/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16055071]

Does GRRM deserve all the hate he gets?

[Anonymous No.16055081]

Yes, he's american

[Anonymous No.16055085]

>>16055071
And then some.

[Anonymous No.16055102]

>>16055071
why does GRRM have such a big nose? is he polish or some east euro? surely he can't be mixed with black

[Anonymous No.16055110]

>>16055102
>His mother was of half Irish ancestry.[10] He also acknowledges French, English, Welsh and German roots,[11] which were confirmed on the television series Finding Your Roots. However, while he also believed he was a quarter Italian because of who he was told was his paternal grandfather, a DNA test on the show confirmed his Irish and other ancestries but excluded any Italian ancestry, showing instead he is approximately a quarter Ashkenazi Jewish.[12]

[Anonymous No.16055118]

>>16055071
GRRM is unironically better. LotR are children’s books, GRRM at least makes his entertaining and doesn’t have so many gay songs

[Anonymous No.16055130]

>>16055071
Considering how he actively courts it through his mixture of hype and procrastination, yes. The big issue (for me) regarding Martin is that he actively positioned his series as a counter to LOTR (the whole 'muh taxes' meme). He has the ego to see himself on the same level as Tolkien, whereas other fantasy writers at least acknowledge the lack in their own works. To do this and not even follow through on your own series (which itself reads like standard pulp) is inviting the criticism directed at him.

[Anonymous No.16055132]

>>16055110
he is a jew then

[Anonymous No.16055225]

>>16055110
Based early life poster

[Anonymous No.16055255]

>>16055071

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

― George R.R. Martin

[Anonymous No.16055854]

>>16055118
>gay songs
Depends on performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoVnWUQ9CR8

[Anonymous No.16055894]

Tolkien failed to deal with two central questions: Aragon's tax policy, and whether he genocided orc babies. GRRM's ability to deal with these complex moral issues puts him leagues ahead of Tolkien, who, much as I admire him, I do quibble with.

[Anonymous No.16055968]

>>16055894

[s10241875 No.16055983]

>>16055894
>Aragon's tax policy, and whether he genocided orc babies
Aragon's tax policy = genocide orc babies [orcling, accurate]

Everything is solved simply. I don’t understand why it’s not obvious to the people.

[Anonymous No.16056175]

>>16055071
>complex worldbuilding, language
Worldbuilding is hard. This was maybe my answer to Martin, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. A Song of Ice and Fire had a very shallow background: that if the king had a gold mine, he was rich. We look at history and it’s not that simple. Martin can say that Starks ruled the North for 9,000 years and commoners loved them. But Martin doesn’t ask the question: what was the Seven Kingdoms' administrative division? Do they collect a head tax or a chimney tax? What was their writing system in which they kept records? And what about the calendars? By the end of the book, we're told there are the long and short winters, but we still have no idea how long they spanned. Did the Targaryen kings pursue the policy of lunisolar astronomical observation and account for difference in length of Planetos orbiting the Sun? Even the leap hours and little infinitesimal leap minutes?

[Anonymous No.16056210]

>>16055102
Obsessed

[Anonymous No.16056517]

>>16055071
GRRM imitated Tolkien, Tolkien didn't imitate GRRM

[Anonymous No.16056521]

>>16055071
That entire paragraph is empty tautology.

[Anonymous No.16056569]

>>16056521
not unlike GRRM's work then

[Anonymous No.16057205]

>>16055118
Retarded detected.

[Anonymous No.16058476]

>>16055071

There's another thread where an Anon is asking about Tolkien's writings and what sources inspired Tolkien's works and because the Anon is interested in the villains and Tolkien's writing, yet the guy doesn't want to read Tolkien's LoTR trilogy. I told him that he is wasting his life not reading The Hobbit and LoTR. Anyway, should I read George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series, and will I be wasting my life reading them, especially since they aren't finished?

I've read Frank Herbert's Dune series, and even though he died before writing the conclusion of Heretics of Dune and Chapterhouse: Dune, I'm fine with the series not having been finished. Well, it was finished by his son but I haven't read the Dune novels outside of what Frank Herbert originally wrote.

[Anonymous No.16058523]

Somebody post the time Peter Hitchens shat all over GRRM.

[Anonymous No.16058549]

>>16055071
Stop trying to upgrade Tolkien to the status of literature. Both Tolkien and GRRM wrote genre fiction for smelly nerds. Now get back into your containment thread.

[Anonymous No.16058870]

>>16058549
Tolkien is a better writer than some of the so-called great writers of the 20th Century.

[Anonymous No.16058889]

>>16055071
Absolutely

[Anonymous No.16058903]

>>16058870
Take a shower.

[Anonymous No.16059982]

>>16055071
/r/murderedwithwords

[Anonymous No.16060054]

>>16055968
Tolkien had such an autistic attention to detail that I've no doubt he probably did have an idea of the tax policy.

