A Game of Thrones

[Anonymous No.2117680]

>Look forward to awesomeness
>Read through book
>Realize I just read what is essentially a male soap opera

Feels fucking terrible man.

[Anonymous No.2117684]

what makes you say that

[Anonymous No.2117685]

>>2117684
are you kidding? All it's missing is fabio on the cover.

[Anonymous No.2117688]

BOY IT SURE IS A SPECIAL THING TO BE A KNIGHT IN THIS LAND OH LOOK IT'S A MILLION DIFFERENT FLAGS FLYING A MILLION DIFFERENT BANNERS I WILL NOW GO IN DEPTH AS TO THE APPERENCE OF EACH

[Anonymous No.2117689]

SPOILERS,

you're wrong. i dare you to name another grand work of literature where the main protagonist dies , and then you have to keep on reading the other 6 fucking books cos you were just trolled to the max.

[Anonymous No.2117690]

OH MAN THESE GUYS ARE IN SUCH AWESOME ARMOR I WILL NOW SPEND 2 PAGES DESCRIBING THIER ARMOR IN VIVID DETAIL.

[Anonymous No.2117694]

>>2117690

Sounds like you've never read Homer. That's called Ekphrasis, and I don't consider GRRM the biggest offender in that respect.

Honestly, I would like to hear valid arguments on why he's considered a bad writer. I don't think purple prose is enough to disregard him as quite a literary genius. He earns my respect if only for the fact that I thought fantasy was as uninteresting and bland as the tolkien books.

[Anonymous No.2117697]

>>2117688
>>2117690
Descriptions of things make this like a soap opera?

I'm not sure I follow.

[Anonymous No.2117699]

People who didn't realize Ned was going to die in the book from the first seventy–five pages in…

…I don't even know. Like, can you guys really read or are you just pretending?

[Anonymous No.2117703]

Protip: no one on /lit/ knows anything about about literature. Stop caring so fucking much when some internet stranger tells you your favorite book sucks.

[Anonymous No.2117704]

>>2117699

sadly, the act of reading and enjoying being surprised by major plot turns. it's one of the few instances where i think my ignorance acts beneficially. you should try it sometime.

[Anonymous No.2117707]

>>2117704

sadly, the act of reading and enjoying being surprised by major plot turns ^are separable.

[Anonymous No.2117717]

>>2117704

You know that study they did about how spoilers don't effect enjoyment?

Why do people re–read books?

If knowing the plot points actually makes you not enjoy the book, it's not a good book. You're just hooked on the cliffhanger/resolution carousel. Hardly anyone approaches most great works without knowing the plot.

Being able to understand literary device and hints is part of enjoyment. Seeing that the author has a design and meaning to plot is part of enjoyment. Being ignorant of these things doesn't enhance enjoyment at all.

[Anonymous No.2117728]

>>You know that study they did about how spoilers don't effect enjoyment?

nope, but it sounds interesting. do you have a link?

Why do people re–read books?

>> cos they have time and they want to.

If knowing the plot points actually makes you not enjoy the book, it's not a good book.


>>You're just hooked on the cliffhanger/resolution carousel.

happily. i assume you see it as the difference between art and entertainment, though.
>>Hardly anyone approaches most great works without knowing the plot.
>>great works
why would anyone do that. i don't even watch movie trailers just to never know what am i going to expect.

it's okay, really. i always have this same trouble with people who will hide behind the god damned cannon.

>>Being able to understand literary device and hints is part of enjoyment. Seeing that the author has a design and meaning to plot is part of enjoyment.

i agree with this. being aware of plot devices while reading feels cool, but i think it's much cooler to be genuinely surprised by a story.

[Anonymous No.2117740]

>>2117728

Here's one take on the study: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/spoilers-dont-spoil-anything/

OK, so there are two main ways of writing and reasons for reading, as I see it (this really only works well for plot–driven fiction):

1. Intrigue
2. Craftsmanship

AGoT is pretty high on intrigue, and middling–to–worse on craftsmanship. During the early books, GRRM shows great use of foreshadowing (going so far as to pretty much give us everything we need to know who Jon's real parents are, for example, by the end of Book 2) and even symbolism. His prose is mediocre at best, and his dialogue pretty bad (the characters tend to sound alike, and he eventually "solves" this by the overuse of catch–phrases). But, the intrigue is still really high. I'm guessing that most people who were reading ADwD were stuck on that carousel, because I'm pretty sure if I had bothered to seek out a spoiler, I wouldn't have slogged through that motherfucker. It was like /work/.

I think it's fine to recognize, sometimes we're just reading for the intrigue, sometimes because we just want a certain sort of candy–like craft, etc. But we should recognize we do this, and understand "what I like" isn't exactly coterminous with "what is good".

Note: I also think the intrigue/craftsmanship model holds for a lot of TV/film, too.

[Anonymous No.2117746]

>>2117728
>calling books art and not all classifying them as entertainment.
.....are they a painting or something?

>i don't even watch movie trailers just to never know what am i going to expect
I don't know what is wrong with people like you, its like you are 5 and because somebody did something you didn't like you gonna throw a tantrum and say you don't want to see it anymore... wtf

[Anonymous No.2117747]

>>2117740

Now, I agree with you in a way: I think what's really great is when an author is able to give you clues about where his story is going without showing his hand on his "big reveals". GRRM is really bad at this, for example, because the recent books@Google interview seems to indicate he thought Jon's parentage should still be secret, even as he practically screamed it over and over (perhaps it would not be so obvious had he allowed a good editor to work on any of the books after the first?).

A great example is Dune, which gives you major (though often misleadingly stated) information in the forms of the various excerpts heading its chapters, but still manages to keep the reader in suspense. That tension between the known & unknown is one of the best achievements of plot–driven fiction.

[Anonymous No.2117749]

>>2117746
Are paintings not entertaining?

[Anonymous No.2117750]

>>2117746

because paintings are boring to look at. Guernica? get another job, Picasso.

[Anonymous No.2117752]

>>2117689
>ned
>main protagonist

[Anonymous No.2117753]

>>2117746

I don't think the art/entertainment distinction as usually made is entirely helpful. There are things that are entertaining that aren't artful, and there are works of art which are not entertaining. However, "entertainment" is not a a value which inherently lowers a work of art, even if it is not as high of a good. When talking about genre fic, you're rarely going to see truly great art, but even here, the entertainment should add to the art and work with it; the presence of both in good measure is what makes great genre fiction great.

