
yeah, all of the tripfags on /lit/ are terrible human beings so convinced of their own superiority that they make endless threads about themselves.

>>2055669
The entire argument represented in the picture is fallacious. Nothing is of more value (that is "better") than another. It may be that more/many people PREFER one thing over another but that in no way makes it a GOOD or BETTER thing.

If I find myself consistently agreeing with D&E on this subject, does that make me a bad person?

>>2055656
>Subjective, in this particular instance, means there is no value in a literary work besides that which the individual gives it.
But you're just giving an entirely arbitrary and alienated meaning of the word 'subjective' by demarcating its use for this specific instance; you are essentially misusing language in this case. Further, most people when they use 'subjective', do no mean anything as concrete as "there is no value in a literary work besides that which the individual gives it.". This is all a small semantic issue however, not entirely on point. So all you've said is that literature has value relative only to individuals, but who never said it wasn't this way? Of course a literary work has one or other certain value relative to whether you're a literature PhD or a clueless 15 year old. How's any of that subjective?

>>2055676
he's actually a pretty smart guy and he's probably winning the argument itt, although i disagree with him. he's thought about this a lot more than all y'all arguing with him have. but yeah, he's kind of obsessed with pulling this shit in arenas where it's obviously not what the thread is about and generally attention whoring.

>>2055682
No. It just makes you wrong.
Which isn't necessarily bad.

>>2055682
No, it just makes you a sheep and/or D&E himself.

>>2055681
>Nothing is of more value (that is "better") than another
That's because nothing is valuable on its own. You've made the mistake of saying of something that it has or has not value without stating the relative sense in which such value occurs. 'Value' is a fundamentally relative concept, things can only be valued. So of course, people (i.e. PhD experts and fifteen year olds) value things more or less than others.

>>2055681

Well, the salad is demonstrably healthier than the other option. Not necessarily better tasting, but since the picture doesn't argue that . . . meh.

>>2055681
>It may be that more/many people PREFER one thing over another but that in no way makes it a GOOD or BETTER thing.
No, and no-one ever said that was the case in this thread. What I am concerned with here is the critical quality of a work, in which such good/bad valuations can quite validly occur.

>>2055684
I can't understand how it COULDN'T be subjective.
At any rate...
>So all you've said is that literature has value relative only to individuals, but who never said it wasn't this way?

I was under the impression that you were placing an objective value on literature by claiming one ought or ought not to read a given work. Maybe I'm mistaken. However, if you are espousing an ought you are placing objective value in something.

Alright,OP here. I'll be reading it, D&E's arrogance has pushed me into wanting to read it, and from there I will make my own opinions, instead of throwing them out of my ass.

I completely disagree with "reading bad". Only idiots, including you-know-who, think that life is and should be only filled with the "good".

You are pathetic and a waste of time and space.

>>2055702
Ok, that's cool.
But I don't think you're on the same page as anyone else. I KNOW, at least, that you're not on the same page as me. I don't think anyone was debating the critical quality of any works (again, not that something like that can be judged without some arbitrary or circular criteria).

>>2055706
>I can't understand how it COULDN'T be subjective.
But you still haven't told me what 'subjective' is, because, as I've already said, all you've put forward is that literature has value relative only to individuals. That's not subjectivity.

>I was under the impression that you were placing an objective value on literature by claiming one ought or ought not to read a given work. Maybe I'm mistaken.
Of course you are, because I haven't said a single thing about objectivity.


>However, if you are espousing an ought you are placing objective value in something.
I haven't made any ethical prescriptive statements in this thread either, all you non-cognitivist tightasses will you be happy to know.

>>2055694
Yes, the salad is healthy. But why is healthy considered good? Why is it of value? Why is it preferable? It may be a fact that many people find the salad preferable due to it's healthful qualities, but that in no way means that someone OUGHT to value salad as a good thing.

>>2055720
teleological view of man, bud. straight aristotle right here.

Deep&Edgy I want to know waht films you're watching to help develop your taste in cinema

>>2055709
>instead of throwing them out of my ass.
It's funny that I can throw this stuff out of my ass and it's still miles ahead of you. Enjoy your ressentiment-filled reading of GRRM, you tasteless faggot.

>>2055505
I say go for it OP. I'm not a huge fan of fantasy, but I got lured in by the hype. I just started the 4th book, and so far I am enjoying the series. It is entertaining and creative with a bit of mystery, and the magic and fantastical isn't overbearing (main reason I dislike a lot of fantasy).

I do have to say that it seems to be slowing down a bit, and can get tiring at times. He has a tendency to delve further than necessary into the lives and experience of minor characters, and he describes every meal with more detail than any author I've ever read, but overall it is an entertaining read.

Don't listen to the haters on this board. The hipster faggots here seem to think that only hardcore literature is worth reading, yet I doubt they've read half the shit they spout about. Following their lead would be like confining yourself to watching only Bergman, Renoir, Jarmusch, and Tarkovsky. Whereas, any well rounded, unpretentious person can also enjoy Spielberg, Smith, Nolan, Tarantino, Apatow and a wealth of other shit just because it is entertaining.

>>2055724
hey d&e, is acting like an arrogant jackass noble? i think that's pretty base, my friend.

>>2055716
>That's not subjectivity.
No, no it's not. I never intended to give a blanket definition of "subjectivity" only a relative definition based on how the word was being used in the context of the discussion.
>I haven't made any ethical prescriptive statements in this thread either,
It seems to me that claiming one work is of more value than another is an ethically prescriptive statement.

>>2055724

i don't know where you get the effort to go on about the same shit all day

grrm is garbage though

stoplikingwhatidontlike.jpg

>>2055726
Spielberg is an talented and accomplished filmmaker unlike those other guys.

>>2055745
Yes, but pretentious faggots often deny his abilities and accomplishments.

>>2055726
>any well rounded, unpretentious person can also enjoy [shit or mediocore works of art]
It's not simply that people with a more developed appreciation of the concerned form can't enjoy a piece of shit, it's just that they are capable of appreciating works on higher levels than pieces of shit (in contrast to those who can only, through lack of development of appreciation, appreciate pieces of shit), along with those pieces of shit, although obviously because of having developed such appreciation, the value for said pieces of shit will diminish in the face of ever higher and stronger experiences.

>>2055733
>only a relative definition based on how the word was being used in the context of the discussion.
Yes and the context is subjectivity, which is a pretty broad context. You're simply choosing to artificially constrain the pluralities of meanings in favour of declaring yourself the divine arbiter of one particular meaning you've formulated in this thread, which wouldn't tell us a single thing, because of your alienated and synchronic definition, about the actual use of subjectivity in language which is what the context is.

>It seems to me that claiming one work is of more value than another is an ethically prescriptive statement.
Why would you think that? That's no more ethically prescriptive than "gold is of more value than dirt", although in my specific case I've gone even better than such an alienated statement and highlighted the fact that what I've stated is clearly conditional.

>>2055745
Tarantino is pretty talented too, it's just that his only concern as a filmmaker is making really slick pulp film. He's too caught up in his pulp influences IMO

>>2055749
>That's no more ethically prescriptive than "gold is of more value than dirt",
A statement can't be more or less ethically prescriptive than another. It either is or it isn't. "Gold is of more value than dirt." is an ethically prescriptive statement. So is "GRRM is of less literary value than 'x'."

>>2055758
>It either is or it isn't.
That was my point, it' wasn't.

>"Gold is of more value than dirt." is an ethically prescriptive statement
How so?

>"GRRM is of less literary value than 'x'."
How so?

>>2055749
>I've gone even better than such an alienated statement and highlighted the fact that what I've stated is clearly conditional
What you've stated is not conditional. You are stating that something IS shit or that something IS good. Not that you find something to be shit or find something to be good.
If you said "I find/think/believe GRRM to be shit." Then it's all gravy. But your statements have been more along the lines of "GRRM is shit." Which is unsubstantiated pablum.

>still responding to Deep&Edgy

C'mon /lit/, get it together.

I went in this thread hoping to learn if this is a good book or not but it seems like that doesn't matter anymore, it will be better off if this just 404'd

>>2055761
>How so?
By asking that question we have to define "ethics".
How are you using the word?

>>2055765
>You are stating that something IS shit or that something IS good.
Yes, but as I've already said, with conditional clauses and in a critical sense.