[Anonymous No.16060149]

>>16055071
NOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST INTRODUCE INJUSTICE AND REALISM INTO FANTASY LAND THAT'S RUINING MY HAPPY MAKE-BELIEVE WORLD

[Anonymous No.16060180]

>>16058870
He's not a good writer if he didn't write anything of substance. You can only be a good writer if your works are worth reading, this kind of delusional, escapist fiction is what gives the whole genre a bad name. At least myths give you an insight into the philosophy of early man and his early attempts in trying to understand the world around him

[Anonymous No.16060557]

>INJUSTICE AND REALISM INTO FANTASY LAND
hehe lmao

[Anonymous No.16060563]

tolkien is way more into trad shit then goy rr martin is. good readers like trad shit more

[Anonymous No.16060640]

Well, Martin (for all his egoism about realism), is yet to write a single realistic event.
Most of the politics in Westeros is driven by short sighted psychopaths over personal slights rather than cold blooded strategy by political masterminds.

In comparison, Tolkien wrote more and better politics in The Hobbit purely by accident, as seen by how he deals with the Erebor Siege as well as the general behaviour of the Dwarves, Lakemen and Elves. Every political veteran acts as expected of politicians, even when they're being guided by greed and paranoia.

That is the difference. Tolkien is a giant among giants. Martin is a dwarf among ants.

[Anonymous No.16060657]

>>16055110
>showing instead he is approximately a quarter Ashkenazi Jewish
This should have been self-evident given his works' love for elevating the base, brutish, and material and desecrating the divine. ASoIaF is truly as Jewish as LotR is English. Iconoclasm is in their blood.

[Anonymous No.16060777]

>>16055071
>reading either

[Anonymous No.16060790]

>>16060563
>good writers
>tradfags
pick one.

[Anonymous No.16060799]

>>16060563
Eh? Tolkien was extremely popular with hippies and other counterculture groups. Tolkien is hated by SJWs sure, but really what white man isn't?

[Anonymous No.16060889]

>>16058523
You mean the lesser Hitchens brother? Why would anyone care what he has to say?

[Anonymous No.16061106]

>>16055255
I honestly don't understand why this is supposed to be that bad. It's ugly and vulgar but that was the intention.

[Anonymous No.16061134]

>>16055968
Based

[Anonymous No.16061317]

>>16061106
It's vulgar without regard for reality. He's trying to manufacture a hyper-real moment, but that's not how literature works. This isn't Hollywood. The gunshot doesn't have to be bloody to read well, unless you're a big fat retard clacking away at your IBM-PS/2

[Anonymous No.16061533]

>>16055071
>>16056175
ehhhh fucking martin... Memed me into describing administrative structures of the countries to make them realistic.

[Anonymous No.16061667]

>>16055968
Extremely based take.
I'm so sick of grey fetishists who look down on simple black vs white stories.

[Anonymous No.16061734]

I miss GoT /tv/ threads.

[Anonymous No.16062251]

>>16055968
>Martin's universe is far less real than Tolkien's is because he tries to simulate some of the complexity of reality and that's not the point of fiction
Literally not coherent

[Anonymous No.16062280]

>>16062251
Not him but Martin tries to make fantasy "realistic" while Tolkien makes it out of whole cloth, the latter is closer to what fantasy and storytelling is meant to be (at least according to him).
Not that hard to follow, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16062296]

I hate him because he will probably ruin Elden Ring's lore with his gritty realism bullshit that's completely out of place in Souls.

[Anonymous No.16062598]

>>16055071
Not really. It's less offensive than most fantasy crap (or it was for the first few books anyway). Comparisons to giants like Tolkien are a little unfounded when you should be comparing him to his real kin like Brooks OR Jordan.

It's trash lit to read on holiday, not mythology or literature. For the category it exists in its arguably one of the least cringe.

[Anonymous No.16062624]

>>16055071
He triggered hugo trannies, so there is that.

[Anonymous No.16062631]

>>16060799
He also hated them. The point of LOTR is essentially everyone who isn't a middle class non-urban white English man with no industrial ties should be killed.

[Anonymous No.16062640]

>>16058549
>Tolkien wrote genre fiction
Summer lit. Tolkien wrote a mythology. Arguably got a bit sidetracked but that's besides the point, the silmarillion is like the old testament on steroids.

[Anonymous No.16062642]

>>16062624
Why are black people so ugly, bros?

[Anonymous No.16062654]

>>16062642
>>16062642
Only low t guys don't have jungle fever.

[Anonymous No.16062664]

>>16062642
It's fine.

[Anonymous No.16062670]

>>16062631
I lmao'd

[Anonymous No.16062750]

>>16060180
What's the parameter to say if something is worth reading or not? Why are Pynchon, Joyce and Nabokov worth reading but Tolkien is not?