This is like the video game discussion, where you have people saying because of interactivity, they cannot be art. Perhaps they cannot be pure art (I would agree with this), but artfulness can add to the video game.

[Anonymous No.2117755]

>>2117749
>>2117750
They are not to me i wouldn't stand in a gallery(for hours like some of you wannabe socialites in here) staring at a paint and then feel "entertained" when i am don't... what are you sick in the head?

[Anonymous No.2117759]

that pauline kael phrase comes to mind: “If art isn't entertainment, then what is it? Punishment?”

[Anonymous No.2117760]

>>2117755

No one is saying they'd stand for hours looking at a painting to be entertained. While a painting could be entertaining, and certainly can incite emotion (not the same thing, by the way), the primary way in which paintings present themselves to us are as an appreciation of craft—in media, technique and presentation. The next layer, if present at all, is in "message". It's not supposed to be the same experience as reading Harry Potter or watching Mad Men, bro.

[Anonymous No.2117764]

>>2117759

Well, isn't that the whole blind spot that explains the odd turns of Kael's criticism? That she couldn't see the difference between the two, while rightly reacting against those critics who actually saw entertainment as a negative? (In film, of all things.)

[Anonymous No.2117765]

>>2117764

What would you say is a difference between the two? I'm not trying to be smart, but I'm always interested in what people has to say about this.

I'd say it has to do with comprehension and personal enlightenment, but lately it looks like this is so easy to get.

[Anonymous No.2117766]

>>2117753
I understand everyone says something or the other, but i as an individual cannot see a bunch of words that were written being called "art", yeah i understand the time and effort that was spent into making the words a book and i respect the person for doing as such but when i read it i will just enjoy it(entertain myself).

I might even go as far as saying that it was a work of art but that is just my opinion, who says what is art and what is not? We all want to call something art, those who regulate which books are given the title of "art" are usually a bunch of fanboys that wants the world to know their opinions.

An example of this "art"(not literature though) is a story i was on 60 Minutes where some kid was finger painting and pulling in Millions for the "art". When you look at it, it's a bunch of hogwash a scratch here a dab here and voila "art".

Now that i got into this rant i don't even know what i typed makes sense, i think i lost myself on what i was trying to get across from the beginning ... sorry.

[Anonymous No.2117777]

>>2117766

Well I understand you completely. This 'shit' that you brought as an example for 'art' is driving me mad sometimes, but I am also no fan of 'abstract art' so I can't argue what is what.
The problem is, that often there are just a bunch of people enjoying something and call something art, like you said it. But this is just subjective.
Real art is something that is something that is defined. Its hard to explain what I mean... But you know, there are different techniques a writer can use for example, different styles of writing and the usage of them. I think what defines a book as art, is when a writer uses them in an exemplary way. (Still hard to find the right words, damnit...)

[Anonymous No.2117783]

So what exactly makes it a "soap opera"?

[Anonymous No.2117785]

>>2117750

>because paintings are boring to look at.

I. You mean. I mean. THat is to say. I seriously, honestly do not know how to answer this level of fucktardery.

>get another job, Picasso

aadfjhs casfj hcsd sdfj hcsalfcjsnhdfmxk,hx.

Hodor.

[Anonymous No.2117789]

>>2117750

[Anonymous No.2117794]

>>2117785

sorry bro. my bad.

[Anonymous No.2117796]

>>2117765
>>2117766


I think I'll respond to both of these together, because there are some important things they have in common.

I think one thing you have to let go of is the idea that art is something that is one thing at all times. All ways in which art manifests itself are related, but the end of "art" is different for a book than it is for a painting than it is for a film, etc.

One topic that has become resurgent recently in my discipline has been the relation of poetry and philosophy. Part of what seems to make great poetry great is the manifestation of truth; something which is also the goal of philosophy. While philosophy is not "art" (though not mutually exclusive, there is art in philosophy), poetry is, but they share a similar end, by different means. So perhaps one of the marks of "art" is that it reveals some truth about our condition.

Another mark of art is craftsmanship, techne. There is a craftsmanship appropriate to any human endeavor worth doing, and part of good art is good craftsmanship. While we can perceive flaws in the craft of a great artist/work of art, their general mastery of their craft is part of what reveals them to us as artists. [1/2]

[Anonymous No.2117797]

>>2117777
I understand where you are coming from, i wouldn't argue if a writer was given an award for their skill in writing using words, techniques, puns etc etc to get their point across while maintaining a feasible plot when no one else attempted to tell a story in such a way.
For example the first person every to publish a book in fourth person(this would be confusing as fuck to me) or something to this degree would warrant such a title because they were the first in their field to accomplish this (Marie Curie discovering Radium among other things)

Also i am shamed to say this but nice quads

[Anonymous No.2117798]

[2/2]

Entertainment is something different, and very much more subjective. While there are objective aesthetic criteria for art, they are not immediately available to everyone and in the same sense. Dispute in value is part of the human experience of art (do you favor Homer or Vergil? Milton or Shakespeare? Rembrandt or Chardin?) but differences in opinion about the exact values of a particular work are not disagreements about the existence of value itself. (This is the common modern era.)

I don't blame anyone for being disenchanted by the idea of art from the amazing propaganda job that has been done over the past one–hundred–and–thirty–years–or–so that sought first to undermine some aesthetic values (regarded as simply bourgeoise or Christian) and then broadened into an assault on good sense altogether. That, in absence of a serious attempt to reinforce the experience of art, "art" has dissolved into popularity contests and social posturing ONLY (though they've always been /about/ the experience of art—part of the critics job is to direct bad motivations to good ends…) shouldn't be shocking, even as it is disheartening.

[Anonymous No.2117804]

>>2117798

Oh, I should say what I think entertainment is. Entertainment is simply enjoyment, a pleasurable experience that passes your time. There's nothing wrong with entertainment in itself, but the desire to be entertained can be misdirected. And, in the modern age, with it so readily available, it can be seen as an end to itself.

Art can be contemplated in leisure; you cannot be entertained and contemplative at the same time. (Thought entertainments could certainly inspire contemplation!)

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117812]

>>2117796
>Entertainment is something different, and very much more subjective
What do you mean by 'subjective'?

[Anonymous No.2117818]

>>2117812

I mean only accessible to the person receiving it. You can communicate the experience of art to someone who has not experienced the work, but when you attempt to entertain someone by recalling an entertainment, you're actually engaged in a different act—performance. I cannot access what for you is being entertained, and vice–versa, but we can communicate about art even if we cannot directly experience it in the other's person.