>Not that you find something to be shit or find something to be good.
Of course, because that's not what I meant, it may be peripherally true that I also find the relevant items to be shit or good.

>If you said "I find/think/believe GRRM to be shit." Then it's all gravy
Yes, it is, it's even more gravy when I say: an expert in his field believes [x] to be good relative a specific end, which is what I said. In any case, "gold is more valuable than dirt" is not an ethical prescriptive statement, at least in this case (because it is an empirical matter whether such sentences are used in a descriptive or prescriptive sense) it only seems that way because you fail to comprehend that this particular statement and others are always conveyed in a relative sense, and thus all their semantic content and the end to which they are directed is implicitly relative and implicitly conditional. It may be that many who make these statements do in fact deny such conditions and wish for them to be more than such, or prescriptive, but I am not one of these mistaken people.

>>2055770
It's not a good book, it's not a bad book.
Don't ask that question.
I sure enjoyed it, though. You might too.

>>2055774
No, we don't, not yet anyway. I'm asking you a very simple question: for what reason do you think those statements are ethically prescriptive

>Yet another thread derailed by D&E...
>STOP FEEDING THE TROLL

>>2055777
Could share why you enjoyed it and you do bring up point. Good and bad only set fuels for people to bitch without really saying why. I guess things really boil down to the pleasure or enjoyment you get from something and obviously there are reasons for people to enjoy/ not enjoy things. Which I would really like to hear.

Not a piss fight about pointless shit.

>>2055779
I did as you stated I did and interpreted the statements in a vacuum not relative to a specific end. No end or "frame" was put forth.

>>2055781
>derailed by D&E...

>Classic? Worth reading? Or is it just another fantasy book that isn't worth reading.
The guy asked a question and I gave him a perfectly fine answer dude, maybe half the autists on the ass end of our community here don't like it, not my fault, not my problem.

>>2055787
>Could share why you enjoyed it and you do bring up point.
I'll add to this and ask could you tell us what your experience with literature is, and whether you have any academic qualifications in the relevant field.

>>2055793
>I did as you stated I did and interpreted the statements in a vacuum not relative to a specific end. No end or "frame" was put forth.

Then nothing correct or incorrect can be said of them. Next.

>>2055799
>Then nothing correct or incorrect can be said of them
Which means, conversely, that they can say nothing correct or incorrect. Next again.

>>2055795
>whether you have any academic qualifications in the relevant field.

Okay, there is no point in taking you seriously anymore, you wear your name well my friend. Because I bet you are just as qualified as myself.

>>2055803
Wait, you think if nothing can be said of them, then they can say nothing? That does not necessarily follow.

>>2055806
That question has nothing to do with you.

>>2055808
>you think if nothing can be said of them, then they can say nothing?
Where did I say that, you myopic asshole. You seem to have left out the words "correct" and "incorrect" when you were typing that out, you fucking blind moron.

>>2055818
All things must either be correct or incorrect.

Lrn2logic

Idiot.

Real winners declare that ~4,000 pages takes too long to read since life is precious, then spend a couple hours bickering with anonymous 4chan members over it.

How old is D&E?

>>2055795
I have no qualifications and no academic history relative to literature (or any other field of study for that matter). I'm just kind of working off what makes sense to me.

>>2055822
Deep^Edgy is probably doing other things while arguing with us ANons. H'es probably fucking a hot bitch right at this very second

>>2055830
>implying you aren't deep and edgy.

>>2055821
>All things must either be correct or incorrect.
No, because things are either correct or incorrect relative to an end.

There's more than logic in the world, what can't be said can be shown, (which of course, tells you nothing about said world), and as Nietzsche said, logic is the method for understanding the world for those with the least capacity for understanding. Then again, Nietzsche never met Wittgenstein so whatever.

>>2055832
Exactly. Anything relative is either correct or incorrect to the individual. If neither can be said, nothing can be said at all.

>>2055832
>No, because things are either correct or incorrect relative to an end.
hence, if there is no end, there is nothing of which that can be said to be correct or incorrect. The totalising system of logic twists the armbones of something as rich and non-binary as language, or rather sucks the marrow out them, in order to present a world of binaries in which anything that can be said would be right or wrong.

>>2055828
Also, can I ask why you want to know these things about me?
I'm just curious.

>>2055841
It's cute how you hate what you don't understand. It makes you so deep and edgy.

Is anyone going to talk about the god damn book?

>>2055836
>Anything relative is either correct or incorrect to the individual. If neither can be said, nothing can be said at all.
Maybe, if assenting to a proposition was as simple-minded as treating it as correct or incorrect, as if correctness or incorrectness functioned in any way as concrete in the constant flux of what is the mind of the individual. But as far as saying is concerned, I'll repeat myself; what can't be said can be shown.

>>2055848
What makes you think I don't understand?

>>2055828
Also, also to add to this.
I can't share WHY I enjoyed the series but I could share WHAT I enjoyed about it.

>>2055856
You think logic is by necessity binary.

>>2055842
because I'd have little reason for valuing your opinion if you had no experience or talent in appreciating literature or if you weren't similar to myself in thematic interests

>>2055854
The argument has nothing to do with showing. It has to do with whether something that is neither incorrect nor correct can be said. Please provide a counter-example. Say something that is neither correct nor incorrect.

>>2055858
I never said I thought logic was by necessity binary, I never said anything about necessity.

>>2055857
>I can't share WHY I enjoyed the series but I could share WHAT I enjoyed about it.
Actually, what you enjoyed about it could as matter of induction tell us quite a significant amount about why you enjoyed it. If you enjoyed it because it had, purely for example, a lot of dragons in it, we might induce that you simply like to read books with a lot of dragons in them, an thus for someone like myself, that wouldn't hold much reason to value your opinion, because I don't give a shit about dragons. For example, and as a matter of induction.

>>2055870
You never said it, but you certainly implied it here:
>>2055841
Otherwise, what is your problem with logic?

>>2055864
>The argument has nothing to do with showing.
What's the argument?

>Say something that is neither correct nor incorrect.
"hello"

>>2055877
Hello is correct.

>>2055875
>You never said it, but you certainly implied it here:
No, I never implied it, and I especially never implied anything about necessity.

>what is your problem with logic?
I don't have a problem with logic, I find it very helpful.

>>2055881
So you don't think it sucks the marrow out of life? Was that just some immature spleen venting?

>>2055880
How is "hello" correct?

>>2055883
>So you don't think it sucks the marrow out of life?
Sure it does, but that doesn't mean I find it to be a problem. I've got plenty marrow to spare, logic doesn't in toto dictate my understanding of the world.

>>2055886
Well, despite your best efforts to make that last sentence unintelligible, I'll assume you mean you don't need logic to dictate your life. Sure you don't. If you enjoy self-delusion.

>>2055893
>I'll assume you mean you don't need logic to dictate your life
But you've jumped from "my understanding of the world" to life. Logic helps me in all sorts of areas in life, but as I said, it doesn't dictate my understanding of the world.

>>2055870
I enjoyed the divergent plot and seeing how the characters came into and out of contact with one another. I enjoyed seeing how the actions of one character distant in the setting from another could affect that other character. I enjoyed watching some of the characters grow and change and seeing how multiple characters reacted differently to the same event. There's a neat Bildungsroman sort of thing going on as many of the characters are young and/or at pivotal ages forced into extraordinary situations. I like the setting on a purely aesthetic level. I always enjoy seeing fantasy and sci-fi universes the "world building" aspect of the genre. The fictional history or how science/magic/technology is handled in a given setting. I liked the novels purely as escapism and flights of fancy.

>>2055900
It isn't a jump. By life, I meant worldview. Either way, you enjoy self delusion. How deep and edgy of you.

>>2055903
>I enjoyed the divergent plot and seeing how the characters came into and out of contact with one another.
Cool bro, tells me you like one of the most basic things in a work of literature. Good stuff.

>I enjoyed seeing how the actions of one character distant in the setting from another could affect that other character
see above

>There's a neat Bildungsroman sort of thing going on as many of the characters are young and/or at pivotal ages forced into extraordinary situations
Tells me you don't appear to understand the classification of bildunsgroman not to apply it mistakenly (i.e. to anything other than as a classification of a text).

>I always enjoy seeing fantasy and sci-fi universes the "world building" aspect of the genre. The fictional history or how science/magic/technology is handled in a given setting. I liked the novels purely as escapism and flights of fancy.
Good for you dude, we don't have anything in common in that regard.

