/lit/ - Literature

File: 41 KB, 700x361, Sibel-and-George.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

GRRM Anonymous Mon Jul 23 10:33:39 2018 No.11507561 [Reply] [Original]

>writes a fantasy series that transcends the genre
>already so long that the 95% of /lit/ who take a month to read 200p novels will never touch it
>nevertheless, they dismiss it rudely, offhandedly, saying that it isn't worth the clearly valuable time they could otherwise spend reposting the same tired images and spamming with 'based land' whenever possible
>one of their criticisms is how bad the "story" is, at which point they reveal that they've never read it by bringing up only things from a failed adaptation made for brainlets that they still couldn't understand
>they post the same tired image of a clunky paragraph when each novel is thousands of pages long and filled with incredible prose and unbelievable scenes, from the heartrending peach scene to the existential dread and haunting beauty of Theon's segments in Dance
>they complain about it being 'genre fiction' when the man has perfected third person limited as a storytelling device, to the point that it's likely no one will ever outdo him
>the books are still severely underrated due to this misapprehension, and most academics have yet to touch them with the reverence they deserve
>therefore /lit/ plebe garbage that post their shitty fiction in writing threads thinking they're the next DFW insist asoiaf has no literary merit because no authority has told them otherwise, apparently too stupid by themselves to pick up on the intricate web of symbolism and thematic motifs without it being spoonfed to them by a professor
>their final idiotic retreat is a weak ad hominem by which they label martin a 'fetishist' for daring to write about anything even remotely suggestive, only to fish for responses in their next thread by posting some underage jezebel
Whether you like it or not, ASoIaF is the real pleb filter of /lit/. The vast majority of donkey-brained, memerson-shitposting faggots on this board lack the attention span to even read it, let alone to peer through its intricacies page by page and understand what makes it so wonderful.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 10:38:06 2018 No.11507576 >>11507561 it's literally complete shit. fuck off.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 10:44:45 2018 No.11507613

>>11507561
>let alone to peer through its intricacies page by page and understand what makes it so wonderful
Okay, this is bait.

I read up to Storm of Crows and thought they were pretty good. GRRM does character drama extremely well. Every character's motivation is well-articulated and the conflicts between them believable. He also has some pretty choice and quotable one-liners, which is the hallmark of a good writer.

That said, he's not as profound as leddit likes to claim. The Rick and Morty audience might find his political digressions to be unfiltered genius, but it's rather shallow compared to actual political philosophy. There is nothing GRRM says that wasn't articulated better by Machiavelli about 500 years earlier. Also, his introduction of magic into the series killed what many liked about it in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 10:47:53 2018 No.11507621 >>11507613 *Feast for Crows

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 10:50:39 2018 No.11507632
File: 1.33 MB, 2048x1477, 0552333_14.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11507613
>I read up to Storm of Crows and thought they were pretty good.
So you stopped when the series actually comes into its own and Martin changes direction and becomes full /lit/? Good to know.
>That said, he's not as profound as leddit likes to claim. The Rick and Morty audience might find his political digressions to be unfiltered genius, but it's rather shallow compared to actual political philosophy.
Nobody said they're good for their politics. Martin is a straight up feminist and ultra-liberal that's writing about monarchy to show how bad it was - the man is not a great thinker. If you want politics, you can go read the Roman annals, or even some trashy history like Three Kingdoms. What I said in the OP, and what remains valid, is that Martin is a literary master. But clearly you're the real Redditor here, since your only interest is
>actual political philosophy
in a work of literature.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 10:53:40 2018 No.11507643 >>11507632 What makes him such a literary master then? What will writers, ten to twenty years from now, try to emulate from his works?

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:00:22 2018 No.11507681

>>11507643
Not OP but what's likely to happen is he'll he remembered for trope-breaking and deconstruction of the fantasy genre, and so what will probably happen is a bunch of other authors will "break tropes" to the point where broken tropes will be the new trope. Not sure what the synthesis will be to come out of this, but hopefully it's a more respectful fantasy genre.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:07:40 2018 No.11507714

>>11507681
>Not OP but what's likely to happen is he'll he remembered for trope-breaking and deconstruction of the fantasy genre, and so what will probably happen is a bunch of other authors will "break tropes" to the point where broken tropes will be the new trope.

You're probably right, he'll have the Alan Moore effect on the fantasy genre. If that's true, then fantasy will have to suffer through decades of "lol subverted" hacks who try to mess with the audience's expectations with no greater point in mind.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:09:18 2018 No.11507725 >>11507561 Go to your containment thread

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:14:39 2018 No.11507746

>>11507643
You've already listed a part of it yourself. Apart from that, as I've said, his works are laden with symbolism from the very beginning (some of which is masterful foreshadowing), and there's countless little things that give greater weight to the story. An easy example is Ned insisting a man should always bring down the sword if he stands to judge, only to get decapitated later on via orders by an executioner carrying the very sword he brought justice with.
The idea that he should somehow have done even more than this, considering the vast scope of his work, is frankly ridiculous. He's managed to bring a world with hundreds of worthwhile characters that we could stand here and analyze to life, and he did so by writing about as well as you could given the nature of the project.
What, is he suppose to write like a fucking postmodernist to be considered good? Even most 'literary' authors don't have his comprehensive skill set. Am I supposed to give credence to imbeciles like the energy-drinking retards on this board that compare him to Sanderson and other trashy authors? It's okay to bully someone and hold them to a completely arbitrary standard that we've pushed up the wazoo simply because we don't agree with them writing fantasy? Nah, I don't think so. Martin can hold his own with the best of them, and his novels are infinitely better than most of the 19th century stuff people revere around here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:15:50 2018 No.11507748 >>11507681 >>11507714 You guys do not understand Martin. You should pay attention to his work and not the shit that comes out of his mouth when he does interviews.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:17:46 2018 No.11507755

>>11507681
>he'll he remembered for trope-breaking and deconstruction of the fantasy genre
what an absolute meme, he killed off like one main character early on and that's it, the rest of the cast have plot armor thicker than my dick. What else did he subvert exactly? I remember people jerking off the whole no bad guys shtick, but if show is an indicator then white walkers are even less interesting than orcs. I guess he subverted the trope of not overusing words like piss, shit and cunt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:21:02 2018 No.11507762 >>11507725 Fuck off

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:24:02 2018 No.11507772 >>11507746 >le foreshadowing xD yes, when you have nothing of substance to say you better start shitting out a million little plot clues in your 800 page books so that autistic redditors stay busy for years trying to dig them all out

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:24:35 2018 No.11507775

>>11507746
>An easy example is Ned insisting a man should always bring down the sword if he stands to judge, only to get decapitated later on via orders by an executioner carrying the very sword he brought justice with.

This is a perfect example of the illusion of depth the Rick and Morty crowd loves. What exactly is being said here with such an ironic twist? Is it that good men deserve to get killed by their own sword by corrupt leaders? Is it that good people always lose to evil?

An apologist might say, "Oh, GRRM is pointing out how real life is nothing like fantasy and the good guy doesn't always win." Fair enough, but he does this over and over and over again with no end goal in mind.

He just sets up a scenario, subverts your expectations, and repeats it ad nauseam. Even fans of the series are starting to get sick of this formula. The reason why he's so hated over on /tv/ is that they've realized the fat man doesn't have any larger goal in mind. He's just doing it to mess with the sensibilities of the audience.

ASoFaI is the Lost of the fantasy world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:25:27 2018 No.11507776 how are his metaphors though?

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:30:09 2018 No.11507784

>>11507755
>what an absolute meme, he killed off like one main character early on and that's it, the rest of the cast have plot armor thicker than my dick. What else did he subvert exactly?
That's right, that is an absolute meme, but it's by no means Martin's fault. This whole thing started when HBO began to promote GoT early on as "medieval Sopranos."
However, once you look a little deeper into the works, you can begin to understand the issues Martin faced with the series, as he himself began to realize that he put together a cast of characters that won't die until the very end: Tyrion, Daenerys, etc.
This is the point when Martin sheds of his skin and transcends into his final form, the one people hate and say is boring and uninteresting. Martin was well aware that he had written himself into a box, and that there was no satisfying way to simply keep shocking people with twists and whatever else. That might've worked as a trilogy (like what was originally planned), but not for this. So at this point Martin decided that rather than writing fantasy, he was going to write literature. And by doing that he truly subverted the whole fantasy enterprise.
You see, the characters that were going to stay alive, are all meme characters that people love. Daenerys, Tyrion, etc. Yet when you read back and look past what Martin WANTS you to think about them, you start to realize that they're actually very shitty people. And Martin realized that too.
The greatest subversion in ASoIaF in the very end is not that "lol knights aren't good" or anything like that. It's that even those outcasts that people root for as heroes, are ultimately just as shit as everyone else. In fact, in the ultimate chad move, Martin shows that they're worse.
Tyrion is a great example. In the beginning he presents him as a show-offy guy that's insecure about being a dwarf, but that's overall mistreated by his family. As the story goes on, you begin to realize that Tyrion is actually a fucking cunt and that he's only using that as an excuse to justify his shit character. He is exactly what his family says he is. He's a drunkard that you can't depend on that brought shame to them all, and that expects the world to bow before him for doing ANYTHING right at all.
That's why people hated the fifth book so much. They expected more of the funny dwarf that was going to take over the world. Instead, they found a broken manchild that had just killed his father, and brought doom to his family over the most petty shit imaginable. Literally a grown man that's stuck in the past, obsessing over a fling that lasted two or three days of his life, ignoring all the evil he has done to hundreds if not thousands, wasting away and drinking himself to death. His whole life he insisted his father mocked him, yet in the end he seals his own fate only to become a circus dwarf and a completely unlovable piece of shit.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:34:02 2018 No.11507792

