What do you guys think of this stuff? /tv/ thinks it's the bee knees, character driven literature.

File: 108 KB, 500x805, thrones23.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat May 5 04:54:26 2012 No.2617257 [Reply] [Original]

What do you guys think of this stuff? /tv/ thinks it's the bee knees, character driven literature.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 04:56:26 2012 No.2617260 This is not literature. That's a misnomer, OP. This is fiction. Not literature. Take it back to /tv/ or /v/ or wherever

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 04:57:26 2012 No.2617261 Generic nerdsploitation, sold by the pound. It has neither meaning, nor skillful writing.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:03:25 2012 No.2617266 It tells human stories in a fantasy setting. What's not to like?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:06:26 2012 No.2617269 >>2617266 It's not extremely obscure and 'deep'

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:07:26 2012 No.2617273 i read the first one. it was ok but i didn't bother reading more. i'll watch season two etc instead of reading them.

>>	Plazzy, the Post-Punk Novelist Sat May 5 05:10:26 2012 No.2617275 My inner junior-high student always thinks of toilets when this book/ series is mentioned.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:12:26 2012 No.2617277 File: 50 KB, 600x674, toilet-throne-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2617275 fnarr fnarr

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:16:25 2012 No.2617284 >>2617266 It has no literary merit.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:18:25 2012 No.2617286 >>2617284 How come?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:19:25 2012 No.2617288 I'd like to see an actual expert in the field criticize these books for once, not reactionary 20-25 year old English majors on /lit/

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:21:25 2012 No.2617289 George RR Martin makes characters come alive like very very few authors have ever managed in the history of literature.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:21:25 2012 No.2617290 >>2617288 An expert criticizing it with the same standards as literature would trash it. It's just entertainment, nothing more.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:22:25 2012 No.2617292 >>2617286 See >>2617261

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:24:25 2012 No.2617294 >>2617292 I asked for evidence and arguments, not postulations. >>2617290 I'd like to see an expert trash it.

Anonymous Sat May 5 05:26:25 2012 No.2617298

/tv/ is full of shit. The technical competency of the writing is sub-par, elevated to digestible through heavy scenery porn - something I personally enjoy, whatever its true merit.

As far as world-building, it looks good to people who have never experienced good - same for the "character-driven" metric.

In sum, it's a blinking neon sign pointed at the flaws of popular culture: it's not that these tards lack taste, it's that they lack taste, don't even know it, and then exalt that ignorance to the detriment of many decent works.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:35:25 2012 No.2617304 >>2617298 So then, what is good? LOTR doesn't count.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:42:25 2012 No.2617315 File: 9 KB, 468x303, cp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2617304 No, don't ask that, as if his post was adequate criticism. Ask him to back his claims up.

Anonymous Sat May 5 05:46:25 2012 No.2617316

>>2617315

If you had done and real reading, you wouldn't demand that he back his claims up. It's like asking someone to back up his claim that the electromagnetic force is carried by photons - without a certain basic level of understanding, it's not that easy.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:48:25 2012 No.2617319 >>2617316 >accept what he says because he's smarter than you >fuck you, stupid ok

Anonymous Sat May 5 05:54:25 2012 No.2617320

>>2617316

>It's like asking someone to back up his claim that the electromagnetic force is carried by photons - without a certain basic level of understanding, it's not that easy.

Not really, I understand the terms normally used in literary criticism.

Any retard with a dictionary can postulate bullshit, if they give no evidence and arguments there is no reason to listen to them.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:57:25 2012 No.2617322 >>2617257 Not literature proper. Saged and reported

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 05:59:25 2012 No.2617323 >>2617322 7.Replying to a thread stating that you've reported it or another post is also disallowed—please do not announce your reports.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:02:25 2012 No.2617325 >>2617323 Also not literature proper.

Anonymous Sat May 5 06:05:25 2012 No.2617328

>>2617304
>>2617315
>>2617320
I don't bother to justify my opinion, because it's opinion, and because any reasonably intelligent, educated person will probably find themselves in possession of similar beliefs.