So clearly for me at least, I wouldn't have much to value out of what you've said. Perhaps others of similar disposition would.

captcha: losing lyingmen
i shit you not, applies to half the assholes itt

>>2055907
>By life, I meant worldview.
Wow, well that's just retarded, isn't it?

"By the way I didn't actually want to sound like I made a moronic jump, so I actually just wanted to sound like a retard"

gj bro

>>2055919
>captcha: losing lyingmen
i shit you not, applies to half the assholes itt
It probably applies to half the assholes on this website.
Maybe even half the assholes out there past my window.

>>2055940
>Maybe even half the assholes out there past my window.
His window? You seem to be implying that D&E doesn't live in his parents' basement.

>>2055958
I was actually talking about MY window.
Not DE's. I actually DO live in my mom's basement. But I still have windows...

>>2055923
Not really. Someone's life is the totality of their experiences. What do you think shapes and forms our world view. The two are so intertwined anyone but an idiot could extrapolate what I was saying with ease. Sorry you're too stupid to infer things.

>>2055969

>Someone's life is the totality of their experiences

I'll give you this for the sake of argument.

>What do you think shapes and forms our world view.

I think our life and, by your logic, our experiences shape our worldview. This is not the same as saying ones 'life' is synonymous with ones 'worldview.'

ever hear of "a matter of worldview and death"? how about pro-worldview campaigners?
ever had a worldview-long urge to visit the pyramids?

lol, etc

ITT: proof lit does not read books and tripfags are pathetic.

This is why I don't come here.

dne, what aspects of the ASOIAF series did you find lacking?

>>2055998
ITT: Deep&Edgy spends several hours debating something totally useless on the internet.

>>2056059
He's a uti/lit/arian who realizes this board offers richer insight into nature, language, and people than any gaudy unread classics floating about.

>>2056058
The fact that expert critics don't consider it a work of serious literature

>>2056072
No you're thinking of onionring

>>2056072
He's a utilitarian who spends most of his time making everyone unhappy? Fuck man, the value of philosophy is in its use, not in how well you understand it. (paraphrased Epictetus)

>>2056075
What I meant was: what aspects of the book does dne find lacking?

>>2056079
He hasn't read it and he's not going to waste his time on it, don't you understand?

Jesus Christ, OP if I were you I would give up on this thread and read some amazon reviews.

Just more proof that tripfags ruin every thread they touch. Are there many here on /lit/? I haven't been here since the first month or so it opened.

>>2056084
I won't say that Martin is as good as Gershwin, but D&E is the kind of guy who would hate Gershwin for being "mainstream"

>>2056087
That month was a good month.

>>2056084
Hmmm, how to reword. He refers to the series as bad. A conclusion. I merely wish to know which aspects of the series led him to that conclusion. The premises.

>>2056092
It's too deep & edgy for deep & edgy

Seriously, read the book (and the rest of the series that's currently out).
It's a really well done political fantasy adventure book.
Political? Yep, there's many plots involving different families and castles making/breaking truces and shit.
It's really fucking good.

>>2056092
It's a popular contemporary fantasy book, and those are almost always terrible, so it's fair for him to conclude, by induction, that this book is terrible. Got it?

>>2056099
Iliad and Odyssey were contemporary pop fantasy etc.

>>2056104
Except they aren't any longer.

>>2056099
Perhaps I should ask the question another way. dne regards the series A Song of Ice and Fire as "bad". What particular aspects of the series A Song of Ice and Fire lead him to conclude that it is, in fact, bad?

>>2056108
All work has to be created with the dimension of time, and the aim of timelessness, but talent in judging good work is not in merely picking up whatever stands the test of time. That is merely a testament to the skill of the artist. True skill is in judging at the present moment what might have the quality of timelessness.

>>2056117
And Deep&Edgy has convinced himself, without having read it, that the ASOIAF series does not.

>mfw I agree with almost everything D&E has said in this thread
>mfw I have no face

>>2055822

Gentleman, we have winrar.

D&E is a silly little twat and I can't imagine why anyone is bothering to argue with him.

And anyone who waves around 4chan FAQ without grasping the indisputable fact that ANONYMITY is one of the driving forces behind this sites popularity is truly a fucking moronic cunt... one who is so sad and lonely in real life that he feels compelled to create an identity on a website geared for anonymity (that you can even argue this is side-splittin' laughable) and condescendingly defend it tooth and nail when 99.9% of the sites posters on that very site are able to participate without needing a spotlight to follow them around threads.

tl;dr --> D&E is a faggot

>>2056099
>so it's fair for him to conclude, by induction, that this book is terrible.

There's plenty of classic fiction from various time periods that could have been easily judged the same way based on other works by other authors who wrote about similar things when they were considered contemporary.

Only, that's not a rational way to judge a specific work at all. It may be a good way to judge an entire genre, if for whatever reason you wanted to weigh literary genres against each other.

I really wish D&E would make more philosophy threads.

D&E if you are reading this, know that I there is no hope for the people in this thread. Please take your efforts elsewhere, where they are useful.

>>2056218

As I wrote a couple posts above, D&E is a twat. A mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, silly little twat.

When he isn't siccing his army of clumsily constructed straw men on discussions that are clearly better off without his participation, he is abusing his thesaurus in order to confer some air of pretentious superiority to his posts to convince other basement dwelling neckbeards that he has some fucking clue on the subject he is attempting to chime in on.

The only thing I agree with you on... is that he should take his "efforts" elsewhere.

>>2056308
Grow up and stop being so butthurt.

>>2056312

LOL

If you think I am foaming at the mouth and posting comments in between waving my pitchfork and throwing rope around tree branches, you're off your fucking rocker.

I am simply calling it like it is... and putting it in big red crayons so even morons like you can see what's up.

It's a good series.

The plot is intriguing and hold you for the most part; the style is interesting, yet simple to read. Character wise there is a really good play with archetypes, somewhat rarely seen one at that.

Overall it's a great book, the last two of the series had a little decline in quality, but overall it's still worth reading.

>>2056312
Grow up and stop being D&E ;)

...don't threads like this deserve to be derailed? I mean, in this golden age of everything being free and nobody having to pay for anything, finding out whether you'll like a book or not is as simple as googling it. As a plus, the answer will also be more reliable than asking a bunch of people you don't even know.

An exception could be made for
>I started this book and it's shit. Am I missing something/does it get better?

>>2056314
Oh you so totally mad.

>>2056324
>...don't threads like this deserve to be derailed?

They sometimes eventually turn into a discussion of the actual book in question, which I guess is what /lit/ is for.

Even if OP could easily google opinions on it or download the ebook and see how he likes it, threads like this sometimes actually generate discussion that doesn't devolve into some debate about why old bullshit fantasy is intellectually superior to new bullshit fantasy.

LOL did anyone see this:

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/george-rrmartin-guild.php

>>2055884
>How is "hello" correct?
Since you answered the question with acceptable input.

>>2056607

I don't think you know what correct means.

>>2055508
>People taking this seriously

>>2056315
>It's a good series.
Who are you to say this?

>The plot is intriguing and hold you for the most part; the style is interesting,
Plots are stuctural explanations, not story progessions, if you told someone a text's plot rather than their story, there's very little chance you would hold their attention very well, maybe you're an exception. "that's interesting" is not a textual criticism, that's you saying you found the "style" interesting. How is this to be of any use to anyone unless they know who you are and what you are interested in to see whether their outlook is similar

>simple to read
Ulysses is simple to read if you're a top scholar in the relevant area. Doesn't tell you anything critical about the text.

>Character wise there is a really good play with archetypes, somewhat rarely seen one at that.
In what ingenious way does GRRm utilise archetypes? All you've done here is deferred a critical judgement and put a guarantee that he does something well with a general literary concept, you don't tell us how, and so you don't tell us anything helpful.

>>2056794
I love you more than you will ever know

>>2056794
and let me add to this by saying
>The plot is intriguing and hold you for the most part
This is a virtually worthless remark also because whether you like this or that plot is purely relative to your thematic interests, and as I've said, you didn't tell us anything about yourself so that we could determine whether we could relate to you

>>2056794
1.Who are you to say it's not, if you are to prohibit others from expressing what they believe to be a valid judgement.

