[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 172 KB, 1117x581, 1332087477906.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2674298 No.2674298 [Reply] [Original]

Does anyone else feel that George R.R Martin writing's are so badly done?I'm not saying the story is not enjoyable but god damn this man can't into writing.

>> No.2674304

show me better writing in pop fantasy genre
1. I will read it
2. tolkien doesnt count

>> No.2674303

No, their ware written to target the lower classes as well as us, but they are still well written.

>> No.2674306

>>2674298
I read the first book only. I didn't read the second, because it felt like somehting a 13 year old would write. Seriosuly, it's terrible.

I guess it gets interesting later on, but at least the first book is decidedly poor in every way, including characters and plot.

>> No.2674310

>>2674304
Stephen Donaldson
Terry Pratchett

>> No.2674316

>>2674304
Does Mieville count?

I'm not sure what separates "pop fantasy" from fantasy which isn't "pop fantasy."

>> No.2674328

>>2674304
"pop" is serendipitous quality given by the public and the likes of HBO... author have no control over it, unless he fakes it but still he could not be granted being popular culture

>> No.2674334

>>2674304
dunno if it counts as "pop" (why does it need to be "pop" anyway?), but gene wolfe.

>> No.2674335

The Reek-chapters of ADWD were kinda good written actually, apart from that it's just straight-ahead entertainment writing. Nothing wrong with that.

>> No.2674339
File: 32 KB, 323x377, trollface_GRRM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2674339

>>2674304

1. Terry Pratchett
2. Joe Abercrombie
3. Alistair Reynolds
4. Iain M. Banks
5. Almost everybody else

>> No.2674340

>>2674316
Mieville definitely counts.

Normally, it's pop from the get-go. All art is born pop. THEN I could be elevated by the academic community. If it remaing popular, it can be both, like Dickens was at his time, or pre-mobydick Melville with his naval stories.

China Mieville was never approved by the academics, so he's a pop artist.

>> No.2674344

>>2674335
>were kinda good written actually

Oh, the irony

>> No.2674354

>>2674344
*sigh* because I don't bother to use proper grammar in every goddamn sentence? Who gives a damn on an imageboard anyway, even if it's lit.

>> No.2674355

You could argue that everything is pop because of how the publishing industry works.

However a still more glorious dawn awaits with self-publishing via amazon and shit.

>> No.2674358
File: 19 KB, 394x379, stfu_mosley.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2674358

>>2674335

>kinda good written actually

>> No.2674366

>>2674354

>*sigh* because I don't bother to use proper grammar in every goddamn sentence? Who gives a damn on an imageboard anyway, even if it's lit.

>don't bother

Usually means that a person can't.

O FUK U Y USE GRAMMER DIT 21ST CENCHURY FUK OF.

The only people who write this way are those who are incapable of writing any other way. Then they say it's because "they can't be bothered" to hide their lack of education and unwillingness/incapacity to master the language.

>> No.2674384

>>2674298

He's a bit hit and miss, he's good and plotting and not bad at dialogue but everything else is very average.

>> No.2674490

>>2674366
My grammar is way better than that of most native english speakers, I just occasionally forget about it when I'm in a hurry. :)

>> No.2674519
File: 56 KB, 504x310, two cents.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2674519

Re-reading AGOT now, I really like his prose. It's simple, sure, but it's efficient, sets the right mood, and strangely enough it has its moments of beauty.

>> No.2674528

YES DEAR GOD
>Niggardly, Niggardly everywhere
>As a babe sucking on its mothers teat
>Useless as nipples on a breastplate
>Shat shat shat shat shat

Saw him at comic con last year, told him I found him to be a "niggardly writer". He chuckled and shrugged it off.

>> No.2674569

>>2674316
>Mieville
>good writing

Jesus. Mieville's writing is often terrible. He's got a great imagination, sure, but prose isn't his strong point.