It's self-evident to people who know what they are talking about. If I said the sky was blue, most people would understand what I mean; and I really don't care about the manchildren saying "but it's red in the morning" or engaging in recursive questioning about the true meaning of Rayleigh scattering.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:05:25 2012 No.2617329 Worst thing about the books is that they create an interesting backstory of very long seasons, then do precisely nothing with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:07:25 2012 No.2617330 >>2617257 I love the books, /lit/fags seem a bit buttmad about it though

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:08:26 2012 No.2617331 >>2617328 >I have no arguments It's okay, champ, you don't need to say it. The important thing is that we know and that you know that we know.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:08:26 2012 No.2617332 >>2617329 well, another long winter is right around the corner. We may find out how it all started later on, who knows.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:09:26 2012 No.2617333 >>2617329 That's the worst thing? I guess I might pick up the series after all.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:10:25 2012 No.2617335 >>2617329 What do you mean? 'do nothing' as in don't have the very long seasons reflect upon the societies way of behavior in a crucial way?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:11:25 2012 No.2617336 >>2617331 The average ASOIAF book is long, but not that long - maybe 400 pages, and there are 5 out. Take a week to read the series, come back and see if you still disagree. No hard feelings.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:13:25 2012 No.2617339 >>2617335 That's exactly what I mean. Westeros doesn't seem like a place that has to regularly endure long winters that would force almost the entire population off their land and into hiding.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:13:25 2012 No.2617340 >>2617336 I've read the books 3 times (except ADWD only once)

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:13:25 2012 No.2617341 >>2617336 >maybe 400 pages Make that 800.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:15:26 2012 No.2617342 >>2617339 >long winters that would force almost the entire population off their land and into hiding. I don't see why. They can still import food in, hunt and fish.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:15:26 2012 No.2617343 >>2617339 "Westeros" Haha. It cracks me up how you neckbeards argue so seriously about this garbage. Reminds me of kids calling each other "muggle" during the Harry Potter craze. Good stuff; funny shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:17:25 2012 No.2617345 >>2617343 It's like you're trying to real hard to piss about something.

Anonymous Sat May 5 06:19:25 2012 No.2617348

>>2617342

That would still require an entire medieval population to switch from farming the land to being reliant on specialists. You don't just send farming peasants out to fish or trade. The balance of power would shift massively. The landowning nobles would suddenly be dependent for their lives on merchants and lords of the sea. And any time, a good portion of the population would be out of action and dependent on another half. None of this is apparent in the books.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:23:25 2012 No.2617356 File: 52 KB, 689x436, son+_29f1c49127e71bb8cf304102ace66f0a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2617343

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:27:26 2012 No.2617363 It's just a long series of events without any overall cohesion, and with no detectable climaxes. It's just endless jangling, like a Bach concerto written by a computer.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:28:26 2012 No.2617364 >>2617343 Ha ha quite verily indeed rather whilst ergo.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:32:25 2012 No.2617369 >>2617348 you haven't read the books, so why even arguing about details it comes pretty clear that the people make plenty of stocks for the winter from what they harvested during summer. also trading with dorne and the lands across the narrow sea.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:32:25 2012 No.2617370 File: 6 KB, 251x241, 1334823307679.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2617363 Why do you need "climaxes"? Are you a pleb?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:34:25 2012 No.2617371 File: 72 KB, 468x532, susan-boyle-grinning.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2617364

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:35:25 2012 No.2617372 >>2617370 So you don't mind narratives without cohesion or structure? You just want the storyteller to tell you what happened next?

Anonymous Sat May 5 06:40:25 2012 No.2617376
File: 426 KB, 245x233, 1335921525122.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2617372

ASoIaF has cohesion and structure. Just because it's size is too big for your stunted brain to handle doesn't mean it doesn't have structure.

You don't happen to be that retard from /tv/ who said the thing about the "old framework" while trying to look smart?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:47:25 2012 No.2617380 It's soap opera with added decapitation.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:47:25 2012 No.2617382 >>2617380 Define "soap opera".

