/lit/ - Literature

Easy to consume. Remember: popular means shit

while classics are books praised by literary scholars who force it into schools

>>3971956
>Remember: popular means shit
>>>/lgbt/youcansuckmyfuckingcock

>>3971963
Stop hating gays dude seriously that's not cool man like seriously

--OP

It's the Harry Potter of fantasy.

>>3971963
Seriously any book lately that's been popular has ended up being shit. Twilight, Game of Thrones, The Da Vinci Code

>>3971956
>popular means shit

No, just means retards like yourself can't feel superior to others. Sometimes popular stuff is actually really good. LOTR is the most popular fantasy novel of all time (even if it didn't set out to be) and it's also the best.

I'm way too superior to like anything that's popular.

Mainstream = shit

>>3972006
Books considered book by the general public and only those people tend to be shit

No good critic or scholar praises GoT

>>3972042
This whole "hipster hates mainstream" thing is created by people to discredit those who don't read the NYT bestsellers and listen to Top 40 hits. Oh what a hipster

He has no nasal bridge and he has thick lips

Someone shoop him to look black

>>3972044

It must suck only reading things that scholars praise. Instead of reading things that interest you, personally. Disliking something that's popular is about as stupid as liking everything that's popular, or scholarly for that matter.

>>3972052
Are you an idiot? By "shit" I mean *I* think it's shit.

I've read the first book and half of the second. It was pretty meh. I wouldn't say I hated it but it was pretty generic and uninteresting.

>>3972049

Disliking things that are mainstream is just as bad as liking things that are mainstream. It means your not thinking for yourself. You're thinking what others tell you is good, just a different crowd is telling you.

Think for yourself.

>>3972056

"Are you an idiot."

You are a master debater.

>>3971956
>popular means shit
You see this is why no one likes you

>>3972044
>No good critic or scholar praises GoT
>No good
Nice unfalsifiable argument, faggot. So any critic that speaks highly of, say, GRRM's character development simply isn't a good critic?
Get rekt. There is no historical correlation between a book's critical and popular acclaim and its long term legacy.

>>3972063
Hating mainstream music in general because it's shit != hating mainstream because it's mainstream

>>3972065
You are a pseudo-intellectual. I countered what you said with one seven words:

> By "shit" I mean *I* think it's shit.

"Insult is the lowest form of wit!"

>>3972079
>GRRM's character development
>any good critics speaking highly of it

Hahaha

No, it's the other way around, none of the good critics out there speak highly of it. Name one that does. Bloggers and the NYT doesn't count.

>>3972080

I haven't insulted you, I've only encouraged you to think for yourself. And as far as "I don't like mainstream because I think it's shit," my only response is:

How the fuck would you know if you've classified it before you've read it. Not specifically this book, but any book that may be mainstream.

You'll never know if it's good because you don't think for yourself.

>>3972080
>"Insult is the lowest form of wit!"
but it is you faggot

>>3972092

Based on what? I know the mainstream tends to be shit because I've listened to it, I've read it, I know about it.

>ignores what I said
>goes "you can't think for yourself" again

>>3972086

So you base what you read on what "good critics" think of it. I guess it is a lot easier having other people do the reading, and thinking, for you.

>>3972107
>base what you read
>base your opinions

Do you think those are the same thing?

If this was reddit, I'd be downvoted by the idiots like you screaming "you can't think for yourself". Do you never, for anything at all, check out what a good reviewer has commented on, and check it out for yourself based on a past experience of him recommending good things?

No of course not, fuck suggestions.

>>3972106

I haven't ignored what you said. And I find it hard to believe you've read every single mainstream book ever been written in order to come to your conclusion that all mainstream books are "shit."
There's no reason to mention what critics think if you base your opinion off of what you've personally read.
Either way, you've closed your mind to literature if it becomes popular. You'll never know how much you've missed.

>>3972106
>I know the mainstream tends to be shit because I've listened to it, I've read it, I know about it.

What are you, 12?

>>3972063
>>3972067
>>3972006
>>3972042
>>3972052

I know we're supposed to be trolling but I want to lay something to make a serious observation about the nature of this attitude that to dislike mainstream and popular things means you're a "hipster" and it's "just as bad as liking things that are mainstream."

There is actually a perfectly understandable reason why mainstream and popular things are considered bad by people who maintain a genuine interest in whatever medium we're talking about, be it books, movies, video games, music etc. That factor is accessibility. Things that are popular become popular BY VIRTUE of their accessibility. Accessibility is almost universally achieved by simplicity of thought and style, and by appealing to interests that are "basic" and unspecific, that is, flashy or cool.

There are a hell of a lot more people who are "kind of" interested in a particular medium than people who are very interested in a particular medium. Books that are the most popular become so by appealing to the massive demographic of people who have a read a few books and kind of like them, rather than people who read every single day and read very diverse range of books. This is also what causes accessible books to become derivative: The people reading them won't be familiar with the established "great books" in the first place, so accessible books can lift every workable trope in existence from classics and piece them together in their "new" work.

So, yes, popular books do suck, and they suck precisely because the accessibility that makes them popular is what makes them shitty to people who actually read a lot. If you read a lot you immediately recognize how simplified, how shallow, how superficially flashy, and how derivative popular works are because you aren't the target audience. The target audience is the uninitiated, because that audience is massive.

Stop making that idiotic claim that people who don't like this garbage are "hipsters."

>>3972123
hahah that first sentence.... god damn I'm silly

>>3972117
You seem to be conveniently reading what I said as if I literally looked at everything mainstream and is saying literally all of it is shit, rather than see I'm speaking generally.

>>3972122
That doesn't even make any sense. Not everything is a maturity issue.

>>3972116

I'm not sure what reddit has to do with this. Again, your losing sight of what you're even arguing about when you say, "You're just an idiot like ____."

Anyway, it doesn't hurt to listen to critics, but no intelligent critic thinks, "All mainstream literature is shit."
I don't know what gave you the idea that I'm against what critics think. I'm trying to help you understand that if you dislike a book based solely on its popularity, you're close minded.

>>3972135
>based solely on its popularity

Are you deliberately being stupid or do are you accidentally missing everytime I say that's not what I'm doing? Popular things tend to be shit, not "it's shit because it's popular".

>>3971978
Isn't Harry Potter the Harry Potter of fantasy?

>>3971938
Hate it. It's boring as fuck.

>>3972143
>Harry Potter
>fantasy

>>3972133

Not at all, I just think it's silly to say something is bad because it's popular. You should think for yourself once in a while, and not just look at what a critic says about it. That's lazy.

To be honest, I think you want to feel superior to others. Don't worry about what others around you are reading. Don't go for mainstream, and don't go against mainstream. Just think for yourself, friend. :^)

>>3972142

Again, you are a master debater.

As far as your statement, "Popular things tend to be shit," again, how would you know? Or do you read everything that's popular now, or at some point in the past, when you formed this opinion.

>>3972157
>something is bad because it's popular

I love how the post you're replying to literally states that I'm not.

>:^)

Exactly, strawmen and passive aggression can go back the fuck you came from.