[Anonymous No.2117820]

>>2117812

Put on your helmets, gentlemen.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117823]

>>2117818
>Entertainment is something different, and very much more subjective
>Entertainment is simply enjoyment, a pleasurable experience that passes your time
>[enjoyment, a pleasurable experience that passes your time] is something different, and very much more subjective

What do you think a pleasurable experience is?

[Anonymous No.2117824]

>>2117823

do you actually enjoy having this argument every other day or is it force of habit at this point

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117826]

>>2117823
i didn't quite greentext that properly let me try again

>[enjoyment, a pleasurable experience that passes your time] is something different, and very much more [accessible to the person receiving it]

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117829]

third times the charm folks

>>2117818
>[enjoyment, a pleasurable experience that passes your time] is something different, and very much more [only accessible to the person receiving it]

What do you think a pleasurable experience is

[Anonymous No.2117833]

>>2117823

Dude, if you don't know when you experience pleasure or enjoyment, I cannot help you. I know when I do.

[Anonymous No.2117837]

>>2117823

>What do you think a pleasurable experience is?

Why do you feel the need to ask this question?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117840]

>>2117833
>Dude, if you don't know when you experience pleasure or enjoyment, I cannot help you. I know when I do.
That's not what I asked, I asked what was considered to be a pleasurable experience. I can of course tell you when I have a pleasurable experience without any trouble, and perhaps unlike other people in this thread without the solipsistic impairment of assuming people will never 'know that feel', because I understand how language works.


I mean, talk about beetle in a box, this guy has a beetle up his ass for christs sake

[Bothersome !!eGkiP4WrjdR No.2117842]

>>2117823
>>2117829
For you a pleasurable experience is lording your alleged superiority over everyone.

[Anonymous No.2117846]

>>2117840

still curious what pleasure you derive from chewing your cud like this

[Anonymous No.2117850]

>>2117840

Since you haven't taken the hint already: Human beings know pleasure when they experience it. It's like pain or heat or brightness. I know the game you think you're playing, but unless you decide to lay out your cards instead of playing dime store Socrates, I don't see why I should humor you.

[Anonymous No.2117858]

>>2117797

Haha I didnt even notice that.

>>2117812

Well not the guy who wrote it, but I am gonna answer you anyways. You see, entertainment is simply what a simple person gets out of something.
By subjective, he probably meant, that different persons, see entertainment in different things. Lets just say stupid people get entertainment from things easier, then more intelligent persons. Sure it might not be entertaining to you, but these people still are entertained by lets say Harry Potter or hell even Twillight. I am not saying that this is a good thing, but its a fact.
A more intelligent person, might be entertained by a book like Ulysses, because of the writing, the style and overall how complicated the book is and by trying to figure out what is going on in it (didn't read it yet, so don't be to hard on me).

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117869]

>>2117850
>Human beings know pleasure when they experience it. It's like pain or heat or brightness
No, they know they experience something they like or don't like. 'Pleasure' or 'pain' are the words we use in our language to convey information, whether truthful or not. The very fact I, or anyone else for that matter, take for granted that I understand what the fuck you're talking about when you mention the words 'pain' or 'pleasure' points out that whatever mystical oooga booga special unique snowflake experience you're talking about isn't only accessible to YOU, in fact, it points out nothing particular about the experience at all.

But hey, you could start referring to your experiences in gibberish and see how far it gets you bro in trying to communicate anything bro.

>>2117858
>By subjective, he probably meant, that different persons, see entertainment in different things.
I'm pretty sure that when he used 'subjective' he meant something more substantial than, 'being relative'. I could be wrong.

[Anonymous No.2117872]

>>2117858
>this

But i disagree on the intellectuals you can read anything and get entertainment out of it, all of those fanatics that say we should only discuss Ulysses, Iliad etc etc on /lit/ are die hard Dresden Files fans and secretly take off their trips and post in the threads when they arise.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117884]

>>2117818
>we can communicate about art even if we cannot directly experience it in the other's person.
I mean, this guy clearly gets that we can talk about art but for some reason experiences are off-limits

[Anonymous No.2117887]

>>2117872

Well it sometimes depends. I wouldn't touch something like Twillight. I also have listened to the Harry Potter audiobooks while doing some shit for my university a few years back, because I was interested in it, but I honestly wouldn't have read it.
On the other hand I enjoyed Game of Thrones, but I also read more complicated literature.
I also enjoy a lot of stupid movies like 'Euro Trip', 'Road Trip' or 'The Long Weekend'.

[Anonymous No.2117893]

>>2117869

No kidding? I never said there was anything mystical about entertainment or experience. Pleasure is a word to describe an experience? Congratulations, you've discovered the purpose of language. I'm defining the experience that people call "entertainment", which happens to be a sub–set of "pleasurable experience" and contrasting that to art. By "subjective", I do not mean simply "relative", I am talking about that inaccessibility that makes the value of pleasure alone as having little–to–no meaning. If you tell me, "I enjoyed X!", without knowing you (that is, understanding those things which you enjoy), of COURSE it tells me nothing except that you had a pleasurable experience. That you treat this as a discovery, or worse, something not worth even explaining, is baffling. That we, further, act as if more is conveyed for the purposes of social convention isn't really the point, is it?

Now, do you have anything to offer to the discussion?

[Anonymous No.2117895]

>>2117887
Yeah Twilight withstanding... i tried to give the movie a chance but i never saw more than 10 minutes of it... its all bs it's like some 11 year old girl whose parents own there own publication company and movie studio gave her all access..... that shit with glitter vampire....
Let me just stop right there.

[Anonymous No.2117897]

poor ned stark , y'all.

[Anonymous No.2117906]

>>2117884

I can talk to you about an experience, but my experience itself isn't accessible to you. This is why I can tell you why I enjoy something, but I cannot communicate the enjoyment.

When we engage (good) criticism, art is actually made apparent to us; the experience we have is enriched or even anticipated (for example, in reading criticism of a work we have not personally experienced). In entertainment, in order to share the entertainment, we end up reenacting in some form or another, a performance in an attempt to incite pleasure in our hearer as we experienced pleasure in the original.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117909]

I might as well go through the points while I'm here or some poor asshole will go away with a heap of nonsense floating in his head

>>2117796
>art manifests itself
the concept of art does not manifest itself, it is expressed or used, to signify, refer or regard to. There isn't some floating ideal of art that manifests itself in our earthly forms.