2. Christ, if someone says the thought the story was interesting, then don't go into semantics..

3. For an average person, it's an approachable story. Why do you have to bring in Ulysses except to show some knowledge in a way that doesn't even approach the problem?

>>2056802
Because he's more interested in establishing the truth than allowing you to persist in bullshit illusions. What you're saying here is this: "Why do you have to be a big meany and argue with me, even if I'm wrong you should just let me enjoy the series." Which may be the best thing to do, socially, but philosophically it's terrible.

>>2056800
Hate to break it to you, but ya've been arguing with me this entire time! Aha hahahaha I'm sure you'll find my reputation on this site is irrefutable and my word a sacred bond. So go back to your hole and let the adults speak.

Chow, bitch. ;)

>>2056805
No, I'm saying that he doesn't even approach the porblem correctly, and just masks it with fancy language.

>>2056812
"Don't get into semantics! It's good enough for an average person!"

What that says to me is: we should not think deeply about this. People enjoy it and we should not think beyond that.

>>2056806
It's spelled 'ciao'

>>2056812
how do you approach a problem if not with language? what does the language being 'fancy' according to you have to do with it?

>>2056817
The person he was responding to had one single thing he wanted to express, a judgement that he thought the book's story was interesting. I consider trying to pull the conversation into a cul-de-sac of the difference between plots and structures to be avoiding the point. The point is simple: the poster considered the story interesting.

>>2056828
D&E had only one thing said that even approached this central point:: Who are you to think a book good or bad?

Is this even a fucking argument?

>>2056802
>Who are you to say it's not
A guy who reads a lot of classic literature, philosophy and value theory, and who has an appreciation of literature that spans multiple movements. But I'm not even interested in saying it's bad, because for one thing this isn't about me, for another there are plenty of people who know more about literature than me who can express the same evaluation more professionally and critically. I'm not stopping anyone from expressing a judgement, validity has nothing to do with it, but value has. As far as I'm concerned, if you're just some clueless fag who's read 3 books in his life, your critical judgment is not going to be very helpful to me, nor will any other sense you convey the judgement in because you told us nothing about you in order to relate to you.

>Christ, if someone says the thought the story was interesting, then don't go into semantics
This isn't semantics, everyone understood what you meant. It's just that we can't get anything very useful from that because WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT YOU, so the only way someone could at all benefit from "total stranger here, this book was interesting" would be if they were simply looking for more and more people to say a book was interesting, which provides virtually no information about the book or the people who read it.

>>2056802
>For an average person, it's an approachable story
For an average person, Twilight is an "approachable" story. The average person does not have a higher developed appreciation of literature. So okay, I guess, this book has an "approachable" story for average people, good for you if you're an average person. Next to nothing valuable in this judgment even if you're an "average person" because of the somewhat vast, gargantuan number of books out there that can claim the same benefit.

>Why do you have to bring in Ulysses except to show some knowledge in a way that doesn't even approach the problem?
I brought in Ulysses to demonstrate that what you originally said, "it's simple to read" is absolutely worthless, because such a judgment is relative to the reader, and some texts are simple to some readers, others aren't to others. So I was correct in addressing what you originally said, which was worthless.

>>2056838
No, I'm not that poster, his review was simply his personal judgement.

As for me, I'm someone interested in how contemporary art will be judged with the dimension of time.

>>2056841
>what you originally said, "it's simple to read" is absolutely worthless, because such a judgment is relative to the reader, and some texts are simple to some readers, others aren't to others.
And to clarify this: I'm saying it's worthless because it's relative; it's worthless because, as I've said, we don't know what sort of reader you are

>>2056847
>i'm *not saying it's worthless because it's relative
fucking hell

>>2056841
Now let's go deeper. I propose that the story has a strong connection to the spirit of the times that we are in, and that ambiguous relationships between good and bad are a consequence of press actions since the middle of this century, and that the book does well to address these necessary shifts in the thoughts of the audience.

>>2056841
I propose that a complexity in the power structure communicated in an approachable way is an achievement in technique. That there is no need to mask complex thoughts with overcomplex words, and the aim of language is to elucidate the structures that are being discussed.

>>2056852
*sorry, last century

>>2056852
>Now let's go deeper. I propose that the story has a strong connection to the spirit of the times that we are in, and that ambiguous relationships between good and bad are a consequence of press actions since the middle of this century
Coolio, now we're getting somewhere, even if it is the totally wrong direction and what you've said is riddled with problems taken on their own as ideologic and hermeneutic statements, but hey, still might be of some use to some readers who read for one deluded purpose rather than others. I mean, it's totally worthless to me as an appreciator of skilfull writing because you could more or less say the same thing about dostoevsky, or any other writer in which the empty term "social commentary" could be similarly applied, and it wouldn't tell you anything about the quality of the writing.

>>2056870
You'll have to define "skillful writing" for me.

>>2056861
>I propose that a complexity in the power structure communicated in an approachable way is an achievement in technique
Well that's totally misguided because as I said, some texts are approachable to some people, others aren't to others, etc. You haven't even specified to whom such approachability applies.

>there is no need to mask complex thoughts with overcomplex words
same thing as above, something that's complex to one person is entirely simple to another.

>the aim of language is to elucidate the structures that are being discussed
That's one aim of language in certain discourses, not necessarily the artistic ones though. In fact I should think such an end is anathema in many cases to artistic work and technique.

>>2056875
a family resemblance of relative conventions

>>2056880
Who is the book being written for? A work may be easily understood by a certain population of readers, but what does that matter? When the writer is creating a world, he's not creating a world for everybody, he's creating it for those he wants to share his world with. Obviously, he would use language that would be able to communicate his ideas to his target population

>>2056895
If you're using family resemblance, wouldn't you have even less grounds to say that Martin is not a "skilled writer"?

>>2056895
>A work may be easily understood by a certain population of readers, but what does that matter?
It matters because a book written for imbeciles and halfwits with 0 understanding of literature may fulfill such an end spectacularly, that does not mean it is an exemplar book, it means it's fulfilled the end of being a shit book spectacularly.

seriously dude are you going to come up with better than this shitty filler garbage you're asking me or am I just going to be here twiddling my thumbs waiting for a real response

>>2056907
>If you're using family resemblance, wouldn't you have even less grounds to say that Martin is not a "skilled writer"?
Why would you think that?

>>2056910
So you're saying that the average population doesn't deserve to have their senses developed by works that are also approachable? And that only works for the super-intelligent consumer are to be considered "worthy"?

>>2056912
I'm no philosopher, but wouldn't all I have to do is prove that Martin has a resemblance to a resemblance etc. anyone you consider a good author. You can't draw a boundary.

>>2056928
oh boy, another fucking "SO YOU'RE JUST [x]".

>you're saying that the average population doesn't deserve to have their senses developed by works that are also approachable?
Where did I say that?
Average people deserve whatever they deserve, I don't give a shit, nothing I've said has anything to do with "deserving" anything. Subjecting yourself to shitty literature constantly, does not develop your appreciation of literature, and as I said about twenty fucking times now, approachability is relative, this alone tells us nothing about the object or the audience.

Jesus, I thought /v/ is the most pretentious hipster board on 4chan.

>>2056945

/v/ doesn't even know what pretentious means.

>>2056940
Wow, You made that yourself? That is sad, I mean I know all tripfags are sad, sad people, but that is just.... I can not find words to describe how sad that is.

>>2056940
Let's consider this chair, it's made for the average person who doesn't know any better. Is it a worse chair because of its audience or not? And yet if an ordinary person experiences this chair made for him by an artist, will not his senses develop?

>>2056931
>I'm no philosopher, but wouldn't all I have to do is prove that Martin has a resemblance to a resemblance etc. anyone you consider a good author
You say that like it's not a significantly timestaking and academic process; the degree of resemblance is what is important. You could say that Martin has a resemblance to Joyce because he writes in english, but that would mean fuck all as far as similarity in critical convention is concerned. You could say that he uses intertextuality, just like Joyce uses intertextuality, but again that tells us fuck all because you're pointing out superficial resemblances rather than highlighting whether there are important ones (i.e. the same ingeniouity displayed in the use of intertextuality in the text). So it's nowhere near as simple as you seem to be making it out to be.

>You can't draw a boundary.
What could possibly make you think something so alarmist and extremist as that?