>> No.2674614

Can we just admit right now that Game of Thrones has:
-the worst design
-the worst characters
-the worst stories
-the worst settings
-the worst lore
-the worst scene direction

I'm playing Dance with Dragons, and it's honestly one of the worst things I have ever seen, not just for books, for games, movies, anything you care to mention.

It may be among the worst things humanity has ever produced, on par with genocide, pedophilia and the holocaust.

Everything about it narratively is like being gang raped and beaten to death, the character design and prose is like a parody of a parody, it takes over-design to a whole new level of mockery, and the structure and theme is like what burning alive must be feel like, but for ideas.

How can anyone, anywhere, defend this mess?

>> No.2674623

>>2674614
He has bad prose. that is the only flaw with the entire series.
Next.

>> No.2674625

>>2674614
>dismisses series
>is on 5th 1000-page book

>> No.2674640

>>2674625
>implying I read the first four

I've got HBO for that, thanks very much

>> No.2674648
File: 63 KB, 290x441, a thread of trolls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2674648

>>2674614
>I'm playing Dance with Dragons, and it's honestly one of the worst things I have ever seen, not just for books, for games, movies, anything you care to mention.

>playing
>seen

What the hell are you talking about you blithering idiot.

>> No.2674651

>>2674614
>-the worst characters
>-the worst stories
>-the worst settings
>-the worst lore
Dude. What is up your ass? Seriously, you don't even think its bad, you think it is somehow the worst? Nothing popular is -THE WORST- because there are people out there who write on the level of children. Now honestly, I don't even think there's much wrong with his prose. He's a little repetitious maybe but fuck, you people will bitch about anything that's not in French or written by a hyper-depressed Russian.
All of the characters in GRRM's novels have motivation and to some extent, depth. They are not the best characters ever devised, but because of this, you would crucify him and call them the worst characters. Just fuck off. Why don't we criticize truly bad writers instead of shitting on the ones that are just fine or have minor flaws.

>> No.2674663

>>2674640
>>2674640
??

The show isn't even done with book two yet. Why read DWD? You're just giving yourself massive spoilers

>how do i into a series?

>> No.2674675

His prose is utter horseshit, and he knows it.
However, his storyline / character psychology skills are so far unmatched.

>> No.2674679

>>2674298
>Does anyone else feel that George R.R Martin writing's are so badly done...

...Thaaat-?

Tip: Take the "so" out

>> No.2674680
File: 277 KB, 1207x1600, img001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2674680

>>2674675
>unmatched

you just can't make this stuff up!

>> No.2674706

>>2674680

Proust could only make one character to GRRM's level, and it was himself.

>> No.2674724

>>2674706
you're entitled to your opinion, uninformed and misguided though it may be

I only hope you'll eventually escape from the box you are currently trapped in

>> No.2674743

>>2674706
wat

>> No.2674815

>>2674640
Negro, are you serious?

>> No.2674816

>>2674623
>He has bad prose. that is the only flaw with the entire series.
That's a pretty significant flaw.

>> No.2674825 [DELETED] 

>>2674816

It's the ultimate flaw.

>> No.2674832

>>2674298

Can anyone explain why GRRM's writing is bad?

>inb4 hodor said hodor

can anyone explain why any writing is bad?

>> No.2674838

his characterization though..... the characters are so unique and well fleshed out. And the world is epic on every proportion, he deserves the hype

>> No.2674852

>>2674832

see

>>2674528

Between awkward dialogue and overtly disgusting descriptive language that exists purely for shock value, GRRM occasionally dips into awful writing. But the fact that he's written thousands of pages and only about 40% of it is trash is something not a single person here could manage. Even so, he overuses certain phrases (e.g. niggardly, nipples on a breastplate) because he's clearly trying to show that it's set in a different time period- but the extent to which he uses them is overkill. It's kind of like, we GET it George. We get it.

One of the best comparisons I've seen is Tolkien spending a paragraph describing a green hilltop, which is terrific sensory writing that creates a scene, and GRRM spending a paragraph describing the sheer quantity of diarrhea produced by Dany. Its just unnecessary and there purely for shock value.