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:49:25 2012 No.2617384 >>2617382 How can you be so obtuse?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:50:25 2012 No.2617386 >>2617382 A tale that could go on forever, with no natural endpoint. You can pick any point and say it's the middle.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:51:25 2012 No.2617389 >>2617384 Why are you dodging the question? "soap opera" can be used to mean an array of things, it is only logical that you explain what exactly you mean by that.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:52:26 2012 No.2617391 >>2617386 But ASoIaF has a clear endpoint and has had one since book 1.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:55:25 2012 No.2617393 >>2617391 In what sense? It's 90% about the power struggles of a group of nobles. You could play that out for as long as you like.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 06:58:25 2012 No.2617395 >>2617393 The coming Long Night is the clear climax of the story. It may wrap up some characters arcs afterwards but that is the endpoint.

D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Sat May 5 07:02:25 2012 No.2617402

neat idea in theory because you are combining the best elements of realism (i.e. believable characters and settings doing awesome stuff) and fantasy (unbelievable characters and settings doing unbelievable awesome stuff).

Of course, you would have to be an extraordinary writer to do even one of these things well, never mind two. George R. R. Fatfuck is not even exceptional in one of these things however, what a shame :(

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:05:25 2012 No.2617407 >>2617402 >George R. R. Fatfuck is not even exceptional in one of these things however, How come?

>>	D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Sat May 5 07:06:25 2012 No.2617409 >>2617407 What do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:09:26 2012 No.2617413 >>2617409 What has led you to the conclusion "George R. R. Fatfuck is not even exceptional in one of these things however"?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:09:26 2012 No.2617415 I've only seen the first season of the show, never read the books. The best bit was the little girl learning to be a pirate. I was waiting for her to get involved in some amusing swashbuckling adventures but it never happened.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:10:25 2012 No.2617416 >>2617413 I believe that is best answered by the statement used in mathematical proofs where step is self-evident - "by inspection".

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:11:25 2012 No.2617418 >>2617415 She becomes an assassin later.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:11:25 2012 No.2617419 >>2617415 Arya right? you should read the books then, she sees some shit.

>>	D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Sat May 5 07:14:25 2012 No.2617422 >>2617413 Critical analysis

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:17:25 2012 No.2617428 >>2617422 Your own analysis or someone else's? If it was someone else, source?

>>	D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Sat May 5 07:20:26 2012 No.2617433 >>2617428 My own, which was informed by other critical analyses

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:25:26 2012 No.2617442 >>2617433 >which was informed by other critical analyses Whose? Source?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:26:26 2012 No.2617443 >>2617284 >Look at me how elitist I am !

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:27:26 2012 No.2617444 >It has neither meaning, nor skillful writing. What the fuck is this gay bullshit even sposed to mean ? >I'm too cool for popular books!

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:28:25 2012 No.2617447 >>2617290 >>2617290 >implying Kafka isnt entertainment just like GRMM

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:33:25 2012 No.2617455 By the old gods, /lit/, you really have hit rock bottom, defending doorstop fantasy.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:34:25 2012 No.2617457 >>2617443 >I don't like fecal matter OMG, that damn elitist thinks he's better than us!

D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Sat May 5 07:34:25 2012 No.2617459

>>2617442
You'll be able to read it when it's published and check them for yourself, I have better things to do with my busy time than to go fetching references for complete strangers on the internet, thanks.

>>2617444
>>I'm too cool for popular books!
Strawman. Most discerning readers of higher appreciation are capable of recognising that popularity is to be found mainly in works of mediocrity, which are the exact sorts of works that busy individuals such as myself cannot waste time reading. Avoiding mediocre works is simply a good principle of selection.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:35:25 2012 No.2617461 >>2617455 I'm not even defending it, I'm just trying to get these useless cunts to posit some evidence or arguments for their claims.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:37:25 2012 No.2617467 >>2617459 Can you at least summarize your critical analysis or that of others, seeing that you're using its existence as evidence that R.R. Martin is a shitbird.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:37:25 2012 No.2617469 So far it is bad because >some critic said Cool story bro.