>>2056953
>Is it a worse chair because of its audience or not?
I didn't say it's a worse chair because of its audience, it's a worse chair because placed in a critical context of the entire series of craftsmens' achievements as far as chairs go

>if an ordinary person experiences this chair made for him by an artist, will not his senses develop?
No, because there's nothing in the chair that requires the development of appreciation to totally appreciate (as far as I can tell); that's why it's average, after all. The only way it would develop one's appreciation is through the ability to recognise that the chair is entirely average in contrast to better chairs, or entirely shitty in contrast to all the best chairs ever made.

>>2056969
And yet the Eames plywood chairs are considered the best chairs of the 20th century. (Time Magazine)
Revolutionary in material, the possibilities of plastic form, suitability to function. Produced for the average man.

Wow...Deep & Edgy is a really sad person.

What do you do for a living D&E?

Great thread guys. Keep up the good work.

Whenever I come on /lit/ I see this thread or some variation of it. If only I had a pound for everytime Deep&Edgy posts that Schopenhauer thing...

>>2056974
>(Time Magazine)
lol time magazine. Can you point me to said article? Is the author one of the best carpenters living? Is it the length of several PhDs? Because that's a conservative estimate of what would be needed of such a study in order to say of any chair that it was the best produced type in a century (grains would need to be investigated, form, function, aesthetic appeal, all of which are problems with histories themselves several PhDs long). Fucking time magazine, lol get fucking real. Time Magazine also put Watchmen at the top of its list of top 100 graphic novels, for fuck sake. Come back when you've a got an actual source, nitwit.

>the best chairs of the 20th century
that's one century out of how many, 21? More?

>>2056990
Let's face it, you have no understanding of art.

an example of the painstaking research TIME magazine does into these ALL TIME rating undertakings

>Welcome to the massive, anguished, exalted undertaking that is the ALL TIME 100 books list. The parameters: English language novels published anywhere in the world since 1923, the year that TIME Magazine began, which, before you ask, means that Ulysses (1922) doesn't make the cut.

I mean, lol, can you really take them seriously?

>>2056991
Grain of wood. The point is that it makes the grain of wood irrelevant. It's the cheapest shit you can find, transformed through simple steam into something beautiful and usable for everyone. That's it's significance.

>>2056952
I'm pretty sure he's autistic. Just ignore him, move on, and maybe /lit/ will be a better place.

>>2056995
In any case, all I've proved is that for all of D&E's artistic edginess, he's as clueless as the next guy about what it is that make a piece of art. That's okay, good, mass-produced art is here to educate you.

>>2056995
I'm autistic for realz and I think D&E comes off as a massive faggot.

>>2056990

>What do you do for a living D&E?

>>2056994
>It's the cheapest shit you can find, transformed through simple steam into something beautiful and usable for everyone
Which means that it's exactly AVERAGE. Even the term beautiful there is contradictory, because if something's beautiful it's not mundane, it's beautiful for some set of people or individual or in contrast to something ugly or mundane. It's not possible for something to be beautiful for everyone on the fucking planet because that totally defeats the relative essence of beauty. Like saying some action is virtuous if everyone can fucking do it, as though we don't think that people who can run faster than anyone else have a such virtue precisely BECAUSE not everyone can.

>>2056996
This isn't about pieces of art, and I never claimed to know much about fucking carpentry. I know enough to know that time fucking magazine does not tell you very much about the quality of a piece of work.

I hate everyone in this thread. You all need to reevaluate how you're spending your finite time upon this planet. That said,
>Time Magazine also put Watchmen at the top of its list of top 100 graphic novels, for fuck sake

Of course they did...because it is the most important and revolutionary work in the medium.

>>2057004
The point is, and was, that it is retarded that the citizens of the first world are so rich, and so retarded in terms of taste. If art is confined merely to those who have means and taste, why? Why not educate everyone through their everyday average tools of use? Why shouldn't art be cheap? Why shouldn't art be for everyone? Art isn't meant to let one class feel superior to another.

>>2057004

What do you do for a living D&E?

>>2057009

This implies that everyone is capable or willing, which may not be true.

>>2057009
>The point is, and was, that it is retarded that the citizens of the first world are so rich, and so retarded in terms of taste.
Cool, that's not anything to do with the focus of my points though.

>If art is confined merely to those who have means and taste, why? Why not educate everyone through their everyday average tools of use? Why shouldn't art be cheap? Why shouldn't art be for everyone? Art isn't meant to let one class feel superior to another.
What the fuck does any of this have to do with anything I've said, I mean really. Do you want to make another thread for this shit or what

>>2057012
Most people want to be proud of their homes. But they buy kitschy shit because they are not educated. They want beauty, but this closed circle of artist, dealer, critic and client isn't letting them in.

>>2057011
what do you do for a living DandE

>Currently reading aSoIaF

>See aSoIaF thread

>"Cool, let's compare opinions with other fans"

>Thread devolved into trolling by annoying tripfags

>Every fucking time.

Why can't Deep&Edgy just let people who like the series discuss it in peace?

>>2057023

OP asked if it was worth reading. D&E answered in the negative.

>>2057014
Your argument thus far spans 16 hours.
The majority of which it seems you've been present.
I realize it's the weekend and no school, but don't you have anything better to do?

This is will my only post, I'm leaving

>>2057023
Just ignore him. It shouldn't be too hard.

>>2057023
You want to talk about aSoIaF, that's fine, I'm not stopping you nor is anyone else beyond the discretion of the mods. But when you or any other idiot in this thread says of this series says it's "good" with even the slightest pretension to critical evaluation, you can expect to get called on it, respond or not. And the same will go for all the morons who say it's good in any other sense, and don't even tell us anything about them so that all we're left with is some guy on the internet telling us the book he read is good, which is entirely fucking useless, and you can expect me to point out this sort of mouth-farting too.

>>2057004

>relative essence of beauty

beauty isn't relative. you just have to be smart and experienced enough to recognize true beauty

>>2057004
If D&E says that it's average, but the world's critics say it's beautiful, who is right?

>>2057028
>This is will my only post, I'm leaving

way to fuck up the only post you made itt illiteratesome

>>2057028

He's autistic so when he sees people who he doesn't even know and will never have any effect on his life like something that he doesn't like it flares up his autismals so he needs to spend all day posting about it and making his cute little charts and pictures and stuff. Just ignore him and move on. If people took that advice more often every board here could be improved.

>>2057037
>beauty isn't relative
I'd like you to give me a single example of beauty that isn't relative.

>>2057038
>If D&E says that it's average, but the world's critics say it's beautiful, who is right?
It's not a case of "being right", it's a case of whose account is more conducive to the end of critical evaluation, and that's an empirical matter conducted under relative standards. My account may, as a matter of possibility, be based on stronger values more conducive to such an end by the possibility of said critic's account being conducted under totally misguided values, or it may be that the consensus of critical opinion is more conducive. None of this matters though, because you will not find critical consensus that aSoIaF books are of the highest works of literary achievement. (because someone saying something is "beautiful" means practically nothing on its own)

Not that I am one or anything, but how much of a retard do you have to be to lose an argument against an autistic person, I mean really.

D&E... still being a sandy little twat.

Here's what's up with AGOT (and the series, in general):

a) These books all made the NY Times Best Sellers list.
b) GRRM has been referred to as the "American Tolkien".
c) He made Time Magazine's 2011 list of 100 Most Influential People
d) These books were picked up by HBO to be made into a series
e) Series picked up for a second season after the first episode
f) AGOT is averaging 4.4/5 stars on Amazon, based on over 2,000 customer reviews.
g) While the quality of the books has admittedly declined in the past two novels, this has inspired NUMEROUS websites and forums to crop up bitching and moaning about GRRM's dedication to the series... if the series sucked balls, why would so many people waste so much time creating forums and websites to whine, investigate, and discuss the direction of the series?

So, to answer the OP: "is it worth reading?"

Gee, what do you think??

So much pretentious faggotry and buttmad itt

>>2057128
I think I will wait for the movie.

>>2057139

Careful, though... D&E might skulk out of his mommy's basement to hop on your nuts over it not being 'Casablanca' material.

ITT:

DE has a period over trivial distinctions between relativity and subjectivity.
anon bathes in it.