>>3972165

I'm honestly not trying to upset you. But since your starting to lose sight of our little debate, I'll agree to disagree. I just feel sad for you. Anyway I hope you can open your mind a little in the future.

>>3971938
>faux-medival

>>3972162
Generally speaking.

"master debater". You're such a pseudo-intellectual, do you do this everytime someone attacks your intelligence? My point still stands and you're the one not getting it. Be someone who's read NYT bestsellers for a while and you can form an opinion that it's not a list full of quality novels. Same with the Opera fanclub and Top 40 radio.

Is this so hard for you to comprehend? The meat of your posts seem to be focusing on something that hurts your feelings and then misconstruing what I said.

>>3972170
> I just feel sad for you. Anyway I hope you can open your mind a little in the future.

You haven't read a single thing I've said and you're resorting to passive aggression and calling me upset. Get out.

>ITT: butthurt failed authors that will never write an epic interweaving plot with millions of fans and is eventually turned into the most popular show of all time

>>3971938
I'm beyond hating it. It's well written for fantasy. I just want to see what happens next, even though I've been abused.

Just like Dexter.

>>3972193
>epic interweaving plot
Take out the word 'epic'

>>3972182

I have, and I think you're a bit paranoid. And I'm not passive aggressive, or upset because you've insulted me over the internet. It takes a lot more to get me upset.

But I see you're mind isn't ever going to change, at least not from our discussion, however long it lasted.

>>3972197

Also the show is full of so much incest that it makes me want to stop fucking my sister

Story-wise - I don't think the prose matters *that* much when it comes to high fantasy - AGoT was alright, as were the two after it. The last two, AFFC and ADWD were shit.

>>3972193
" of all time"? The show sucks worse than the books do...

I'm on the last book now, the 4th one was seriously a chore and now I'm on the second Davos chapter. I haven't touched it in weeks...

I seriously feel like it should have just ended with book 3 and left it to our imagination what happened next.

>>3972200
For saying that, based on observations, NYT lists tend to have a lot of books I don't like and that Top 40 radio tends to play a lot of music I don't like?

>Must be a paranoid hipster who "hates things because they're popular and can't think for himself".

Also /lit/ must be shit now considering how everyone is intentionally misconstruing what I said.

OP here, I accidentally bought the first book on Kindle.

I was reading the sample, going to take a shit while reading, pressed a bunch of buttons by mistake, and accidentally bought the book.

$10 charge

Great job.

>the guy berating the other guy about his lack of composure and grammar and swearing makes him a bad debator in the high quality formal intellectual echo chamber that is /lit/
>arguing about what some guy thinks when the only guy who has a say on it is the actual guy thinking about it

That was the worst "argument" I have ever read in my entire life.

>>3971956
>popular means shit

No - contemporary popular means shit. Flavour of the month/year/decade easily digestible and appealing to the masses. Little acclaim outside of the fanbase.

Long term popular generally means good. Widely acknowledged and appreciated even if one does dislike it.

>>3972270
>contemporary popular means shit

This.

Also he's right when he says NYT bestseller list these days aren't exactly top tier lierature

Seriously the fucking airport novel shit on it

>>3972044
I think asoiaf is good but not a masterpiece, it's the general sentiment that annoys me. To universally declare that anything popular is shit is beyond retarded.

>>3972286
>general public
>tends to be shit

Different than saying "anything popular is shit"

>>3972123
It's very clear that not everything popular is shit, there is a culture on here to discredit anything popular in order to make themselves feel cultured and superior.

If you really don't think that a book can be both popular and good then you just haven't read that much or are stupid.

>>3972286
It's actually a pretty useful heuristic.

>>3972157
>:^)

xD

>>3972297
"It's very clear that not everything popular is shit"

Then give some examples. Of course I'm excluding anything like "popular within a certain group" because that by definition narrows the accessibility which is the cornerstone of my argument.

>>3972212
>I hate anything that's remotely popular because I can't feel better than other people

I

>>3972297
>very clear that not everything popular is shit

No one is fucking arguing against you, stop posting this.

>>3972311
Now this is shitposting

>>3972310
Taylor Swift is my waifu and she's popular

one of the things that bothers me about this book is that Sansa and Bran chapters, even though it's in their point of view, have thought's like "how I yearn for warm bedding and warm, cozy sheets"... no 7 year olds think like that. I don't even like the tone that much, it's just bleh

>>3972311
how is that even close to what he said?

>>3972291
Thing is, before the show it wasn't that popular with the general public. Before the show I knew one other person that had read the series.

>>3972310
That excludes everything from your argument. No form of media or entertainment is universally popular. Most of the things dubbed as popular, like Justin beiber or breaking bad, are disliked or ignored by way more people that consume it.

>>3972063
>Portland Hipster
>one of my friends is moving to Portland to start her own psychology practice
Here's hoping she can help these lost souls.

>>3972310
LOTR is incredibly popular. Pretty wide appeal too.
Easier to apply to films where there's a bigger following, Kubrick and Tarantino's films are quite popular and (especially the former) are very good. I get that some things which do just pander to the lowest common denominator can be very shit.

>>3972330
>are disliked or ignored by way more people that consume it.
Please tell me you're not being "clever' and including the population of China and India into this

>buy Game of Thrones at 10 years old
>never read it: too big, too stupid, too complicated, derp
>gets popular
>remember I have it
>finally read it
>mfw I've read a ton of fantasy by then and it's shit

>>3972330
>That excludes everything from your argument. No form of media or entertainment is universally popular.

Don't be pedantic. The claim I'm making has clear applications. Being accessible to larger markets means exclusion or softening of any material that requires any kind of initiation or effort beyond casual interest. The extent to which authors reach larger audiences is the extent to which the quite literal dumbing down occurs. The fact that none of them are universally popular serves only to mean that there are, in fact, other factors than accessibility in play. What a shocker. The correlation is still there.

>>3972338
>>3972338
I'm not being pedantic, you threatened exclusion. By your definition, if something like Justin Beiber is cited as popular, it has to be excluded because the demographic is 13yo kids and not wide reaching. Your exact phrase was:
>Of course I'm excluding anything like "popular within a certain group"

>>3972330
But Breaking bad is good.

>>3972356
I mean to exclude claims where the sample size has been reduced to the point of undermining the use of the word "popular."

You Justin Bieber example serves to undermine your own objection. At the height of his popularity, his music videos were the most watched videos on youtube. Thus there was, at the time, no population too inclusive to challenge the claim of him as popular. He had more people following him than any other performer, even if we polled the whole earth.

>>3972373
How the fuck is he arguing that?

You people are literally having trouble with something so simple.

"Top 40 music is shit"

I challenge /lit/ to fucking nitpick apart what I mean by this.

>>3972376
>At the height of his popularity, his music videos were the most watched videos on youtube.
They also had the highest number of negative ratings of all time.

>>3972383
How does that challenge his popularity? There was no one more popular.

>>3972377
>"Top 40 music is shit"
>I challenge /lit/ to fucking nitpick apart what I mean by this.

You mean the highest ranking music in the UK charts doesn't conform to the aesthetic good/bad spectrum you personally hold.