D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Sat May 5 07:38:26 2012 No.2617471

>>2617461
>I'm just trying to get these useless cunts to posit some evidence or arguments for their claims.
But.... this is an anonymous image-board, you're lucky that people are even responding politely to you. You seriously think anyone here is going to give you a well written argument on anything with well-formed and well explained conclusions? A typical academic essay or review of any worth is around 2,000 - 5,000 words long, and you actually think anyone is going to take like, an hour, out of their day to write something like that out to some nobody on the internet they have no connection to?

Am I getting you right here?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:38:26 2012 No.2617472 >>2617459 So you dont read any of the classics too. What you read Some ug indie hipster book written with shit on toilet paper that tells the tale of ant living in the asshole of Siberia ?

>>	D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Sat May 5 07:40:25 2012 No.2617478 >>2617467 >Can you at least summarize your critical analysis or that of others Sure, see >>2617402 >>2617469 >Cool story bro. What's the problem? You don't believe in the authority of critics?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:41:25 2012 No.2617479 >>2617478 Nope I dont. Give me your AMAZING UG WRITER THAT IS NOT POPULAR so we can all read his shit stained story

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:43:25 2012 No.2617485 >>2617478 >Can you summarize your critical analysis? >Sure. His books are shit because he's a shit writer. Irrefutable logic, clearly.

D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Sat May 5 07:44:26 2012 No.2617486

>>2617472
>So you dont read any of the classics too.
You're simplifying the notion of popularity to make a misguided point. There are different senses in which books are popular. Harry Potter is popular in the sense that lots of contemporary people read it and are familiar with it, and are capable of appreciating it. The Pilgrim's Progress or Metamorphoses, or Ulysses, on the other hand is popular in the sense that everyone has heard of it, knowledge of it is part of culture. But in comparison to the number of people who have read Harry Potter and are capable of appreciating it, the number of people who have read, understood, and appreciated classic works is vastly different i.e. much smaller. Hence the differences in the use of the term 'popularity'. So I do read the classics, and enjoy them, and by no means are they popular in the sense that I or you have been using,

Anonymous Sat May 5 07:46:26 2012 No.2617493

>>2617471

No I'm not expecting anyone to write 2,000-5,000 words, I'm expecting someone to either

1) Summarize the most important reason(s) for why GRRM is a bad writer and why the books are not good, it doesn't need to be in-depth, it just needs to be something more than mere postulations.
2) Give me a link to a worthy review that someone previously wrote.

D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Sat May 5 07:47:25 2012 No.2617496

>>2617479
>Nope I dont.
That's fair enough, that doesn't invalidate their authority for anyone else though (i.e. everyone), of course.

>>2617485
>Irrefutable logic, clearly.
Well, it's actually a bit more complicated than that but you're just focusing on the summary, which is a sentence long condensation of what is at least a 2,000 word long essay.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:49:25 2012 No.2617500 >>2617496 >it's actually a bit more complicated than that leverage length and complexity to summarize the article in a way that you include your most important points and you evidence therefor.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:52:25 2012 No.2617506 ITT: George is bad because -many people like him -critics like him -some ug shit writer doesn't like him tripfag has yet to post his amazing fantasy writer too. served

Anonymous Sat May 5 07:52:26 2012 No.2617505

>>2617485
>here is a pile of shit
>can you tell us why it's shit
>...
Most sane people will stop there. Criticizing them for refusing to write a dissertation on the history of medieval sanitation systems, intestinal biology, gas spectrometry, and their relation to third-wave feminist aesthetics is silly.

Shit is shit. That don't take a brilliant mind to see, just a discerning one. Is someone who prefers shit in the sewer, instead of on the tabletop not enlightened enough for you?