>>11507784
>Tyrion is a great example. In the beginning he presents him as a show-offy guy that's insecure about being a dwarf, but that's overall mistreated by his family. As the story goes on, you begin to realize that Tyrion is actually a fucking cunt and that he's only using that as an excuse to justify his shit character. He is exactly what his family says he is. He's a drunkard that you can't depend on that brought shame to them all, and that expects the world to bow before him for doing ANYTHING right at all.
>That's why people hated the fifth book so much. They expected more of the funny dwarf that was going to take over the world. Instead, they found a broken manchild that had just killed his father, and brought doom to his family over the most petty shit imaginable. Literally a grown man that's stuck in the past, obsessing over a fling that lasted two or three days of his life, ignoring all the evil he has done to hundreds if not thousands, wasting away and drinking himself to death. His whole life he insisted his father mocked him, yet in the end he seals his own fate only to become a circus dwarf and a completely unlovable piece of shit.
well, uh, this isnt like the show at all

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:35:20 2018 No.11507799

>>11507772
Yeah, you're so right, anon! You tell 'em. Those are truly 800 pages of nothing of substance, heh. What a smart, observant man you are. Hey, do you happen to be in academia by chance?
>>11507775
>This is a perfect example of the illusion of depth the Rick and Morty crowd loves
How is it illusion of depth? You're reading into it far too much, and I'm not sure why. It's simply a nice touch, and the series is full of them (some of which I'm not even sure are intentional). As for what's said we can talk about in detail, and that's what makes Martin stand out. His good characters truly aren't that good. Ned really isn't a person worth mourning.
>He just sets up a scenario, subverts your expectations, and repeats it ad nauseam.
Read the fourth and fifth books and pay more attention to the first three. That's not the case at all.
>Even fans of the series are starting to get sick of this formula.
This formula hasn't been in use for a long time.
>The reason why he's so hated over on /tv/ is that they've realized the fat man doesn't have any larger goal in mind.
>/tv/
>relevant
Yes, the people watching 30 minute reaction videos to episodes of the TV show is exactly what I had in mind as knowledgeable critics.
>ASoFaI is the Lost of the fantasy world.
How so? Though you are right, in that Lost was also nearly a masterpiece. But I guess a bunch of people told you it was bad, so now it's bad, huh? Shame. You're all such brainlets.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:39:05 2018 No.11507816

>>11507799
>It's simply a nice touch
it takes more than a few nice touches to make a work of art great
>and that's what makes Martin stand out. His good characters truly aren't that good.
that could only make him stand out from other fantasy writers, flawed protagonists have been common in literature for centuries

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:39:06 2018 No.11507818

>>11507784
>finally realized that Tyrion and Daenerys were shitty people

This is yet another reason why he's not a literary genius as so many plebbitors claim. How can you not know that your main characters are shitty people until 5 books in? He really has no overarching goal in mind and it shows.

What if Daenerys succeeds in her conquest? What is the audience left with? "Oh, a shitty person takes over the world and sends people to death on a whim." What a pointless, forgettable story in that case.

What if the white walkers win? Deus ex machina as fuck.

GRRM wrote himself into a corner and he knows it. This is the reason why he refuses to write the last book. It will piss off the fanbase and might cause a boycott of the series. There is no way he can end it in a manner that will:
a) satisfy the fans
b) have any substantial literary merit in its overall meaning

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:40:56 2018 No.11507823

>>11507792
No shit. They didn't adapt the first books properly. Only idiots on /tv/ proclaim S1 as a great adaptation that "stuck to the books." In reality, it's dreadful, and it white-washes countless things to pander to liberals and feminists.
Simple example
>in the a game of thrones, after the arrival of robert, catelyn insists that ned should go to king's landing for the benefit of the family and to ensure sansa's potential marriage with joffrey
>in season one, she's shown as some wounded middle-aged woman that just can't handle the patriarchy and her retarded husband that's willing to abandon her alone at home for the sake of some manly honor she can't understand

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:42:18 2018 No.11507829 File: 37 KB, 193x266, 1530646396081.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11507561 lol

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:44:53 2018 No.11507838

>>11507816
>it takes more than a few nice touches to make a work of art great
??? We literally went over all the other things Martin does well above. I'm not sure what you're talking about anymore. You yourself complimented the man.
>that could only make him stand out from other fantasy writers, flawed protagonists have been common in literature for centuries
Bullshit. It's not that they're flawed. The point is that they're shown as human even when Martin follows the generic fantasy line of good vs. evil. That is why it stands out and that's what makes it good and subverts expectations. This is completely unlike something like Elric where he's basically shown that way from the very start, and he's hardly a complex character at all. Martin's characters ARE complex.
Though of course, that's by no means the only thing he did right. Even Tolkien had very human characters. The movies white-washed them, but Sam was a straight up retarded peasant in the books.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:45:30 2018 No.11507839 >>11507818 >How can you not know that your main characters are shitty people until 5 books in? He really has no overarching goal in mind and it shows. How is this any different than Proust, James, Musil?

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:47:47 2018 No.11507848

>>11507818
>How can you not know that your main characters are shitty people until 5 books in?
>How can an author not fully understand his work until he rereads it a while later?
HMMM, I WONDER. Truly a deep question here.
I also like how you're obsessed with the plot, lol. So much for all that interest in literary matters, huh?
>What if Daenerys succeeds in her conquest? What is the audience left with? "Oh, a shitty person takes over the world and sends people to death on a whim." What a pointless, forgettable story in that case.
It's a forgettable story because you wouldn't like the ending? Are you seriously this fucking stupid? It's painful to read this shit. Not to mention that there's no way that's going to be the end, you do realize that, right? Daenerys is a literal villain.
>What if the white walkers win?
Win? Win what?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:48:11 2018 No.11507852 >>11507839 >Proust At least Proust only took 15 years to finish La Recherche. The fatman hasn't even finished his one series in over two decades.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:50:02 2018 No.11507858 >>11507848 you're pretty good at this

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:50:07 2018 No.11507861

>>11507848
>I also like how you're obsessed with the plot, lol

If I knew nothing about the plot, you'd accuse me of being ignorant. I've read his shit and I find it lacking.

>Win? Win what?
As in genocide the whole area. That's another possible ending. Whether it's white walkers or frost dragons or whatever, GRRM can deus ex machina the plot by wiping out everyone.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 11:57:44 2018 No.11507887

>>11507861
>If I knew nothing about the plot, you'd accuse me of being ignorant. I've read his shit and I find it lacking.
No, my point is that you are obsessing over the plot as if that's the only thing that matters. There are far more important things than that, and that's one of the things you'll have to learn to overcome if you're going to appreciate a writer as deep and thoughtful as GRRM.
>As in genocide the whole area. That's another possible ending. Whether it's white walkers or frost dragons or whatever, GRRM can deus ex machina the plot by wiping out everyone.
First of all, the White Walkers are clearly not evil, so they would have no intention to do that whatever. Secondly, the man already said it will have a bittersweet ending, so it's unlikely it will end in any kind of shocking way. In the original plan, Jaime was supposed to end up as king. I doubt that will happen, but it gives you an idea of how he thinks.
Undoubtedly, we still need to see the Starks falling apart and possibly killing each other. It's likely that Sansa will butcher Jon.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:00:48 2018 No.11507893

>>11507887
>It's likely that Sansa will butcher Jon.

See, like I said, I never read past Feast for Crows and this is already character-breaking bullshit to me. Why is Sansa, of all people, a bloodthirsty murderer now? I'm not interested in the fatman's twist and turns. I don't care if the Aragorn knockoff gets killed by his sister in law.

None of the characters are consistent and this speaks volumes about his lack of literary excellence. In GRRM stories, character attributes shift all the time in service of the plot. You'd never see bullshit like this in a story written by old Shakes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:01:19 2018 No.11507896 All I know is, the guy doesn't know how to stop introducing new, pointless shit and he fuxked up the pace of the last two books. Not to mention pretend killing characters in a contrived attempt to maintain his atmosphere of suspense

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:06:27 2018 No.11507914

>>11507893
>Why is Sansa, of all people, a bloodthirsty murderer now?
Why are you implying she would be a bloodthirsty murderer? Not to mention that you clearly haven't read the novels carefully enough - Sansa hated Jon, and she was never loyal to the Stark ideology to begin with.
And to answer your question, because the action takes place over the course of years, and Sansa is changing. In fact, all of the characters have changed a lot, yet they still remain in character. So even if it does happen that Sansa kills one of her siblings, you can be sure it will be consistent. Jaime had a complete turnaround in the fourth book, but he still attempted to rape her sister over a course and disowned his children. Which again, is why Martin is such a masterful writer. He does not rely on gimmicks.
>None of the characters are consistent
Examples, please.
>In GRRM stories, character attributes shift all the time in service of the plot. You'd never see bullshit like this in a story written by old Shakes.
Yes, because Shakespeare wrote fucking plays. Even your examples are idiotic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:06:28 2018 No.11507915 His prose is dogshit, characters forgettable and plot, well, ask the man himself how the plot is coming along.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:09:25 2018 No.11507924

>>11507914
Early Sansa:
>Meek, ditzy, married off, incapable of defending herself

Sansa now:
>Wants to murder her stepbrother for some reason

How does one, REALISTICALLY, go from one to the other? Murdering someone, especially someone you grew up with, is a big fucking deal. I doubt many people like Sansa would have the stomach for this, no matter how justified they felt in doing so.

