I heard that he's actually an objectively good author. That the characters are well written and so on. Is this true?

File: 186 KB, 618x453, george-rr-martin-author.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jun 6 22:29:30 2013 No.3829497 [Reply] [Original]

I heard that he's actually an objectively good author. That the characters are well written and so on.

Is this true?

>>	sage sage Thu Jun 6 22:30:30 2013 No.3829500 bad troll. saged.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 22:32:29 2013 No.3829504 D&E where r u

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 22:32:29 2013 No.3829505 >>3829504 who?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 22:34:29 2013 No.3829508 >>>/tv/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 22:42:30 2013 No.3829542 File: 47 KB, 957x266, a song of shit and crap.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 22:43:29 2013 No.3829546 >>3829542 i thought that was pretty good

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 22:44:29 2013 No.3829550 >>3829542 >A warhorn blew. Haroooooooooooooooooooooooo, it cried lel gets me everytime

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:04:29 2013 No.3829602 File: 127 KB, 500x282, hodor.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3829497 Yea his prose are legit as shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:04:29 2013 No.3829605 >>3829542 This is exactly why I stopped reading these shitty books. Really enjoying the HBO series, though. And I say that as a big reader.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:06:29 2013 No.3829612 >>3829542 what's wrong with that passage?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:08:29 2013 No.3829622 >>3829612 da-DA, da-DA, da-DA

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:11:29 2013 No.3829628 >>3829622 >hurrr the horns make sounds I don't like the passage is shit

Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:21:30 2013 No.3829649

I think he started good, but his series really goes downhill.
I wouldn't say he's the best writer--and he has his flaws--but he really paints a scene well.
There's also a lot of foreshadowing, symbolism and motifs in his books. That "Bear at the Maiden Fair" song stands as a good example.
And to all of you people that squeeze one off to Hemmingway, there's certainly a general theme on the evils of romanticism where war is concerned.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:25:30 2013 No.3829662 >>3829497 He's no Cormac McCarthy

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:30:29 2013 No.3829676 >>3829662 McCarthy was no Faulkner. Faulkner was no Joyce. In either case I would rate GRRM's writing as above average and his shaft Kafkaesque

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:35:29 2013 No.3829687 Brandon Sanderson

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:45:29 2013 No.3829716 >>3829505 The smartest person ever to post on 4chan

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:46:29 2013 No.3829720 >>3829687 Sanderson writes like shit but will probably be entrusted with finishing this series when George dies from a massive heart attack.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:47:29 2013 No.3829722 >>3829676 and Joyce was no Homer

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:51:30 2013 No.3829741 >>3829722 And Homer was no Barbara Cartland

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:53:29 2013 No.3829746 >>3829741 Go to bed, Barbara

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 6 23:54:29 2013 No.3829749 >>3829741 and Barbara Cartland was no Christopher Paolini

Anonymous Fri Jun 7 00:00:29 2013 No.3829783

>>3829749
Christopher Paolini is truly the voice of this generation and an author whose words will echo through future generations to come. He has definitely displaced dated children's classics such as Through the Looking Glass and The Chronicles of Narnia with his recent masterwork.

Reading Paolini is like hearing the Beatles for the first time or viewing the Sistine Chapel.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 00:02:29 2013 No.3829788 >>3829749 >>Reading Paolini One does not read Paolini, one experiences Paolini and is transformed by the event. It can really only be compared to coming face to face with God.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 00:03:29 2013 No.3829790 Saduharu O was no O. Henry. O. Henry was no Henry James. Henry James was no James Joyce. James Joyce was no Joyce Kilmer. Joyce Kilmer was no Val Kilmer. wait, i screwed up

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 00:03:29 2013 No.3829794 >>3829783 >>Reading Paolini One does not read Paolini, one experiences Paolini and is transformed by the event. It can really only be compared to coming face to face with God.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 00:05:29 2013 No.3829796 >>3829788 The first time i experienced Eragon, my eyes were opened for the first time. Finally I knew why I was walking this earth. Thank you Paolini.

