/lit/ - Literature

those books are shit, op. the ones in the top row

>>4207548
Billions of fans would disagree with you

>>4207556
billions of Eat Pray Love fans would also disagree with me if i called that shit. does it make it good?

>>4207556
fans are precisely the least qualified to appraise the quality of whatever work

>>4207558
I don't know, I haven't read it

>>4207559
Something that has more fans is more likely to be good than something that has less fans.

>>4207560
>Something that has more fans is more likely to be good than something that has less fans.

hehehe :) what a rusemeister

>>4207545
you should read Bernard Cornwell
It's much better than this

>>4207556
>billions
Lol

>>4207560
>Something that has more fans is more likely to be good than something that has less fans.

Ah man, I havent met many Proust fans...must be shit. Guess I should read Fight Club instead, due to its popularity.

>>4207561
I said it's more likely, not that it's certain. Same as a restaurant with a longer line is more likely to have good food than a restaurant where nobody's eating.

>>4207576
what if the longer line restaurant is just cheaper and everyone doesn't want to pay more for the food?

>>4207545
>best pieces of fantasy literature in history

but that's not the Neverending Story, boi.

>>4207581
So printing better words on pages is more expensive?

Nothing. It's passable enough medieval fantasy pulp, albeit somewhat overwritten.
The second book is actually the worst, but don't tell anyone I told you so.

>>4207576
>McDiarrhea
>objectively better than anything

-2/10, fuck you.

>>4207588
Doesn't come close to the depth of ASOIAF, not my fault if /lit/ only reads the books on a superficial level

>>4207600
>doesn't come close to the depth
of ASDFGSFOIF
>depth

you better be baiting, nigga. Otherwise, it's not my fault you only read it superficially. You git.

>>4207592
> explicitly says "restaurant"
> HURR MCD'S IS A RESTAURANT

>>4208095
mcd's is a restaurant mate

>>4207545
>Bringing an ice and fire discussion to /li/
You just went full retard.

>anything popular
>good

Is it possible to enjoy exciting books with well crafted characters?

I'd choose GoT over boring Ulysees any time

ASoIaF is the biggest proof that /lit/ is even more hipster than /mu/

>>4208165
what makes people post things like this? do they not realize they are perpetuating the stereotype? do they think it'll be more significant when it's THEM who say they would choose got over ulysses?

why is everyone so negative about GoT when it's recommended in the sticky? Should it not be removed if a majority hates it?

Why does noone give a supported argument pro or contra GoT?

What a bad thread, you all should feel bad.

>>4208221
oh dear... did someone insult your generic fantasy tripe?

>>4208165
>boring
>Ulysees

he got too comfortable and started dragging it out.

Plus he now plays his favorite "jk s/he's not dead" game repeatedly.

Please step up your game for the next book, grrm

>>4208240
The writing is terrible, it's painfully apparent he used to write for television. His useless overly descriptive style and depth-less character development are two reasons I stay away from his books.

>>4208252
>implying you've read Ulysses

>>4207560
The only thing that more fans is a good indicator of is money spent on advertising.

>>4208265
>implying the fat man won't keel over before he releases it

>>4208321
true

Daily reminder:

Williams has also had an influence on other authors in his genre. His Memory, Sorrow and Thorn series was one of the things that inspired George R. R. Martin to write A Song of Ice and Fire. “I read Tad and was impressed by him, but the imitators that followed—well, fantasy got a bad rep for being very formulaic and ritual. And I read The Dragonbone Chair and said, ‘My god, they can do something with this form,’ and it's Tad doing it. It’s one of my favorite fantasy series.” [26] [27] Martin incorporated a nod to Williams in A Game of Thrones with “House Willum”: The only members of the house mentioned are Lord Willum and his two sons, Josua and Elyas, a reference to the royal brothers in The Dragonbone Chair. [28] “George is one of the best writers around these days (you notice I don’t say ‘best SF and F writers,’ because that’s too limiting) as well as a good guy, so if I helped him decide to write something, that’s a pleasure and an honor.” [29]

In “Tad Williams: The American Tolkien?” Ash Silverlock observes that “echoes of Williams’s work” can be seen in the works of Robin Hobb, Terry Goodkind and Robert Jordan. [30] Blake Charlton, Christopher Paolini, and Patrick Rothfuss have also indicated they’ve been inspired by Williams. [31] [32] [33]

>feast of crows
>bad

>>4208282
>depth-less character development
top kek

>>4209267
Great argument, you sure told him.

>>4209274
>2+2 = 5
>top kek
>hurr durr great argument

>>4209282
>bumping a thread after 5 hours
>contribute nothing
>act retarded

Keep up the good work.

>>4208282
I wonder where the different reactions come from. Might it be, because the sentence applies to one book, but not the other ones?

>>4208282
Having been well read in the fantasy genre, GRRM is surprisingly superior writer than other staples such as the genre defining Tolkien. I'm sorry, he has been acknowledged many times as being an extremely weak writer with his least ambitious title (The Hobbit) being some of his best written work. GRRM has an almost undeniably intricate writing style, and the only reason I think people like you feel the need to compare it to shit like twilight is because you don't like the amount of popularity it has accumulated. People of /lit/ seem to like these books, and having read them myself I can say it's an outstanding series. To see you call the characters depth-less is amusing however. You lost the argument before you even started.

>>4209434
>people of /lit/ seem to like these books
lel, nope

the only people here who like those books are basement-dwellers who slither in from other boards...like yourself for example

>>4209492
>lel, nope
>top kek
>other random shitposting

This thread really is uncharacteristic of /lit/ and how we conduct ourselves here. Feels more like something you'd see in /tv/ or /v/.

>>4209529
make it /b/ or /sp/

Is GRRM hated because it's popular? Are the people here just as wannabe "alternative" as /mu/?

>>4209529
You can sift through the archive if you want semi-intelligent discussion on the merits of ASOIAF,
but the defense mostly boils down to "it's good because I like it" and "you only hate it because it's popular".
At this stage most of /lit/'s regular posters are sick of these threads hence the seemingly infantile responses you see.

>>4209533
I don't think so for the most part. It's just that people more used to other boards wander in here for time to time and latch onto more popular titles, bringing their board "culture" with them, provoking some of us to occasional response while others here mostly ignore them.

>>4208282
ASOIAF is bad and highly overrated but it is on as low a level as twilight

>>4209545
is not on, I mean

welp

>>4207558
>muh objective standards

>>4207588
I enjoyed it, but it's pretty much meta and therefore a universe of its own.

The Seven Citadels is the best fantasy YA I've read.