Again, this is why GRRM is a hack. How the fuck you do mess up a character as basic as Sansa?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:10:35 2018 No.11507929 >>11507914 >Does not rely on gimmicks I'd say he created unfavorable situations for protagonists to a point where it was gimmicky, and then used fake out deaths to a point where it's a gimmick

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:19:57 2018 No.11507949

>>11507838
>Bullshit. It's not that they're flawed. The point is that they're shown as human even when Martin follows the generic fantasy line of good vs. evil.
what are you even trying to say here, autismo? You think this fat fuck is the first person to humanize bad people?
>Martin's characters ARE complex.
your bar is pretty low for that I'd say
>It's a forgettable story because you wouldn't like the ending?
it's forgettable because it has no message, no lesson, no lasting effect on the reader just like the entire series

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:20:50 2018 No.11507951

>>11507924
Your whole characterization of Sansa is wrong. Sansa, much like her whore mother, is completely manipulative. The problem with her as a character is that she grew up in Winterfell, an far away from court life. In Winterfell, people do still adhere to norms that are non-existent elsewhere and it's secluded enough for her to genuinely believe that the world might be like what she reads in stories.
You also need to keep in mind that she's a literal fucking child at this point. Are you really that similar now to how you were as a kid? I rather doubt it.
Anyway, Sansa isn't incapable of defending herself at all. She's just ignorant and a little stupid, but that's also due to her young age. It's easy to tell from her interactions with Joffrey's after Ned's death that she DOES know how to protect herself once she gains a grip on how things are. She slowly learns how to manipulate Joffrey enough to avoid trouble, and that's why Cersei poisoning his ear against her at every opportunity. Not only that, but she never shows much concern neither for Ned nor Arya in the larger picture. Of course, she cares about them because they're family, but she's also willing to put her past behind if that means having a happy life.
Sansa's own manipulations begin the moment she meets Olenna. The moment she goes to Littlefinger is when she truly comes into her own. You can see that she begins to deceive those around her to better her situation, and she's learning as much as she can from Littlefinger.
There is absolutely nothing fantastical here nor is it an incredible jump. She was manipulative even as a kid and her entire ethos is that of a selfish woman. She sold Arya out to Joffrey and Cersei at the first opportunity in a Game of Thrones. That she would kill a guy she hasn't seen in years and that her mother taught her for her entire childhood to look down upon as a fucking goblin that ruins their family life is hardly surprising.
>>11507929
Like what?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:21:06 2018 No.11507954 File: 371 KB, 1001x1294, 1370116426754.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] back to your containment thread, saged

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:24:22 2018 No.11507966 >>11507951 >Like what You asking about fakeout deaths or him fucking over the protagonists?

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:24:34 2018 No.11507967

>>11507949
>You think this fat fuck is the first person to humanize bad people?
In fantasy? Absolutely. And even outside of it, there are many "great authors" that do a far worse job than Martin does. Do you think Dumas is a better writer than Martin?
>your bar is pretty low for that I'd say
Wrong. My bar is insanely high, and Martin is one of the few people that meets it. It's not my fault you're too much of a spooner to understand proper characterization.
>it's forgettable because it has no message, no lesson, no lasting effect on the reader just like the entire series
Except that it does. Not to mention that
>no lessons
is the dumbest criticism. Maybe you'll appreciate it more once your pal Peterson does a YouTube lecture on it? I'm sure then you'll suddenly realize it's full of lessons.
Retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:25:37 2018 No.11507971 >>11507966 Both. Just give me what you think was unfair and made no sense within the context of the story.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:27:33 2018 No.11507978

>>11507951
You're fucking wrong, my characterization of early Sansa is spot on. Even the wiki agrees:

>Sansa is traditionally beautiful, taking after her mother's family (House Tully) with her high cheekbones,[2] vivid blue eyes,[3] and thick auburn hair.[3] She is eleven years old at the start of A Song of Ice and Fire.[4] As she has grown up, her figure has been described as tall,[5] graceful,[6] and womanly.[7]

>Sansa was raised a lady, and possesses the traditional feminine graces of her milieu, with a keen interest in music, poetry, singing, dancing, embroidery, and other traditional feminine activities. Like many girls her age, Sansa is enthralled by songs and stories of romance and adventure, particularly those depicting handsome princes, honorable knights, chivalry, and love.[2] Initially those song and stories were Sansa's vision of the world beyond Winterfell, a world she desperately wishes to experience, but she is later disabused of such innocent romanticized notions. She keeps faith with both the old gods and the Seven.[8]

It's also important to note that her dog was named Lady and acted more gracefully than the other dogs. She is very much traditionally feminine, unlike Arya who was more of a tomboy. Arya killing someone is completely believable, she was already leaning in that direction from the very first book. But Sansa? What manner of bullshit is that?

The fact he flanderized Sansa into being yet another boring manipulative sociopath shows that GRRM is bad at maintaining characterization. It's the same problem I have with writers like Haruki Murakami-- eventually all of his characters turn into erudite scholars who've all read Kafka.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:27:35 2018 No.11507979 >>11507967 based

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:29:31 2018 No.11507982 Martin is the prime example of an author too stupid to understand his own work. ASoIaF is brilliant, but it undermines the very things he wants to stress. Instead of showing women as strong, he actually paints them as the vile demons they are.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:36:28 2018 No.11507998

>>11507978
>the wiki
Yes, because we're going by what people have written on the wiki and not the books you supposedly read?
Not to mention that neither of the things you posted say anything of value. Seriously, what kind of shitheel do you have to be to think that because she's ladylike that means she can't be a cunt? When did I ever imply that she's a tomboy? What would that even do in the context of our discussion?
You're just so painfully, embarrassingly stupid. Your whole criticism comes down to
>TV Tropes taught me this is how a character with this traits is like!
and that's all you have to say for yourself. She's a girl? She likes to SEW? HOLY SHIT, WHAT A PURE AND VIRTUOUS MAIDEN.
>Arya killing someone is completely believable, she was already leaning in that direction from the very first book. But Sansa? What manner of bullshit is that?
If anything, it's the other way around, you fool. Arya has always been a compassionate person. The only reason she kills anyone later on in the story is because she is completely fucked in the head by what's happened, and she also stops humanizing the enemy completely (something that started doing early on in the first book).
>The fact he flanderized Sansa into being yet another boring manipulative sociopath shows that GRRM is bad at maintaining characterization.
Sansa was never not a sociopath. She was as much of a bitch as her mother was. That is the Tully way. Her aunt was the same.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:36:49 2018 No.11508000

>>11507967
New anon coming through.

>Wrong. My bar is insanely high, and Martin is one of the few people that meets it.
you just outed yourself as a pseud. You see, the problem with an individuals "bar" in regards to quality is that it is directly tied to that individuals knowledge as it pertains to literature.

On the matter of 'why' GRRM has created something of quality, you have offered nothing more than (what i consider to be) the absolute base standard for good literature. And it seems as though more than a few people have attempted to tell you this, in a much more combative attitude, which i believe is why it isn't getting through to you.

I would also like to tell you that, if you are a fan of the books, then you need to try to hate them. It seems to me that you are being a blatant fanboy. Please do attempt to offer some legitimate literary merits of GRRM, beyond the base standard of quality that those above you have put into place. A good novel can be a good novel, take GRRM's cock out of your mouth and leave it at that. you can't actually provide anything of merit.

And please do, for the love of god, read some better books.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:38:47 2018 No.11508004 >>11508000 >you can't actually provide anything of merit. Good GOD what a typo. >Assuming you can't actually provide anything of merit. Is what that was supposed to be, my apologies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:39:54 2018 No.11508008 >>11507998 This is honestly pretty sad. GRRM dickriders can't even admit he fucked up Sansa's characterization.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:42:01 2018 No.11508011 File: 1014 KB, 290x189, My Sides.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11507561 >apparently too stupid by themselves to pick up on the intricate web of symbolism and thematic motifs Good b8. 8/10

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:44:25 2018 No.11508025 >arguing with a grrm pasta poster

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:45:12 2018 No.11508028

>>11507971
I don't think it has to be unfair or make no sense for it to be overused. As for fucking the protagonists over, there's the death of Ned, Sansa stuck with Joffrey, Robb killed by the Frey's, Jon killed by his brothers, Drogo dying, the younger stark boys are killed, although they are revealed to be alive, Winterfell is taken, the Lannisters are not defeated by Stannis, etc etc. I'm not saying these are bad story choices on their own, but taken altogether you could make the assumption that George is trying to create the worst possible situation for the protagonists.

As for fakeout deaths, there's bran and rickon, there's Davos, there's Jon who we know will come back to life, there's barristan, he misleads us into thinking Arya died, I think he end the chapter by saying an axe hit her in the head. Aegon is a character who supposedly died, and there is Mance who we are lead to believe is killed. Again, if each case is looked at individually, one could think that these are clever twists, but taken as a whole, we see a man trying to create suspense in an unnatural way