Sange !Fde5Qjfb5g Fri Jun 7 00:20:30 2013 No.3829836

His style lacks elegance, and there are many passages that make for easy targets, but the work as a whole is quiet impressive and deserves the credit that it gets. Pretty much, he is great building worlds, building suspense, developing characters, and brings many different plot lines together. So what if his prose is a bit trashy, by my count he still hit four out of five.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 00:23:29 2013 No.3829845 >>3829794 >implying that Paolini isn't God

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 00:24:29 2013 No.3829846 >>3829602 Lol that was a chapter from the point of view of a mentally deficient individual

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 00:25:29 2013 No.3829850 >>3829836 I agree with this post.

>>	Sange !Fde5Qjfb5g Fri Jun 7 00:30:29 2013 No.3829859 >>3829602 lol is that a real chapter? I didn't get to that part yet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 00:47:29 2013 No.3829885 >>3829602 That's not real...

Anonymous Fri Jun 7 08:39:30 2013 No.3830609

>>3829836
This post is pretty much spot on, except on top of all that I would add the whole 'the individual as a drop in society's/history's ocean' theme and approach is what Martin does best of all. To me that's what really makes this series stand out. Too bad about the inconsistency of the writing, but when there's so much else going for the books it's easy to look past that.

>>3829605
The tv show is kind of shitty man, not even comparable with the books.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 08:43:30 2013 No.3830624 >>3829628 hurr anyhtgin sousssnd dump wen misspelld hurr

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 09:01:31 2013 No.3830643 >>3829836 > Developing character I really didn't found any proper character developement within first two thousand or so pages

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 09:29:30 2013 No.3830701 Why do so many women read his stuff? Fantasy has always tended to be a male thing (and before someone finds some obscure fantasy novel written for women I'm talking about GOOD fantasy.)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 09:32:30 2013 No.3830710 >>3830701 Lots of sex in the show? I haven't seen it, but that could be the reason. Plus, all the supernatural romantic/erotic lit women have been going crazy over lately might be pushing some of them to check out fantasy novels of a different variety.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 09:37:30 2013 No.3830730 >>3830701 Because GRRM shoehorns stupid romantic subplots and gratuitous sex scenes in there, as well as including STRONG INDEPENDENT WARRIOR WOMYN WHO DON'T NEED NO KING.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 09:41:30 2013 No.3830739 >MUH GREY CHARACTERS

Anonymous Fri Jun 7 09:44:30 2013 No.3830745

>>3830701

Except this literally isn't true at fucking all, and shows how little you know about fantasy as phenomenon. Fantasy for greasy female nerds has been a thing since Marion Zimmer Bradley and probably before, to say that fantasy has always tended to be a male thing is to ignore the last thirty years and the huge uptick in fantasy's commercial appeal over that time.

Anonymous Fri Jun 7 09:48:30 2013 No.3830752

feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces feces

Anonymous Fri Jun 7 09:49:30 2013 No.3830755

>>3830745

>Bradley's feminist interests are also evident in her recent non-Darkover novel, The Mists of Avalon (1982). This novel, which retells the Arthurian legend from the viewpoint of the women involved, has received considerable critical attention.

>An undercurrent of feminism runs throughout the Darkover series. Bradley frequently examines sex roles and the limitations they place on the individual. One of the most notable examples of this idea occurs in The Shattered Chain (1976). Revolving around the struggles of three women for independence and self-realization, this novel explores both the necessity of choice and the inevitable pain and hardship that result from the freedom to choose.

I said GOOD fantasy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 09:52:31 2013 No.3830761 >>3829542 >HAROOOOOOOOOOOOOO, it cried >da-DAAAAAAA >fluttering in his bowels >his huge sword >Shagga This is unbelievably bad.

Anonymous Fri Jun 7 09:53:31 2013 No.3830764

>>3830755

I don't give a fuck whether you find her trash good or not, my point is that to say "fantasy is a male thing" could not be further from the truth and has a lot more to do with the once-extreme gender-segregation of nerd communities on the internet than it does with any actual trend in fantasy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 09:55:31 2013 No.3830769 >>3830764 >I don't care about replying to your actual statement >I just want to post unrelated shit >>> I don't even know what board to send you to.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 10:11:31 2013 No.3830793 I think you mean after critical evaluation rather than 'objectively' pal. Either way, you're wrong. >>3829716 He was certainly thought provoking