Maybe. Pearls before swine, etc. It all looks like shit to the pigs.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:54:25 2012 No.2617508 >>2617505 Congratulations on making an inherently and obviously fallacious argument based on the presumption that the book is shit. Can you at least show an example of it's shit and explain why it is shit? Actually, I think you're trolling. Nevermind.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:54:25 2012 No.2617511 >>2617505 No one needs to write a dissertation, just give the most important reasons for why GRRM is shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:54:25 2012 No.2617512 >>2617506 George Gavriel Kay, Steven Erikson, etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:55:25 2012 No.2617513 >>2617508 >its shit god help me

D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Sat May 5 07:59:25 2012 No.2617520

>>2617493
>1) Summarize the most important reason(s) for why GRRM is a bad writer and why the books are not good
Well, that's obviously an empirical question. Why isn't Michael Phelps a good writer? We'd have to look at the sort of education George R R Martin or Michael Phelps received, what sort of experiences he's had and whether he's displayed any natural talent at writing.

>a worthy review
What do you consider to be a worthy review?

>>2617506
>George is bad because
>-many people like him
That's generally a decent inference to make of any widely popular (in the sense I previously discussed) author, insofar as we take 'bad' in relation to well-read people's tastes. After all, GRRM is bad to me, a high-level appreciator of literature, but it might be good to casual reader.
>-critics like him
That depends on the critic, of course.
>-some ug shit writer doesn't like him
I don't even know what this is referring to

>tripfag has yet to post his amazing fantasy writer too
What are you talking about?

>served
What does this mean?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 07:59:25 2012 No.2617521 File: 72 KB, 625x564, 1333479393297.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2617512 >Steven Erikson >the man who wrote the fantasy equivalent of Dragonball Z >good

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 08:03:26 2012 No.2617531 >>2617521 I'm pretty apathetic to the ASOIAF 'debate', but once you've shit on Erikson, my rage is official. I CALL FISTICUFFS.

Anonymous Sat May 5 08:06:25 2012 No.2617535

>>2617520

>Well, that's obviously an empirical question. Why isn't Michael Phelps a good writer? We'd have to look at the sort of education George R R Martin or Michael Phelps received

I don't see how one's education has relevance to the question. Education background can only give probabilities about how good of a writer someone is, but we're not looking for probabilities based on inconclusive information, we're looking for a definitive answer, which can only be found studying their writing.

>What do you consider to be a worthy review?

A review that is logically consistent and gives examples from the book as evidence for it's points.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 08:07:26 2012 No.2617539 File: 154 KB, 330x327, 1264440386336.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] /lit/ used to like this, before it exploded in popularity with the tv-series.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 08:08:26 2012 No.2617542 >>2617539 Haha. No we didn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 08:09:25 2012 No.2617544 >>2617539 If we used to like it, then we were never very /lit/erary.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 08:10:25 2012 No.2617545 >>2617539 nope.

Deep&Edgy !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Sat May 5 08:13:26 2012 No.2617549

>>2617535
>education background can only give probabilities about how good of a writer someone is, but we're not looking for probabilities based on inconclusive information
Well sorry dude, that is the best, along with studying experiences and talent, you're going to get with regard to the question of determining why writer x is a good or bad writer, until we have better brain scanning hardware, etc lol.

>we're looking for a definitive answer, which can only be found studying their writing
Definitive answer to what?

>A review that is logically consistent and gives examples from the book as evidence for it's points.
Wow, that's pretty meager.
Any review of GRRM in which the author writes that he considers any book that is good is one which uses the word 'shit', and cites the use of the word 'shit' is going to be a logically consistent review. But that isn't a remotely helpful review concerning the quality of the writing.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 08:22:26 2012 No.2617562 >george R.R. Martin >george lucas I end my case. ASoIaF will only get worse and worse.

Anonymous Sat May 5 08:26:26 2012 No.2617567

>>2617549

>Well sorry dude, that is the best, along with studying experiences and talent, you're going to get with regard to the question of determining why writer x is a good or bad writer, until we have better brain scanning hardware, etc lol.