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:48:52 2018 No.11508037

>>11508000
>you just outed yourself as a pseud. You see, the problem with an individuals "bar" in regards to quality is that it is directly tied to that individuals knowledge as it pertains to literature.
The fact that you insinuate I haven't read anything doesn't make it so, you do realize that right?
>On the matter of 'why' GRRM has created something of quality, you have offered nothing more than (what i consider to be) the absolute base standard for good literature.
Strange, then, that many of the works posted on /lit/ fail to meet that basic standard, isn't it? Strange, too, that as soon as any fantasy novel meets that basic standard it's disregarded as "genre fiction." But Lovecraft? Fuck yeah, that's literature, man, based Land said so. Liggotti too. That's MY GUY.
>I would also like to tell you that, if you are a fan of the books, then you need to try to hate them.
Oh, but I do hate a lot of things about them, and I absolutely loathe Martin as a person.
>It seems to me that you are being a blatant fanboy.
Nah, I've just been around for long enough to know what I'm talking about. Admittedly, I'm also pushing people's buttons and having some fun with this. It is is enjoyable to see people that have no arguments scramble to justify their hatred for something they've never touched nor tried to understand on its own merits.
>Please do attempt to offer some legitimate literary merits of GRRM, beyond the base standard of quality that those above you have put into place.
Why? Why exactly are the base standards not applicable to GRRM? Oh, yes, I remember. Because you're a complete hypocrite that's perfectly okay with some authors being enshrined as great despite failing at many of the things Martin does well, but you're completely against the fat man getting any merit for his hard work even when he meets the standards and even brings in standards of his own.
>And please do, for the love of god, read some better books.
Please, do tell me what you consider better books. Please, please, please, give me your list of authors that meet that same base standard as what we've discussed so far, and then let's see how you do at this. Of course, they'll have to be similar in nature, so don't be stupid now and post some postmodernist lit as a response. Don't you worry, even if you pull up some obscure shit, I'll go and read it only to prove you wrong and humiliate you like the chump that you are. So go ahead. Hit me, darling. Let's see those "better books" of yours that are comparable to Martin's in not only skill and execution, but also scope and intricacy. Just reading what you write gives me necrosis. Your shit stinks worse than the sewers of New York - but please, give me the titles. Let's do this.
But here's what I know you'll do. I know you're going to pussy out and tell me that I should already know what books you have in mind, and that the only reason that I'd defend Martin is because I'm just so damned uninformed that you won't bother with me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:50:41 2018 No.11508043 >>11507613 >GRRM isn’t Machiavelli He’s not Plato either. Or Gordon Ramsey. Or a Siberian tiger.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:51:12 2018 No.11508045 File: 513 KB, 800x600, 1531513364876.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11508008 Uninstall yourself, failure.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:56:06 2018 No.11508059
File: 34 KB, 460x378, nice loot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11508028
I'm not sure I agree, anon, but I definitely get what you're saying. My main criticism of Martin has always been that the evil that befalls his characters is unnaturally dramatic and conveniently tense. That bothers me a lot in the long run.
Considering that he was going for realism and that he supposedly understands the times he's writing about, where the fuck are the diseases? Not one POV character in this whole story ever wakes up with an illness and then dies. I get that he's used to writing genre fiction and such things are considered cheap, but I don't think that they are - not in the context of a story like this one.
Trying your best to show humans as scum while ignoring it's largely their frailty that makes them that way is a bit out of touch with reality.
Also, while this is not my personal criticism of the work, I think it's very hypocritical to paint this as a story of how monarchies are bad and abusive... and then spend your whole time focusing on aristocrats. Not a single lowborn in this entire series that's worth giving a fuck about and that has a constant POV. I guess maybe Davos? But even he gets high in the ranks, so if anything, it shows the fucking benefits of a monarchy. Good job, George.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 12:58:40 2018 No.11508067

>>11508037
Holy shit an actual reddit autist is on /lit/ I could have sworn this was bait but apparently he takes himself seriously.

>Strange, then, that many of the works posted on /lit/ fail to meet that basic standard, isn't it?
What books does /lit/ praise that doesn't meet the basic standard? Apart from some meme-works, /lit/ is one of the most elitist boards of literature you will find.

>But Lovecraft? Fuck yeah, that's literature, man, based Land said so. Liggotti too. That's MY GUY.
Wanna know how I know you're from reddit? Because you take our memes seriously. Lovecraft does have decent prose, though.

>Why? Why exactly are the base standards not applicable to GRRM?
All the basic components of good literature are lacking from Martin. His prose is serviceable to sub-par, his characterization is laughably thin (apart from Jaime, who is probably his strongest character), his plot is meandering and pointless, and he offers no underlying thematic driving narrative apart from MUH POLITICAL INTRIGUE, MUH EVERYONE IS EVIL AT HEART, MUH KNIGHTS WERE ACTUALLY ASSHOLES MUH REVISIONISM. He lacks originality. He's praised for 'revolutionizing' the fantasy genre when in fact there have been countless instances of 'gritty' fantasy for decades (Black Company, Conan, Farfhd and Grey Mouser, etc.).

Oh, and there's also the fact that HE WILL NEVER FINISH THE SERIES. You can't exactly be known as a pioneer and visionary if your vision isn't complete. IT's why no one discusses Dostoyevsky's incomplete sequel to The Brothers K or The mystery of Edwin Drood. Incomplete works can't be taken seriously.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:00:07 2018 No.11508075

The main beats of GoT match the war of the rings. Two houses fight over the kingship. Crown switches hands frequently. A young king marries an older divorced woman. Etc.
Basically, the end of GoT should be some nobody bastard just claims the throne and all the houses are ruined, leading to the centralization of power and the dawning of the Renaissance in England, err, Westeros .
>>11507784
The problem with book 5 is nothing fucking happens. Tyrion prances around bravos and back. White walkers still dicking around. New characters, left it of tv show, pop up and then die. A lost heir of Targaryen! The tv jews didn’t touch that plot line.
The only one who accomplish anything are the Sparrows. And the tv series just wrote them out.
>>11507823
You’re correct here, I hated how much of the late medieval mindset was absent from the tv series.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:00:21 2018 No.11508076

>>11507561
I really like Martin as far as his story is concerned, he's not a brilliant writer or anything but it doesn't matter because its entertainment not literature.

His biggest failing is being a victim of his own commercial success, the story should have been wrapped up at the third book as he planned but instead he wanted to ride the cash cow and followed it up with 2 books that feel totally different and just tie the story up in knots.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:01:10 2018 No.11508081 >>11508075 Fuck me, I meant war of the roses

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:02:17 2018 No.11508087 >>11508067 >black company Muh Vietnam war with magic. They even talk like they are Vietnam vets.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:04:28 2018 No.11508091 >>11508008 >never actually read the books

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:05:47 2018 No.11508098 File: 250 KB, 873x2000, revi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11507746 >What, is he suppose to write like a fucking postmodernist to be considered good? He, uh, already does

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:08:03 2018 No.11508106
File: 8 KB, 250x229, 1530040408761.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11508067
>What books does /lit/ praise that doesn't meet the basic standard?
Most of them? What's the point of naming them, considering you unironically will say
>Wanna know how I know you're from reddit? Because you take our memes seriously.
Not only am I not from Reddit, but I have no doubt I've been on here far longer than you have, and that I've read a lot more books than you have as well.
>Apart from some meme-works, /lit/ is one of the most elitist boards of literature you will find.
Pic related.
>His prose is serviceable to sub-par
Wrong.
>his characterization is laughably thin
Strike two.
>and he offers no underlying thematic driving narrative
Strike three, but I'm not surprised, because you do seem as enough of a retard to bash something as simple-minded genre fiction and then fail to even understand that same thing on the most basic level.
Truly /lit/ material over here, part of
>the most elitist boards of literature you will find.
As for the rest,
>He lacks originality.
No shit? I could've sworn I've seen that map before...
>Black Company, Conan, Farfhd and Grey Mouser, etc.
Trash, pulp, pulp. Completely unrelated.
>He's praised for 'revolutionizing' the fantasy genre when in fact there have been countless instances of 'gritty' fantasy for decades
Well, yes, because you see, there's more to it than just writing about rape and violence. In fact, that isn't at all what Martin does well, nor what he's praised for. But I could see why a simpleton like you might make an honest comparison between Conan and ASoIaF, two things that have more in common individually with fucking South Park than they do with each other.
>Oh, and there's also the fact that HE WILL NEVER FINISH THE SERIES.
Who cares? How does that undermine what exists?
>You can't exactly be known as a pioneer and visionary if your vision isn't complete.
Objectively wrong, not much more to be said.
> IT's why no one discusses Dostoyevsky's incomplete sequel to The Brothers K
No, that's because brothers Karamazov wasn't in need of a sequel. Just like Berserk needed to fucking end at the Eclipse. But sometimes, even talented authors make shit decisions. Who knew?
>Incomplete works can't be taken seriously.
>I don't take the Iliad seriously
>I don't take the Bhagavad Gita seriously
It's okay, it's not your fault. You never asked to be this stupid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:08:38 2018 No.11508110 >>11508076 His biggest failing is deciding it was more important to go write thousands of pages of Targ history rather than finish what he started.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:11:21 2018 No.11508122 >>11508106 lmao seething

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:14:30 2018 No.11508131 >>11507561 I read them all. It was aright. 1-3 was pretty fun. 4-5 were cringe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:16:36 2018 No.11508137 just read the wheel of time retards

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:16:38 2018 No.11508138 >>11507561 Sorry but I don't read genre fiction. See ya.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:17:39 2018 No.11508142
File: 54 KB, 700x511, 1531227179184.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11508075
>The main beats of GoT match the war of the rings.
I don't think so, anon. It's true that Martin copied a lot, but I also think he wants to say more with the dragons and White Walkers. He often said he sees them as comparisons to nuclear bombs, and we already know that Old Valyria had some kind of nuclear holocaust. And I don't want to go full Preston here, but the man HAS written a lot of sci-fi. It's not completely beyond the pale to assume it might go somewhere unexpected by the end, at least as far as the nature of Planetos goes, if not in terms of the story. We'll see.
>The problem with book 5 is nothing fucking happens
Kind of. But you have to remember he's basically writing it as if it's a new book, and 4 and 5 are one whole book. He's trying to set up all these new things. But you're right, it didn't really have that IT moment of Game of Thrones to pull it all together. It's a bit all over the place.
>His biggest failing is being a victim of his own commercial success, the story should have been wrapped up at the third book as he planned but instead he wanted to ride the cash cow and followed it up with 2 books that feel totally different and just tie the story up in knots.
He decided to write past the third book long before the TV show, anon. There is an outline of his original trilogy, and it doesn't look much like what we got in the end. He scrapped the trilogy idea rather quickly.
>>11508110
This. Not to mention all these other adaptations. Like what the fuck is doing, really?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:21:19 2018 No.11508159 >>11508137 >just read the worst fantasy has to offer Really, m8? I'm not joking when I say I'd rather reread the whole of Malazan all over again than read a single fucking book from WoT. And I hate Erikson.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:22:25 2018 No.11508162

>>11508106
>Most of them? What's the point of naming them, considering you unironically will say
So which ones? Moby-Dick? Ulysses? The Bible? The Divine Comedy? Dostoyevsky? Faulkner?

>Not only am I not from Reddit, but I have no doubt I've been on here far longer than you have, and that I've read a lot more books than you have as well.
Cool story bud. Doesn't make you any less of an autists

>Pic related.
Wow. Look at your epic boomer may-may, surely you are the pinnacle of /lit/ and 4chan culture.