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 10:14:30 2013 No.3830794 >>3830769 Jesus, you're a moron. Not the person you're replying to. Fuck off to where you came from.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 10:16:30 2013 No.3830797 >>3830761 Shagga, Chella and Tyrione: fantasy in da hood.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 13:12:30 2013 No.3831357 >>3830761 and what have YOU written that is so much better than gurm's stuff?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 13:17:31 2013 No.3831371 >>3831357 Childish argument. "Why don't you show it if you know so well?" is ridiculous of course. Whether or not you're capable of critical evaluation has nothing to do with your ability to create said art.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 13:36:30 2013 No.3831433 >>3830643 What's your idea of 'character development'? It's seemingly become another vague buzzword tossed around as though the person using it actually means anything beyond the word as it were.

>>	Metatron !dBkgKirino Fri Jun 7 13:39:31 2013 No.3831442 >>3829497 He's no Jonathan Franzen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 22:33:31 2013 No.3832789 >>3830730 Why do you even bother? Your entire post is bullshit. Stop regurgitating the crap you read on /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 22:47:31 2013 No.3832801 >>3829612 Get out.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 22:50:30 2013 No.3832804 >>3832801 No you get out. >>3831371 >>3830761 So are most cherry picked passages. A book's value, and especially the asoiaf series, comes from the overall experience, not a bloody paragraph.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 23:00:30 2013 No.3832814 >>3832804 >anon shows example of terrible writing >Well geeze one paragraph doesn't define the experience You're right, he should have uploaded an image of the entire text.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 23:03:31 2013 No.3832819 >>3832804 It's still poorly written

Anonymous Fri Jun 7 23:04:31 2013 No.3832821

>>3831442
>He's no Jonathan Franzen.

No, GRRM writes memorable things.

Fuck, dude, I don't even like GRRM's slop, and you made me post in his favour. I hope you're just joking around.

Choosing Franzen over GRRM is like picking Beastmaster II on Cinemax over Beastmaster I on Showtime at 2am.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 7 23:20:30 2013 No.3832885 >>3832819 I'm not denying that, but judging the entire series from the prose of one paragraph is ridiculous.

Anonymous Fri Jun 7 23:22:30 2013 No.3832892

The characters are very well-molded, I think that's his strength and the strength of the series. Every character, even some of the minor ones, is very distinct and memorable. However, hardly any of them have any (good) development. He also is pretty poor at handling plot. Character X has to wait for Character Y to do his part before he can make his own advancement of the plot, and thus a lot of the books are spent with both the reader and the characters waiting for something to happen. Which can be boring.

I wouldn't call him good, but I wouldn't call him bad.

Anonymous Fri Jun 7 23:44:30 2013 No.3832944

>>3832892
>He also is pretty poor at handling plot.
Shit, I think he's fantastic with plot. It's refreshing and impressive to see an approach more in line with the grand, I guess decentralized, not necessarily 'logical' model that real history tends to follow, rather than a straight linear structure where plot is far more conventional. I love how every intriguing person and great occurrence is revealed to be rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

>However, hardly any of them have any (good) development.
They way he writes characters is more concerned with how they think and react to the situations and environments they're in more than any significant arcs they go through. Any character development is due to events imposed on characters, and it isn't always positive, which can be quite amazing to see.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:15:30 2013 No.3832984 >>3830794 Yes you are the person he's replying to. No, you're the moron.

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:22:30 2013 No.3832990

What are you comparing GRRM to?

In terms of other Fantasy authors, he's easily one of the best.

In terms of literature as a whole, he fails miserably and no one should ever take his works seriously at all, since they have no redeeming literary qualities.

Of course, neither does any other Fantasy series, so there's that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:34:30 2013 No.3833012 His books are too popular, they're fantasy, and you can't feel smug for reading them. Therefore they're shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:35:30 2013 No.3833014 >>3830730 >STRONG INDEPENDENT WARRIOR WOMYN WHO DON'T NEED NO KING. top lol. too bad that doesn't happen anywhere in the series.

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:36:30 2013 No.3833015

Every summer I tend to read a lot of fantasy. Something about the long sunny days, laying in the grass while the wind blows through the trees. Anyway, this summer I've started to read ASOIAF. I finished game of Thrones in about 2 weeks, and I'm on pace to finish Clash of Kings in 10 days. So I can't really talk about his prose further down the series, but the point I am at:

If you don't like fantasy, you're not going to like GRRM. If you like fantasy, its very pleasant and entertaining reading. If youre going to get butthurt over some character doing something you dont think they should do, youre not going to like him.