>>4209545
I assume you meant
>not on as low a level as Twilight

Why not?

>>4209434
>the only reason I think people like you feel the need to compare it to shit like twilight is because you don't like the amount of popularity it has accumulated.

I think there's something to be said for this about any and all forms of media on 4chan. There's a running theme that anything that is particularly popular, or 'trending' with the masses, is reviled by anon - the self-professed outsider - simply for it's popularity. Now of course, being that anon isn't simply one person - despite the common perception of a 'hivemind' - there will always be those that hold the opposing opinion. Sadly, or not - depending on which side of the fence you lie per subject -, these people will often be drowned out and shat upon for their 'vapid obsession with anything popular' by self-proclaimed 'patricians'.

On the surface this appears to be elitism in its crudest form, however I would suggest that it's merely a clash of cultures. There are, I would say, two [I'm very much generalising here] groups of people that post on any of 4chans boards dedicated to a certain subject matter; those who, for whatever reason, feel very strongly towards said subject, possessing a certain degree of 'expertise' [I use that word lightly], and there are those who are more, for want of a better word - due to it's rage inducing connotations specific to 4chan -, casually acquainted with the subject.

Specifically, in terms of Martin's books, I think that they are neither exemplary or terrible examples of 'literature'. [I'm aware that the use of this particular word when describing 'genre fiction' is incredibly contentious.] I would suggest that they fall somewhere in the middle. Easy to read, and with enough depth to be considered immersive, yet not enough depth to be considered profound. They are enjoyable; not life changing. Now of course, in terms of the clash I referred to earlier, this means that those who's interest in the subject [literature] is not as strong are able to appreciate them for the medium of escapism that they are, whilst those that feel more heavily invested in the subject are inclined to resent them for their popularity garnered not from supposed depth but immersion.

>>4209552
Well for one, it's not very heavy but there actually is some characterization. The style is a bit less consistent but I think a bit better on average.

And as much as I dislike touting worldbuilding, it DOES have a lot more put into setting than twilight. The concepts and planning involved in everything are pretty clearly at a higher level than twilight's.

I didn't read a huge amount of twilight though, god knows I wouldn't, but I did read the first two of ASOIAF

>>4209541
All fine and well, but this thread started as an obvious troll and has survived as a circle jerk, it's pretty obvious that there are some people here that "like" childishly hating on the series more than discussing it.

>>4209541
> the defense mostly boils down to "it's good because I like it" and "you only hate it because it's popular".
this is on the same level of the discussion of reason to like anything ever, though

I'm having this odd feeling like, everyone who disses the series has either:
1. Never read the books
2. Is a raging faggot who immediately dislikes everything that majority seems to like, just for the sake of it
3. Didn't like the show, thus books are automatically utter shit

Because if some of you faggots didn't like the 'writing' or whatever, as you say, I'm pretty sure you'd call it quits without even finishing GoT, nevermind reading all the 5 books just to come to this board and say 'wow wat a fggt riter holy shet so over-descriptive wow there r betr riters out der'.

>>4209553
>I think that they are neither exemplary or terrible examples of 'literature'. [I'm aware that the use of this particular word when describing 'genre fiction' is incredibly contentious.]
Muh Dostojevskij!
Muh Joyce!

>>4209563
>vague reasons are unilaterally a sign of irrational hatred
go fuck yourself, you're just as bad as people who militantly irrationally hate things

just because you can't describe a sense/feeling/perception fully doesn't mean there isn't good reason behind it, and in fact most people are shit at describing or even being aware of most of theirs

>>4209553
>There's a running theme that anything that is particularly popular, or 'trending' with the masses, is reviled by anon - the self-professed outsider - simply for it's popularity
Doesn't ASoIaF itself give lie to that?
It's wildly popular everywhere but /lit/

It's interesting to me that people will so highly acclaim Martin's work and then turn around to spit the harshest of vitriol, mostly likely without having read them, at other popular works like Twilight.

At least the criticism towards ASoIaF from /lit/ is an informed criticism. Many of us actually have read Game of Thrones at least. Yet when we give our opinion it's usually dismissed as begrudging, pretentious, hipster etc.

>>4209563
Those who've at least read the first book and hated it tend to argue, those who have not use words like "lel" and "kek".
Thus, I disagree with point 2. of your argument, but agree with 1. and 3.
I myself, like most "fans" like the books well enough, but don't claim them to be the end of the gods gift to literature like most "haters" here tend to accuse us "fans" of doing.
Was it like this to that particular "fandom" here when the Harry Potter films were still coming out? I don't remember.

>>4209559
>this thread started as an obvious troll
Possibly it did, but doubtless there are people who hold the opinion that ASOIAF is the greatest fantasy literature in history,
and there are also people who enjoyed the first 3 books and hold an altogether different opinion of the last 2.

>>4209575
>It's wildly popular everywhere but /lit/
It divides people on /tv/, hence the spillover here and that particular boards type of posting.
I don't like to accuse, but I do get the vibe that a lot of people here dismiss the books based on the tv series, or even just an outside perception of the tv series.

>>4209572
it's not that hard to describe the reason you hate something; there are more words to express negativity than positivity

nonetheless i haven't seen any other complains about the series, besides:
- poor writing
- boring
- too popular

>>4209586
Everyone was all over GRRM when HBO launched the series. That I remember.

>>4209587
>Possibly it did, but doubtless there are people who hold the opinion that ASOIAF is the greatest fantasy literature in history,
None of which I see in this thread
>and there are also people who enjoyed the first 3 books and hold an altogether different opinion of the last 2.
That's different from stating that the first three books are "best pieces of fantasy literature ever".

>>4209492
The books are on the /lit/ wikia

>>4209575
>Doesn't ASoIaF itself give lie to that?
>It's wildly popular everywhere but /lit/

It could be considered the exception to the rule. I'm aware that it is well discussed on /tv/, but that is of course complicated to evaluate because of the crossover with the television series. The popularity of the television show is more deserved, in my opinion, - despite the format of the novel being a potentially better medium to tell the story-, partly because of the lack of anything similar [genre-wise] being produced in that medium and partly because it is, I think, reasonably well produced.

I don't watch much television though and wouldn't consider myself anywhere near an expert on the matter. I'm sure it still gets a lot of hate, if not so much as here, on /tv/ though.

Perhaps the voice of the contrarian is louder on /lit/ due to the nature of the respective board specific subjects.

>>4209591
I don't know, I get the vibe that a lot of people on /lit/ don't actually watch a lot of tv. I know I don't.

>>4209592
>too popular
But you haven't seen that complaint, you're projecting.

>poor writing
>boring

Are two pretty good reasons to dislike a book, wouldn't you think?