>Wrong.
Show me prose in Martin that goes above serviceable. I'll wait

>Strike two.
Which characters actually progress and develop? The only candidates are Jaime and Theon. Everyone else fits comfortably and plays comfortably into standard tropes and cliches

>Ned
Nobel and idealistic warrior king figure

>Caitlyn
Loyal and loving matriarch who suffers for her family

>Tyrion
Le Funny Jester Man who can speak truth to power because he's le witty and ironic because he's so much smaller but so much smarter than everyone X-D

>Varys
Secret Agent Info man

>Cersei
Power-Hungry mad woman. Literally Lady Macbeth with some incest added.

I could go on and on but you get my point.

>Strike three, but I'm not surprised, because you do seem as enough of a retard to bash something as simple-minded genre fiction and then fail to even understand that same thing on the most basic level.
Please explain to me what philosophical or metaphysical themes Martin tackles effectively apart from some extremely thin Machiavellian theory with some basic Social Darwinism and Nietzschean nihilism thrown in for good measure. His characters and plot exist solely for pornographic purposes. There is no great exploration of philosophical concepts. There's some very bad attempts to criticize objective ethics, but when there is this, it's usually doing on a laughably thin level and with the intent to shock readers, not to edify. Like I said, pornographic. Martin writes with the intent to play with a readers emotions only to shock them into an uncomfortable state, beyond this there is no great overarching thematic backbone to the series.

> two things that have more in common individually with fucking South Park than they do with each other.
Well considering Khal Drogo is essentially Conan meets Ghengis Khan, I think even Martin would disagree with you. You're also missing my point entirely, but trying to stop an autist is often a losing battle.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:23:05 2018 No.11508164 >>11507613 >his introduction of magic into the series killed what many liked about it in the first place. but the very first chapter of the first book has magical zombies

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:23:29 2018 No.11508168 >>11507755 yeah, the red wedding was never memed or anything

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:25:21 2018 No.11508176 >>11508142 Old Valyria is the collapsed Roman Empire, except it collapsed from some misuse of magic. Which lead to the plague. Which grrm never followed up on and tv jews just said, fuck it, you’re cured. Valyrian steel = Damascus steel

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:25:33 2018 No.11508178 >>11508164 There's a difference between magical creatures in the world and teleports behind you. The first is expected in any fantasy story. The second is genre trash.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:26:47 2018 No.11508182 >>11508178 The late season tv is pure hollllywood trash.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:27:08 2018 No.11508183 >>11507775 part of the decontruction is that history isn't a long line of moral lessons so why should fantasy be?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:27:35 2018 No.11508186 >>11508182 It's better than nothing

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:30:02 2018 No.11508197 >>11508183 Because it's a book

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:31:58 2018 No.11508206

>>11508183
>part of the decontruction is that history isn't a long line of moral lessons so why should fantasy be?
Because a story serves a purpose beyond mere entertainment. It's there to inform us about life. If it fails in this function, it's kitsch/pornography/low-brow entertainment. Now, there's nothing wrong with being that, but it should be acknowledged as such.

If GRRM fans just admitted the story has more in common with 50 Shades of Gray than Tolkien, it would be fine. But they can't do that. They have to insist autistically there's some kind of deeper meaning to his twists and turns instead of realizing he's doing the equivalent of Lost-- artificially maintaining tension with no particular end goal in mind, then hastily wrapping everything up with a stupid deus ex machina.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:33:34 2018 No.11508213

>>11507924
>How does one, REALISTICALLY, go from one to the other
through 7 books if character development. you know your criticism would be way more valid if you were complaining no one changes in 7 books (plus you are using a fan theory to prove something about the authour which is next tier pleb)

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:35:13 2018 No.11508219
File: 124 KB, 445x445, costanzagrug.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11507561
nice pasta george

>>11507632
>the series actually comes into its own and Martine changes direction and becomes full /lit/

>referring to oneself in the third person

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:38:09 2018 No.11508233 >>11508164 that was the prolouge retard. the rest of the book is characters explicitly stating the supernatural no longer exists

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:39:02 2018 No.11508237

>>11508162
It's absolutely incredible how retarded you are and how you fail to understand even this book while proclaiming yourself some savant off of /lit/ and a connoisseur of good books.
Since I probably can't go through all of them, I'll focus on two. But you're already free to go above and read my post about Tyrion.
>Ned
>Nobel and idealistic warrior king figure
First of all, Ned is neither noble nor idealistic. I'm not sure what fucking book you've read - oh wait, you watched the show, my bad - but Ned has never been anything but a pragmatist from day one that wants to be left alone.
Ned was fond of Robert in their early days, but he's outgrown him and ultimately wants nothing to do with him nor with King's Landing. He feels no real sense of loyalty and he's far from the ideal, ready-to-serve vassal you'd see in a legend.
The thing with Ned is twofold: a) he can't use smarts he has because he's caught up in a bad northern system and instead of thinking forwards when he sees the southern corruption, he digs down into traditionalism, and b) he's a fucking unironic autist.
Ned did not even like the man Robert had become, and he sure as shit felt no real loyalty to his cause. But his autism sent him down the path of uncovering that the Lannisters were full of shit, and his inability to think creatively sent him to the grave.
Ned certainly hates hypocrites, that's clear, but again that's more due to his severe autismo and his need for things to be as presented as face value.
He isn't so much a man of a noble code, so much as a guy that's autistically stuck in the code he came with, but smart enough to be pragmatic when the situation requires it and break the rules. In many ways, he is a hypocrite.
>Caitlyn
>Loyal and loving matriarch who suffers for her family
This one gets me so bad. I don't even understand why you would post when it's so clear you haven't read the books.
Catelyn is not a good person, dipshit. She literally has a flashback in the first book to how she used to torture Petyr, and she thinks back on this with great amusement, and doesn't even get the slightest idea that he might seek to backstab her in return.
The rest is as clear as day.
>she forces ned to go down south against his will only to increase their reputation
>her entire childhood is all about how she was beautiful and everyone wanted her, and it's clear from how fucked up lysa became that it was her constant teasing/preferential treatment that turned lysa into an unstable, emotional wreck
>she's so self-obsessed that she treats jon like shit even though she barely knew ned when he brought him home
>she thinks she's so smart that she betrays robb, goes behind his back, and ultimately gets them all killed
>literally everything bad that happens to the starks is in some way or another a result of catelyn's decisions
Truly a loving and loyal person.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:40:05 2018 No.11508241 >>11508206 >It's there to inform us about life. then why would everything be a moral? sounds a lot more like fantasy than real life

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:41:42 2018 No.11508254 >>11508237 Wow dude... So deep... cough

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:43:29 2018 No.11508269 >>11508233 The prologue tells the reader there is magic, but it is considered extraordinary by the characters. >talking ravens >dragon bones Learn to POV

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:43:52 2018 No.11508271 >>11508206 >grrm doesn't deconstruct nuffin he jus write tropes >reeee thats not what fantasy books are supposed to be like! based schizo asoiaf hater

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:44:13 2018 No.11508274 >>11508159 what's wrong with them? I'm on the 4th and having the time of my life

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:45:41 2018 No.11508279 >>11508186 I unironically hate that the tv series made grrm mainstream. The first three books used to be my little secret. >>11508206 Edgy aspie, probably focused on the Reek torture scenes that were only alluded to in the book.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:46:01 2018 No.11508282 >>11508269 birds that can talk? wow so fantasy never seen anything like that before. also, big reptile bones from the past? wow this really is a stange new world. i wish the real world had parrots and fossils

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:46:43 2018 No.11508287 >>11508274 Oh anon, I pity you. It’s a steep drop into blandness.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:48:21 2018 No.11508292

>>11508241
>then why would everything be a moral?
A point is not necessarily a moral. Some of the greatest stories didn't have a moral, but had a deep point. For example:

>Notes from the Underground
This type of person exists and will make everything around them more miserable.

>The Great Gatsby
Self-actualized wealthy people are actually very hollow and so are the people who idolize them

etc.

What is the point of GRRM's stories? That good people will always suffer? That immoral sociopaths rule everything? I'm being really charitable when I say GRRM is doing it just to maintain artificial tension. If he actually believes any of this shit, then he's a worse human being than previously thought.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:50:26 2018 No.11508305

>>11508162
>Please explain to me what philosophical or metaphysical themes Martin tackles effectively apart from some extremely thin Machiavellian theory with some basic Social Darwinism and Nietzschean nihilism thrown in for good measure.
None of those are themes in ASoIaF, dumb /tv/ poster.
>There is no great exploration of philosophical concepts.
And there should be? That's what makes something a work of literature? To write explicitly for the purpose of exploring philosophical concepts. Damn, I'm sorry Mr Bakker, I wasn't aware this was you.
>There's some very bad attempts to criticize objective ethics
Such as? Examples. And not just one.
>not to edify.
Why would edification be good?
>Martin writes with the intent to play with a readers emotions only to shock them into an uncomfortable state
When? How many times does that happen in 5000p?
>beyond this there is no great overarching thematic backbone to the series.
There actually is, and it's stated by him numerous times. I've even stated it myself. But you're just too fucking dumb. Not to mention that you by no means need an overarching theme for something like this. Most of the characters have their own distinct themes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:51:38 2018 No.11508309 >>11508274 Ah, poor you... Yes, 1,2,3 are good and 4 isn't that much of a drop. I pity you for what's to come. 5 is one of the worst books ever written. And it's barely connected to anything.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:53:14 2018 No.11508315

>>11508292
you obviously havent read much of his completed work. its an anti war story, anon. grrm was a draft dodging hippie. why are you trying to decipher the distilled "point" of a story thats not finished? desu anon you dont sound like a very good reader

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:55:54 2018 No.11508331

>>11508282
>Small nuanced items that hint at the presence of magic
There’s a reason there’s no such thing as messenger pigeons.
>seasons that last for years
If you make up your mind about hating something, don’t bullshit with pseudo liberal (((evidence-based))) posts

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:56:07 2018 No.11508332 >>11507632 You're a dumb fag

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:56:47 2018 No.11508334

>she's so self-obsessed that she treats jon like shit even though she barely knew ned when he brought him home
She treats jon like shit because she views him as a reminder of her husbands infidelity. A husband who, she believes, is a man of principle and integrity. This is one of the most obvious understandings of their relationship. Do you really not understand that? Also, it proves my point again about how shallow Martin's characterization is, as he makes Caitlyn's behavior towards Jon highly unbelievable. Most mothers, even if the son wasn't there's, would eventually accept or at least hide their disdain for a child if that child is a loving and loyal brother to her own children (which Jon Snowflake certainly was)

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:57:56 2018 No.11508339

>>11508315
>why are you trying to decipher the distilled "point" of a story thats not finished
Because the faggot plebbitor insists you can appreciate a story for its literary merits even though it isn't finished right here >>11508106

Also, how is this an anti-war story? The entire country is heading to war because of shitty politics. If anything, it's an anti-politics story.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:58:15 2018 No.11508342 File: 835 KB, 1920x1200, BarneyTheLitGuardian.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11507725 This . It is right here if you all are too dumb to find it >>11506416

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:58:26 2018 No.11508343

>>11508237
>First of all, Ned is neither noble nor idealistic. he digs down into traditionalism,
Literally contradicted your own point. That's what makes Ned idealistic. The ideals he holds on to from a bygone time which serve as his moral compass by which no one else in the setting abides.