The plot as people have said isn't the most linear, there really aren't clearly delineated bad guys and good guys. You can read the stories without thinking that much, but if you want to think, there is plenty of depth to it. (A sign of good fiction).

I guess when people say 'objectively a good author' they refer to the quality of the storytelling rather than the story itself. I would say he has a great story, and he's a good story teller. His story could be worse and he could be a better writer, and it would be more readable. These two facets are linked, but being good at one doesn't necessitate being good at the other.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:39:30 2013 No.3833018 >>3833014 Sansa

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:40:30 2013 No.3833019 File: 51 KB, 549x549, t.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >being this threatened by an author that is doing something that none of you will ever accomplish in your life time

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:42:31 2013 No.3833023 >>3833018 >Opposite day.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:43:31 2013 No.3833026 >>3833019 It's called a palate, maybe you should get one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:44:31 2013 No.3833028 Insecure /lit/rejects are being jerks >>>/tv/33931968 s-sorry /lit/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:44:31 2013 No.3833032 File: 48 KB, 490x490, bastard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3833026 spoken like a true butthurt /lit/ fag

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:49:31 2013 No.3833044 File: 16 KB, 400x109, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3833028 rejects? I've spent like 5 minutes tops in /lit/ in all my life. you guys are worse than lebbit when it comes to groupthink. and that's saying A LOT.

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:50:31 2013 No.3833045

The series is pretty average. People claim to hate it because you can only take so much of being completely underwhelmed by a series that everyone won't shut the fuck up about and subsequently being accused by a bunch of overzealous fanboys that your claim of dislike is not based on the fact that it wasn't good, but for various asinine reasons that could only be concluded by said overzealous fanboys after a series of rationalizing mental acrobatics, because the thought that maybe, just maybe, the series isn't as good as they've heralded it is apparently too much for them to cope with.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 00:53:30 2013 No.3833052 >>3829783 >the fucking beatles >>>/b/ >>>/plebtown/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 01:01:30 2013 No.3833064 File: 31 KB, 400x247, girls_laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >objectively good >this is what /lit/ actually believes

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 01:09:30 2013 No.3833074 >>3833018 What the fucking hell. You know, I was half russing you when I asked who, because there are two characters who match this "OMG WOMEN ON THE TOP WE NEED NO MEN" trope..... However..... Sansa is nowhere near the answer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 01:09:30 2013 No.3833075 >>3833052 oh yeah Beatles, Who, the list could go on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 01:10:30 2013 No.3833077 >not liking ASOIAF Trying too hards

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 01:12:30 2013 No.3833079 Anyone have that picture comparing ASOIAF to The Great Gatsby?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 01:27:30 2013 No.3833092 >>3833045 Everybody read this. It is the truth. Bask in its unadulterated glory.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 01:34:30 2013 No.3833098 >>3830730 Breinne and Sansa are decent POV's.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 15:03:31 2013 No.3834387 >>3833098 >sansa not needing a king I am only in the first bowels of book 3 but so far sansa is willing to give up her vag for to a cripple Lord to escape sssooo.... I don't think she is in Breinne's category.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 15:24:30 2013 No.3834442 >>3834387 >sansa is willing to give up her vag for to a cripple Lord to escape HARD HITTING AND INSIGHTFUL DRAMA

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 15:28:30 2013 No.3834446 >>3834442 BURRRRP BURRRRP MUH PROUD LITRAIRY TRUHDITIONS MOBI DICK N ADA YURRR SHURLEY SULLIN MUH PROUD LITRAIRY TRUHDITIONS MUH DONKEYHOETEE MUH DOSTOEKSKI PROUD! PROUD!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 15:34:30 2013 No.3834460 >>3829497 > objectively > Implying an opinion can be objective. This will never stop being hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 15:45:30 2013 No.3834495 >>3833012 THIS

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:04:30 2013 No.3834542 File: 141 KB, 1024x683, Royal Favor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3829497 I really enjoy his characters and the world he creates.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:06:30 2013 No.3834549 >>3833015 Agree completely