>>2057128

Twillight:

1.) sold over 100 million copies globally
2.) translated into 37 different languages
3.) biggest selling book of 2008 and the second biggest selling of 2009
4.) #5 on the New York Times Best Seller list within a month of its release
5.) Twilight was ranked #26 in USA Today's list of "Bestselling Books of Last 15 Years
6.) Meyer was ranked #49 on Time magazine's list of the "100 Most Influential People in 2008

you see what I did here?

>>2057128
a) All of Justin Bieber's albums are certified Platinum
b) Bieber has been referred to as a "the best thing since Michael Jackson"
c) He made Time Magazine's list of "100 Most Influential People"
d) His performance were picked by Paramount Pictures to be made into a feature-length film
e) It grossed 13 million dollars on its first day
f) Justin Bieber's Never Say Never is averaging over 4.5 on Amazon.com
g) While the quality of his music has remained the same throughout his career, this has inspired NUMEROUS websites and forums to crop up bitching and moaning about Bieber's actual talent... if his music sucked balls, why would so many people waste so much time creating forums and websites to whine, investigate, and discuss the direction of his music?

So, to answer OP, "is he worth listening to?"

Gee, what do you think???

You guys simply don't understand D&E's methods.

He hopes that by showing you what real philosophy looks like you will go and explore it on your own, and become informed about it.

>>2057161
But philosophy is worthless

>>2057128
>>2057154
>>2057158

lol at these big ol' ad populi and fallacious appeals to authority

>>2057154
>>2057158

What I think is, if they are that popular and successful...

...they MIGHT be "worth reading" or "worth listening to". Doesn't mean you in particular will love them (or even like them), but that a large enough portion of the population enjoys them that it is worth a shot.

There was no comment made towards 'classic' status, simply whether or not there was a high likelihood of OP finding it to be enjoyable reading material.

Based on the evidence available about the series and the limited information on the OP, then yes, it might very well be "worth reading".

See what I did there, fellas? Any other brain busters you'd like to throw out there?

>>2057166

Yet again, you miss the point.

But, yet again, "nice" try.

>>2057170
What's the point you're trying to make? lol, that a lot of people like something?

a few months ago, i was here calling this stuff escapist basement dweller bullshit.
i watched an episode of a agot hbo. was hooked. after season was over i decided to read the books. And i have to say, i was very impressed. Until he sewed the wolfs head on rob's neck and turned Jamie Lannister into a cripple.i was like what the fuck yo and tossed the book in exaggerated anger. then i returned and finished it the same night. that was the third book. ive read them all and liked them all.
I would trade in all the memory space in my brain reserved for the entirety of kafka's work which i force-read for the sake of its renown, just so i can retain word for word the entire clagane oberyn battle.

fuck what they say
asoiaf is gold

>>2057171

Ok, the point I wanted to make with the Twillight thing, is to simply show >>2057128 that all this stupid lists don't matter. It simply shows, that a lot of people read / enjoy one thing. It doesn't say anything about quality.

Nothing more.

>>2057179
okay dude I thought you were one guy just making three lists

>>2057171

That if OP is wondering if a particular fantasy book is "worth reading", and that a) many people who FOLLOW fantasy agree it is one of the better books in the genre, and that b) the series, itself, has seen great success after going mainstream... then yes, it might be "worth reading".

If, from the data available, we can conclude that the vast majority of people who read AGOT find it "worth reading", then we can also assume that the OP can very well find himself in that vast majority and find the book "worth reading".

>>2057177

no one says they're not gold, except Deep&Edgy (a lifeless pasty fuck who dedicates at least 40 hours per week to "trolling" this board) and 4 or 5 other pedantic fucks who haven't read it.

>>2057177

you raped her. your murdered her. you killed her child

>>2057183
>if OP is wondering if a particular fantasy book is "worth reading", an
firstly, we don't know anything about OP and what he values in literature, so you're going on strong guesses here, although to be fair I don't think he's looking for anything on the level of people such as myself

>a) many people who FOLLOW fantasy agree it is one of the better books in the genre, a
>b) the series, itself, has seen great success after going mainstream... then yes, it might be "worth reading".

All this is fine so long as you don't actually think either of these things determine the critical quality of a text, if OP wants to read books because they're popular and he thinks he'd like popular books, good for him. If he wants to read good, i.e. well-written, books, he should look at the post just after OP.

>>2057179

I am not going to waste my time arguing about "quality" because I do not have the time to be drawn into silly pseudo-philosophical discussions about what constitutes quality, enjoyment, satisfaction, etc.

I am also not saying that popularity guarantees you will love or even like something. Just that if there is a book that has been met with cum shots from critics and fans that has also managed to go mainstream with success... it might be worth looking into.

Especially if the only thing holding you back is the author's name in "MEGA HUGE FONT".

Have you ever wondered D&E why you spend so much time and energy arguing about this?

No, this is not one of those amateur psychoanalysis questions pointed out in >>2056940 , I'm simply curious whether you have a specific purpose in mind when you tirelessly engage in this particular debate.

Do you actually care if these people stop reading what you perceive as "intellectual poison" or do you just do this because you enjoy winning arguments and being recognized as intelligent? Or is it something else entirely?

>>2057177

Pretty much the same here. I'm obsessed with it now.

>>2057197

>firstly, we don't know anything about OP and what he values in literature, so you're going on strong guesses here, although to be fair I don't think he's looking for anything on the level of people such as myself

Dude asks if a book is legit, saying he is skeptical due to large font on the cover.

Do you honestly expect me to waste time with an extensive Q&A to determine his psychological profile and what, exactly, he values in literature?

He is asking *my* opinion on the book; therefore, his values are irrelevant. He can take my opinions and see how they mesh with his expectations all on his very own.

Isn't D&E an avid gamer?

How does that fit into the whole "life is short, and both time and strength limited" ?

>>2057198
>I am not going to waste my time arguing about "quality" because I do not have the time to be drawn into silly pseudo-philosophical discussions about what constitutes quality, enjoyment, satisfaction, etc.
They're not particularly hard or pseudo-philosophical questions if you've ever gotten good at any hobby in your life, but whatever, keep being a clueless moron.

>if there is a book that has been met with cum shots from critics and fans that has also managed to go mainstream with success... it might be worth looking into.
Except you haven't pointed out exactly who the critics concerned are, or the fans. If we knew exactly who, and I pretty much do, then for me there'd be a lot less incentive because in either case those people don't demonstrate highest standards of critical appreciation. Couple that with the fact that plenty of total garbage goes mainstream every day, along with god knows how much useless shit we are subjected to in every hobby every day; the important question (at least for people on my level) isn't as simple as whether something is "worth" looking into, it's about whether we can afford spending our precious time so easily on what could entirely turn out to be total shit, and as such the criterion for evaluation in our case will be much higher than some bored, clueless nitwit looking to waste a couple bucks on a potboiler. Myself and similar people are the types of folks Schopenhauer was writing, quite rightly, for. It simply does not apply to others who do not particularly care about the quality of their reading otherwise.

>>2057197

>firstly, we don't know anything about OP and what he values in literature, so you're going on strong guesses here, although to be fair I don't think he's looking for anything on the level of people such as myself

Jesus...

>>2057198

Nah I simply wanted to say, that I don't like arguments like 'sold x million copies', 'was listed random top 100 list' and so on.

Also I read the books and I enjoyed them.

D&E should read these books for the sole purpose of bringing more colour and topics of debate to these threads.

>>2057203
>He is asking *my* opinion on the book; therefore, his values are irrelevant.
Except you specifically made a recommendation to him on entirely arbitrary and unproven assumptions, so you're taking his values for granted. And furthermore, even if you were concerned with giving your opinion, you haven't even told us anything about who you are, whether you know fuck all about literature, what your thematic interests are, etc. So you haven't given us anything to relate to or any way to evaluate your opinion.

>>2057209

>it's about whether we can afford spending our precious time so easily on what could entirely turn out to be total shit

Not even worth responding to any more of your silly, puerile tripe after reading this.

If you such a miser wrt how you spend your "precious time", then I honestly question your fucking sanity since you seem to be such a spendthrift on this board engaging in moronic discussions and creating hilariously embarrassing charts.

But, hey, if the real world doesn't do it for ya, I guess you need to look elsewhere for people to notice you... and if you can't do it by being a worthwhile contributor, you might as well troll for reactions.

>>2057209

Ok here is a question, if you have already answered it please direct me to the appropriate post.

The books you cited have been certified throughout history as classic books.