>>3972387
>UK Top 40

This is going to be banned eventually, like porn and packed lunches in schools

>>3972385
>There was no one more popular.
Apart from Lady Gaga

>How does that challenge his popularity?
Popular is a positive thing. He is not popular if millions more people are complaining about how bad it is than how good. The popular girl in school isn't the one who is bullied the most.

>>3972389
>packed lunches in schools
I wonder who was behind this.

>>3972393
He had the highest number of dislikes because he also had the highest number of likes, you dense motherfucker. No shit that other performers videos didn't have a million dislikes because they had only a couple million views and only tens of thousands of ratings.

As for Lady Gaga, I'm not going to debate it because it's irrelevant. This is exactly the sort of response that justifies pedantic.

I never made the argument that everyone must like something in order for it to be popular. That's your deliberate straw-man extrapolation. I excluded only claims of popularity "within a group," ie, not popular if we include a larger sample. Dan Brown, Stephanie Meyer, J.K. Rowling are popular no matter how inclusive we are.

>>3972403
>He had the highest number of dislikes because he also had the highest number of likes,
Do you honestly not understand ratios? Jesus, it's like talking to a toddler.

>>3972397
That pompous piece of shit.

>>3972404
>it's like talking to a toddler.
he's 12 or 14 and I"m an adult and I pay bills and drive a car

>>3972373
When does the new episode of BB air?

>>3972407
August 11th

I really don't thin its a problem to use a critics opinion to help you judge a book. The criteria in which they judge books is different from most people. They judge it based upon a higher standard, and I enjoy reading their opinions on books I'm about to read.

>>3972404
So you don't think Justin Bieber was popular?

>>3972417
I have just been to one of his videos - pic related.

He is popular with young girls between the ages of 12 - 15. He is despised by boys in that age range, and disliked by most other people. A lot more people dislike him than like him. so no, he's not popular. He is famous and well known, but not popular, unless you specify a tight demographic.

>>3972428
Popular and well liked are 6 million different things

>>3972429
well liked
*well known

Are you saying Saddam Hussein was a popular politician?

>>3972063

>tfw I wear pants that would be considered 'too tight' by my baggy-jeans, band-tee-loving rural neighbors
>tfw I'm the only one at my shitty community college who wears completely nondescript black and white converse
>tfw i wear primarily v-necks because i enjoy the slightly effeminate look on men

AM I A HIPSTER? ;__;

>>3972446
>V-necks
>effeminate
Do you even lift?

>>3972453

Yes, although my pecs more closely resemble hills than mountains.

I enjoy both looks, though. Buff guys who really fill out the v-neck tee and slim guys who who have nice facial features/sense of style and can pull off looking a bit feminine.

>>3972446

You want to be a hipster and you like it

>"Stop enjoying things!"

>>3972488

d-don't say stupid things, onii-chan~!

>>3972494
>saying you don't like something is the same as saying "Stop enjoying things!"

Go back to >>>/v/ with dem phrases

The mainstream fantasy crowd is going through this phase where they want to seem grown up, so they hate on things that they deem childish. In this case they've grown to hate happyish endings and good and evil morality. They also want realism (or the world where everyone you ever meet wants to rape you, kill you, destroy your dreams, rape you again, and desecrate your corpse for good measure that they believe is reality). So along comes G.R.R. Martin (or more accurately the TV series that made the book series mega popular) who says "I hate fantasy tropes too, and look how realistic my books are, there's shit and rape, and rape in shit, and shitting while raping"

Naturally George and this mainstream crowd went together like George and Taco Bell

>>3972910
I do kind of hate the realism in it. If I wanted that I'd read books on medieval. They are more detailed, interesting, and actually happened.

>>3972389
>packed lunches in schools
That's banned in places? That's fucking bullshit. School lunches taste horrible.

>>3973003
>taste
Fatass American detected, obsessed with flavour and quantity with no regard for nutrition.

Can you type properly, or do you need a special fat finger keyboard to achieve that?

>>3973022
Wow, those are some baseless accusations there, buddy. First, I am American. So what? Second, you have most likely never seen what a typical school lunch in an American school looks like. Essentially, at least in my state, the school sells things like burgers, pizza, spaghetti that has a thin film of grease over the sauce, past-prime fruit (as in the apples are gritty and the bananas have lots of brown spots), and sometimes the school has a salad (lettuce and tomato). Add to that the sodas and what not that kids can get as a drink, and you have a typical school provided lunch. It's horrible tasting, if it has taste at all, and on top of that it is *not* nutritious.

When I was a student, my mother made me a bag lunch which was bottled water, *fresh* fruit, and a sandwich. Most of my friends had something similar if they had a packed lunch. So, how about you not make attacks on someone, and a subject, you know absolutely nothing about. Your irrational, and obvious, hatred for my nationality is showing, and makes you look like an idiot. Grow up.

>>3973043
>the school sells things like burgers, pizza, spaghetti that has a thin film of grease over the sauce, past-prime fruit
No surprises there.

>When I was a student, my mother made me a bag lunch which was bottled water, *fresh* fruit, and a sandwich.
Implying the nutritive qualities of fruit depend on it being less ripe

>Your irrational, and obvious, hatred for my nationality is showing, and makes you look like an idiot. Grow up.
Hatred? Never, I just find it hilarious. Sort of like watching someone fall down the stairs, only its a country and the falling is taking decades.

>>3973065
>No surprises there.
So, why would I want to eat one, and why would I be in favor of banning packed lunches?

>Implying the nutritive qualities of fruit depend on it being less ripe
Nitpicking and debatable.

>Hatred? Never, I just find it hilarious. Sort of like watching someone fall down the stairs, only its a country and the falling is taking decades.

So, why the personal attack then? It's not like I'm the one ordering the drone strikes, or even voting for those asshats.

>>3973074

Don't worry anon. He's just some europoor who's bitter that his race will eventually be bred out of existence by refugees.

>>3973074
>So, why would I want to eat one, and why would I be in favor of banning packed lunches?
>"That's fucking bullshit. School lunches taste horrible."
Being so ignorant as to assume all public school meals are as embarrassingly awful as American ones, and that "taste" is at issue above and beyond nutrition, quite obviously the crux of the recent decision in the UK.

>Nitpicking and debatable.
No, it really isn't. Ripe fruit (which most people mistake as "past-prime" because they don't know fruit) is full of nonfluorescing chlorophyll catabolytes that function as effective antioxidants. This isn't available in fruit that's firmer and less ripe but more visually appealing with a nicer texture.

>So, why the personal attack then? It's not like I'm the one ordering the drone strikes, or even voting for those asshats.
I mocked your ignorance of nutrition, not your government's drone program.

GRRM does droll on about useless and boring shit in Asoiaf but the character development is it's driving force. It's not the greatest fantasy ever but it's not bad by any means.

>>3973119
/thread

>>3973090
>Being so ignorant as to assume all public school meals are as embarrassingly awful as American ones, and that "taste" is at issue above and beyond nutrition, quite obviously the crux of the recent decision in the UK.
My mistake for forgetting the Europeans are online now. I assumed it was an American from the West Coast that posted this. Especially since Jamie Oliver has been on a crusade against the shit we put in our school lunches (I'm ok with this).