[Anonymous No.16063384]

>>16062631
Based

[Anonymous No.16063604]

>>16055071
He deserves praise for unwittingly ruining the pozzed utopia subversion of the Hugo SJWs by talking about actually good science fiction writers.

[Anonymous No.16063632]

>>16061317
>He's trying to manufacture a hyper-real moment, but that's not how literature works.
I don't care for A song of ice and fire or GRRM but that's such a stupid thing to say. Writing exagerated descriptions to the point they become disgusting and grotesque is something that has been in literature since at least Gargantua and Don Quijote (and in medieval literature too), and in both of them describing physiological processes as well. Saying that's not how literature works doesn't even make sense.

[Anonymous No.16063705]

>>16063632
Your examples are self-aware, GRRM isn't

[Anonymous No.16063711]

>>16055071
does he get all the hate he deserves?

[Anonymous No.16064756]

>>16062280
I am not disputing this, I am disputing that he simultaneously claims Martin's realism represents the opposite of what fantasy literature ought to be, whilst at the same time claiming that "Martin's universe is far less real than Tolkien's" because he provides detail on some of the minutiae of his fictional kingdoms from real life historical examples. Because somehow Tolkien's stories are to be merited a greater foothold in reality due to the fact they don't refer to any of the technicalities of their fictional kingdoms?
Are you really such a brainlet that this blaring contradiction wasn't apparent to you?

[Anonymous No.16064854]

>>16063604
So, hugo trannies was not just an insult.

[Anonymous No.16064859]

>>16063384
>And was Jerusalem builded here amongst these dark satanic mills

[Anonymous No.16064908]

[Anonymous No.16064941]

>>16062631
He's not wrong.

[Anonymous No.16065486]

>>16064756
>he simultaneously claims Martin's realism represents the opposite of what fantasy literature ought to be, whilst at the same time claiming that "Martin's universe is far less real than Tolkien's" because he provides detail on some of the minutiae of his fictional kingdoms from real life historical examples
Fiction never happened, so the reality of a work has more to do with its applicability than how many details it has. It would be historically accurate that everyone has bowel movements. Why not have a detailed paragraph about Gandalf's stool every time he slips away to take a giant shit? Is that an improvement? Unless it's actually important to the story that his shits are frequently runny and beige these descriptions weigh him down and make him less applicable as a symbol, not more. By adding superfluous details you have actually made him less real by making his applicability more cluttered. Tolkien loved details, but unless you strayed from the beaten path of his main works into his autism forest they were always meaningful and appropriate. What purpose does fluff like tax policies serve other than to flesh out a world that literally doesn't exist with data that was only added for the sole purpose of simulating reality rather than refining your narrative? Tax policies and orc babies would be essential for some stories. It depends on what you're trying to do, but Martin frames their absence as a criticism of Tolkien and suggests that these details would have enhanced the work's realism when they wouldn't have. The details in LotR are meant to tell you about the real world and real people. The details in Fire and Ice are meant to tell you about Westeros, which doesn't exist. You can debate that but it's what the post is saying.

[Anonymous No.16065610]

>>16055071
Shitting is hard. Or soft, as the case may be. This was maybe my answer to GRRM, whom, as much as I lust for him, I do quibble with. A Dance With Dragons had a very scatalogical philosophy: that if the queen drank dirty water, the land would be covered in shit. We look at real shits and it’s not that simple. GRRM can say that Daenerys got dysentry and shat for a hundred years, and each stool was looser than the last. But GRRM doesn’t ask the question: What was Daenerys' fiber intake? Did she ingest a recommended amount of solutes? What did she do when she needed to wipe? And what about all these turds? By the end of the defacation chapter, Daenerys' bowels are empty but all her number twos aren't gone – they’re not even in a shit pit dug in the ground. Did Daenerys pursue a policy of systematically dumping in one place? So that there was a gigantic mountain of diarrhea?

[Anonymous No.16065665]

>>16065610

[Anonymous No.16066470]

What was Stannis's tax policy?

[Anonymous No.16066699]

>>16055118
maybe children's books but they're better by far

[Anonymous No.16067996]

>>16055968
> Language is hard. This was maybe my answer to Martin, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. A Song of Ice and Fire had a very modern philosophy: that if the king was a good man, he would get his dick chopped off. We look at history and it’s not that simple. Martin can say that Bran became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Martin doesn’t ask the question: How was High Valyrian conjugated? Does the pluperfect tense of Bravosi derive from the suffix? How did dragons understand the verb “dracarys”? And what about all those lost Westerosi languages? By the end of the war, the Night King is gone but all of the autists aren’t gone – they’re in the Godswood, watching beautiful sisters be beautifully raped. Did Bran pursue a policy of monolingualism and kill all other languages? Even the little baby dialects in their little dialect regions?