>but he's outgrown him and ultimately wants nothing to do with him nor with King's Landing
And why does he do this? Because his sense of morality and justice are at odds with what he has seen and sees coming out of King's Landing. Ned views the politicking and hypocrisy of Robert and Kings Landing as a whole as something abhorrent and detrimental to the good of the kingdoms as a whole. So again, he's idealistic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 13:58:48 2018 No.11508346 >>11508305 Not that anon but what do you consider the hallmarks of good literature?

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:00:12 2018 No.11508351

>>11508334
>She treats jon like shit because she views him as a reminder of her husbands infidelity.
Of a husband she barely knew.
> A husband who, she believes, is a man of principle and integrity.
That's oppressing, and I mean that literally. Though you are right, she basically neglects Ned for their entire marriage and only projects an ideal husband upon him without giving a fuck about his needs and wants. She doesn't respect him at all.
>Also, it proves my point again about how shallow Martin's characterization is, as he makes Caitlyn's behavior towards Jon highly unbelievable.
What part of it is shallow? Also, lol, it's not unbelievable at all. You haven't met enough stupid, egoistic women.
>Most mothers, even if the son wasn't there's, would eventually accept or at least hide their disdain for a child if that child is a loving and loyal brother to her own children
And that's my point, brainletto. She is not most mothers. She isn't even a good mother. She's abusive, vain, and arrogant. She is basically Cersei, except unlike Cersei, nothing bad ever happened to her.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:01:49 2018 No.11508360

>>11508334
like when she repents and feels awful for treating jon like that? you know, the character development that happens? why do you like one dimentional characters so much?
>hes an "angry" guy so every scene is just him going to get angry, then hes going to see his downfall cause of anger, wow, such brave character development

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:02:08 2018 No.11508364

>Ned did not even like the man Robert had become, and he sure as shit felt no real loyalty to his cause.
See the above point. You're proving my point for me. Thanks.

>Ned certainly hates hypocrites, that's clear, but again that's more due to his severe autismo and his need for things to be as presented as face value.
LOL HE'S JUST AUTISTIC NOT IDEALISTIC HAHA YOU'RE TOO DUMB TO GET IT.
Hi r/books.

>He isn't so much a man of a noble code, so much as a guy that's autistically stuck in the code he came with
Literally an idealist. Are you really this fucking retarded that you don't even realize you're only proving my point?

>she forces ned to go down south against his will only to increase their reputation
Dumb shit. She forces him to go south because the ideals which Ned and her believe in dictate that they be loyal to their king and country. Personally, the last thing she wants to have happen is for Ned to go south

>her entire childhood is all about how she was beautiful and everyone wanted her, and it's clear from how fucked up lysa became that it was her constant teasing/preferential treatment that turned lysa into an unstable, emotional wreck
Somehow this negates her characterization as a loving matriarch? This is the problem with you redditfags, you mistake backstory for character development. They are not synonymous. This is what watching too much shit TV like Lost, Orange is the New Black, This is Us, etc. do to simple minds.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:03:11 2018 No.11508369 >>11508364 You’re confusing the book with the tv show again

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:04:50 2018 No.11508375

>>11508343
>Literally contradicted your own point. That's what makes Ned idealistic. The ideals he holds on to from a bygone time which serve as his moral compass by which no one else in the setting abides.
I just quit talking to you, this isn't worth it. Traditionalism in no way means idealism. To give you a real life example, there are plenty of atheists that support having an organized religion around, even though they do not believe in it in any sense, and they're far from idealistic. Why? Because it's a pragmatic solution. Ned was no different. Had Ned been idealistic he wouldn't have followed Robert in the first place, nor married Catelyn.
>And why does he do this? Because his sense of morality and justice are at odds with what he has seen and sees coming out of King's Landing.
Because it is hypocritical and too complex.
>politicking and hypocrisy of Robert and Kings Landing as a whole as something abhorrent and detrimental to the good of the kingdoms as a whole
You don't need to be an idealist to think this. Varys thought the same.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:06:18 2018 No.11508380
File: 546 KB, 750x742, 1531082696491.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11508364
Like I said, it's pointless to discuss with summerfags. You have not read these books, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Just wait for the /tv/ generals or go post your shitty writing in a /lit/ thread.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:07:13 2018 No.11508384

>>11508339
no, robert didn't get gored by a boar because of shitty politics (his death starts the war of the 5 kings). cercei did try to get him drunk off fortified wine so I supposed that was a sort of political intrigue, but it didn't end up working so great. but yes, you are right, he is obviously making some criticism of fuedal politics too (just not sure if that will end up the one distilled point you are looking for)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:08:53 2018 No.11508394 >>11508364 This. I can't even fucking believe the GRRM autist is trying to claim that Ned isn't an idealist. Like, that's his one defining character trait. Are they being intentionally dense? I can't imagine any sincere fan missing the mark this hard.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:13:53 2018 No.11508416

>>11508346
Hmm, good question. But I'm not sure I believe in any kind of general hallmark for everyone. However, if you're asking what some of my favorite works are:
>iliad
>three kingdoms
>paradise lost
>divine comedy
>no country for old men
>crime and punishment
>all the king's men
>the master and the margarita
>prince of nothing trilogy
I am pretty tame.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:14:08 2018 No.11508418

>>11508305
>And there should be? That's what makes something a work of literature? To write explicitly for the purpose of exploring philosophical concepts.
Unironically, yes. That's what separates Literature from trash fiction.

>Such as? Examples. And not just one.
Oh let's see, Ned getting his head chopped off for one. Littlefinger getting the one up on pretty much everyone. Mormont getting backstabbed for trying to run the Nights Watch in a clean way. Jorah getting constantly cucked trying to earn back his honor. Selmy getting outjewed by Joffrey. Caitlyn trying to appease the Frey's and abide and mend a traditional taboo. Here's just a few examples.

>Why would edification be good?
Because when you read a work of literature you should come away from the work with a greater understanding of the world on a philosophical, moral, ethical, or religious basis. In pleb speak, this means that literature should make you "think".

>When? How many times does that happen in 5000p?
You're fucking trolling. Let's see:
>Jaime and Cersei Incest followed by murder attempt on a young child
>Noble Ned getting his head lobbed off
>The Red Wedding
>Theon's betrayal
>LIttlefinger's betrayal of Caitlyn
>The entire character of Ramsay
>Selmy getting ousted from the Kingsguard
>Young Griff
>Jon getting backstabbed by the Nights Watch
>Oberyn getting wrecked
>Tyrian killing Tywin

There's some dumbass shocking "twist" every hundred pages or so.

>Not to mention that you by no means need an overarching theme for something like this. Most of the characters have their own distinct themes.
For once we're in agreement. For something like this (i.e.-pornographic trash) none of the aforementioned marks of literature are needed. Again, thanks for proving my point.

Fuck off back to plebbit, you will find no sympathy here.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:17:05 2018 No.11508437

>>11508380
Cool deal bro. Read all the books, but I don't need to prove it to a fucking brainlet like yourself. You've done nothing to counter any of my criticisms, instead hiding behind
>I'm not talking to you anymore
You are the cancer killing /lit/. Death is a kindness for your ilk.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:18:28 2018 No.11508444

Tolkien is to creative literary genius what Martin is to hack pulp idiocy. They both so far surpass anyone else in their field that they will be remembered 1,000 years from now as a kind of yin and yang of fantasy, a Manichean duality of speculative letters. For every sublime, luminous beauty that Tolkien has gifted the world, Martin has cursed us with a tedious, banal ugliness. It is unfair to compare the two directly on any one point, because Martin is in every way the anti-Tolkien, patently sterile, parasitical, and inferior, but so much so that he becomes a monument in his own right, and counterbalances Tolkien. Could one exist without the other? Tolkien obviously could. But it is only by the contrast that Martin offers that we can truly appreciate the full depths and heights of Tolkien. Our understanding of Tolkien would be incomplete if Martin had never set pen to page. It is through only the abject failure and futility of Martin that we can approach an apprehension of the true scope and scale of Tolkien's hitherto inconceivable greatness. Perhaps this is what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote about the Music of the Ainur. If Tolkien is a subcreator in the image of Eru, truly Martin is like unto Melkor. It is only reflected in the awfulness of the one that we can fully see the goodness of the other.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:20:41 2018 No.11508454 >>11508418 >explicitly exploring philosophy is what separates Literature from trash fiction. except that's not anyones definition for literature; maybe philosophy though

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:22:49 2018 No.11508465 >>11507561 Ok George's editor. Just know that his books will never be accepted as high literature or anything beyond the source material for the HBO show.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:26:46 2018 No.11508484