>No, it really isn't. Ripe fruit (which most people mistake as "past-prime" because they don't know fruit) is full of nonfluorescing chlorophyll catabolytes that function as effective antioxidants. This isn't available in fruit that's firmer and less ripe but more visually appealing with a nicer texture
Past prime was a nice way of writing close to rotten.

>I mocked your ignorance of nutrition, not your government's drone program.
>Fatass American detected, obsessed with flavour and quantity with no regard for nutrition. Can you type properly, or do you need a special fat finger keyboard to achieve that?
No, you called me fat, obsessed with food, and asked if my accused/assumed obesity caused me to have a physical handicap. None of that is correct, and all of it was an attack on me, not my assumed lack of knowledge. It's pretty clear that you hate the USA and anyone from there. That's very sad and very pathetic. As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over. Feel free to reply to your heart's content, but know that I won't be reading it.

>>3973128
>2013
>getting trolled this easily

OH WELL. I could sure go for a pepperoni pizza right now...

>>3973178
>fuck off retard
>hurr jokes on them pretending!

>>3973180
I wasn't trolling him but it's sad to see someone falling for it that easily on this board. Even /b/ is more prudent than that.

>>3972310
>"It's very clear that not everything popular is shit"
>Then give some examples.
A Song of Ice and Fire

>>3971938
up to the fourth book.

I thought the first was really boring. Nothing happened. It read like a first chapter. I went with it, though and went on to the next book. I keep thinking something will happen. Nothing does, a lot of build up though.

Third book, and finally crap starts to happen. I read the entirety of it in five days, as opposed to the other two books which took me like a month each to power through due to shitty pacing.

End of the third book, and I go to the fourth expecting more stuff to happen. Nothing happens, I'm 700 pages in and its like he thought the third book was too exciting so now we need a break. GOD he is awful at pacing.

I wouldn't call the series bad from what I've read so far, but it isn't that great. I much prefer to read Brandon Sanderson's Way of Kings which is similar in length but infinitely more fun and better paced.

>>3972910
Thank you for that. Everytime I talk to my friends they keep asking why I don't like GoT. I tell them its unrealistic.

They can't comprehend that its a crap-sack world, not a realistic one.

>>3974129
Think of it this way, the majority of people in southern Westeros (except Dorne) are kind of passable as real people, while the North and the Free Cities, Dothraki, Valyrians, and everything beyond are standard fantasy characters and concepts. There's a reason the Starks and the North will fall to the Boltons and Southerners, Daenarys will fail to seize the thrones and the dragons will go extinct again, the White Walkers will lose, and all that will be left is the circular Game of Thrones which is the "realism" people want

>>3972910

>The mainstream fantasy crowd
>want to seem grown up
>hate on things that they deem childish
>hate happyish endings and good and evil morality
>want realism

Do you have, like, any basis for any of this?

Seeing as I was only turned on to the books thanks to the television series, I'd probably have to consider myself part of that 'mainstream crowd', and none of this applies to me. I consume more young adult fiction than anyone my age should rightfully consume, I enjoy cartoons and animated Disney flims more than live-action shows, and I read A Song of Ice and Fire because of the mystery, plot development, and emotional investment in the characters. I don't give two shits about the supposed 'realism', the wanton violence and gore, or the rape (unless it involves a small girl child, hnng).

>>3974183
>I don't give two shits about the supposed 'realism', the wanton violence and gore, or the rape (unless it involves a small girl child, hnng).
Yeah, you're not the mainstream crowd, you're something else entirely

>>3972266
>buying anything on kindle
>buying anything on accident

get a load of this guy

>>3971956
>Remember: popular means shit
Get a load of this patrician!

>>3974207

Is that in regards to the girl-child comment, or are you limiting your definition of "mainstream" to "individuals who latch onto, and irritatingly obsess over, whatever is currently popular, like a dog to spent bone"? Because they have names for those kinds of individuals, of which "mainstream" is not one.

>>3974214

Amazon actually makes it super easy to buy shit from the Kindle so long as you've already give them your CC information. My niece almost bought me Solitaire a couple of times. (Not that there's any reason to buy e-books, but yeah.)

>>3974226
first off, yes that was a comment towards the fact that you would be attracted to a little girl getting raped. Also what is currently popular is mainstream

>lots of sex
>lots of plot twists

Instant classic.

>>3974244

>Owe you another fucking for that, seems like. Did Yoren pump your cunny, or did he like that tight little ass better?

Not my fault GRRM is a fucking pervert.

Also, when I said "individuals who latch onto, and irritatingly obsess over, whatever is currently popular, like a dog to spent bone", I felt I was making a pretty clear distinction between those individuals and the individuals who lack exposure to, or appreciation, for more underground works, and thus are attracted to mainstream works (e.g., me).

Point I'm getting at is, to exclude me from your definition of 'mainstream', using the term only to refer to those who relentlessly obsess over a thing, shows a level of snobbery reminiscent of those hipsters you so detest.

>>3973178
>>3973200
>getting trolled this easily
>I wasn't trolling him
Make up your mind. To add to that, you're a disgrace. The fucking American is more polite and courteous than you.

Serious question here: I want to write a fantasy book/series that will appeal to the literary fiction fan. Is this possible? Or would I be wasting my time?

>>3974340
Tolkien did it. Why can't you?

>>3971938
This entire series is entry-level fantasy. The only reason it's so popular is because of the sex.

>>3974340
If you have to ask, it's incredibly unlikely you have what it takes.

I hate Dany; does that count?

>>3975951
Yes she dies at the end of book 4

>>3975962
WHY DID YOU DID YOU DO THIS?

Because it is seemingly different from every other fantasy series that was popular which came before it.

that's why it's popular in today's degenerate society.

Standard fantasy writing with typical Tolkien derivation, distinguished by the inclusion of excessive levels of sex, violence and sexual violence to appeal to contemporary amorality that is popular with the unthinking masses.

You know /lit/ has gone to shit by the fact that this thread got so many legit replies.

>Faux-medieval
If I see that term used one more time regarding GoT I'm going to get upset.

1/10 op, amateur bait attempt.

>>3971956
>popular means shit

With such refined tastes as yours, I can only imagine how lonely it is reading all of that fine literature.

>>3976209
He's trolling you dumbass, and the fifth book is called A DANCE OF DRAGONS. What the fuck do you think it is about?

>>3971938

Which board is most elitist? It has to be /lit/ right? On /tv/ there's threads about Bicycle Thiefs one day and Spring Breakers the next.

>>3976258
Why, because there's not a lot of fine literature out there? Top keke puffs

>>3976234
>excessive levels of sex, violence and sexual violence to appeal to contemporary amorality that is popular with the unthinking masses.

0/10, put some fucking effort into it at least.

>>3976327

I had thought /a/ held that title, but now I'm not so sure.

>>3976327
>elitist because they don't like garbage
plebs will never shut up

>>3976327
/mu/
>get a week ban a few months back for saying Neil Peart is one of the best living drummers in a drummer appreciation thread.