>Part of what seems to make great poetry great is the manifestation of truth
Again, the word or concept of truth does not manifest itself in anything, no more than any other word or concept in language. for the same reasons as above.

>one of the marks of "art" is that it reveals some truth about our condition.
Totally loaded. The concept of art doesn't "reveal" anything about anything that we don't already set out to find or project in it. This is all besides that we have no such 'condition', which is nothing but an untenable universalisation of some predicament or set of values.


>>2117893
>I never said there was anything mystical about entertainment or experience
Claiming that a word used to express something is accessible only to a single individual in the world is pretty fucking mystical bro.

>I am talking about that inaccessibility
What inaccessibility?

> Now, do you have anything to offer to the discussion?
Sure, you don't know what subjectivity is, you don't understand how to use words like 'enjoyment', 'truth' or 'art', and no-one should listen to the majority of what you've said for reasons I've already highlighted.

[Anonymous No.2117916]

You know it's funny that the thread derailed from what OP was talking about to what is considered "art" and what is relevant and how we should communicate such things.

[Anonymous No.2117920]

>>2117909
>wah wah wah he's not defining words how I define them and I'm right so he must be wrong

keep being pathetic

[Anonymous No.2117921]

>>2117916
It's not funny. It's sad, and it only makes /lit/ worse. Threads like these are the reason people dislike tripfags.

[Anonymous No.2117922]

>>2117921
Deep^Edgy rarely ruins thraeds that were interesting or worthwhile in the first place

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117925]

>>2117906
>I can talk to you about an experience, but my experience itself isn't accessible to you
This is very simple private language shit. There is no 'experience itself', and even if there was, it wouldn't be expressible. The manner in which language works, and this includes words like ART, PAIN, EXPERIENCE, is only peripherally related internal states.

When you say you are expressing the proposition that you are in pain, and you qualify this by saying that you really are, truly, experiencing the experience of pain, all you are doing is repeating the proposition in this manner: "I'M IN PAIN. REALLY, I'M IN PAIN", and there's nothing more to that. If push came to shove we could even point out roughly speaking the nerve fibers firing in this experiential process, although it would still have nothing to do with the way the word works (simply because we can imagine numerous scenarios where in saying "my c-fibres are firing" people don't realise that you're saying that you're in pain but they'd understand what the problem was if you said you were in pain), it might make some assholes feel a little more comfortable about using words.

[Anonymous No.2117926]

>>2117921
Lol i know, so you know what the difference between /lit/ and other boards are? The trolls here a well versed and used valid points and proper wording and reasoning to get to you and you don't even realize they got you till its too late.
and yeah now that the tripfag is here the thread is shyt

[Anonymous No.2117932]

>>2117925
the_argument________wall_of_idiocy________slalom_of_retardation____________________you

[Anonymous No.2117934]

>>2117922
And by "interesting or worthwhile" do you mean threads on the Ulysses, Iliad etc?
/lit/ is for any literature believe it or not and it is not up to a tripfag to chose what is best and what is not, you are an enabler defending him, he sees that he has supporters when u behave like this.

[Anonymous No.2117936]

>>2117926
No, you stupid faggot, nobody is "got". Nobody "got" anyone. D&E is arguing with jargon and semantic bullshit, and nobody fucking cares, least of all him. Have you ever even trolled someone?

[Anonymous No.2117939]

>>2117936
Yes i have and he got them cause they are responding just hide his post, do you see me responding?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117940]

>D&E is arguing with jargon and semantic bullshit
oops

[Anonymous No.2117941]

>>2117909

Nice job bringing your baggage into my language.

There doesn't need to be an ideal form of art. In fact, I rejected such an idea explicitly already.

I get it, you're trying to play Wittgenstein, but I am sorry: Language does refer to objects outside of itself, and even Wittgenstein recognizes this. While I'm sure that's not how your sophomore text summarizes the Philosophical Investigations, and I even suspect you might even know that (you just like using this purposefully obtuse position to troll people and feel clever), it's the worst possible game to play, where you infect people with nonsense for your own enjoyment.

We use all sorts of words for inner experiences that are inaccessible to other people, that we can then describe and figure are related to the experiences others have. Obviously, pleasure refers to something real that happens. But my pleasure is not your pleasure (and thank God).

You have not demonstrated I know nothing about these words, you've only expressed upset that I'm not conforming to the purposedly shriveled limits you pretend to set about discourse.

So, unless you display signs of actually wishing to engage in discourse, I'm done. This is sufficent as a statement against your shtick.

[Anonymous No.2117944]

D&E is the Abatap of /lit/.

I'll just leave for a while and hope he's not here when I return...

[Anonymous No.2117946]

>>2117940
more like
>thelife'sworkofD&Eandstillnobodycares.jpg

[Anonymous No.2117951]

>>2117940
>Any problem is a product wholly of semantics in the first place

nigga please, that image is a house of cards waiting to fall

[Anonymous No.2117952]

>>2117946

u mad because you can't win an argument against him

[Anonymous No.2117954]

>>2117952
Identify the argument D&E is making and maybe you'd have a case.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117955]

>>2117941
>There doesn't need to be an ideal form of art. In fact, I rejected such an idea explicitly already.
I don't care if you say you rejected it, you're spitting it out in every second sentence referring to art.

>Language does refer to objects outside of itself
I never said that it didn't, you're arguing against a strawman. I'd like you to highlight anything I've said that gives you this impression.

>We use all sorts of words for inner experiences that are inaccessible to other people
Okay dude, if you keep repeating yourself without explaining this hokey inaccessibility bullshit, I will too (except I've actually fucking explained myself)
'Pleasure' or 'pain' are the words we use in our language to convey information, whether truthful or not. The very fact I, or anyone else for that matter, take for granted that I understand what the fuck you're talking about when you mention the words 'pain' or 'pleasure' points out that whatever mystical oooga booga special unique snowflake experience you're talking about isn't only accessible to YOU, in fact, it points out nothing particular about the experience at all. There is no 'experience itself', and even if there was, it wouldn't be expressible. The manner in which language works, and this includes words like ART, PAIN, EXPERIENCE, is only peripherally related internal states.

>You have not demonstrated I know nothing about these words
I dunno bro, I've got a whole lot of posts in this thread that show you're misunderstanding relatively simple functioning of concepts like pain and art.

>So, unless you display signs of actually wishing to engage in discourse, I'm done. This is sufficent as a statement against your shtick.
Fuck off, you moron. Every time you spew something as moronic as an inaccessible experience (i.e. a piece of nonsense) I'm going to be right here to point and laugh, with everyone else.