How did they come to be considered classics? What steps does a text have to go through in order to be considered a classic, or to be admitted into the club of canon?

>>2057223
>Not even worth responding to any more of your silly, puerile tripe after reading this.
Of course it's not, don't let the door kick you up your butthurt ass on the way out, moron.

this thread is fucking hilarious

>>2057222

If OP didn't feel a need to specify any conditions for the reviews he was seeking, I don't feel the need to offer any.

Thanks for playing, though,.

>>2057226
a family resemblance of relative conventions

see also this image:
>>2056957

Is it just me, or is this guy a little bit of an alitist snob?

>>2057230

Seriously though, I'm not saying you're wrong, but if your time is so precious why do you engage in this debate for hours on end? What motivates you to do this?

>>2057233
>If OP didn't feel a need to specify any conditions for the reviews he was seeking, I don't feel the need to offer any.
No shit, but that doesn't change the fact that you haven't even told us anything about who you are, whether you know fuck all about literature, what your thematic interests are, etc. So you haven't given us anything to relate to or any way to evaluate your opinion.

Thanks for being retarded, and no, "well I was just being a fucking retard from the begininng" doesn't make you seem less of a fucking retard

>>2057230

Dude, based on your behavior so far in this thread, you have just exposed yourself as a hypocrite with that very sentence. I consider you a troll right now, and if you refuse to acknowledge you dun goofed with that then you are only reinforcing that conclusion.

There's nothing "butt hurt" about my refusing to engage with you any further. You have been tried and found wanting. You are a dumb child with a thesaurus and too much time on your hands who is craving internet recognition by arguing about splinters on trees when the entire forest is sitting around laughing at you.

You are honestly not worth my time. Most people here feel the same way about you.

Again, thanks for playing.

>>2057241
what makes you think I'm going to respond to even one of your intolerant, indignant bullshit posts after this:

>Not even worth responding to any more of your silly, puerile tripe after reading this.

You think I'm seriously going to explain the workings of my personal life to some shithead who tells me he's not going to respond to my arguments and that they're tripe without even telling me why? Go fuck yourself, you stupid, disrespectful piece of shit.

>>2057247
You're not even trying now kiddo, just venting. Go home.

>>2057248

Lol I really shouldn't have quoted any specific post of yours, I'm not that guy you were talking to, I'm just an impartial observer interested in why you do this.

I agree with everything D&E'S said in this thread. He's almost definitely better educated that everyone else in the thread, and has a deeper love of literature than all you neckbeard fantasy douchebags.

I agree, I only read good books, and fantasy is a flaccid belch of a genre sustained by people who can't think for themselves.

Still, D&E, I'd love to get talking to you one on one, I just don't see how we could organise it.

whatever dude, take it to /soc/, I don't give a shit. I've said it before and I'll say it again, post-count does not give a concrete estimate of the time any person spends on 4chan. Make whatever stupid guesses about how I spend my time that you want, I don't give a shit.

>>2057257

start by exchanging numbers...who knows, play the cards right and maybe in a couple of days you'll be giving each other a stiff dicking

>>2057257
the opinions of namefriends don't matter
and remember, you brought it upon yourself

First time coming to /Lit/

Dear lord I have never seen so much pretentious faggotry in my life. Although I have never read the series it looks fairly entertaining, which is the point of the fucking books. Its cheap entertainment, it dosnt have to be profound

>>2057235

Ok that was a pretty cool text about how Literature is really can be subject to critical evaluation.

You have been a great help, I'm going to go look up some books about critical evaluation of texts right now!

>>2057271
You obviously don't know how the human mind works. Reading this GRRM shit is going to sink your intelligence by averaging out the good stuff you read with this garbage.

>>2057271
>Its cheap entertainment
And that's why it's bad.

>>2057271
This board isn't called 'books,' it's called Literature.

You neckbeards should petition for a fantasy board to talk about lives that you can never live, and things that you can never do. You can all talk about how 'awesome' that dragon was, or how that spell was 'really cool.' But you're polluting one of the only salvageable boards on this cesspit of a website.

>>2057271
>Its cheap entertainment, it dosnt have to be profound
>cheap

What if I found Ulysses on the bus for free

>>2057293
>/lit/
>salvageable

>>2057293
They do, it's called /tg/

>>2057281
>>2057284
Dear fucking lord first and last time im coming here.
For lack of a better word you fags are just flat out retarded. You honestly don't understand that people can have opinions that differentiate from your own. The pretentiousness is even worse then /mu/ on a bad day.

>>2057300
But nobody said that.

>>2057300
>You honestly don't understand that people can have opinions that differentiate from your own.
Of course I do, I even understand that a good few have better opinions on literature, and that most have worse.

>>2057300
I'm sorry but some books are objectively good while other are objectively bad.

Admittedly there are some that fall somewhere in between that could be argued either way, but GRRM is not one of those books.

Also D&E you are the epitome of whats wrong with people.

>>2057293

>You can all talk about how 'awesome' that dragon was, or how that spell was 'really cool.'

You have to be legitimately detached from reality if you're going to imply that's what discussion about these books on /lit/ or in any forum is like.

>>2057300
I do understand that people can enjoy fantasy, but I don't think it should be enjoyed. How hard is that to understand.

I can understand how a murderer may enjoy torturing and killing his victim, but I don't believe it can be enjoyed, and while the comparison is completely exaggerated you should understand me.

Fantasy is a stagnant shithole that draws in a certain breed of people. Anti-social, stupid, lazy and fat. Four characteristics that should be discriminated against.

Why do you guys campaign so hard for some mediocre piece of shit to be acclaimed while stuff that is actually of literary value doesn't get the acclaim it deserves.

I've noticed that there's actually like, no discussion on why the book is good or bad; very little talk on the actual contents of the book.

>>2057314

What is inherent in the fantasy genre that prevents the books that inhabit it to not be literature?

>>2057314
Who gives a shit about acclaim? Otherwise, I more or less agree.

D&E spent his Sunday in this thread

>>2057306
But this is exactly what im talking about. The opinion of a Literary expert is no more important than that of a uninformed person when it comes to fantasy books made for the masses for the reason that it is still a personal opinion and not fact. If the literary expert finds the books not worth his time and does not peak his interest then he can pass them buy and not read them. However arguing that nobody else should read them and people who read them are off a lesser quality is absolutely foolish.

>>2057308

There are books that are objectively good, like Ulysses, The Odyssey, all the classics, ect.

Then there are books that are objectively bad, like Terry Pratchett, Tom Clancy, Stephanie Meyer, ect.

There is a lot of room for grey area though mostly this is in the form of stuff that is experimental, but in 30 or 40 years from now the distinction will have been made as to which are good and which are shit.

>>2057314
I do understand that people can enjoy classic literature, but I don't think it should be enjoyed. How hard is that to understand.

I can understand how a murderer may enjoy torturing and killing his victim, but I don't believe it can be enjoyed, and while the comparison is completely exaggerated you should understand me.

Classic literature is a stagnant shithole that draws in a certain breed of people. Anti-social, uptight, obnoxious and haughty. Four characteristics that should be discriminated against.

Why do you guys campaign so hard for some mediocre piece of shit to be acclaimed while stuff that could actually be of literary value doesn't get the acclaim it deserves.

>>2057316

That's because this thread is mostly about D&E's opinion and he hasn't read the books. He knows the books are shit without reading them, though. He has "sources".

>>2057324
>30 or 40 years
it isn't about standing the test of time, dude, it's technique.

>>2057323
>The opinion of a Literary expert is no more important than that of a uninformed person when it comes to fantasy books made for the masses for the reason that it is still a personal opinion and not fact
What does factuality have to do with anything? Who said anything about an expert's opinion being important for a mass of people who don't know anything about literature to begin with?

>However arguing that nobody else should read them and people who read them are off a lesser quality is absolutely foolish.
But no-one's argued that in this thread, nor is it the job of the critical to do so. The job of the critic is to provide a critical evaluation of a work, which he does. You're free to take it or leave it, whether you're a shit-eating pleb or a PhD scholar.

>>2057322

The reason he did it is so a few of us could see the light, I've seen this thread before and I was previously very critical of him, going off about how art is subjective ect. but now I can see that his opinion really do fit quite well with most things.

It took me a couple times but now I understand lol. I'm glad he took the time to argue this.