>>3976649
>>3976327
Seriously what is this shit

Butthurt babbies cry when someone goes "I hate [x popular item]" and go "HE MUST HATE IT BECAUSE IT'S MAINSTREAM HIPSTER"

I can see why it's popular but no one should be pretending it should or ever will be canonical literature

>>3972446
>i enjoy the slightly effeminate look on men
Yes, you are a hipster.

>>3972494
No, more like stop enjoying shitty things

>>3972044
Of course they don't. Otherwise they'd admit that all their methods and analysis and deep and edgy are worth shit at least once in a while.

It's like scientists who won't touch non-mainstream theories because that might taint their careers. And then a nobody comes along and says time is relative, and space is bendy.

OHAIYOH

>>3972006
Lord of the Rings isn't the best unless you're still young or never read anything better.

First Law from Joe Abercrombie is the best fantasy series ever.

Then probably comes Game of Thrones and depending how much you like an EPIC scale >>3980395
The Malazan series (first novel is worst btw) might come second.

But First Law trumps them both, easily. (Except Malazan if we look at the epic part of fantasy then only DBZ trumps Malazan)

I got about halfway through it and never picked it up again. That being said, I didn't think it was bad. It wasn't anything mind-blowing but I can see the appeal in it. Also the popularity is mostly a biproduct of the television series. Most people haven't touched the books.

>Reading fantasy series
Just 1 novel and it's better than all those stretched out series.

Why would you read more than 5000 pages of Lame of Thrones when you can have something superior in just 600 or so pages.

>>3980416
Get a load of this guy

>The ‘historic’ novel is, for me, condemned, even in cases of labor as delicate as yours, to a fatal cheapness….You may multiply the little facts that can be got from pictures & documents, relics & prints, as much as you like–the real thing is almost impossible to do, & in its absence the whole effect is as nought; I mean the invention, the representation of the old consciousness, the soul, the sense, the horizon, the vision of individuals in whose minds half the things that make ours, that make the modern world were non-existent….Go back to the country of the Pointed Firs, come back to the present palpable intimate that throbs responsive, & that wants, misses, needs you, and God knows, & that suffers woefully in your absence.

-Henry James

BOOM

I've read most of the ASoIaF books and am taking a break after marathoning the first three (and a half). It's not bad by any stretch. It's not groundbreaking, either. It's an enjoyable read with interesting characters and a neat world.

Why does /lit/ hate the prose so much? It could be a lot worse, and the only major flaw I can find is its tendency to get off track on useless detail.

>>3980409
>doesn't mention Dresden Files
>doesn't mention Brandon Sanderson's works(excluding WoT)
Do you get more pleb?

Next thing you will say that Infinite Jest is a good book and not /lit/'s version of /a/'s boku no pico

>>3980416
Read that before i touched GoT.... Games of thrones is better.
More sex and the fool doesn't give away the King's mood on a whim.
Also Theon and Davos would be warlocks by now with all the fingers they lost.

>>3980470
There are so many series better than Lord of the Rings it's hard to name them all

Nobody else thinks the SOIAF are bloated as hell? For the amount of words taken up on that series (is it approaching 2 million now?) relatively little happens. Really don't like how inefficient the books are at telling the story.

/lit/ just looks at the series in the wrong way.

Compared to books from all genres and literary fiction, game of thrones is shit.

But compare it too fantasy and its a somewhat decent series

>>3980484
Exactly the reason some prefer Steven Erikson, though he has his own faults too.

>>3980494
>You're enjoying it the wrong way

>>3980483
Yet when you come here with a fantasy thread, the e/lit/ist like to point out that they are all LOTR clones.... 90% of the books don't even have dragons...
Did Tolkien invent fantasy? I thought that was around for ages(stories around the fire)
Did Tolkien invent Elves? I thought the Grimms had them stealing our kids for decades before Tolkien

LOTR FANBASE GTFO /lit/

>>3980521
People seem to think influential means it's still top of the crop.

>GoT
Look at this edgy medieval society
>Malazan
Look at this edgy DBZ world
>Wheel of time
Look at this edgy shit world
>LOTRO
Edgy shit

>>3980578

Would should a fantasy have to do to not be edgy?

>>3980610
Being good would be a nice start.

>>3980610
Harry potter isnt edgy

>>3980578
>edgy

top kek

>>3972403
I'm just going to bring up film because I know the medium somewhat well and it has a good number of examples of good films being popular especially in the more action-oriented genres. Pulp fiction, Armageddon and the recent Pacific Rim are three films that have done extremely well for themselves and are all good films but hardly deserving of the absurdly high praise they get or the money they made but nonetheless they are all extremely popular and at the very least, not shit. Now, this might be because film as a medium is easier to digest than say, literature or music or because they're just easier to market especially in certain genres or it might even be that they're simply a very recent medium but anyways my only point here is that not all things popular are bad and accessibility, on its own, does not mean the entity is bad. I think the problem with your definition of accessibility is that you assume that simplifying ideas means that you MUST remove information or content from the idea as opposed to simply restructuring the information to make it easier to understand at a glance. Making the simplest comparison (and not cutting from the main content of the comparison by doing so) available, turning x^2 + 6x + 9 = (x+3)^2. The latter is far easier for a student to graph, but the information available is just the same

Keep in mind that I do believe that people will often remove remove crucial information to make it more accessible but that's justa mistaken attempt

>>3980409
>First Law from Joe Abercrombie is the best fantasy series ever.
>But First Law trumps them both, easily.

No true Scotsman would post in this thread.

>>3980445
I honestly think the historical semi-meta narrative approach is pretty groundbreaking. The best thing about these books and it's never even mentioned here.

>>3981193

>historical semi-meta narrative approach

Uh what.

>>3981211
Did you even read them?

>>3981246

Yes, I've just never understood what the word 'meta' meant, which makes it difficult for me to understand almost any of "historical semi-meta narrative approach."

>>3981284
It means super cool.

>>3981028
Best ever no, but pretty good imp

>>3981284
In art, a meta narrative is basically a grand, over-arching approach to or analysis of a subject, which is composed of multiple, smaller, related narratives. That's the best I can explain it.

ASOIAF touches on this concept by devoting itself to the intricacies of historical progress, causation of events, fortune etc. All the character POVs and plots are each about some aspect of a society dominated by political or other forms of power, and the whims and uncertainties it produces.

Plenty of other fantasy has engaging and well crafted characters and intriguing use of plot, but asoiaf has that extra thematic appeal that is so obviously its main strength.

>>3971978
>implying Harry potter isn't fantasy

>>3977828
ok that's hilarious, if I was a mod at /mu/ my first impression would have been that you were trolling

Martin focuses on unnecessary shit way too much. I mean, why the fuck are we following Brienne and Podrick around in AFfC, on a quest that we know is doomed to fail? Who gives a fuck about Cersei? Why do we need like 5 chapters about Stannis trying to take Winterfell? Who gives a shit? There's way too much focus on irrelevant characters. I mean we're, what, five books in and we know about three or four things about the Others:

1) They're white
2) They have a huge zombie army
3) They're supposed to be coming south
4) Killed by obsidian/valyrian steel

But yeah I'm glad we're dicking around with who-cares and who-gives-a-shit in Dorne when we know next to shit about the giant zombie invasion that's supposed to be the crux of the plot. Or, they could have been used on events/people that actually matter to the plot.