How is the talent not the only thing that is relevant here? Why does 'education' and 'experiences' even enter into this matter of whether someone is a good or bad writer? If someone enters the 100m dash in the Olympics, you don't need to know where he grew up in or who trained him, you just need to know how fast he runs to determine how good of a runner he is.

>Definitive answer to what?

To whether someone is a good writer.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 08:28:25 2012 No.2617572 >>2617567 He thinks you're asking "what caused GRRM to be a shitty writer". What you're actually asking is "how do you know GRRM is a shitty writer".

>>	Deep&Edgy !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Sat May 5 08:42:25 2012 No.2617596 I already said through critical analysis

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 08:43:26 2012 No.2617600 >>2617572 In that case, Why: GRRM did not develop the talent required to write How: It is self-evident.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 08:50:25 2012 No.2617610 >It is self-evident. Nice argumentation.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 08:51:25 2012 No.2617611 >>2617562 don't even joke about that

Anonymous Sat May 5 08:59:25 2012 No.2617622

Why do people even argue with Deep? What do you gain from thinking that what you're reading from genre fiction is in the same ball game as art literature?

Even common people seem to unanimously believe in the technical superiority of high culture. They might still look down on people that appreciate it from their mould but that's a different issue. And even the artists that make this kind of work agree that they're not working in the same cast as the artistic stuff. I think anyone that's been unlucky enough to be born into a position that allows them to appreciate GRRM very highly should accept that it's a pulp nerdy thing and learn to be more fatalist in general. I get the sense of more senseless wriggling in your personal life if you actually try to argue for GRRM being good literature on /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 09:03:26 2012 No.2617626 File: 77 KB, 640x426, chilling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2617622 Stop assuming people asking for elaboration must think GRRM is a great writer.

Anonymous Sat May 5 09:34:27 2012 No.2617665

The average GRRM hater probably masturbates over obscure shit like autumn of the patriarch and likes endlessly pondering minor details about books to discern their hurrtrue meaning.

In other words it's autism.

By the way I remember reading my friends copy of a hundred years of solitude on the shitter and noticing I don't have any toilet paper.

Sorry Gabriel, deal with it

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 09:42:25 2012 No.2617674 Art isn't objective, and even if it were it wouldn't matter since art is unimportant.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 09:48:26 2012 No.2617687 >>2617674 >Art isn't objective I'm listening... >art is unimportant 3/10, I responded.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 09:51:25 2012 No.2617693 >>2617665 >>autumn of the patriarch >>obscure The fuck? Maybe it's obscure in Louisiana trailerparks.Is this satire?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 09:56:25 2012 No.2617705 File: 545 KB, 1400x930, birdman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >invoking the high and mighty "literature" This is the #1 way to give yourself away as having no concept of everything.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 09:57:25 2012 No.2617707 >>2617687 I'm not a troll I'm afraid. Art is just a product to make people happy for an instant, it's no more important than chewing gum. People in the world aren't going to war or dying for lack of chewing gum.

Anonymous Sat May 5 09:57:25 2012 No.2617708

I read these books starting in 2003 and have followed George R. R. Martin for many years. Martin is a good TV writer, and as such each chapter of these novels feels like a lengthy scene from a serial TV show. He's notorious for cliffhangers and it helps the reader to keep turning pages, much in the same way a Lost viewer keeps aching for the next episode. I'm a thirty year old English B.A. and I love these novels for pure entertainment value, and I will wholly admit that the plots are cheap and the writing is poor. There is nothing meaningful in these novels, much in the same way of Robert Jordan's works. The "high fantasy" element is just an exploration of the same old perversions we're used to on 4chan and they stale and repetitive. A Dance with Dragons, for instance, is obnoxious in how many references to "cock" or "sucking cock" one finds on a chapter by chapter basis. It is not thrilling or interesting in that sense. The value of these books, in my opinion, is the tragedy of the Stark family and the ease with which the reader is pulled into their world and the need for resolution. The family is virtuous and innocent, and of course honorable to the bone, so the reader wants them to somehow come out on top of the injustices they've experienced. Characters are easy to identify with. In the end, the fantasy elements are not new or even very interesting. It's just a character drama that exploits modern TV staples of character kill-offs. Since like most people I'm sure George R. R. Martin will die or grow demented before he ever finishes these works, I don't have much faith in seeing any kind of conclusion that makes me value these works other than paperback trash. Buy it, enjoy it, but don't expect it to be put in the canon or anything.