>>2057324
>Terry Pratchett
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks he books are just not funny. They are even worse than The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

>>2057321
The people who defend these books do. They may claim for the sake of argument that its all "cheap entertainment" but they are of the same ilk that wants video games to be classed as art, they demand that nothing be taken seriously but they themselves want nothing more than to be taken seriously.

>>2057314
Honestly you are the fucking most self-absorbed and down right fucking stupid person I have ever fucking heard of.

>>2057322
I'm posting in this thread while doing a whole host of other activites, and it's quite easy to keep up with both, so I don't understand your point.

>>2057320
Again, Fantasy uses plot as it's main anchor. Language, form and technique are second to plot and that's a bad thing.

>>2057327
What do you mean by "knows"

>>2057331
So you FULLY ADMIT that, because you have not read the book, any criticisms you have about the book have no validity?

>>2057340
>So you FULLY ADMIT that, because you have not read the book, any criticisms you have about the book have no validity?

lol, how did you get any of that whatsoever from anything I said, i mean really, jesus fucking christ.

did you even read what I said?

>>2057336
What if there was a book labeled as "fantasy" by its publisher, but plot was secondary to character, language, etc?

Can you imagine a world in which such a book exists? I can.

>>2057340
here it is, folks, proof that you should not read this garbage, it will make you completely retarded

>>2057340

He hasn't been critically evaluating the book though you moron.

He has been being critical of how you guys are discussing the book, and not the book itself.

>>2057338

My bad. You don't know they're shit, you just have strong reason to believe they are due to the information you have gathered from your sources, right?

>>2057331
Are you fucking stupid? These have been many of the things listed in this fucking horrible thread
here let me show you some of the post incase you missed them
>>2057314
>>2057306

>>2057349
You didn't answer my question dude, I want to what you understand by the concept of knowledge.

ITT: insecure neckbeards

>>2057336

>Again, Fantasy uses plot as it's main anchor.

You're confusing a common occurence within the genre as something that is inherent in it.

>>2057342
I've never read Ulysses. However, since I think Joyce is a sexually-deviant psychopath and all his works are the equivalent of Satan's own colonic lining, my opinion is perfectly valid.

This is what you're doing. You're criticizing the work without having read the work, and you're saying "hey, I'm just a critic, take my opinion with a grain of salt man"

>>2057348

Fucking this, he has said little (if anything) about the book iteself, hes mostly discussing the stupidity in all of your uneducated opinions on how critical evaluation is bad!

>>2057350
dude, what are you even talking about. you just pointed me to a bunch of posts and muttered some incomprehensible gibberish about them being "listed things", some of which have nothing to do with me.

dude, come on, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY

>>2057271
this

>>2057359
you criticize others intelligence but shit I think you are actually retarded. Go back and read the your original criticisms of my post you posted earlier

>>2057356
>since I think Joyce is a sexually-deviant psychopath and all his works are the equivalent of Satan's own colonic lining, my opinion is perfectly valid.
This has nothing to do with validity, also, pretty shitty opinion based on ad hominem attacks that having nothing to do with critical evaluation. But hey, your opinion that no-one will take seriously.

>This is what you're doing. You're criticizing the work without having read the work
No, I'm discussing the entire history of literary achievement and the critical opinions of experts and have asked, when people claim such a series to be good, that they critically substantiate such an opinion. I'm not criticizing the work because I don't need to. I haven't even taken on the role of critic in this thread.

>>2057356

HE ISN'T BEING CRITICAL OF THE BOOK ITSELF. He is being critical of the way you dumbass neckbeards are discussing the book.

God, you guys are dumb as shit.

>>2057351

Bro you've asked this exact same thing from me before in a similar ASoIaF thread and I know where you're going with this. I shouldn't have implied there are some objective truths of knowledge that are not relative to the person who claims to know them.

>>2057271
I ask you this.

Who is worse, the tripfag troll or the aspies that feed him with 300 replies?

This thread is proof enough that fantasy readers are fucking retarded if they can't see a troll and not immediately start to froth at the mouth while masturbating in a rage.

What this whole argument is orbiting is the fact that the guy wants some internet credits for having read ass-old boring fucking books.

I read books for enjoyment, to tickle my imaginations. Seems some other here sees books as steam achivements that are a must have.

>>2057372

Except D&E isn't a troll. This should be pretty apparent to you by now.

>>2057372
>>2057372
>>2057372
>>2057372
>>2057372
>>2057372
this.

>>2057374
>Implying D&E has read the books in the image he posted.

>>2057368
dude, come on, don't try to waste my time, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY

>>2057371
>I shouldn't have implied there are some objective truths of knowledge that are not relative to the person who claims to know them.
That's really only the tiniest issue concerning what can constitute knowledge, and I didn't think that was what you implied because I would have had to have thought you were a completely clueless chimp in order to have furnished such a small-minded position on you, which I don't.

>>2057374
>>2057374
>>2057374
Honestly this.
ITT: Pretentious wankers

I ask again:

Isn't D&E an avid gamer? How does that fit into the whole "for life is short, and time and strength limited" philosophy?

>>2057372

When you realize he isn't even trolling you will understand his methods. He is simply putting forth a very nice and sound argument. When you realize his arguments are usually correct and you'll be tanasinn.

lol literary merit. what's important is how beneficial a certain work is to a certain person and why. great literature is made great in the mind of great people. everything else is just critics trying to play catch-up

>>2057374
>I read books for enjoyment
As though your average Phd scholar sits down to read a book and thinks to himself, "oh boy time to read another fucking book, goddamn what a pain in the ass". As though people who are the best at what they do don't enjoy it immensely. Fuck off you simpleton, HURR DURR BUT I ENJOY BOOKS, congratulations on being the lowest common denominator, asshole..

>>2057378
Ok. The guy who reads almost exclusively Bret Easton Ellis and spends a lot of time playing videogames isn't trolling the neckbeards who read fantasy.

Right.

D&E is a great troll and hilarious. But right now I'm not sure which is stronger, D&E's cleverness as a troll, or the stupidity of neckbeards.

You guys deserve to get trolled.

The only books worth reading are ones that teach practical knowledge. Like building a shed. Everything else is a recreational activity. Like smoking pot.

>>2057398

>The guy who reads almost exclusively Bret Easton Ellis

lol what

>>2057374
I enjoy reading classics more than fantasy, I find this is natural because they are usually well written.
Most fantasy fans seem to have little interest in reading the classics but instead tell us how literature can be anything or how everything to do with literature is subjective.

>>2057409
>literature is subjective.
what do you mean by 'subjective'

>>2057412
I don't mean anything by it, I was merely using it as an example of the drivel that gets posted in these threads.

>>2057378

Yeah. That, posted on a board about books, is pretty close to the definition of a troll post, insomuch as they have a definition.

Combined with the unassailable position he's taken in the thread - A number of posts implying the books are shit, demanding the people who like them prove otherwise, but never providing any evidence to back up his own implications (or assertions) . . . yeah. I mean the guy is basically saying, "I don't have to be critical of these books to call them shit, but you do have to be critical to call them good."

Dude's a successful troll.

>>2057446

see

>>2057369

archive this thread for lols

As a fan of ASoIaF I gotta say I fucking love these threads.

>>2057446
>Dude's a successful troll.
>Spends hour after hour writing paragraphs of inane shit.

No. Having an obsessive focus on a certain imageboard and an overpowering desire for attention does not make you a successful anything.

>>2057474
> 300+ replies
> same troll everytime
> neckbeards getting mad like it was the very first time they've ever been trolled

I'm pretty sure he's the successful troll par excellence.

aw so many posts and no one even read that hilarious and relevant somethingawful article I posted. It makes fun of ASOIAF and its fans, you guys should check it out:

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/george-rrmartin-guild.php

My favorite part:

>Martin handles the verbal conflict as carefully and insightfully as he does those of an intense melee battle between warriors. The reader can actually feel the sweat on these men's brows and the weight of their bodies as they shift nervously, each deciding for himself upon which side to fall.

>>2057397
There's a difference between leisurely reading and reading to further your understanding of your field of study. Many people of different professions and schools of study do both.

A close family friend of mine is a heart surgeon who spends hours at a time after work reading up on medical journals but he also has a vast collection of pulp crime fiction novels he reads to wind down with when he's not poring over the latest in medicine. Clearly the lowest common denominator. Among the dregs of society, really.