>>3973003
>school lunches taste horrible

You went to a shitty school.

Read some passages out of a friend's copy. I cringed reading the prose. I'm sure I can get into it and it'd be a fun read but I doubt I'd get much out of it and working past that terrible prose would be difficult.

>>3981830
>muh prose
>reading select passages of a 5 volume work

I really hope to god you don't gauge all literature this way. Everyone knows Martin's prose isn't great. Then again if you're reading asoiaf for the prose you're doing it wrong.

>>3981830
I'm taking a break after the second book, don't know if I will continue. I thought they were entertaining specially because I like the tv show and wanted to know more, but his fucking description of Qarth was just too much... I mean, these are the same eyes I used to read Invisible Cities, I felt so fucking dirty and disgusted.

>>3981858
>I felt so fucking dirty and disgusted.
Why?

>>3981889
because I spent so many hours reading inferior literature

>>3981897
Invisible Cities is inferior to a whole lot of things, what's your point?

>>3981918
0/10 shitty troll ain't even mad

>>3981920
What the fuck, how was I trolling?

>>3981830
>I cringed reading the prose
No you didn't, enough with the /lit/ bandwagon. It's getting tiresome.

With all of this hatred for prose, how does /lit/ feel about Lolita?

>>3982000
haven't read it

>>3982010

Why do I find this so ironic.

>>3972063
>tfw I cut my own hair

>>3982044

Pics of hair.

>>3972049
mmm, look at >>/mu/

>>3981953
>implying a vivid description is tiresome

I absolutely loved the first book, everything was perfect, not so much fantasy shit, credible character, i actually felt completely represented by a single character for the first time ever.
But then everything devolves onto dragons, magic and kids being all-powerful. too bad.

>>3982563
I'm actually curious, what character was that? don't be shy, you're anon.

>>3982582
Robert Baratheon.
I'm an ex fit military guy turnet fat drunkard, i actually cried reading his story because it coul've actually been me.

>>3972063
Oh shit-shit-Shitler!

There is NO mutual exclusivity between good and popular. Paul Raymond Gregory. A true artist that makes art for the mass market.

>>3972044
Yeah, because those retards are busy fapping over Infinite Jest.

So, do you really think that we want to be valitated by people fapping over Infinite Jest? It's like having your child being validated by a pedo.

>>3982563
But the thing is with the dragons and magic is that people aren't really prepared for it, no? The dragon'n'magic-coefficient in LOTR is quite constant. When they embark on their quest they get these invisibility cloaks. Now if it was ASOFIAF the cloaks would gradually go from very good camouflage to invisibility.

>>3981548
He is. Mike Portnoy too. Just because /mu/ hates anything successful doesn't negate the fact that he is one the most talented drummers alive.

>>3982845
nigger, they ain't got shit on Zach Hill, Denis Chambers or whatever Guru Guru's drummer was called. Even the guy from incubus has some stuff more interesting than whatever Neil dinosaur Peart ever did, popular isn't always bad, but only liking-knowing about popular books-drummers shows that you don't know many of them at all.

anyway, I feel fucking ashamed because it's been FUCKING 8 HOURS since that post and I'm still sitting in front of my computer, what the fuck am I doing with my life
sage to myself

>>3982831
>When they embark on their quest they get these invisibility cloaks.
There are no 'quests' and no 'invisibility cloaks' in LOTR, you dipshit. Read the book, don't watch the movie.

>mfw distance is measured in miles

>>3974183
and why would you enjoy childish cartoons and animated Disney's?

>>3982883
I stand corrected. It was "only" a super sayian camouflage cloak that makes him look like a boulder.

My point is that everyone seems to be really indifferent towards magic in Arda. Daenerys is hassled by every Dick and Tom and Jane of Qarth over her dragons. Lord Varys has real experience of magic and does therefore despise it.

The reasons that Bilbo can hide with his ring for 76 years are two:

Arda is a sparsely populated continent. Compare with Westeros and Essos where everyone are constantly rubbing elbows and stepping toes, causing much annoyance and grievances.

Dragons and magic is pretty much everyday. Daenery's three dragons does have a huge, initial curiosity value. But there hasn't been any dragon riders for hundreds of years. As far as everyone knows, they could just be white elephants.

Compare the maybe-useful dragons with the instantly usefull The Ring of Power. It is basically forgotten. For 76 years. Not plausible. It would be so easy for a small strike force to raid Shire and get the ring - especially if you can sense where it is.

Of course a small strikeforce could make a raid in Westeros. But if it isn't war, getting away with it would be a gauntlet.

>>3982894
Metric resistance here. I prefer miles if it's miles in the original text, rather than badly translated measurements. Because if the distance is said to be two miles, it is often a guesstimate. Not that it's 3 218 meters.

>>3982918
No, the point is that an entirely different universe uses "miles", a form of measurement created in our universe.

>>3972910
Please see the map at: >>3982912 If we assume that the unoccupied lands are good, then most of the countries could expand their borders a lot without bumping into each other. Imagine if Rohan gobbled up the plains and the coast to Lindon. What would the elves say to the rohanites? That they should go back home, because they are drunk?

Face it, making a realistic world wasn't Tolkiens strongest side. His strenghts are elsewhere.

>>3982923
I see. But Martin has stated that they are speaking english in Westeros. And aren't they using miles in LOTR too?

The best strange measurement I've seen in a story is the stadia used in Down in the Bottomlands - an alternate history short story by Turtledove. But if the story is about neanderthals that didn't become exctint, how come that they are using a measurement that the greeks used? :-S

>>3982938
where in that post does that guy ever make an argument for lotr being realistic? I hold doubts about your reading comprehension.

>>3982912
There is nothing about boulders and camouflage cloaks in LOTR, you dipshit.

Here's what the actual text says:

>‘Do you think he can see us?’ said Sam.
>
>‘I don’t know,’ said Frodo quietly, ‘but I think not. It is hard even for friendly eyes to see these elven-cloaks: I cannot see you in the shadow even at a few paces. And I’ve heard that he doesn’t like Sun or Moon.’
>
>‘Then why is he coming down just here?’ asked Sam.
>
>‘Quietly, Sam!’ said Frodo. ‘He can smell us, perhaps. And he can hear as keen as Elves, I believe. I think he has heard something now: our voices probably. We did a lot of shouting away back there; and we were talking far too loudly until a minute ago.’

>>3982961
And if the cloaks aren't magic, but just some kind of technology - how come that everyone else isn't sporting similar cloaks?

>>3982950
No. But one case for ASOFAI is that it's more realistic than LOTR. So if ASOFAI is run-of-the-mill fantasy, what fantasy mills runs it to?

>>3971938
I don't hate it but I think got is very much overrated.

>>3983012
I'd say it's the complete opposite. Just look at this and every other asoiaf thread on /lit/.

>>3983036
I think it's not bad, but it wouldn't get those much threads if it wasn't for the show. It's overrated. /lit/'s is a natural adverse reaction to being bombarded by this shit.

I'm a huge fantasy fan, it's a great getaway from everyday life.

While it didn't impress me with the writing I'm glad this series became so popular, at least it's a book I enjoyed and have a chance to talk about with people, when just a few years ago all that people knew about was Twilight.