[Anonymous No.2117958]

>>2117944
>that's what butthurt hater actually believe
cry more

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117959]

Btw, can someone give me an example of an experience only THEY can access?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117962]

>inner experience
they're like inner concepts right?

[Anonymous No.2117963]

>>2117955

>Comment too long.

[Anonymous No.2117964]

>>2117959
A stick shoved eternally up your ass

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117968]

>>2117964

[Anonymous No.2117970]

>>2117968
Are you a matured female?
I have a dirty fetish for them and i wouldn't mind helping myself to you....

[Anonymous No.2117971]

>>2117970
No, he's a youthful dude with rock-hard abs. Haven't you seen his pic?

[Anonymous No.2117974]

>>2117955
>I don't care if you say you rejected it, you're spitting it out in every second sentence referring to art.

Oh, so you're allowed to reframe the semantic argument but nobody else is allowed? That's pretty hypocritical.

>The manner in which language works... is only peripherally related internal states.

What are you even saying here? Christ. Your phrasing makes for Swiss cheese-like content. Just spit it out already.

[Anonymous No.2117975]

>>2117974

your posting makes for dick cheese like content

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117976]

>>2117974
>That's pretty hypocritical.
But it's not quite on the level of rejecting platonism and then saying anything, in this case "art", "manifests itself" in anything. This is to say nothing about the utterly, totally retarded comments about "truth" and "condition". Hence the necessity:
>I don't care if you say you rejected it, you're spitting it out in every second sentence referring to art.

>What are you even saying here? Christ. Your phrasing makes for Swiss cheese-like content. Just spit it out already.
I'm saying that the manner in which language works, and this includes words like ART, PAIN, EXPERIENCE, is only peripherally related to internal states. What exactly are you having trouble with here? I'm not denying that peripheral states have to be supposed for many words in language to function, hence how we can talk about things like the farther reaches of the universe, etc. This, however, has absolutely nothing with "inaccessibility".

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117980]

>>2117976
*denying internal states

[Anonymous No.2117987]

>>2117975
The joke's on you, by reading it you just had a heaping helping

>>2117976
But what do you mean by "internal states"? It's not like such things can be measured, known, or understood, hence why I think your using those words is so lacking in content, and hence why I think the other guy is arguing that things like PAIN, PLEASURE, and EXPERIENCE cannot be mutually understood.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2117992]

>>2117987
>But what do you mean by "internal states"?
Pain, pleasure, etc.

>It's not like such things can be measured, known, or understood
This is so blatantly palm on face retarded I don't even know where to begin. When your doctor asks how much pain you're in do you tell him "Sorry doc that can't be measured" or what? This besides the fact that everyone in this thread seems to have a pretty good idea about what we're talking about when it comes to pain.

Seriously dude, leave the other guy's argument for himself to defend, you're doing an absolutely awful job on your own.

[Anonymous No.2117994]

I thought about your argument OP, about it being a male soap opera, and while I see a little bit about what you mean, its not very correct. Yes, there's drama but really not that similar to a soap opera. At least none of the soap operas I'VE seen

[Anonymous No.2118005]

Yeah I just came in here to say that D&E styled all over another anon in this thread. As a matter of fact I've never seen D&E losing a discussion on here. I understand people can get frustrated with tripfags considering those people are being demolished so often.

[Anonymous No.2118006]

>>2117992
And it's all relative you fuck, because there's no scale for pain or pleasure or experience, it all just is. You can give all the scales and measurements you want, but all you'll be doing is trying (and failing) to inform, because YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONVEY TO ANOTHER PERSON.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2118007]

>>2117992
Okay, let's be a bit more lenient, suppose you repeat this
>It's not like such things can be measured, known, or understood
except with regard to when the doctor does try to measure your pain. You might claim he can't know, understand or measure the answer you give of "I'm in a lot of pain". How do you know someone's in a lot of pain? You don't look into your magic ball to discern a patient's "inner experience" (let's, uh, not get into psychology for now), you look at the symptoms, or the signs you arbitrarily designate to be conducive to identifying some relative condition. But he could be faking or the diagnosis could be mistaken! Of course he could, that's why people produce more stringent criteria ideally on a case by case basis, send people in for "further testing" etc. Nowhere in any of this, again, does the notion of an inaccessible qualia come into play. As far as "understanding goes", think about any test you've ever taken. Have you ever gotten extra marks for writing at the end of an answer "but for real dawg, I REALLY TRULY understood this"?

[Anonymous No.2118010]

>>2118005
>>2117975
>>2117971
>>2117922
same person. Sorry D&E, the public needs to know just how your shenanigans operate.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2118012]

>>2118006
You keep on repeating exactly the same thing ("you can't explain that") even though I've shown in over 5 posts by now that you're misunderstanding how any of concepts we are dealing with function in language.

Again, let's go back to the doctor example: I take it you've never gone to a doctor because of course, YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONVEY TO ANOTHER PERSON, right?

At this stage I'm just repeating myself so I'll be leaving shortly enough. As Nietzsche said, you can be a great fisherman yet there can simply be no fish to catch. That or what he said about beating imbeciles over the heads, I can't remember exactly what it was right now.

[Anonymous No.2118015]

>>2118012

"fish" in this instance representing good or interesting posts itt

[Anonymous No.2118018]

>>2118007
The inaccessible qualia, as you put it, is self-evident. The doctor metaphor is patently false; doctors have no interest in "understanding" pain (or pleasure, or experience), all they do is "measure" it. When was the last time a doctor said, truthfully, that he knew exactly how you felt at that moment? Such a statement is possible to make but impossible to verify, as PAIN, PLEASURE, and EXPERIENCE cannot be mutually experienced.

Consider sadomasochism: some people love torture and others hate it. They're experiencing the same thing. IT MUST BE A MUTUAL EXPERIENCE THEN HUH

[Anonymous No.2118019]

1. OK, so we agree internal states like "pleasure" and "pain" exist.

2. We agree that we can know that we are—barring lying, obviously—talking about the same thing when we use the words. We can even agree that certain acts or works are pleasurable or painful and even have some shared experience and communication about why.

3. Where we disagree is in that you seem to be asserting that they can be unambiguously quantified and that such quantification is an actual sharing of the internal experience. It's a communication of it, but not a sharing.