>>11508418
>Unironically, yes. That's what separates Literature from trash fiction.
Then on your account, most of sci-fi is literature? Am I getting this right, you fucking dog? Can you see how stupid you sound?
>Oh let's see, Ned getting his head chopped off for one. Littlefinger...Here's just a few examples.
And how exactly is this intentionally critical of objective ethics?
>Because when you read a work of literature you should come away from the work with a greater understanding of the world on a philosophical, moral, ethical, or religious basis. In pleb speak, this means that literature should make you "think".
Except that's not true for most of the works of literature in existence. I can guarantee you there's a retarded anime out there that would make people think more than an older work of literature.
So again, what are you judging? The effect of the work or the intent? Is a good work suddenly useless if a bunch of people come about that don't find it edifying?
Do you see how retarded this is? Do you?
>You're fucking trolling. Let's see:
This just confirms to me that you are a /tv/ fag. Nobody gave a fuck about Oberyn dying in the books. Many of the others are set up and predictable. There's literally only a few that are true.
>ned's decapitation
>red wedding
>jaime's confession to tyrion
>jaime's hand
>jon's backstabbing
That's it. In 5000p. You're so right, all Martin wants to do is fuck with people XD.
>There's some dumbass shocking "twist" every hundred pages or so.
r e t a r d e d f u c k
>For once we're in agreement. For something like this (i.e.-pornographic trash) none of the aforementioned marks of literature are needed. Again, thanks for proving my point.
Literature doesn't need that either. Nothing does. A work is either good or it's not depending on the work itself. It can only develop from within and set its own standards. Your standards are intellectually lazy and frankly embarrassing.
>Fuck off back to plebbit, you will find no sympathy here.
You need to stop using that term, bucko. See, if you were actually from here, or older than 20, or even a book reader, you would know to insult me properly and tell me to go back to the ASoIaF forums. But as I said, dumb summer poster.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:28:28 2018 No.11508495 >>11508484 >I can guarantee you there's a retarded anime out there that would make people think more than an older work of literature. t. someone who has never read literature You're so fedora it hurts.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:35:41 2018 No.11508534

>>11508495
I'm fedora... Says the guy who insists a work needs to have philosophical concepts and be edifying? Like I said, by your standards most of anime and sci-fi would be far more edifying for most of the population.
I can guarantee you the average person will find more to think about by reading a Dick novel than Moby Dick. So by your own standards, Moby Dick isn't real literature.
Everything you say reeks of pretentiousness, but the stupid kind that can only come from being young and unread and trying to look smart.
There are plenty of things to be done with literature that doesn't involve "philosophical concepts" lol.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:36:26 2018 No.11508539 ITT: Ive came five times to this gang bang

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:38:43 2018 No.11508546 >>11508539 based

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:39:48 2018 No.11508551 >>11508534 Plen too ;)

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:41:02 2018 No.11508558

>>11508534
>by my own standards
First off, I'm not the guy you were arguing with. Second, yes, a work of literature needs to have a bigger point to it, otherwise what the fuck would literary critics discuss?

>anime
Is largely shit. Some of it is good, but only on an emotionally manipulative level. Like, "this made me cry, therefore it's good!" I'm not saying that it's bad, but it's definitely more on par with kitsch than literature. The only anime I can think of which dealt with serious themes in a sophisticated manner is Legend of the Galactic Heroes and even that is lacking in depth compared to actual works of literary merit.

>underage
Your insults are so far off the mark it's frankly quite embarrassing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:42:23 2018 No.11508563 >>11508558 Evangelion is basically Gravity's Rainbow

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:42:48 2018 No.11508567 >>11508563 And both are pseud trash

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:44:10 2018 No.11508575 >>11508567 Lol

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:44:13 2018 No.11508576

>>11508484
Is there a reason you're being so rude? Take a step back and think about the vitriol you're spewing just because you disagree with someone about whether or not a book is good. Rough day at school? Daddy's dick too big for your boipussy? I can't fathom what makes someone so hateful over the most petty shit. If you were raised in Syria, you'd probably be raping and beheading infidel children right now.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:48:32 2018 No.11508597

>>11508558
>otherwise what the fuck would literary critics discuss?
The style and prose, for one. You know, something far more worthy of discussion in a field about WRITING?
>
>anime
>Is largely shit. Some of it is good, but only on an emotionally manipulative level. Like, "this made me cry, therefore it's good!" I'm not saying that it's bad, but it's definitely more on par with kitsch than literature. The only anime I can think of which dealt with serious themes in a sophisticated manner is Legend of the Galactic Heroes and even that is lacking in depth compared to actual works of literary merit.
Stop posting your blog opinions, nobody cares. The point is simple: the simple use of philosophical concepts doesn't make lit, nor does it even make something good. Any work that sets out to be philosophical from the get-go, on purpose, will usually be pure trash.
If I can isolate a person or event in history and think on it, I can definitely do the same with something from ASoIaF, or even a finished work of literature. Only an indoctrinated person would think otherwise.
>Your insults are so far off the mark it's frankly quite embarrassing.
Cry me a river, nigger.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:49:47 2018 No.11508601 >>11508575 He's not wrong. Gravity's rainbow is a meme book. Speaking of meme books, can someone make a meme book chart. And put the Iliad on it for the luls.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:50:56 2018 No.11508605

>>11508534
You do realize there's more than one anon calling you a retard right? Anyways, your inner pleb is becoming ever more evident with every post you make.

>a work needs to have philosophical concepts and be edifying?
Read again faggot. I said Ethical, philosophical, moral, or religious. Not strictly philosophical, though great works of literature largely respond and react to philosophy on at least a surface level.

>Like I said, by your standards most of anime and sci-fi would be far more edifying for most of the population.
You think entirely in genres, which is another mark of a psued. Literature is distinct from standard fiction (regardless of genre) by a couple of defining features. In brief, they are aesthetic quality, thematic cohesion (and, subsequently, clarity of vision), and exploration of metaphysical ideas (whether it be philosophical, religious, ethical, or political).

>I can guarantee you the average person will find more to think about by reading a Dick novel than Moby Dick. So by your own standards, Moby Dick isn't real literature.
What the fuck are you talking about? The value of literature isn't defined by how many people find more to think about but the weight of the ideas presented and the cohesion which a writer gives to these ideas. Both Dick and Moby-Dick are litarture. Moby-Dick exceeds Dick as a superior work based on the other criteria (Aesthetic quality and thematic cohesion). Dick is great and a writer I would classify as literature. I don't know what you're trying to get at here apart from "If more people like it, then it's better" which is something I would absolutely expect a GURRM apologist to say.

>Everything you say reeks of pretentiousness,
This is what plebs say when they don't know shit about what they're talking about

>but the stupid kind that can only come from being young and unread and trying to look smart.
Says the psued. I guarentee you I'm older than you and have read more books, but this isn't a dick-waving contest and I'm not going to flaunt my credentials over you in order to win some sweet internet points. Your criticism is shallow, mundane, and lacks even the slightest modicum of basic literary analysis.

>There are plenty of things to be done with literature that doesn't involve "philosophical concepts" lol.
Poetry would be the only type of literature that doesn't directly deal with metaphysics, and even then, good poetry attempts to capture emotion, which can deepen a readers understanding of metaphysical concepts such as love, hate, loss, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:51:16 2018 No.11508606 >>11508597 you've been asked to provide instances of great prose in asoiaf numerous times in this thread, so chop chop

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:51:39 2018 No.11508608

>>11508576
>Is there a reason you're being so rude?
It's how I talk.
>Take a step back and think about the vitriol you're spewing just because you disagree with someone about whether or not a book is good.
I think you need to relax and stop reading into things. Alternatively, go to another website.
>I can't fathom what makes someone so hateful over the most petty shit.
That's because it doesn't actually happen, retard.
>If you were raised in Syria, you'd probably be raping and beheading infidel children right now.
How do you know I wasn't?

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:52:38 2018 No.11508612

>>11508608
Is there a reason you're being so rude? Take a step back and think about the vitriol you're spewing just because you disagree with someone about whether or not a book is good. Rough day at school? Daddy's dick too big for your boipussy? I can't fathom what makes someone so hateful over the most petty shit. If you were raised in Syria, you'd probably be raping and beheading infidel children right now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 14:54:23 2018 No.11508618 File: 79 KB, 480x480, Pepe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11508612 This thread is fucking amazing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:01:50 2018 No.11508641 >>11508601 What does that even meme?

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:02:01 2018 No.11508643

>>11508484
>Then on your account, most of sci-fi is literature? Am I getting this right, you fucking dog? Can you see how stupid you sound?
There is a lot of great literature in sci-fi, just as there's tons of trash in general or "realistic" fiction. Literature isn't bound by genre. Plenty of great literature has come out of SFF, such as Wolfe, Dunsany, Tolkien, Dick, Etc. I'm sorry that Martin isn't among those who produce literature within SFF.

>And how exactly is this intentionally critical of objective ethics?
Because Martin is trying to show that objective morality is illusory and wielded by smarter men to control or manipulate situations and people for their own benefit. How is it that someone who finds this series to be so groundbreaking misses these basic points?

>Except that's not true for most of the works of literature in existence.
It absolutely fucking is. It's why there's a sharp difference between Faulkner and Nora Roberts or Melville and John Green. If you don't get this then you are seriously in the wrong place.

>I can guarantee you there's a retarded anime out there that would make people think more than an older work of literature.
Show me one example of anime which is on par with something like Shakespeare, Dante, Milton, et al. I'll wait. The only one which even comes close is NGE, and it's pretty much a meme at this point.

> Is a good work suddenly useless if a bunch of people come about that don't find it edifying?
No, because as you said here,

> A work is either good or it's not depending on the work itself.

A work stands on its own merits, of which ASoIaF doesn't have any.