>> No.2674859

>>2674852
Forgot to mention that his strong points lie in the actual plot weaving and character developing- GRRM has some of the strongest characters in any book I've ever read. Doesn't have anything to do with his writing though.

>> No.2674871

>>2674852

you really haven't said why his writing is in any way bad

"useless as nipples on a breastplate" makes sense and is in fact a bit funny.

You might not like it, but that doesn't mean it's bad writing.

>but he overuses things wahh
There are no limits on how often you can use a word or expression

>> No.2674937

>>2674871

For some reason it wont let me respond to this. Keeps telling me my post is spam, and I should reformat...weird.

>> No.2674948

>>2674871
Its been a year since I read the books, so I couldnt really pick specific things out for you, but I do think that an author should vary the expressions and phrases used in a work- otherwise it gets stale and feels as though theyre working from a really shallow reservoir of creativity.

>> No.2674956

>>2674948
I mean, yeah, the phrase was funny once, and even the second time, but by the twentieth time I'd read it over the course of two hundred pages it got to be a little tiresome.

And then that's ignoring the fact that (and this isnt a huge issue, but it does get annoying after a while) he tends to throw in phrases and terms that seem to be a little out of place. If i can find any ill post them.

And I'm not really trying to challenge you or be defensive about anything, so there's so need to be rude about it.

Finally got that to post. Weird.

>> No.2674968

>>2674948

>feels as though
>feels

>he uses feels to judge quality

stop.

>> No.2674972
File: 287 KB, 460x479, cersei grin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2674972

we can all basically agree OP has no idea what he's talking about? ya?

>> No.2674977

>>2674968
I didn't know only robots were qualified to judge what is and isn't good writing

>> No.2674981

>>2674972
OP doesn't, but he's managed to stumble onto the fact Martin can't think, can't write and has no discernible talent by accident.

>> No.2674984

>>2674968
>objective qualities exist beyond our immediate sensations derived from the natural world

get out of here you Papist

>> No.2674993

He writes fantasy so it's to be expected that his novels have neither style nor substance.

>> No.2675013

>>2674993
>style

That's debatable. I'd say fantasy is more about style than substance.

>> No.2675014

>>2674825
So art is only valuable to you when it is well phrased?
That is like valuing movies for the editing.

>> No.2675016

>>2674981
Oh, you again.
Read the books, please.

>> No.2675020

>>2675014

'Ultimate flaw' is perhaps strong.

Valuing movies for their cinematography (along with all the other elements that make up a film's aesthetic) would be a better analogy.

>> No.2675022
File: 31 KB, 316x400, 1325856366080.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2675022

>claiming that the substance of the book makes up for it's lack of style
>implying that these books have any substance whatsoever
>shiggity diggity.

>> No.2675027

>>2675020

That's not to say style's all-important.

Substance is equally important. But they're both vital, imo.

>> No.2675035

>>2674825
>Prose being a deal-breaker
Seriously? You are a grade-a retard
>reading for prose

>> No.2675039

>>2675035


>>2675020
>>2675027

>> No.2675054

>>2675039
>Implying I read that far
What you're saying, either way, is that prose are very, very important. To use your movie analogy, you're saying that a movie that has bad cinematography makes it incredibly difficult to watch and takes away from the plot. In my opinion, it doesn't. Maybe because I'm a little desensitized to the nuances of cinematography (I have a distaste for 'artsy' films) and prose, but it doesn't really stop me from enjoying a good movie/book

>> No.2675060

>>2675054

I pretty much agree with you. A book can be worthy with less-than-ideal prose (notice I deleted my original post). The same goes for a film with shitty cinematography.

I honestly think it just depends on the work in question.

>> No.2675074

>>2675060

Also, allow me to clarify: I have almost no idea what I'm talking about.

>> No.2675101

>>2674972
Why is that?Because you don't agree with him?