Anonymous Sat May 5 10:03:25 2012 No.2617719
File: 45 KB, 960x323, wordfreqgurm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

He broke his fast with boiled neeps, and shivering stew, washed down with a flagon of Dornish ale. The grease from stewed salt pork clung to his gristly beard as he donned a slashed velvet doublet of purple satin, emblazoned with the crest of Ser Eddard Bauer. Over his smallclothes, he wore black pantaloons. He clambered into his Honda and began the short journey west, bearing northwards along the interstate. He turned left, edging his way past opposing traffic. If I look back, I am lost.

His office was a dull brown keep that sat astride the Crown Road. His desk was hidden behind a soundproofed beige cubicle and was lined with a faux wood finish. Reek, reek, it rhymes with teak.

He had finished A Dance with Dragons not a noonsday before and wondered if in truth he had finished the entire series. George R. R. Martin is so constipated from the fawnings of his lickspittles and self-indulgent side stories that he's not like to drop another turd of a novel anytime soon, if the last decade has told it true, he thought to himself.

He smirked at his own witticism. "It is known" he said aloud to himself.

Anonymous Sat May 5 10:05:26 2012 No.2617726
File: 27 KB, 332x334, wordfreqgurm2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2617719
To tell it true, he had enjoyed several parts of the novel. Jon Snow's first chapter was strong, as were the Bran and Davos chapters. He'd not expected that. Many of the early story arcs had glistened wetly with promise but of these Martin had written little and less as the book wore on. Of Dany's aimless navel-gazing, there'd been much and more. Asha and Victarion vied for the distinction of the most pointless Greyjoy POV. Ariane Martell had twisted her teats for naught, for her brother Quentyn's chapters proved to be as useless as nipples on a breastplate. Gods be good, he thought, the fat man teased us with Feast's Dorne chapters for.... this?

And Jaime... that had been the cruelest jape of all. Best that Martin had left out his sole chapter. Though, given the masturbatory excess of Dance's prose, Martin could have learned a thing or two from a man who'd had to make do without his sword hand.

The epilogue was a satisfying end to an unsavory meal, but even the most succulent lemoncake doesn't salvage a bland and unfilling meal of gruel. In truth, it should've been left in A Feast for Crows, along with Cersei's chapters. At least then at least one of the novels from the last ten years would've amounted to more than a mummer's farce.

He set down his copy of A Dance with Dragons with an unsatisfying thud. Words are wind, he mused. Speaking of which... He raised a leg and broke his word. It smelt of stale bacon grease and mashed neeps.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 10:06:26 2012 No.2617729 >>2617719 Brilliant my hearty negro.

Anonymous Sat May 5 10:07:26 2012 No.2617732
File: 34 KB, 744x328, wordfreqgurm4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2617726
By then, his bladder was full to bursting from the morning's coffee, so he headed to the latrine before he pissed his smallclothes. Reek, reek, it rhymes with leak. Along the way, he passed the receptionist from the adjoining office. She was a pretty brown-haired thing, a woman of about four-and-twenty, fully flowered.

"Where do whores go?", he asked her.

She slapped him.

He entered the men's bathroom and undid his breeches. The urinals were crofted from gleaming white porcelain and bore the seal of American Standard. Whilst it received his golden stream of the morning's piss, he contemplated how this was a metaphor for how Ser Martin had raised the leg and done the same to the continuity of A Song of Ice and Fire and the first three books.

He angrily composed an e-mail to Martin's editor whilst zipping up his breeches. He was only a man grown, unskilled in the ways of editing, but such was his wroth.