>>4209592
How about these:

Unnecessary/purple prose for the sake of worldbuilding, in a bad way.

Characters that despite being cited as a good quality of the series, are really pretty one-dimensional - it's mostly the fact that there are so many and so much plot that people think they're highly developed.

overemphasis of plot turns and cliffhangers to the point of often neglecting to grant proper resolution to a situation

some twists that really smell like ass-pulls just for the sake of pushing the story in the desired direction, probably largely caused by him re-planning the series

overemphasis on making strangers or people not aligned with a character act horribly toward them for the sake of creating drama/conflict and grittiness

I could probably think of more, but I think you get the picture of the feeling I have of the series, it's a pretty clearly planned and contrived plot with deceptively shallow characters forced against each other to make easy drama in a fantastic setting that gives excuse for more thin characters to flesh it out

>>4209615
Just to expand on this

by all accounts the tv series is pretty good, so I don't understand why people would think the books get criticized because of the tv series.

>>4209612
The tv show does do the books injustice. The costumes and set design are more the default and generic "Lord of the Rings" type Hollywood fair than the "early renaissance" like world described in the books. Characters and plot points are altered or ignored to condense the story and give way for eye candy and the scale is not even half of what GRRM manages to conjure up.
And on the whole, it's way more exploitative and cheep the way it treats sex and violence than the books themselves.
Of course, the series was always going to be limited in comparison due to budgetary reasons and the more limited time frame of the format, but the fact remains that the books should be judged separately from the series.

>>4209640
After reading the books the tv series has lost its luster to me. I just can't help but autisticly nitpick everything in my head and think about how everything has been redesigned for wider audience with more sex and shit. I used to really like the show too, so that sucks.

>>4207545

Remember when you had to write an essay for school and you got about halfway in and then ran out of worthwhile points to make?

That's what I think happened to the ASOIAF series.

It's weird because I'm too invested emotionally into the characters to stop reading the books (say what you will about everything else about GRRM, he can fucking write characters) but it feels like I have to torture myself a little.

I only disagree with Dance with Dragons being on the shit list. Feast for Crows was a down spike for the series, no doubt, but even that one had it's moments. I think that the books are having a rising quality that is going to pay off in the next two assuming the old fat bastard lives that long.

What did people think about Guin Saga btw?

>>4209645
I feel like he has the next two books planned out, though, and they should be alright. Keep in mind that the original trilogy he had planned ended at SOS. FFC and DWD occurred during what was originally just gonna be a time gap, so not that much really relevant could happen in them. GRRM probably just wanted money so he was like fuck it and wrote them anyway

>>4209627
I read AGoT and I must admit it is inconsistent. The descriptions range from overly descriptive to describing nothing at all, the characters have little to no development nor depth, all of them have few characteristics as if that made them bone and flesh, Martin can't even pull off attachment to his characters, I found myself more often than not wanting to put off that book but I needed to see what the fuzz was all about.
Now I realize that he subverts tropes, crafts artificially, cares little about actually fulfilling anything through his stories rather than pointless ramblings on unidentifiable motivations and the payoff is either gratuitous or nonexistant.

>>4208282
>FTFY
So third rate.

>>4209657
>guize i'm forcing my uneducated opinions onto this board since my favorite books are called shit by people who actually read
>guize this seminal modern masterpiece of the 20th century is shit because you said my favorite books are shit
>guize I am now the common denominator of your board
>guize pls respect GRR Martin
>guize

>>4209640
>The tv show does do the books injustice.
I agree with the points that you make, and as I suggested I concur that the format of the book makes for a far better medium for incorporating size and detail of the world built by Martin. It is, however, a necessity for the producers of the show to pick and choose certain aspects of the world and the story so as to be effective as a TV programme. This will always be the case for novels turned to screen; lore and accuracy will be sacrificed for entertainment value because of the limited time they have to captivate an audience.

heuhuehuehuehe

i love these threads

>>4209665
Third rate. Also, what makes you think I'm not defending Stephanie Meyer? She's a better writer than Joyce for several obvious reasons.

>>4209672
I am perfectly aware of that having worked within the format. It's just that, even with that in mind I feel like they've could have done a lot better, and I know that they could have done a lot worse.

>>4209592
You forgot about muh buts and muh raep culture of raep.

>>4209675
Is Joyce a writer? :-S

>>4209676
>info pulled from Wikipedia with a large helping of Monocle McFaggot heaped upon.

>>4209684
The same could well be said for the books.

>>4209686
Touché.

>>4209686

>>4209685
>>4209665
TOPKEK

>>4209676
>but He doesn't follow The Rules(tm)!
>GRRM's writing is unrealistic because it tries to be realistic!
>The story is too grim! I want every plotline to resolve itself positively!

bad review, reviewer wants the books to follow the norm

>>4209703
Yeah! Groucho Marx had an idea that reviewers should be reviewed. Like "If this reviewer doesn't step up, he will soon be back to the godforsaken place he came from".

>>4209703
Their argument is rather more convincing than whatever drivel you just spat out.

>>4209709
>Their
Plural?

>convincing
Yeah, if you get everything but the point.

Also, what happens to Osha? Does she get a new husband and so on?

>>4209715
As far as I know she's still on Skagos being a unicorn riding cannibal or something.

>>4209703
>but He doesn't follow The Rules(tm)!
not really part of his argument, in fact a big art of his argument is that GRRM ends up not making anything new
>GRRM's writing is unrealistic because it tries to be realistic!
not so much "because it tries to be realistic" as because he doesn't expend the effort and care to make it realistic, and that simply removing the light-hearted moral heart of fantasy does not create realism - grittiness isn't realism, basically is the argument
>The story is too grim! I want every plotline to resolve itself positively!
not "it's too grim" but "it's too focused on being grim, to the detriment of providing resolution"

and he never sad he wants positive resolutions, he said he wants resolutions period. Which is pretty much how a narrative works, so yea.

The same criticism could be said about Harry Potter or any of the genre fiction out there, trying to view fantasy lit with the same lens as literary fiction, is like trying to judge a fish by it's ability to climb a thing. The pretentious try to judge GRRM as if he was setting out to write War and Peace or Notes from the Underground, when in reality he was writing a story were people have magical pet wolves and dragons. Only a fool would get so seriously angry while analyzing a fantasy novel. If anything, the amount of Literati rage proves that ASOIAF is worth reading because it makes the coffee swilling Tolstoy fans so uncomfortable. They are just fantasy novels that people take too seriously because they are better than the average fantasy novel, which in literary terms isn't saying much at all.