I recently suffered a fairly nasty wound. I can describe to you what happened, how it felt, and you might even be made quite uncomfortable thinking about it, and be able to empathize with the pain I experienced, but you won't access my inner experience. I can "rate the pain" on the stupid chart at the ER, but doctors readily admit that practice is only because there's nothing else to do. (Serious suggestion: Talk to an MD who specializes in pain treatment, or an anesthesiologist sometime.)

3. What I am saying is that art is something that is not simply reducible to that inner experience in a way entertainment is. It is also a rational/contemplative act. You can communicate a lot about art in a way you cannot about entertainment because of this. When you speak a lot about why you are being entertained by something, you find that what you are really doing is describing some other quality to the work/experience which you, in turn, find pleasurable.

[Anonymous No.2118022]

>>2118019

you are the nasty wound get out of /lit/

[Anonymous No.2118024]

>>2118019

obviously I didn't mean to use "3" twice

[Anonymous No.2118029]

>>2118022
your post contributes nothing to this board, and I mean that in in the most derogatory sense. Your intellectual worth, to me as a fellow /lit/ poster, is less than pondscum.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2118043]

>I love how when I say I'm leaving everyone pipes up.

>The inaccessible qualia, as you put it, is self-evident
I'd like you to give me an example of said inaccessible qualia, and then tell me how any of it is inaccessible

>doctors have no interest in "understanding" pain (or pleasure, or experience), all they do is "measure" it.
I didn't say they had to understand pain, or anything like that.
This has nothing to do with what doctors are or aren't interested in. And you haven't answered my question. Firstly, he has to be able to understand that you are in pain to be able to treat it or measure it.

>Such a statement is possible to make but impossible to verify
But you're totally misunderstanding , how verification (and understanding) (even though I've already been at pains to point out how it does work) works, as I've already demonstrated in my test example. How many tests have been a problem for you to undergo because your experiences are inaccessible? Have you ever had to write in a college exam "Sorry prof, I can't answer this question because I can't truly convey and you can't truly verify my experience of understanding and studying Wittgenstein". OF COURSE NOT, because understanding and verification has nothing to do with "inaccessible qualia", it has to do with making an arbitrary criteria of, typically, behaviour, demonstrating some relative end. And that is all there is to understanding, empathising, verifying, measuring, etc. You can simply remove qualia or inaccessible experience from any proposition because it does not affect it in any way other than repeating the original proposition in the same manner as deflationary truth.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2118060]

>>2118019
>OK, so we agree internal states like "pleasure" and "pain" exist.
No, because linguistic functions don't exist in the world. C-Fibres firing, however, do.

>you seem to be asserting that they can be unambiguously quantified and that such quantification is an actual sharing of the internal experience
I never said anything about ambiguity, which is always going to be relative to who's doing the quantification.

>such quantification is an actual sharing of the internal experience
No, I never asserted this.

>I recently suffered a fairly nasty wound. I can describe to you what happened, how it felt, and you might even be made quite uncomfortable thinking about it, and be able to empathize with the pain I experienced, but you won't access my inner experience
I don't have to to be able to, all things being equal, understand what you're talking about, which is because the word 'pain' has nothing to do with 'inner experience' any more than the word 'automobile' does. For each and every one of the reasons I've already gone though in every post I've made here already.

[Anonymous No.2118062]

>responding to Deep&Edgy's trolling

Anonymous, I am disappoint.

[Anonymous of Nazi Germany No.2118068]

REASONS TO READ A Song of Ice and Fire:

-A party in which several hot naked chicks are thrown on a table and raped

-A fat chick gets thrown out a window

-Hot surprise juicy girl on girl action TWICE

-A man gets his dick skinned and is forced to rape a woman who gets raped by dogs

-A man sees a naked chick bathing by a stream and seizes and rapes her

-Several nice, juicy descriptions of twisted, purple dwarf cock

-A seven year old boy sucks on his mother's boobs while his aunt gets to watch

-An evil sorceress can squat demons out of her vagina that assassinate and kill people

-A man lives with his daughters and has sex with all of them

-A twelve year old girl gets raped by a giant hulking barbarian

-A sixteen year old girl gets almost raped by a dwarf

-A gay homosexual is serving on board a ship full of warriors and they all drag him below decks and gang rape his pussy ass

-Horses get beheaded, men get beheaded, children get beheaded, it's pretty fucking awesome

-There are fucking ZOMBIES everywhere.

-A midget kills his dad with a crossbow while his dad is sitting on the toilet

-A man murders his enemies and feeds them in pies to their father. Like some serious Titus Andronicus shit

-Rapist clowns, disturbing homosexual villains, bandits that come back from the dead, cannibalism... it's awesome

-Great lines, like about cutting off a person's balls and feeding them to goats

What's not to love, this series is the shit. ASOIAF: a story with manliness, a story with balls.

[Anonymous No.2118070]

d&e, you're stuck in a world of forms

[Anonymous No.2118087]

After all is said & done, D&E turns out to be a zombie. How droll.

[Anonymous No.2118096]

>>2118062

>implying a troll would go through this much trouble >>2117940

>>2118068

Fuck you cunt.

[Anonymous No.2118106]

>>2118096
How is posting without your trip working for you d&e?

[Anonymous No.2118111]

>>2118106
that's not d&e, I can tell because he would never think to lower himself by calling his labyrinthine posts "trouble"

[Anonymous No.2118112]

>>2118106

>implying D&E, who thinks ASoIaF is poison to the mind, would give a shit about someone trying to badmouth ASoIaF

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2118114]

>>2118068
i'd prefer to read something well-written but that's just me

[Anonymous No.2118118]

>>2118114
I bet you take it up the ass too.
/thread hidden
YOU ARE WORST THAN ABATAP

[Anonymous No.2118121]

>>2118114

like 15938420 posts on 4chan

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2118137]

>>2118121
are you counting the ones I made under deepandedgy and the two or three other mystery tripcodes I regularly post under?

[Anonymous No.2118140]

>>2118068

This copypasta is far more effective at turning the average person off the series than any actual harsh critique one might give it. It's kind of amazing (but also fucking despicable).

[Anonymous No.2118144]

>>2118137

how does it feel to be redding this? all these spell ing err ors haha you're wasting you' re time and you're duing it willingly lololol

[Anonymous No.2118146]

>>2118137

i think he meant all the posts you read in order to post long boring responses to

[Anonymous No.2118155]

>>2118140
Cause of that i am actually considering reading the series after i finish these book:
Felix Castor by Mike Carey
Greywalker series by Kat Richardson
Night Watch Tetralogy by Sergei Lukyanenko
The Abhorsen Trilogy by Garth Nix
The Demon Cycle by Peter V. Brett
The Nightside series by Simon R. Green
The Secret Histories series by Simon R. Green

And yes they were all /lit/ recommended.

