[ 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: 8 KB, 290x174, GRRM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3194339 No.3194339 [Reply] [Original]

Will someone explain to me why George RR Martin's prose is considered "bad"

And don't cherry pick the worst sentence you can find, explain to me why it's bad overall.

>> No.3194346

>in b4 they pick out sub par lines from asoiaf
>in b4 they compare him to other authors they like
>in b4 they dont explain why his prose is bad

They dont like him because his books are great, simple, and now immensely popular.

>> No.3194352

It is drawn out and does nothing but entertain. Certainly it might not be a bad book in regards to it's own genre, but for everyone into more "serious" literature it just stands out as the prime example of a book she'd never want to read: You probably learn nothing about yourself or anything from it, it doesn't pose any interesting questions, it's just action and sex, action and sex.

>> No.3194358

>>3194352
what's wrong with that? Both have purpose and both are necessary. You can't have a Death of a Salesman without a Singin' in the Rain. You can't have a Metropolis without a Dumb and Dumber

>> No.3194360

>>3194352

It's more than just action and sex:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themes_in_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire

>> No.3194371

>>3194358
What do you even mean by "you can't have..." in this context? I just explained why some people are not liking GRRM's prose. I didn't say it was the personified evil. When somesone says it's "bad" they usually either mean it is bad to them (= they wouldn't read it, because of the reasons I already laid out) or it is generally bad prose -- generally bad prose on a scale that has Joyce and Pynchon way up on top, though. And GRRM certainly cannot compete with them, regarding what they are acclaimed for.
Still, like I said, it's perfectly possible that ASOIAF is a good series in comparison to other fantasy stuff. Perfectly possible. But that's not the kind of scope someone has in mind when calling GRRM "good" or "bad" on lit. Their scope, without them implicitly stating it, is the one honing "serious literature".

>> No.3194384
File: 28 KB, 512x512, azlc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3194384

>>3194352
>does nothing but entertain
>prime example of a book she'd never want to read

heaven forbid a smart person would want to be entertained

also, lol @ she, implying women read ASOIF, implying "she" is the normative, implying #checkyourprivilege

>> No.3194385

I suspect most /lit/ users are frauds. They make claims about how good or shit something is and don't even attempt to support them. They don't even use half-assed reasoning. It's either "this is shit" or "this is good"

>> No.3194389

>>3194371
This so much. Fantasy and Sci-fi are generaly (though not always) more concerned about the stories themselves and the themes they may explore than with the way they're written. That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad literature but its prose may be called bad simply because, most of the times, it is.

>> No.3194391

>>3194385

This is the most incorrect shit I've ever read in my fucking life.

>> No.3194394

>>3194384
Smart persons tend to be able to get entertainment out of books like Ulysses, too. There's usually no need for them to read pure entertainment books. One might even say they get rather bored by those.

>> No.3194410

>>3194385
I suspect you haven't been here long.
ASOIAF has been done to death on /lit/ and most of us are beyond caring what you manchildren waste your time with.
And every day that passes, more and more of you cunts creep in here with hundreds of "what does /lit/ think of ASOIAF?", "Recommend me some Skyrim fanfiction", "Are comics literature? Neil Gaiman is literature right?", "tfw your favourite author is old and has alzheimers and can't write anymore", and "I was disappointed with the 6th volume of 'generic fantasy' by 'shit author', I'm going to read the rest anyway but I was wondering if it gets any better?"

>> No.3194412

>>3194410

Thank you/

>> No.3194413

>>3194410
>"tfw your favourite author is old and has alzheimers and can't write anymore"
I don't remember these.

>> No.3194416

>>3194394
all dose poiple

all does hamboigahs

>> No.3194422

>banal descriptions
>boring presentation of character emotion
>tries to write about things he does not fully understand (like war)
There are more, but I don't really care enough to try to explain myself to a simpleton like OP. It should be noted that this is not even including his faults as an artist. He's clearly trying to milk every last penny from ASOIAF, it's embarrassing.