>>4209715
>Plural?
"Their" can be used as a neuter singular 3rd person pronoun

>>4209676
Gosh what a faggot. I don't even like the books but the review is pure, pretentious shit.

>>4209721
i know this is pasta but man the imaginary division between genre and literature is really fucking stupid

>>4209722
Sounds contrived. And since "Keely" is using a pic of a man as an avatar, it's simpler to call him "he".

>>4209728
How about this?

Literary is books that are "rewarding" (badly written and demands at least 3 years at the uni to understand), depressing (gloomy without being cathartic) and about things that you can read about in the newspapers anyway BUT seen trough the lens of the inserted author.

>>4209719
shut up pretenshus faggot

we don't want logic and sense here

GRRM for president!
japes japes japes japes japes japes japes japes japes japes japes japes japes japes japes

>>4209751
Original user of 'their' here. I read the review and then closed the image before replying to your post. I didn't care to notice the gender or, indeed eye colour, waistline or ethnicity, of the reviewer and thus simply decided to use the non gender-specific pronoun. Christ.

>>4209751
>Sounds contrived.
how can accepted use of language be contrived
>it's simpler to call him "he"
simpler yes but not necessarily accurate, no need to call him out on it

>>4209765
>I didn't care to
Check your privileges before using a
>non gender-specific pronoun

>>4209762
>logic
2/10
made me reply

>>4209751
and "genre" is books written to fleece braindead neckbeards titillated by incest, medieval weaponry and dragons?

>>4209768
You're the one that's getting all hot and busy about using the correctly determined pronoun according to gender, ironically or not. You pedant, you.

>>4209775
>Strawman attack!

Only retarded plebeian mouthbreathers dislike Feast.

>>4209775
http://almostliterature.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/post-modernism-infinite-jest-and-lost-all-shit/

>One review of Infinite Jest wrote that if you can’t understand or appreciate the novel, you should go back to reading pulp-romance. Reading that made me want to go to the nearest farmer’s market, find the dickhead who wrote that, and shove his organic avocados up his ass. Then I thought about it, and shit, he actually gave pretty good advice. At least pulp-romance generally has a beginning, middle, and an end. At least pulp-romance has a conflict and a climax. I’d like to see Wallace, or any other post-modernist, sit down and actually try to write a story that makes fucking sense. Anyone can get a bunch of drugs and hack away on a laptop for a few years and come up with a bunch of non-sense. And then if someone calls out their work, they can just say, “Well you just don’t understand the underlying meaning and symbolism.”

>>4209779
Only retarded plebeian mouthbreathers have read Feast.

>>4209777
Just how I don't like tumblr feminists calling everything raep.

>>4207545
Game of thrones fans are like people who don't really read books, then check out some silly housewife romance novel and think it's the most heartgripping piece of writing ever.

>>4209792
Begging the question about what books we should read.

>>4209784

0/10 no originality don't even bother seeing me after class.

>>4209783
I don't understand what you're trying to achieve by linking to a random opinion.
Are we supposed to respond in kind by linking to a glowing review of DFW?
Try forming an original thought you fuckwad.

>>4209795
http://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Recommended_Reading/Literature_by_type

>>4209805

That's some damn fine high school reading.

>>4209807
finer than got, anyway.

>>4209541
Rubbish. It is the 'critiques' of the series here on /lit/ that boil down to meaningless little catchphrases 99% of the time. You're making shit up.

>>4209795
I'm not saying the books are bad.
They're just very mediocre.

I was too bored to go on halfway into the second book.

If you want character driven, gritty fantasy you might want to check out Fritz Leiber.

>>4209807
Are you trying to be a caricature?

>>4209813

>reads "real" literature
>cant into grammar

It was all for nought!

>>4209820
is this reddit

>>4209819

Sounds like the denizens of /lit/ are.

>>4209821

>cant formulate coherent counter arguments
>goes straight to scapegoats and buzzwords

It didn't even help you think!

>>4209815
I don't have to make shit up pal, it's all there
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/

>>4209797
I achieved a response from YOU.

It is a simple matter of cultural capital. Martin isn't abusing his readers. But he can't get away with that, because he is read by neckbeards. Wallace is getting away with abusing his readers, because they are not neckbeards.

>>4209805
>http://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Recommended_Reading/Literature_by_type
Thanks, but it's the usual suspects we all know of.

>>4209825
sorry, i'll think of a Coherent Counter Argument to "ur grammar sux lol", please stand by

>>4209818
I see your point.

>>4209797
>>4209833
And speaking of cultural capital:

http://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/alas-poor-wallace-a-review-of-infinite-jest/

>This is the whole reason why publishers are keen to plaster testimonials on the cover of their books: to milk our authority and social proof biases. Infinite Jest is literally festooned with blurbs from a galaxy of authoritative sources: It arrives literally armoured in literary authority. We are told by a variety of serious people (who are taken very seriously by other serious people) that this is a seriously serious book. There can be little doubt that as far as the 1996 literary ingroup was concerned, Infinite Jest was a smashing communicative success.

>>4209826
>http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/
And the point of this was...

if GRRRM is so great then why aren't there symphonies inspired by him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_PKCWcJZ-g

literature 1-0 plebs

>>4209856
>La Divina Commedia
>early 1300s
Get rekt!

>>4209833
>it's the usual suspects we all know of.
Well yeah. What are you expecting, some hidden masterpiece no-one has ever read?
with dragons and swords?

>>4209883
Exactly!

>>4207600
> ASOIAF
> Not the most superficial book series we have ever seen
Oh wow all the depth in these 1900 characters
Stabbing that dude sure revealed me something other than how plot continues
People are bad is an important philosophical aesop

>>4210229
if you can't finish a plot as simple as "dragon army fights zombie army while lots of people are dicks" in under 90K words, you have no business being a writer, because you're a fucking columnist.

I like ASOIAF I don't really care if it's "fine lit" I think it's better than a lot of the boring shit that gets called "good" on this board.

>Arguing about literature being better than other forms is like arguing about music, everyone has different tastes, just because you like classical music doesn't mean you aren't a boring fuck.
>>Classical music is deep and has a lot more skill and majesty and all that other shit.
>>>Pop songs are better, no, shut the fuck up, you don't have taste just because you went to school for a degree in music, I'd still rather listen to Deadmau5 than Bach.
>>>>Just because something is complex doesn't make it better. ASOIAF is better than Infinite Jest because of the same reasons that you hate ASOIAF and love IJ

Why is it that people who don't like ASOIAF just love to get buttraged about it? I mean really, you guys are worse than those nerds who like to bash Ke$ha because she's not Lady Gaga.