I guess it's popular because it was tv-friendly. Better books like Robin Hobb's Farseer trilogy have elements such as inner workings of people and fantasy elements such as mind reading, or are too drawn out in dozens of books like the Wheel of Time series.

GoT, as in the tv adaptation, has twists, it's unpredictable and has tons of sex.

I like RR Martin's Sci-fi Dying of the Light it's got less characters, it's introspective, depressing, has some action but you probably will never see it on tv.

>>3982910

Because they're entertaining and very well-done. Adventure Time, Treasure Planet, Brave, How to Train Your Dragon, etc.

>>3982978

Elven Cloak Ltd. -- ask your local Orc goods dealer about our new and improved Invisithread technology! Now with twice the enchantment level!

>Machine wash cold; hang to dry.

>>3972006
This. A billion times, this.
>>3972079
Also, this.

>>3972177
>>3972225
No, dipshit, for making appeal to authority and non sequitur fallacies and then defending your posts as if they have any fucking substance at all.

Make an actual claim about why it's bad or shut the fuck up. end of.

>>3983860
See the replies that pointed out why they're both full of shit

It used to be you could say mainstream was shit and everyone would agree. Now it's "wow you think your superior douchenozzle" and people crying. Who gives a shit.

>>3983871
see>>3983868

>>3982978
>And if the cloaks aren't magic, but just some kind of technology - how come that everyone else isn't sporting similar cloaks?
One of the larger themes of LOTR is the fact that that the 'magic' vs. 'technology' dichotomy isn't really one. There isn't a difference between 'magic' and 'technology', there is only a difference between 'beautiful' and 'not beautiful'.

>>3983868
I don't like bestseller lists because, based on past experiences, they tend to be full of terrible books. Same goes with Top 40 music hits.

What the fuck are you having a problem understanding?

>appeal to authority

Where?

>non sequitur fallacies

Where?

Confirmed for pseudo-intellectual, spewing fallacies without actually pointing them out. Figures why you sarcastically went "master debater" after being insulted while missing the rest of the post.

Mein Kampf is one of the most hated books of all time

Guess it's actually a masterpiece

>>3972123
Popularity is a red flag that something may be simple and easy to digest. It obviously isn't always the case, but I suppose it is understandable why some people would avoid popular books altogether since it is more likely than not that they are not good. The same can probably be said for unpopular books too though.

>not recognizing the skill and scope of asoiaf

What are you all, a bunch of bandwagon-jumping plebs? You make me sick.

THROOOOOOONES YEAH
GAME OF THROOOOOOONES YEAHHHHH GAME OF THROOOOOOOOO
(FUCKING GAME OF THRONES FUCKING GAME OF THRONES FUCKING GAME OF THRONES)
OOOOOOONES
THROOOOOONES YEAH GAME OF THROOOONES YEAH GAME OF THROOOO
(FUCKING GAME OF THRONES FUCKING GAME OF THRONES FUCKING GAME OF THRONES FUCKING GAME OF THRONES )
OONES

>>3983371
>Dying of the Light
I like your taste in fantasy, please recommend maybe 2 more to add to my list

>>3983892
And beautiful-not beautiful seems to trump practicality.

So was Tolkien just hand-waving the issue away? Because if that cloak makes you look like a boulder, regardless of environment. And if you need to hide in an environment where there's simply little or no boulders - would that cloak adapt or would it continue play the boulder card? Because if so, it seems to be really stupid magic.

>>3985401

Well if you liked WoT and Farseer trilogy you'll love Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson, it's probably my #1 favorite at the moment
it has everything
>action, when it happens, is really good, I'm talking people in power armor and entire armies fighting giant monsters, but well written
>memorable, believable characters
>interesting and original world and lore
>politics
>good pacing
Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy is pure entertainment, it has visceral action, some funny stuff thrown in there, he can make you laugh while you're reading a torture scene, I don't think he can write anything else though, but he;s entertaining and like RR Martin he does the opposite of what you'd expect and bashes a few fantasy tropes

>>3976234
>>3976457
Yeah. Because bad things usually happens to bad people in ASOFAI. Theon Greyjoy could've stayed frosty and at least tried to appease his retarded father and his incestous sister, but no. And now Roose Bolton got him...

>>3980416
>Why would you read more than 5000 pages of Lame of Thrones when you can have something superior in just 600 or so pages.
Reminds me of the foreword to the Gebers paperback-edition of LoTR. It says that if you can stomach the first 200-something pages you're in for a helluva ride.

Compare with GoT where the introducing chapter chronicling the last ranging of Ser Waymar Royce is packed to the gills with information. It is almost hardboiled.

The first part of LoTR reminds me of that wedding scene in Deer Hunter that feels like seven hours in real time.

>>3980629
Dirty Harry Potter is emo without cutting, goth without the macabre and Lion Jesus in the Closet without christianity.

>>3981806
Thing is:

5) No one give two shits about it.

>>3981830
Oh, so you're one of those faggots that reads modernistic experimental avant-garde literature? Well, that modernistic joke got old some 80 years ago.

>>3981806
my kinda customer

How to kill his daughter's beloved direwolf:


>He had never paid much attention to the names the children had picked, but looking at her now, he knew that Sansa had chosen well. She was the prettiest, the most gentle and trusting. She looked at him with bright golden eyes, and he ruffleld her thick grey fur.

Shortly, Jory brought him Ice.

When it was over,

Martin does this shit

"She didn't remember when she fell"

"He didn't see the knife going through him"

>>3986598
>his incestous sister
Are you referring to when she allowed Theon to a point to fondle her breast and her how much he wanted to put his cock in her?
Or the part where she felt her brother's dick when he said he hard as a ship's mast for her?
Or when Theon kissed and nuzzled her neck?

>>3986712
Fuck i'm out of this thread so i don't read spoilers

>>3986765
Dude that is like the second or third book...
A Clash of Kings (1998)
A Storm of Swords (2000)

>spoiling 13 and 15 year old literature
Shiggy Diggy doo

>>3987122
I'm only on the first one lulz

>2000 was 13 years ago

Fuckk

>>3986695
What was the point of this post?

>>3987669
Had me lost too, maybe it was "those feels"

>>3987684
Admittedly it was sad. Fucking animals, I'm a blubbery mess when it comes to animals.

>>3987669
>>3987684
The point is his writing style

>>3980409
>Lord of the Rings isn't the best unless you're still young or never read anything better.

That is the biggest crock of shit I've ever seen posted on this board.

>>3980409
Wow, you must be 12 or a kid or younger than me then, because I'm an adult and I have a job and I pay bills and only read mature books for mature readers such as myself.

>>3987729
I know, and I see nothing wrong with that excerpt.

Why is /lit/ full of edgy hipsters?

>>3987769
>edgy hipsters

Someone's mad /lit/ doesn't like GoT

>>3987772

More so fantasy in general. That and statements like this one.

>>3971956

>popular means shit

I only watch the serie. I dont have courage to spend my time with this book.

>>3987795
Shame, the books are far, far better.

>>3987826
The first three anyways.