>> No.3194425

>>3194410
>I don't like people talking about books on the board for talking about books

>> No.3194430

>>3194339
> Will someone explain to me why George RR Martin's prose is considered "bad"

Firstly, and most importantly: using the noun 'prose' to mean 'style' marks you as a mouthbreathing troglodyte moron. Please stop.

Secondly, his quote-unquote 'prose' is not bad. He's bad because he writes generic soap opera in a poorly-researched faux-medieval setting. It's the worst kind of pandering and intellectual midgetery.

>> No.3194432

>>3194425
Literature =! books.

>> No.3194435

>>3194422
>He's clearly trying to milk every last penny from ASOIAF, it's embarrassing.
Which might even be ok in some aspect if he was actually a good writer, but he is not.

>> No.3194438

>>3194425
I don't like people talking about bad books on the board for talking about literature

>> No.3194439

>>3194432
Oh, please. I'm not gonna claim Neil Gaiman or ASOIAF are fucking "literature", but where the hell else am I gonna talk about this shit? Get off your elitist high horse and deal with the "pleb" threads along with your endless fucking philosophy threads.

>> No.3194440

>>3194430
speaking of intellectual midgetry
>mouthbreathing troglodyte moron.
>Please stop.
>quote-unquote 'prose'

I hope you are a woman....

>> No.3194443

First off, I like his way of story telling. The way he off's characters left and right as soon as I get emotionally attached to them is something that needs to happen more often. Also, he has strong character development, blah blah blah. SO he does have strengths as a story teller.
As far as a prose writer... he uses a lot of similar, common terms that could be replaced with words that have stronger meaning. Also, there are a few plot holes and other inaccuracies for the sake of drawing out the conflict of the several king's war that detract from the whole experience (Refer to Mark Twain's "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses" for a similar example of this).
The story he tells is a very good one. The method in the way it is delivered somewhat detracts from the story itself.

>> No.3194445

>>3194439

>>>/b/
>>>/tg/
>>>/co/

>> No.3194448
File: 86 KB, 500x547, jimmydreams.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3194448

>>3194439
>where the hell else am I gonna talk about this shit?
Reddit.

>> No.3194450

>>3194430
In what ways are his books poorly researched?

>> No.3194453

>>3194439
>>>/book/
Either that or >>>/tg/. It's not elitism, at least not any more than the Otaku board is elitist for not being about Japan, or the Handsome Men board for not being about homework.

>> No.3194454

>>3194425
>I don't like people starting the same thread every single day about the same pop fantasy books that will be replaced by something else equally forgettable in a few years

This is a slow board. It wouldn't even be a big deal but this trash is posted her every god damn day and threads last a long, long time here. I remember when The Hunger Games came out there were three threads for it on the first page. And then the faggot plebs say shit like "you don't even defend your opinion your just mad its easy to read and excellent"

>> No.3194458

>>3194450
They're accurate like those American "renaissance fairs". That's being unfair to the books, but it's not far off.

>> No.3194459

>>3194453
a better analogy would be if only one specific type of men were allowed to be talked about and people bitched incessantly if anyone posted a picture of man that didnt fit their tastes regardless of the fact that many other people like that man

>> No.3194464

>>3194430

>his quote-unquote 'prose' is not bad.

relative to literature his prose is awful

>> No.3194465

>>3194413
There was one two days ago.

>> No.3194470

>>3194459
Not really. It'd be like if someone posted a celebrity like Brad Pitt, and then whined that Brad is really popular and they were all elitist for not wanting to masturbate about him too.

>> No.3194475

>>3194430
>quote-unquote

I hate you

>> No.3194478

>>3194470
So what youre saying is we cant talk about Martin because he is popular. Are you hearing yourself type nigger?

>> No.3194480

>>3194470
Not really. It'd be like if someone wanted to talk about wwf or mma on /sp/ and then whined about /sp/ being elitist snobs for calling them a faggot

>> No.3194481

>>3194391
Can you spot the irony in this post?

>> No.3194482

>>3194478
>not being able to follow the threads of an argument

>> No.3194483

>>3194478
Who's talking about popularity? If anything the implication is that GRRM is not popular here, and you should get over it.

>> No.3194490

>>3194413
Thats becausedun dun dun youre the author in question.