You know nothing, Anne Groell...

Anonymous Sat May 5 10:09:25 2012 No.2617738

>>2617708

>A Dance with Dragons, for instance, is obnoxious in how many references to "cock" or "sucking cock" one finds on a chapter by chapter basis.

1) It's not really that much more than previous books so I don't know why you singled out ADWD
2) I don't see how that's obnoxious by itself, there's usually a reason to refer to a cock in any given instance one is referred to. It's not like they're shoehorned in.

>so the reader wants them to somehow come out on top of the injustices they've experienced.

How about you just speak for yourself instead of "the reader", fella. I'm not "invested" in any characters and it doesn't matter to me who comes out on top, the only thing that matters to me is that whatever happens makes sense.

>Characters are easy to identify with.

Again, that's just something you happen to care about for whatever dumb reason.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 10:10:25 2012 No.2617742 >>2617732 >>2617726 >>2617719 I'm genuinely amazed some retard bothered making such utterly useless charts.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 10:12:25 2012 No.2617745 >>2617339 Well, they also have summers that can last up to 10 years. So by the time Winter rolls around again you have an entire generation of young teens who have no idea what's coming. Also they've had literally over a decade to stock up food.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 10:18:25 2012 No.2617754 it's pretty meh. i read the first four books in a week a couple of years ago. they were entertaining, but I don't feel compelled to read the new book. honestly reading the plot summary feels like enough.

>>	Deep&Edgy !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 Sat May 5 11:11:27 2012 No.2617806 okay everyone they're shit books as we conclusively established thanks for participating everyone

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 11:19:25 2012 No.2617819 File: 48 KB, 246x249, 1326188823409.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2617806 >conclusively established

Anonymous Sat May 5 11:39:25 2012 No.2617845

>>2617708
>>The value of these books, in my opinion, is the tragedy of the Stark family and the ease with which the reader is pulled into their world and the need for resolution. The family is virtuous and innocent, and of course honorable to the bone, so the reader wants them to somehow come out on top of the injustices they've experienced.

This is why I hate the books so much. Martin may be great at world-being and decent at constructing a plot, but I can never get pass how fucking retarded the Stark family is. If they ever bothered to critically think about what the hell was going on in the first book, the entire series would have been inverted. Instead we get the poor poor stupid naive Starks who are incredibly tiresome.

Anonymous Sat May 5 11:53:25 2012 No.2617866

>>2617845

>implying Martin is only decent at plot
>implying people being punished for being too noble isn't by Aristotle's recommendation, and a key part of every good Greek, 16th century French and Shakespeare written tragedy also; thus without doubt being wonderful stuff.

Anonymous Sat May 5 12:14:25 2012 No.2617907

>>2617845

I don't really see how Ned was THAT stupid. He was just ignorant of how things worked in King's Landing. And he could've come out on top if he had just listened to either Renly or Littlefinger.

And if you're implying that Robb was dumb too then I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. He could not have possibly predicted that something as monstrous as RW was going to happen because of his actions. Such an act was inconceivable.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 12:23:26 2012 No.2617930 This isn't literature proper.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 19:01:27 2012 No.2618906 File: 212 KB, 353x399, cersei derp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw American's clap after reading ASoIaF

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 19:10:26 2012 No.2618936 I watched this show by accident and I went to /tv/ to see what they think about it, no one really liked it. The only ones were few that also admitted been pedophiles, autistic, basement dwelling neckbeards.

Anonymous Sat May 5 19:19:27 2012 No.2618969

>>2618936

The only moderately interesting bits this year have been the dragon girl in the desert with her little band of survivors. That amounts to about 2% of the overall running time. The rest is just a bunch of elements that could have been made into an interesting story, but instead has been sidelined in favour of showing the main characters doing nothing in particular. For all this talk of it being character-driven, at no time this season have we learned anything new about the main characters - Littlefinger is a right cunt who loves money more than people, Tyrion is clever and tricks people, Sansa is sad, etc.

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 ]

/lit/ - Literature