>>3987779
Popular doesnt equal "shit", but if something is popular, it will most likely appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Depth is likely to be sacrificed for accessability and therefore very popular things tend to be outshined by classics which have been praised by scholars and critics.

Speaking in broad terms here because the world isnt black and white.

>>3983868
>>3972200
Why can't someone just not like popular books? I don't understand your reasoning at all. It is not impossible for someone to not like a lot of top seller books (and then come to the conclusion top seller books are shit), and it is also not impossible that all the critics they choose to read and follow don't like the top sold books either.
Holy crap. I choose to not read a lot of Young Adult bestsellers because I haven't liked the one's I've read. I don't need to read every single best seller in order to come to that conclusion. I'll read classics and other books (both popular and random pickups) that I know I like. If you tell me that's "unreasonable" or "I can't think for myself/can't read a good book by myself" I'll need a lot of your glorious explanation.

>>3988465
Because people with shit tastes get mad when you say you don't like them, and they start accusing you of trying to be superior and call you hipsters

I love this new social justice warrior trend of mocking people who aren't averagefags

>>3988465
What do you think of Jim Butcher and Brandon Sanderson?
They are both best sellers that are praised in the fantasy world.

>>3971938
to be honest OP, it seems as if you're a conceited stock up who feels compelled to read the books to keep yourself updated with what the mass is reading but in spite of it being a well written fantasy you find the prospect of reading all five books daunting. Hence, you elaborate an excuse not to read them and feel justified in so doing :)

>>3993002
>doesn't like the book
>MUST BE CONCEITED HIPSTER

His comment doesn't display any of the shit you described. Also take your snarky ':)' to reddit please.

D&E WUZ HERE


DUNK AND BLOODRAVEN ARE RELATED

RED WUZ TOO

>tfw i love the show because it's fun trash with great characters, but don't want to read the books because they're so long and badly written and i'm perfectly happy to just carry on watching the show
>tfw bookfags keep fucking spoiling it for me and telling me that i should just read the books myself if i don't want spoilers
>tfw reading the books would just spoil the show in even more detail for me

>Sunset found her squatting in the grass, groaning. Every stool was looser than the one before, and smelled fouler. By the time the moon came up she was shitting brown water. The more she drank, the more she shat, but the more she shat, the thirstier she grew, and her thirst sent her crawling to the stream to suck up more water.

Truly the greatest writer of our times.

>>3993237
what's wrong with that?
>huuurrrr it's about shit it must be shit writing

>>3993241

He constantly goes into excessively detailed and long-winded explanations about bowel movements and menstruation. It's never important to the plot and there's no legitimate reason for including in the story. The only explanation that makes any sense is that it somehow turns George on to write about bowel movements.

Reading these books feels like reading the sick and depraved fantasies of a morbidly obese man.

>>3993248
but that passage is important to the plot
it's showing us her absolute lowest point, it's important for her story arc that we get that kind of suffering and humiliation after she was previously so arrogant

>>3993248
>It's never important to the plot
She got Terminal Diarrhea how is that not important?
You don't know if she will die from it.

It is said that GRRM will not have a ruler of the Iron Throne who had a previous POV.
Books 6 and 7 suppose to be POV free.

Dany, Cersei, Tyrion, The crows eye, jon, Sansa etc will not be king/queen.

Tommen, Stannis Aegon, Little Finger all have chances to be rulers.

Guys i have a question is the Mountain reborn immortal?
Is he like Frankenstein put together and live or does he have to go in for servicing every now and then?

I read a book some time ago about some being that had to get refreshed body parts to stay alive is this that?

>>3971938
because not everyone is an aspie like /lit/

>>3971938
>>3993248

>prose
It's good. It describes a lot to show a contrast between various settings and characters. Also, it's how items were described in medieval literature. It's not something new.

>>3993590
It's still shit

>>3993322
Source? Doesn't sound like something GURM would admit

>>3993233
>tfw calling out another anon for being a fat lazy homo faggot that cannot into reading but prefers to bandwagon it

>>3993237
>tfw calling out another Anon on being an ignorant homo nigger hipster that cannot into history of medicine
>tfw being book smart knowing that the last cholera epidemic of Stockholm was in 1866 but the last of Naples (as in Italy, not that land locked mini-India) was in 1973

What exactly is wrong with the prose?

Steven Erikson is greater just for the fact that he actually writes what he wants to write.
The biggest pause he has ever taken was 10 days before he started writing again.

GRRM doesn't write half as much and the moment he tasted success his writing output started to go down.

Steven his only "fault" is that he writes his novels the way he wants a novel to be and it got more popular than he expected.
A novel made for a small audience that somehow attracts a much bigger one is naturally going to be critiziced more than a series that's made by a fatass who writes for the largest audience possible.

Unless you think writing for writings sake isn't great, then Steven Erikson is not your man.

I kind of stopped reading GRRM when I realised that deep down inside, he just wants to write porn. He just doesn't have the talent to set aside his writing skills completely and just write full-on porn.

>>3995726
>GRRM doesn't write half as much and the moment he tasted success his writing output started to go down.

You were right in everything you said except for this.

GRRM has been writing since his teens. He didn't write one thing, make it big, and then coast on his success for the remainder of his life.

>>3995733
His output still seemed to go down a bit.

He probably loves writing and writes more than most people on this planet but the commercial interest is still evident.

>Reading fantasy
>Not sci-fi
I don't read much fantasy but I bet this blows most fantasy shit out of the water

>>3995748
Lord of Light > Dune

>>3995748
>dune will never be finished
;__;

>>3995751
>Lord of Light
Yea, that's the greatest stand alone sci-fi/fantasy novel ever.

>>3995733
He was passionate in his early years.

But you can't honestly tell me he's still passionate about the series

Ok /lit/ I challenge you here

Take ANY of his battle sequences in ASOIAF, replace weapons with genitals, and post it here

>>3995733
>didn't write one thing, make it big, and then coast on his success for the remainder of his life.

Laurell FUCKING K Hamilton

Can't we get her books taken down? Its atrocious what she puts into the market.

>>3995748
>read one shit
>thinks his shit is better than the others without seeing it
>/lit/

>>3972123

Except when those people who are "very interested" in a medium discover something good and word gets out. Maybe it won't reach uber-popular omnipresent status like Harry Potter or The Beatles or what-have-you, but everybody with a more than a passing interest will know about it. Most geniunely great works are popular, just not uber-mainstream.

>>3995970

also, I used "uber" twice in one post

>>3995970
>i read this in tyrion's voice from the audiobooks
fuck me

>>3986615
Is LoTR worth reading even though I've seen the movie countless of times?

And regarding ASoIAF, damn good books. If it wasn't popular I bet /lit/ would love it.

>>3996045
>Is LoTR worth reading even though I've seen the movie countless of times?

Yes, the books are very different from the movie in places. The movies leave a lot of details out even if some of the key scenes are almost word-for-word translations.

If you like the movies just for the action though, you may not like the books as much because the action is handled in a much more restrained manner than Jackson has ever shown.

Henry Jacoby, William Irwin, "Game of Thrones and Philosophy: Logic Cuts Deeper Than Swords"

>>3996088
Ugh wow fuck