>> No.3194493

>>3194483
Brad Pit = popularity you retard

>> No.3194501

>>3194458
In point of fact, GRRM does quite a lot of research into heraldry and medieval warfare, and the series as a whole is based on the history of the wars of the roses.

>> No.3194500

>>3194493
I see you're in your own little world and not actually part of this back and forth.

>> No.3194499

>>3194440
> can't unto prose style on a literature board, all the while not understanding the literal meaning of the word 'literature'

Go die in a fire, boy.

>> No.3194502

>>3194490
You mean I'm J K Rowling??

>> No.3194516

>>3194499
the worst thing is that he comes over here and pretends to know more than us. It's like constantly having an idiot call you retarded.

>> No.3194523

>>3194501
> research into heraldry and medieval warfare

This has approximately 0% relevance to accurately portraying a medieval world.

> wars of the roses

Firstly, the Wars of the Roses happened in the 15th century, during the Renaissance.

Confusing the Renaissance era with the Medieval is the first and dumbest mistake you can make if you don't do your research properly.

Secondly, the Wars of the Roses are an entry-level high-school tier history topic. Basing your medieval fantasy on the Wars of the Roses is like basing a native-american fantasy novel on your interpretation of 'Hiawatha'.

>> No.3194531

>>3194523
>Secondly, the Wars of the Roses are an entry-level high-school tier history topic.
This is such a stupid thing to say. Why did you say it?

>> No.3194532

>>3194501
That's unfair. I'm not saying he doesn't do a lot of research, but he built a world which basically explains all the shit he can't explain himself as a form of deus ex machia.
>Shit, I really needed Catlynn as a character
>I know! I'll make her come back to life!
>I'll also make her a zombie and mute, so people think I'm edgy.
And /r9k/ wets its panties.

>> No.3194534

Good and bad just like everything in the arts goes more or less like this: If it's innovative for its time, it's a plus. If it's highly technical and academic OR abstract and hard to understand, it's a plus (supposedly it's very "rich" and full of "depth"). If the authors, in their extra literary lives, embellish everything they do with "profound" philosophical quotes or pose as intellectuals at the forefront of some movement, that shit's gonna get celebrated. Scholars love that. They can write lots of books about that. And so on.

>> No.3194552

>>3194532
I agree with you. As a counterpoint: if you're looking for an example of a fantasy writer that uses his research to good effect, it's Robert Jordan.

>> No.3194577

>>3194531
>This is such a stupid thing to say. Why did you say it?

Because it's true. The Wars of the Roses is a trite and overrated topic that has overrepresented in popular media since at least Shakespeare's time.

For god's sake, if you want "inspiration" about political intrigue and epic battles for power, read "the Romance of the Three Kingdoms" already.

>> No.3194596

Well you see OP I'm a fucking faggot who spent too many years in awful classes overanalyzing even the most basic novels and now my brain is broken so bad that I can't read anything unless it's purple and flowery.

>> No.3194600

>>3194532

>the technique used to bring cat back to life was shown and alluded to many times before it happened to her
>the guy who did it to her was a man of exceptional character and a good friend to the starks and baratheons

Deus ex machina my dick.

>> No.3194609

>>3194600
>Deus ex machina my dick.

You don't understand what 'deus ex machina' means.

>> No.3196820

>>3194600
jew sex machine my dick!

>> No.3196902

The books are entertaining, but that is about it. His writing style is nothing special at all in my opinion.
I don't hate him, but his stuff is purely entertainment in my opinion. I can get entertainment from other books too. Reading War and Peace by Tolstoy is even more entertaining to me than GRRM.

Basically I am not only entertained by reading about action packed literature. I am entertained by well written stories, great style, realistic characters and good writing in general. I am reading Doctor Shivago right now and even though I am only 100 pages in, the book is way more entertaining and interesting to me than GoT.

But I am not going to say the books suck and by no means saying, that people who read them are idiots, too each its own. There is just stuff, that is more interesting too and that actually makes me think. If I want easy entertainment I spent a movie night with my friends, watch a stupid movie and drink some beers.