>NO I CANT, I WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW THAT MY LITERATURE DEGREE MAKES ME SUBJECTIVELY BETTER AT DECIDING WHATS A GOOD READ OR NOT IT HAS TO BE WORTH SOMETHING

>>4210424
Kesha is based as fuck if listen to the acoustic versions of her songs, you disgusting pleb.

>>4210424

why are you so upset? look at all that shit you posted like i'm going to read it. asoiaf is shit get over it fag.

>implying AFFC isn't the best book in the series simply because it didn't have garbage POV characters like Dany, Jon & Tyrion shitting up the book like they did in ADWD

>>4211063
my nigga

Jon is the best of those 3 tho

>>4210424
>claiming mastery through number of pages
>bashing old literature for being old
Whoever made that wasn't even trying.

>>4209846
I dislike Infinite Bullshit just as much as the average layman, but taking RS Bakker seriously? Not even once.

>>4207556
>billions

>>4212276
What's wrong with Bakker?

>/lit/ can't even come to a conclusion on GRRM
I'm ashamed in you, anon.
GRRM is a hack writer, nothing wrong with that. He threw in a couple of "flawed" characters, slapped on a historically-inaccurate Britain, and tried to pass it off as realistic without creating lore (beyond the names of a few houses, a shameful and pitiful amount of effort compared to a good fantasy author). If people like shit prose and juvenile pandering, that's fine. Don't go mad because it's popular. No one gave a shit about romance and erotica before Twilight and 50 shades of shit, and your shitposting just gives the fans an excuse to mobilise and convert.

>people not liking AFFC for drunk Cersei and paragon of virtue Jaime
why is this allowed

>>4210424
>Schopenhauer
>emperor of the basement-dwellers
>2013
>believing that there is a soul


>>4209592
>>4209623
The "too popular" is implicit. Way back in the days there was little books. So just owning a book gave status. Then the printing press etc came along and just owning a book wasn't a thing anymore. That's when taste was invented.

The only review of a little-known but badly written book I know of is in Shock Xpress 2. It is written for shit an giggles. Probably a break from the rest of the more serious articles in that anthology/magazine/book/whatever.

Because consider this: GoT had premiere in 2011. That's 15 years after the release of GoT: The Book. During that time old media didn't care. And suddenly a new game shows up in town. A threat. Therefore it must be curbed with "taste".

>>4212399
It wouldn't make sense to combat a non-threat.

If the book was popular AND good then we wouldn't be having the discussion.

But it's not good.

Gene Wolfe is still the only fantasy author worth reading.

>>4212353
>GRRM is a hack writer
>nothing wrong with that
Pick one.

>>4212416
It's even worse: Old media didn't even know about ASOFIA before the premiere. Despite it's their job to try to predict up and commers.

>>4207545
OP, your taste. Not only did we get the relationship between Dany and the Dragons that we needed to affirm her as the dragon's 'mother' and not some drag along, but we set the stage for the invasion of Westeros that would finally get the Lannisters out of power.

Feast For Crows was a great book on the interregnum between the invasion of the Golden Company and the War With the North. It left out a lot of the action from the other three novels, but that's because the war ended.

Dance also ended Jon Snow's reign as the main protagonist (in my mind that was GRRM's intention) and possibly sets up Dany to assume his position.

>>4212438
Except your argument assumes OP's problem is with the plot, and not the very obvious real problem with the books post #3, which is that they are disgustingly padded and bloated.

The first few novels are punchy, full of significant events, and focus on characters involved in the important stuff. The most recent ones are horrendously padded, barely develop the story and often give us perspectives that are completely irrelevant.

There is a huge issue here of descending into fanservice. Just because Martin can crave the indulgence of the reader and publisher to give us a detailed story and background for very single house and character doesn't mean that makes for a good read or experience for anyone except the most anal and devoted of his fans.

If you can't step back and see the obvious change of tack and complete loss of momentum of the series, you are falling into the above class of people - people whose critical faculty has been replaced by gratitude for every bit of world-building fluff that Martin farts out.

Replace the combat scenes with genitals and you got shitty porn

>>4212461
>dat substitute reasoning
Look! Even the Soviet Union is ashamed of that post.

>>4212453
No, I don't think so. You're assuming first of all that my reasoning for liking DoD is based not at all on logical dissertation.

First of all the first three books had a lot of momentum because there was a freaking war going on. A prominent lord was just backstabbed, his king killed, and the entire land was plunged into civil war for about three fucking volumes while the eighteen year old kid in the North is thrown into a league of nobody's after living his entire life in the specially privileged lifestyle of a nobleman.
Nevermind the other characters who were forced to change their lives because of Ned Stark's death.

Once Feast For Crows comes up that's done. The last three books of war are over you can't expect it to have the same amount of energy in the other books. You have a lot of developed characters who are either dead by that point, or just don't have anything going on. Cersei is the exception because she just came out of a victory and now she's trying to piece together the kingdoms. Actually there is a lot of energy going on politically. Obviously Littlefinger in the Vale, Dany taking over the kingdoms in the east, and a bunch of other things I can't remember... but I have a vague recollection of the plotting by House Dorne and some other stuff going on with the maesters.

Oh, and the peasants get their glory by nabbing Cersei after all the bullshit the Lannisters started in the first place. I can't remember the name of the milita that the church forms, but it's a great transition for things to come. Feast For Crows moves subtlety. It's a shifting of sorts after the events at the Wall, the Kingdom, and Slaver's Bay.
DoD completes that shift of energy, and prepares us for the relaunch of the kind of 'momentum' you're looking for from the old books. All of the characters are in new and precarious positions again. An invasion is about to happen and the Lannisters are apparently incapable of doing anything about it while Stannis fumbles in the North and Bran goes fucking demi-god.

We're going to see some great shit if GRRM ever gets to the next set of books.

>>4209792
I'm an avid reader. I've been reading fantasy and sci-fi since I was 8. ASOIAF is by no means bad or even mediocre. How could anyone who has actually read other fantasy authors say that. It's really good, one of the best series I'd say. The only problem is that FFC and ADWD seem like a set up for the grand finale. Which looks like it's gonna be great.

>>4212472

You're glossing over the fact that the books have got longer and longer as less and less happens.

You're glossing over the pointless chapters with minor characters just piddling about and doing nothing.

I don't disagree with the merits of the various things you list that are building up to the next big drama, but these events have been driven by a few significant chapters. Most of these chapters have been surrounded by horrendous padding.

The energy of the war might not be driving the plot any more, but Martin drives the pace, he's not a slave to the timeline of his own novel. He can and should skip to the next good bit, not hand it out like crumbs.