[Anonymous No.2118381]

>>2117840
>>2117840

>I can of course tell you when I have a pleasurable experience

Steak and chips.with the lads

[Anonymous No.2118387]

>>2118118

>i bet you take it up the ass

Well, he is bisexual, just like everyone that always hangs out in walking distance of a Humanities class.

[Anonymous No.2118394]

>>2118155
Felix Castor is based on John Constantine, the greatest comic book character ever.

[Anonymous No.2118399]

>>2118068
From your description, it sounds kind of homophobic. I'm not a whiny bitch, so I'm not going to assume it is. I'm just going to ask. Is it?

[Anonymous No.2118407]

>>2118399

It's not homophobic if it shows two girls having sex w/ each other, that sounds pretty tolerant to me

[Anonymous No.2118412]

>>2118407
Lots of rednecks think lesbians are fine but want to kill gay men.

Plus they only think lesbians are okay because it gets them off; not because they actually believe the rights of others are valuable.

[Anonymous No.2118417]

>>2118399

There is a gay couple who are sort of whiney and effeminate, there is one possibly gay man that gets raped by a tribe of warrior-sailors and cries because he has been abused. The scene is supposed to be sort of comical. Basically he's such a laughable whimpy pussy that the story is kind of mocking him as comic relief. Otherwise he wouldn't have got raped.

[Anonymous No.2118421]

>>2118399

No it's not homophobic. But that fucking post is a disgusting representation of the series.

[Anonymous No.2118422]

>>2118412

What? I hate fags and I also think lesbians are fucking gross (because let's face it they are, that shit isn't fucking natural. If I see my daughter naked or showing her tits near another girl, or if I see her kissing another girl I am going to knock that bitch upside the fucking head)

[Anonymous No.2118424]

>>2118421

Now, if you want a series that the tone of that post would be better directed at, it's the Sword of Truth series. Talk about your steaming piles.

[Anonymous No.2118426]

>>2118422
Lesbian here. I make extra sure to try and turn girls gay if their parents hate gay people. I like to see people feel like they've failed as parents.

[Anonymous No.2118431]

>>2118421

I like it when you nerds get butthurt because someone calls you out on the kind of childish, shock value crap that gets your basement-dwelling rocks off.

It's like telling a fourteen year old that the only reason he likes Marilyn Manson CDs is because he thinks it's oh so cool and rebellious and mommy and daddy hates it. That's how you nerds are about your "mature" fantasy books. Like comic book fans who think Sin City is "mature" because it shows sex and gore. Grow up.

[Anonymous No.2118432]

Hey, fellow readers of Game of Thrones. How many of you knew Renly was gay? I fucking didn't realize it until I watched the tv series. True he's only in two books and is a bit strange but it never occured to me that he was gay...

[Anonymous No.2118436]

>>2118426

>turn girls gay

You either are or you aren't, there is no "turn." Just dumb kids who want to look "sensitive" or "rebellious" and piss off their parents by acting like they might be gay. We all went through that phase once.

[Anonymous No.2118438]

>>2118432

Come on man.

All the cracks about his wife staying a virgin.

All the times he went off alone with Loras.

The "Rainbow Guard."

How did you not see it coming?

[Anonymous No.2118442]

>>2118431

Antichrist Superstar is a god-tier album.

Everything you ever say about anything else is no longer of any account.

[Anonymous No.2118443]

>>2118426

>I try to turn girls gay

Can I watch? If I watch am I allowed to masturbate?

[Anonymous No.2118445]

>>2118442

Except that his fans try to pretend he's as socially meaningful or culturally relevant as Bob Dylan or The Beatles. Hardly.

[Anonymous No.2118447]

>>2118431

>"mature" because it shows sex and gore. Grow up.

Are you saying that's why people consider ASoIaF to be "mature" too or what?

Have you even read these books?

[Anonymous No.2118448]

>>2118426

If you ever even so much as try to turn my girlfriend gay I will murder you with kerosene in your sleep.

[Anonymous No.2118452]

>>2118445

>Everything you ever say about anything else is no longer of any account.

[Anonymous No.2118455]

>>2118438
Yes, it seems to obvious now... well, the Loras stuff I completely forgot about, Rainbow guard was strange but I ignored it, and for Margarery... I thought he thought her too young or wasn't in love...

Loras! I should have seen HIM gay

[Anonymous No.2118456]

>>2118447

Yes, I've read them. I had a fantasy/gamer phase when I was a wee little boy too. Don't tell me you're well into your twenties and still looking at fan wank comics on elfwood? Because that's just sad.

And yes, that is exactly why people consider them "mature," because I can't see much else to qualify them for that category.

[Anonymous No.2118461]

>>2118436
Yeah, I know. I was joking because that guy thinks it works that way. I couldn't be attracted to men if I wanted to.
>>2118443
Yes, and only on your own time after the fact.

[Anonymous No.2118470]

>>2118456

>and still looking at fan wank comics on elfwood?

I don't even know what that means.

>because I can't see much else to qualify them for that category

How about the rich, human characters? The thing that MAKES this series?

[Anonymous No.2118471]

>>2118456

>equates reading fantasy novels with reading fanfiction comics of elfwood

troll/10

[Anonymous No.2118474]

>>2118426
Straight here. I would love to make love to you it gets me off by fucking a lez and if she isn't willing i would just rape her to show her why she hates penises in teh first place

[Anonymous No.2118475]

>Get really fucking high
>For some reason visit /lit/. Meant to click /mu/
>See tripfag destroying arse holes with mere words and verbal ownage.

I should read more.

I should read more.

[Anonymous No.2118479]

>>2118470

>rich, human characters

Oh, you mean the characters that all sound the same, and are all cardboard cutouts from Shakespeare plays, Greek drama (you know, actual literature) and/or other fantasy novels? The characters in this series hardly act "developed" or human in the slightest. In fact, the characters in ASOIAF or whatever are such cliches that they function not so much as characters as plot gimmicks.

[Anonymous No.2118480]

>>2118474
>implying you can rape me from your parents' basement

[Anonymous No.2118482]

>>2118480

I'll leave my parents' house and sneak into your bedroom at night, just for you. First I'll cut all the phone wires in your house so you can't call the police

[Anonymous No.2118483]

>>2118482
Aww. You don't have to go through all that trouble for little ol' me!