>Literature doesn't need that either. Nothing does
So what you're saying is there is no distinction between literature and general fiction? That's retarded. Humans analyze almost everything by degrees of perfection. A Mercedes is objectively better than a Chevy based on it's teleological function as a car and the quality of its craft compared to the Honda. Chopin is better than 50 cent because Chopin incorporates more complex and nuanced movements and measures than fiddy. Notre Dame cathedral is a superior work of architecture than, say, your average american household due to its structure, material, and engineering than a standard house. Literature is distinct from fiction because it is the elevated form of fiction. It utilizes more complex ideas and concepts in a far more artistic and aesthetic manner than fiction.

>It can only develop from within and set its own standards.
If this is the case then Harry Potter is no different from The Divine Comedy, as HP "Developed from within and set its own standards". You fell for the post-modern meme. SAD.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:02:52 2018 No.11508647 File: 13 KB, 480x360, 0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11508597 >Any work that sets out to be philosophical from the get-go, on purpose, will usually be pure trash.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:03:02 2018 No.11508649

>>11508605
>I said Ethical, philosophical, moral, or religious. Not strictly philosophical, though great works of literature largely respond and react to philosophy on at least a surface level.
As does ASoIaF. So I fail to see your point. Ah, yes, the full retard hypocrisy kicks in yet again.
>You think entirely in genres
?
>in brief, they are aesthetic quality, thematic cohesion (and, subsequently, clarity of vision), and exploration of metaphysical ideas (whether it be philosophical, religious, ethical, or political).
Except that's not true. And there are plenty of works of literature that strike none of those.
>I don't know what you're trying to get at here apart from "If more people like it, then it's better" which is something I would absolutely expect a GURRM apologist to say.
The point is not that more is better. The point is that what's edifying is completely subjective. Your whole point was that a book must be edifying. By that token, they must always be edifying. If not, why argue for it? Is it only supposed to be edifying for the time it was written, or what?
>This is what plebs say when they don't know shit about what they're talking about
Nope, it's when you think you have a right to determine arbitrary boundaries for what defines literature and what you consider good.
>basic literary analysis
Fine words from a guy that can't even understand the novels he supposedly disdains? You're such a smart, cultured, well-developed adult that's read so much, yet the deeper points of a work you think is completely shallow escape you, huh?
>Poetry would be the only type of literature that doesn't directly deal with metaphysics
You're fucking retarded. Do you think most short stories deal with metaphysics, you baboon? You think Chekov's The Huntsman was written to deal with fucking METAPHYSICS? But no, go on, keep being an irreverent animal that won't even admit he's wrong while making the most preposterous statements imaginable.
>metaphysical concepts
>love, hate
What is this, fucking 40K? Christ, you make me cringe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:03:42 2018 No.11508652 >>11507561 Only the Pleb-Master of All Plebs would ever make this thread. Well plebed!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:06:19 2018 No.11508660 >>11508608 >>11508612 samefag samefagging. This is an official troll thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:07:25 2018 No.11508663 >>11508641 Lurk more.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:08:47 2018 No.11508676 >made into a wildly successful and popular television show >not for those teetering on the yawning maw of retardation

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:09:19 2018 No.11508679 >>11508663 ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:18:14 2018 No.11508702 >>11508679 Make a book chart To identify all of the /lit/ meme books And put the Iliad on it to piss people off We good now?

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:18:48 2018 No.11508704

>>11508643
>>11508643
That is not my point. My point was that you said it needs to have philosophical concepts. Far more sci-fi authors than the ones you've list use them, so I fail to see why they wouldn't meet your criteria?
>Show me one example of anime which is on par with something like Shakespeare, Dante, Milton, et al. I'll wait. The only one which even comes close is NGE, and it's pretty much a meme at this point.
I never said there is one you fucking disgusting piece of shit. And NGE is fucking TRASH. Since you seem to be mentally ill and can't read well, let me explain to you my point once more: if all you care are philosophical concepts, regardless of what they are, or how they are achieved, you can find them in MOST MEDIA. Even garbage like anime. That is why it's a STUPID criteria.
>Because Martin is trying to show that objective morality is illusory and wielded by smarter men to control or manipulate situations and people for their own benefit. How is it that someone who finds this series to be so groundbreaking misses these basic points?
He doesn't. You are reading far too much into it. He is only being critical (if I can even call it that with Martin) of a specific kind of morality.
>It absolutely fucking is. It's why there's a sharp difference between Faulkner and Nora Roberts or Melville and John Green. If you don't get this then you are seriously in the wrong place.
Yeah, because literature consists only of a handful of authors and works so great that they go beyond any one culture or period in time. It's not like there's countless works of /lit/ trash released every year that you won't ever read and don't give a fuck about.
>A work stands on its own merits, of which ASoIaF doesn't have any.
Again, wrong. ASoIaF is one of a kind.
>So what you're saying is there is no distinction between literature and general fiction?
No? What I'm saying is that literature's only real criteria is that it's not genre fiction and doesn't need to stand by any particular set of rules. Though of course, works within genre fiction can be good enough to count as literature. But I completely reject your bullshit standards and that of the other guy that literature has to have x or y in order to be considered such. Literature is whatever we decide is literature. That has always been the case and always will.
>If this is the case then Harry Potter is no different from The Divine Comedy, as HP "Developed from within and set its own standards"
No, because Harry Potter is retarded even if you look at it from within. I never said you have to be completely arbitrary about it.
But it's also retarded to disqualify works going by criteria that are senseless, especially when, you know, there's an entire field called PHILOSOPHY that corresponds to that criteria you want. A work of literature is never going to offer a commensurate philosophical experience to a book written for that purpose alone.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:18:56 2018 No.11508705

>>11508649
>As does ASoIaF.
But it lacks in the other critera. It's aesthetics are fucking awful and there is thematic cohesion.

>Except that's not true. And there are plenty of works of literature that strike none of those.
Name some. I'll wait.

> The point is that what's edifying is completely subjective. Your whole point was that a book must be edifying.
Edifying is pretty clearly something which educates and informs. Also, I never said a book must be edifying, I said LITERATURE must be edifying to qualify as LITERATURE. No wonder you can't into literary analysis, you can't even read properly.

>Is it only supposed to be edifying for the time it was written, or what?
Great works transcend age and time. This is largely why many political works don't age well. A good work may be relevant to its specific time period. A great work of literature transcends it. For example, The Divine Commedy is full of references to the political climate of Dante's time, but it transcends as a work of literature based on the criteria detailed above, as all the references to the political scene of Florence during Dante's time transcend and serve his thematic purpose (that's thematic cohesion). The same could be said of works by Dostoyevsky, Faulkner, Melville, and many others.

>, it's when you think you have a right to determine arbitrary boundaries for what defines literature and what you consider good.
Again, you're basically saying that "Literature is what I want it to be." Which no one in any serious academic or critical circle agrees with. In short, you're a fan boy who can't handle the fact that Martin is a hack. A mediocre pulp writer who will never be as relevant or pertinent than you want him to be.

>You're such a smart, cultured, well-developed adult that's read so much,
Thanks. I like to think I am.

>yet the deeper points of a work you think is completely shallow escape you, huh?
As I said (and I've actually proven more than you have), there is only a very basic and shallow veil of metaphysical and ethical analysis in ASoIaF, and none of it is the central driving force of the series. The series is read, and widely admitted by you, primarily due to it's "deep characters" (they aren't), and "subversion of genre tropes" (even though it's been done better by many other writers). The central driving force of the narrative for readers is to find out what happens with the characters. Martin does not task his readers to dig further than what he does with his characters, which as has been pointed out, is largely pornographic and exploitative. The only game he plays with his readers is setting up some trope only to subvert or kill it outright in order to elicit shock, joy, anger, or sadness. Literal emotional pornography and the mark of the most tasteless of writers.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:19:52 2018 No.11508710

>>11508660
Is there a reason you're being so rude? Take a step back and think about the vitriol you're spewing just because you disagree with someone about whether or not a book is good. Rough day at school? Daddy's dick too big for your boipussy? I can't fathom what makes someone so hateful over the most petty shit. If you were raised in Syria, you'd probably be raping and beheading infidel children right now.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:26:31 2018 No.11508741

>>11508704
>What I'm saying is that literature's only real criteria is that it's not genre fiction and doesn't need to stand by any particular set of rules
Nobody who has any understanding of literature believes this. You're a fucking pseud. I already detailed the standard criteria for literature, and I've pointed out countless times that genre should have no bearing on literary merit. If there is no standard by which to judge literature then there is no difference in quality of Shakespeare's Sonnets and Tupacs Poems. This is the claim you're making and no one here is going to agree with you. Like I said, you're in the wrong fucking place faggot.

>Again, wrong. ASoIaF is one of a kind.
A one of a kind piece of shit, no doubt.

>No, because Harry Potter is retarded even if you look at it from within
Who's to say it's retarded from within? Maybe you're just too stupid to understand it as it should be. The criteria you're applying to it isn't the same standard applied to other literature
> it's when you think you have a right to determine arbitrary boundaries for what defines literature and what you consider good.
Literally you two posts ago.

Summerfags calling people summerfags.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 15:26:42 2018 No.11508742

>>11508704
>because literature consists only of a handful of authors and works so great that they go beyond any one culture or period in time.
That's basically what literature is, though.
Encyclopedia Britannica:
>The name has traditionally been applied to those imaginative works of poetry and prose distinguished by the intentions of their authors and the perceived aesthetic excellence of their execution.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:
>writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 16:16:48 2018 No.11508898 >>11508702 Memeing...?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 16:35:09 2018 No.11508967 >>11508898 Summer cant end fast enough.

Anonymous Mon Jul 23 17:27:28 2018 No.11509254

I'm gonna take the bait on one specific issue. All this shit about people not having the intention span to enjoy it is just complete bull.

I have a problem with the length, not because I lack the attention span, but because it's so long because it's filled with utter shite.

GRRM seems to forget that he's meant to be writing an entertaining story, not giving us a lesson on every little irrelevant detail about his world.

There's far, far too much world building that brings absolutely fuck all to the story, no wonder people get fucking bored

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 23 19:25:12 2018 No.11509793 >153 replies to a pasta I'd enjoy driving a tractor over every single poster itt

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]