Game of thrones thread, over 150 posts, most of it highly buttmad nitpicking about why /lit/ hates it. But secretly, everyone on this board loves ASOIAF and is eagerly awaiting the next book. You can tell because of how much controversy its causing. Keep in mind that /lit/ absolutely LOVED the series before it was a T.V. show, but since it's now a part of pop culture everyone is losing their shit over it. Also it's kinda pathetic that a fantasy series is under this much scrutiny. I mean really, don't you faggots realize that you being this mad is only going it solidify it's place in literary history? The more you hate game of thrones, the more you're ENSURING that it will be on best literature lists for the rest of the history of western literature. GREAT JOB. If you really hate it so much, stop talking about it and making it more popular, and stop taking the obvious troll bait.[spoiler/]

>>4212487
>I'm an avid reader. I've been reading fantasy and sci-fi since I was 8.
Judging by your post, you must be 11 or 12.

Also, read better fantasy books, 'ASOIAF' is trash not fit for swine.

>>4212552
>claims it's crap, says read something better
>>strategically doesn't suggest anything better because there isn't, and by offering something it leaves you open to scrutiny.

Why is it that only spineless faggots hate on these books?

>>4212559
>doesn't suggest anything better
Start with LOTR instead. Martin is trash.

>>4212571
I read LOTR before I read ASOIAF and I liked Martin better.

>100 pages talking about sopping wet cunt
>100 pages talking about Tom Bombadillo
I wonder why people even make this argument.

>>4212539
>Keep in mind that /lit/ absolutely LOVED the series before it was a T.V.
/lit/ has never absolutely loved anything. Especially not a modern fantasy saga.

>>4212461
Replace the combat scenes with combat and you got shitty action scenes!

>>4212559
>hey guize if ingesting this poisonous substance is so unhealthy then what's a better poisonous substance to ingest?

ASOIAF is unreadable shit.
ASOIAF is one of the best examples of fantasy literature there exists.
What conclusion does this lead you to?

>>4212603
>Still being too spineless to recommend anything better because it would leave you open to scrutiny of your own taste.
>being this scared on an anonymous website.

>>4212611
Nobody can tell you what to read without knowing you pal.

You need to question what you want to get out of reading.
If all you want is magic and dragons and bloodshed then go play a fucking video game or watch tv, it'll save you a lot of effort.

I honestly like the series. I'm a fairly fresh reader and only read the malazan series, Tolkiens work and the first book in the kingkiller chronicle in addition to ASOIAF. As far as fantasy goes anyway.
Having only taken an interest in reading books the last two years my critique might not be the most accurate. But I feel like voicing my opinion nontheless.

I started reading the first book when the first season of the TV show had aired. Alot of friends recommended me the TV show, so I decided to check it out. After looking at reviews and such alot of people online recommended reading the books first. Hailing it as the bible itself. Last fantasy book I read was The Hobbit, which felt like a children's book. I wanted something a bit more challenging and mature so it seemed like the perfect fit. Note that I'm Norwegian and have no other education in English than what I've thought myself (Public school was a mess, I was always better than my teachers). So taking on something with confusing writing and unfamiliar sentence structure would be a disaster.

Anyway I digress. The first book was fairly easy to read. Every now and then I'd have to look up words you'd never hear in a hollywood movie or daily speech. But it was mostly smooth sailing. It presents itself as a realistic depiction of the middle ages set in an alternate universe. It did a good job at building tension before having a pretty big turn of events with ned's decapitation and dragons being born. From there on I was hooked. Though A Clash of Kings was a bit slower, I knew it was building up to something big in ASoS. The books do a good job at foreshadowing events that may or may not occur. Sometimes Martin deliberately hints to things and then does something completely diffrent, just to make it hard to predict. He's got a good variety of characters. And most importantly you can empathize with them; they feel real, which makes it so much more intense.

To answer OP's question, I don't think AFfC amd ADwD where bad or boring. But I think it was a bad idea to split up the characters and assign them their own books. It felt like the progression of the story somehow halted, and that you read a single 1600 page book. We need to see the major characters start coming together, interact with each other. It would feel like one complete story, not 10 separate ones. But what do I know about writing.

Quick sidenote: I feel like /lit/ really loved ASoIaF before the TV show was made. And now that it has become a mainstream media thing people feel the need to be controversial and hate it.
I'll stop ranting now, or I'd be here all day.

>>4212628
>now that it has become a mainstream media thing people feel the need to be controversial and hate it.

You have to question why that is.

When the Les Mis, Anna Karenina, Gatsby etc. movies came out and the general public was taking much more of an interest in those books did /lit/ suddenly hate Hugo and Tolstoy and Fitzgerald?
If an HBO tv series of Crime and Punishment started would /lit/ turn against Dostoevsky?
No, because those works stand on their own merit They're good and if millions more people start to read them then that's great.

>>4209552
To my shame I've actually read through all the Twilight books and can honestly say they were the most dreadful crap I've ever read, and that's saying a lot. Painful, pretentious steamy fanfiction with personality-changing carboard noncharacters, no plot, no depth, no nothing except horrid, romantic gushing. And several extremely scary and abusive relationships portrayed as "true love". It was painful.

Even if one wouldn't think much of Martin his stuff can't be compared to Twilight at all. At least it's enjoyable, with way more interesting and crafted plots, the characters are thought out and sort of logical and there are longer story arcs, not just kinda dramatic happenings slapped one after another when the author remembered that there needs to be some conflict or story amidst the earth-shattering love too. Can you imagine "Robb stared at Jeyne's breathlessly excited face, his magnificent eyes smoldering with barely restrained savage yet noble passion, with an almost inhuman immersion in their pure, divine, magical moment despite the looming torrent of destruction and bloodshed that was the approaching Lannister armies. Jeyne forgot to breathe." book after book after book?

>>4212617
I want to read good books, I like being challenged and I like reading things that are profound and will leave me feeling like my life was changed.
>Game of thrones is fluff/light reading
Gimmie suggestions.

>>4212648
Yes, /lit/ hates all adaptations and loathed the mention of Fitzgerald for months after that movie came out.
>If Ulysses was adapted for TV it would INSTANTLY become pleb shit, you know that. /lit/ is all about looking smarter.

>>4212585
both vastly superior to
>500 pages about entitled lil shit needing money

>>4212628
Best post in this entire thread

>>4212665
>Ulysses adapted for TV

This would be hilarious. Surely the conversion to screen would be an impossibility.