[Anonymous No.2118485]

>>2118480

Actually I think if you put a penis in a lesbian I think it might make her actually like having sex with men, especially if she orgasms, because then she might realize she enjoys it

I've thought about this a lot, like the way to cure homosexuality: basically there's a really simple way to cure a male homosexual, that's to tie him to a plank or a hard wooden surface and have women play with his penis, copulate with him, have oral sex with him, force them to lick their vaginas, etc. I've even suggested this to a gay man I know that works at a porn shop and he says this is the only straight fantasy that ever turned him on.

[Anonymous No.2118486]

>>2118479

>greek drama

>shakespeare

sure is fucking ENTRY LEVEL in here

[Anonymous No.2118489]

>>2118480
I don't live in a basement, where i am from basements don't exist(under sea level), no but seriously wouldn't you want to try a penis just to see how it feels?

[Anonymous No.2118494]

>>2118489
I have before. But on that Kinsey scale, I'm a 4. There are VERY few guys I find physically attractive.

[Anonymous No.2118496]

>>2118494
>4
5, rather.

[Anonymous No.2118497]

>>2118486

That's because George R.R. Martin draws from entry level sources. George R.R. Martin uses everything he learned in his British Lit I class in college and mangles it together into a horribly dull, trite and exploitative story meant to titillate young male readers (and probably himself as well - creepy to think about, no?) There is a reason the influence of truly great writers such as Joyce, Borges, Faulkner and Proust can not be detected in the works of George R.R. Martin: because the man hasn't ever read them. He is, for all intents and purposes, a complete illiterate.

[Anonymous No.2118498]

>>2118479

>Oh, you mean the characters that all sound the same, and are all cardboard cutouts from Shakespeare plays, Greek drama (you know, actual literature) and/or other fantasy novels? The characters in this series hardly act "developed" or human in the slightest.

That's cool and all, but without actually connecting this to the characters in the book it remains empty bullshitting. How does Jaime Lannister fit into this? Tywin Lannister? Brienne of Tarth? Roose Bolton? Olenna Redwyne? Davos Seaworth? Barristan Selmy?

>In fact, the characters in ASOIAF or whatever are such cliches that they function not so much as characters as plot gimmicks.

Holy shit you could not be more wrong. If you've ever heard GRRM talk about his writing or the PoV structure you'd know the plot is the far second in the process.

[Anonymous No.2118502]

>>2118496

What does it mean if you're a guy and girls you always get a huge lez vibe from say "I like girls but I'd make an exception for you."

Does this mean I look like a girl? >.<

[Anonymous No.2118505]

>Joyce, Borges, Faulkner and Proust

It's like I'm really at community college!

[Anonymous No.2118506]

>>2118502
Lesbanon from earlier here. It means they feel comfortable around you and are emotionally attracted to you to a degree that makes them willing to disregard the fact that you're not the sex they tend to prefer.

Also, you may look like a girl.

[Anonymous No.2118510]

>>2118502
Lol read this it's from /co/

[Anonymous No.2118517]

Game of thrones has some of the best characters in any literature I've read, which is why it sucks they all die

[Anonymous No.2118520]

>>2118510
Oh and remember you read it from right to left.

[Anonymous No.2118523]

>>2118517

But they don't. Another misrepresentation of the series.

[Anonymous No.2118527]

>>2118523
But they are great. That's my opinion and my evidence is that many other series do not have memorable characters.

[Anonymous No.2118538]

>>2118502
Check this list off to be sure you don't look like a girl anon.
1. Do you have underdeveloped secondary sexual characteristics? i.e are you beardless?
2. Do you have soft, flowing hair that smells like little green apples in the sunshine?
3. Do you have firm, round, pert breasts with strident nipples that poke up obstinatley through your tight blouse?
4. Are you in the kitchen making me a sammich?

If you answered any of these in the affirmative, this may be why the sapphos are attracted to you like KY on a double-headed dildo.

[Anonymous No.2118542]

I just bought this bad boy. I've haven't read any of the books before and I've only seen the first two episodes. I'm going to finish GoT before I watch any more. As a novice to the fantasy genre (who's only read LotR and The Silmarillion) is this going to be something I'll enjoy?

[Anonymous No.2118547]

>>2117680
>>2118542

I saw a fat middle aged black woman on a city bus reading it, so you probably will.

[VelvetCrow !0kY4lKysPM No.2118557]

>>2118547

wtf. Since when skin color or weight have to do with a book comprehension and enjoyment?

[Anonymous No.2118570]

>>2118542

I want that slipcase edition but can't find it in US.

[Anonymous No.2118572]

Don't play dumb bro, you know as well as I do most niggaz don't read

[Anonymous No.2118575]

>>2118542

Yes.

>>2118557

Are you a high-brow troll or just a cunt?

[Anonymous No.2118580]

>>2118547
>>2118575
Local racist detected /reported

[Anonymous No.2118624]

>>2118570
It's recently come out here in Australia, and you can get it off amazon.uk.

[Anonymous No.2118745]

>>2118498

>mfw you actually believe what GRRM says about his writing process

This is the same author who thinks that he was OH SO SUBTLE with Rhaegar/Lyanna? The same author who has to used obsessively repetitive thoughts to differentiate his characters? The same author who has major POV characters go through significant personality shifts to drive his plot along? And you believe that he says the characters drive the story? Really?

Come on, AGoT is enjoyable enough, but believing that shit is retarded.

[Anonymous No.2118756]

>>2118745
>The same author who has major POV characters go through significant personality shifts to drive his plot along?

This is called "character development." You probably learned about it in school. The fact is, if the characters didn't change, no one would keep reading the books. The fact is, that is one of the most realistic aspects of A Song of Ice and Fire. Real people change their personalities and habits to adapt to different situations - why shouldn't fictional characters?

[Anonymous No.2118764]

>>2118756

Character development is not "oh shit I've wrote myself into a corner, what do I do?" or "this would be cool, so it should happen".

The appropriate analogue to AGoT is TV: That's why it's worked so well in the medium. GRRM writes like the TV script writer he is, which is why he's so good at the cliffhangers at the end of each POV, he just has a knack for that sort of stuff, which is why his books are like crack. So the "strong characters" analogy here would lead you to… Battlestar Galactica where the initially interesting characters turned into puppets for the purposes of whatever the plot was supposed to be that week.

Get over it bro, AGoT is not high art. It's just fun.