>>4212648
I was typing out a thorough and well thought out reply when the entire thing was deleted by a single touch of my cat's paw.
So I'll try to summerize the point I was going to make.
The more popular something gets, the more controversy it generates.
People call the books shit, but never have I seen an objective and clever explanation of why the books are bad. It's always a subjective shitpost from some entitled asshole stroking his own ego by calling people who enjoy mainstream media shit.

Maybe you just don't like the fantasy genre? If you do, go ahead and point me in the right direction. I'd love to read something better than ASoIaF.

>>4212585
>I read LOTR before I read ASOIAF and I liked Martin better.
Then read LOTR again when you're an adult and capable of understanding what you're reading.

>>4212755
No but seriously, LOTR is amazing in many ways but you have to admit Tolkien was sometimes a bit, ah, dragging.

I always thought ASOIAF was edgy as hell,am i right ?

>>4212737
>People call the books shit, but never have I seen an objective and clever explanation of why the books are bad.
That's because your jupiter-sized cognitive dissonance forces you to ignore everything that doesn't match your "ASOIAF is da bestest book evar" preconceptions.

ASOIAF is a melodramatic soap opera, this alone makes it worthless trash.

>If you do, go ahead and point me in the right direction. I'd love to read something better than ASoIaF.
Start with LOTR and read it until you understand why it's better than anything Martin ever wrote. (BTW, I'd wager Martin himself agrees.)

fantastic world
interesting characters
good pacing
poorly written

that about sums it up for me. the writing isn't so bad it ruins it, but it is obvious grrm is a pretty average writer. but then again I can't write for shit so what does it matter.

>>4212757
>have to admit Tolkien was sometimes a bit, ah, dragging.
Every book that is 'dragging' is good, every book that is 'not dragging' is a worthless piece of shit.

This is a universal law, because you can't write a good book by pandering to illiterate ADHD morons.

Besides, reading ASOIAF is as much fun as watching paint dry. The only reason you perceive it as 'not dragging' is because it's so generic, formulaic and simple that it creates no mental friction whatsoever while you're reading it. Reading ASOIAF is like eating pre-chewed food; fine, I guess, if it's babby's first food and you've never eaten real food. Boring and disgusting for anyone used to natural food, however.

>>4212757
>No but seriously, LOTR is amazing in many ways
understatement
>Tolkien was sometimes a bit, ah, dragging.
understatement

>>4212755
>You don't like my favorite book about Elf languages
>better call you a child

Tom Bombadill-IDF plz go.

ASOIAF is better, sorry about your thinly veiled allegory about WWII and the basic Christian themes of Good versus Evil

>>4207545
What's wrong with Feast for Crows?

>>4212709
A T.V. miniseries about an Irish hipster getting a shave and being a cuckold.
>Pleb tier

>>4212768
>dragged writing is good
aka. bad writing is good
Why is something less entertaining good again?

>>4212763
>fantastic world
'Ye olde Renaissance Fayre England' is not a 'fantastic world'.
>interesting characters
'Generic medieval costume drama, cast menagerie #4' is not 'interesting characters'.
>good pacing
ASOIAF is longer than Tolstoy's entire oeuvre, and Martin _still_ didn't get to the main part of the plot. (Winter is supposed to be coming, remember?)

How the fuck is this 'good pacing'?

>>4212768
>Every book that is 'dragging' is good, every book that is 'not dragging' is a worthless piece of shit.

Oh wow, come on. Dragging doesn't bring any extra value just because it's dragging, you don't get intelligentsia points from being able to withstand so and so many pages of nothing actually happening. Or well, I know in some circles people do, but that's more about boasting among elitists than actually about the quality of the prose.
Although if that's how you define what's good and what's not this thread makes a lot more sense.

>>4212762
>ASOIAF is a melodramatic soap opera, this alone makes it worthless trash.
IN WHAT WAY
LIST THEM
LIST THE WAYS

no seriously, list them so you can validate your point.

>>4212783
>Martin _still_ didn't get to the main part of the plot.
wait...wat

What? This must be nonsense. You're joking. The series has enough books to FINISH a typical long-running main plot and start a new one.

Are you serious about this?

>>4212783
There is more than the main plot and the sub plots are actually moving. Sounds a lot more like good pacing comparing to having a single, simplistic plot like Tolkien.

Sure, Martins way to add pace by cutting the pieces in the middle and going with the next characters is cheap but it works.

>>4212783
>Ye olde Renaissance Fayre England
There's more than that in that world and you know it
>Generic medieval costume drama, cast menagerie #4'
Can you tell me what sort of quarter-realistic characters would not be "generic" in your view? There's so many that sure, some of them you've seen before, but I actually think many are quite good.
And about the pacing, sure it's gotten a bit out of hand, but there's been a lot of interesting (yeah, yeah) happenings and varying storylines, and for the most part, the pacing has been good. Maybe not great and sometimes dragging (which should make it better, apparently), but still.

I don't understand the need to pretend that anything that's not super deep and profound and life-alteringly dragging is utter shite. There is also value in immersion and emotion and storytelling. Maybe it's not the greatest literature work ever written, but it is still good and enjoyable.

>>4212665
Why are you lying about things that only happened a few months ago and we all remember?

If you think /lit/ is so worthlessly pretentious then what are you doing here? Get out

>mfw fantasy plebs arguing over whether a book is "dragging" or not, and whether that's a good thing or not

>>4212823
Oh look, an other wannabe elitist. How original.

>>4212789
overarching plot? Fuck that, here's some characters, watch them interact! They're so alive! Ain't it great? Tune in next week to see them interact some more!

>>4212772
well, humans like closed narratives (see folk tales), so Tolkien is objectively more human and thus better.

>>4212829
>humans like closed narratives (see folk tales), so Tolkien is objectively more human and thus better.
So if what lots of humans (folk tales, geared towards the simple folk) like is "objectively" better because it's so human, wouldn't that mean that the popular fiction lots of people like is objectively more human and thus better than elaborate, profound, deep and difficult literature?

>>4212837
yes. It also means everyone can go fuck themselves with "this is better than that", because it'll always come down to this.

/lit/ is by a wide margin the most hipster board on 4chan, the amount of self serving "educated" wank in this thread is beyond belief.

>>4212779
Why does anyone mess with Joyce or call him pleb.
Why.
What are they looking for, elicit a response?
Well you got one.
What makes Joyce pleb tier?
What is it with Joyce that makes uneducated people want to insult him?
Do you even understand what Joyce managed to do?

>>4212885
someone's upset we don't praise his favourite author. Figures,

>>4212826
>wannabe elitist
and what do you want to be?

>>4212890
but would it make a good TV series? Joyce only works on paper.

>>4212892
u mad, pseudo intellectual?

>>4212894
I am just somebody who enjoys or not enjoys stuff based on my own opinions and not appeal to authority and hopeless tries to appear more educated/hipster by shitting on popular genres. Try it too once in a while, it's quite nice.

>>4212762
You seem to adress me as if I was some sort of fanboy. I try to remain as objective as possible when I read something. As I mentioned I lack a bit of experience with the fantasy genre so it's hard for me to judge wether it's good or not by comparison, I can only adress what I have read. I also agree that LotR is better. Atleast for the time being. You can't judge ASoIaF as a whole when there is atleast two books that have not yet been released.
LotR presents it's story and follows it, with very little digression. It gives the impression of a better story overall.
In my opinion fantasy isn't as much about a good story as it is escapism. You want a distraction and a compelling world that keeps your attention. In that regard Martin is doing a good job.

If I had to rate what I've read it would be something like this:
>LotR
>ASoIaF
>Malazan
>The Silmarillion
>The Hobbit
>Name of the Wind

Also, sorry for the late reply, had some stuff that needed my attention.

>>4212907
Why is Fedora Kvothe even on the list?

>>4212907
But what do you want to be, though?

>>4212921
meant to quote >>4212914

>>4212921
There is a reason it is at the bottom of the list.
Currently it's the worst fantasy book I've read.
Notice how I only mentioned the first book and not the entire series.

>>4212947
Okay, that's only fair. Sorry.

>>4207545
Is the Mistborn series good?

>>4207545
I wouldn't mind a WoT anime, because it's paced a lot like one.

>>4212958
>Mistborn

>>>/v/

>>4212628
The Malazan series has 10/10 worldbuilding and setting, but has a very, VERY bad habit into spinning into pointless nihilistic tirades about why society/religion/war/humanity sucks. The fact that even the least educated soldier seems to have an intricate knowledge of ancient history and magic kind of bothers me as well.

>>4212976
>10/10 worldbuilding
>even the least educated soldier seems to have an intricate knowledge of ancient history and magic

That's a sign of bad worldbuilding. Distribution of knowledge is a key element of how a society works. But everything with a "magic system" that's autistic enough is probably "world-building" to you, no?

>>4212976
Well,most of the soldiers that do the talking in the malazan series look like 30 and are like 90 years old.

>>4212988
>tfw most 90-year-olds in real life are dumb shits

>>4212890
>What makes Joyce pleb tier?
Finnegan's Wake

>inb4 you just don't get it
No one fucking does. It's some experimental art piece that loops around and spouts gibberish that people try to attribute a plot and characters to, and even if it did have a plot, purposefully making a novel frustrating to read is idiotic.

Just because it's Joyce doesn't mean it's great (though he is remembered well for a reason). Joyce isn't pleb, but that garbage knocks him down from the literary pillar people have put him on.

In comparison, read Lewis Carrol's works with nonsense words and gibberish and you'll see how to utilize such a thing properly. Using the phonetic sounds of the nonsense words he drives a story forward with them, whereas Wake is ALL nonsense and no clear story.

>>4212929
A fat black male, what else? Progressing very slowly. Thank you for asking.

With fantasy it's either shit or it's Gene Wolfe.

I preferred Malazan over GOT but they're both shit.
Wheel of shit, Lord of the shit, they're all shit.

The Book of the New Sun stamps all these other series to the ground.

>>4213011
It's sci-fi though.
But sci-fi>fantasy anyway

>>4213014
stfu windmill that bitch is mine

>>4212986
Well yes, the magic system is pretty damn stupid, but the other stuff like the T'lan Imass and Forkrul Assail is pretty neat.
I blame the fact that he used GURPS when he started fleshing out the system though.

>>4213014
>But sci-fi>fantasy anyway
>Implying
http://www.sparknotes.com/mindhut/2012/09/26/fantasy-vs-science-fiction-fantasy-wins

>>4213011
Such insight
Your opinion is shit, LOTR is glorious

>>4212783
Winter came in the second book, what the hell are you on?

>>4213416
>what is fall?

>this happened
>that happened
>this happened
>that happened
No deeper meaning, no social commentary, shallow characters, generic world.

I don't get the appeal.

>>4213030
>http://www.sparknotes.com/mindhut/2012/09/26/fantasy-vs-science-fiction-fantasy-wins
>fantasy is more popular
laughed so hard at this. Thanks anon.

>>4213786
>no social commentary
It doesn't need to be written out to exist for fucking fucks sake.

>shallow characters
Whats so shallow about Varys or Littlefinger?

>>4213809
They're shit
They have no depth or evolution as characters and exist for the sake of twists and treasons.
Being "enigmatic" does not equal depth

>>4215486
So I am honestly curious, what would be depth for you then?

>>4215486
2/10

>>4215486
>They have no depth or evolution as characters

muh creative writing 101 shitrules as put forth forth by a failure of a teacher.jpeg

>>4215489
> So I am honestly curious, what would be depth for you then?
Read a fucking real book, for fuck's sake.

Also, stop samefagging.

>>4213786
Escapism.

>>4215513
Can't name it. I see.

>>4215519
>Can't name it. I see.
Anybody who's ever read a real book can 'name it', it's just pointless to discuss this with a defective like you. Either you're a guy who doesn't read books who accidentally stumbled into the wrong board, or some sort of insane autist who actually thinks that 'Littlefingers' really is a compelling and interesting character and not a caricature.

In all cases, arguing anything with you is pointless.

>>4215528
Clearly is when all the argument you managed to come up with is "I don't like it"

>>4215528

>cant name it

Guess you've never read a real book.

>>4212588
newfag detected

>>4207545
personally i think that feast is the best of them,but i see why some might like it less.

>>4212571
>Start with LOTR instead. Martin is trash.
they are two comletely different works.
seriously,sometimes i think that those who put them together have read neither.
the only thing they have in common is dragons,somewhat,
also ASOIAF as an historic fiction is incredbly good.

>>4215930
Muh War of the Roses fanfiction

>>4215957
actually i thought that gurm knew his stuff when he threw in the sparrows.
it been the only time i was happy i read "the name of the rose"

>>4215930
>ASDFGASFOIF as historical fiction
>good

If you ignore about 95% of history and blow the reamining 5% out of proportion that is.

>>4215528
Nicely sidestepped. I've read a lot of books and would honestly like to hear your suggestion, any suggestion, for a book with depth and evolution of characters with no characters that exist for the sake of the plot? Genuinely curious

>>4216038
Read a book, hurr durr.

>>4209676
What does it mean when I wholly agree with this reviewer?

Mind you, I enjoyed ASoIaF.