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:08:30 2013 No.3834556 >>3834542 Who is that girl?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:09:30 2013 No.3834562 >>3834556 It's Dany

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:11:30 2013 No.3834573

The world he creates is so big though.
There's so much going on in it and that's the kind of thing I like, however you have no idea how he can end it, with everything happening in the next book - The Winds of Winters, there is going to be some serious happenings because there's only one book after that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:25:30 2013 No.3834638 >>3833045 >stop liking what I don't like

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:28:30 2013 No.3834648 >>3834638 >clinging to reddit tier phrases because you like stupid shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:30:30 2013 No.3834657 File: 41 KB, 500x500, thefuckyoufuckingfuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3829602 Wow are you stupid?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:31:30 2013 No.3834662 >>3833045 Spot on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:32:30 2013 No.3834666 >>3834648 I just think it's stupid to allow other people's interests to drive you to the point of hatred. Learn to deal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:35:31 2013 No.3834673 >>3834666 The problem is that you think the hate is directed at you rather than the work itself. Stop being a narcissist. Nobody gives a shit what you like, even if what you like is shit

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:41:30 2013 No.3834691

>>3829497
the story is good. the lore is in depth and well thought out. many of the characters are well written.

the characters that aren't well written though, have some serious problems. he doesn't, on the whole, write women very well / consistently. the sexual content often seems shoehorned and out of place, like dropping bad erotica in the middle of a news article about the middle east.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:44:30 2013 No.3834696 >>3834673 It's NOT shit, but instead of arguing why, deriving examples from the books and insight into exactly why I enjoyed them, im just gonna go ahead and call you a hater.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 16:53:31 2013 No.3834721 It's pretty good for the first three books. But the fourth and the fifth books were horrendous, you can really see that he has no idea what he's doing anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:06:30 2013 No.3834776 >>3834562 Is this when they crossed the dessert and ended up in that town with dead bodies?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:10:30 2013 No.3834785 mostly of what I read here is 'hurrdurr'

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:16:30 2013 No.3834800

>>3829720
>but will probably be entrusted with finishing this series when George dies from a massive heart attack.
No he doesn't write about sex and nudity remember?
I don't think he can write all the sex scene which lets be honest made the series, at least on tv a HUGE hit. Sex and Nudity along with hype = great success.
The mainstream only likes this because of the "boobs" as i commonly hear.
Brandon is for people who are devoted, you don't get nudity or sex but you walk away with a great story.
That is all a fantasy book is for enjoyment and a great story all you fucking pseudo intellectual e/lit/ist that claim poor prose = a bad book needs to gtfo.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:20:31 2013 No.3834809 >>3829497 No.

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:21:31 2013 No.3834810

>>3829836
I'd say this is about as close as it gets.
GRRM isn't even my favorite fantasy author, but his only real problems are his prose and edginess. Even then, his edginess is what makes him iconic and his prose are sometimes decent.
He writes a decent, interesting story, decent characters, two important things that /lit/ forgets in general in favor of prose and thematic ideas (which don't make a good story, but rather a good book).
Still, DwD is still an undeniable heap of shit which I haven't finished despite owning it for nearly a year now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:22:30 2013 No.3834816 >>3834776 It's either that or the House of the Undying scene. Or neither. I don't know. God, I fucking hate fan art.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:22:30 2013 No.3834818 Well, I couldn't even properly start reading Wildcards, almost puked, so I'm guessing he is not always good as in asoiaf But i really like asoiaf

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:25:30 2013 No.3834827 >>3834818 >Wild Cards >Bad What made you puke, the Sleeper's chapter. Wild Cards is GRRM's best work, though. The Turtle's chapter in book two hit me right in the feels.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:27:30 2013 No.3834832 >>3832990 even lotr is bad?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:27:30 2013 No.3834833 >>3834800 prose is, like, 90% of what a book is. If most of it is turgid bowels, the book's gonna be a slog. Sorry

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:29:31 2013 No.3834836 >>3833045 periods, please

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:30:31 2013 No.3834839

>>3830761
Not even going to touch the onomatopoeia. Even if he does that badly, that rarely occurs in his books.

Shagga is a fucking name, so, no, that's not unbelievably bad.

>fluttering in his bowels

what's wrong with this? Is it gritty? Yes. But that's because gritty is what makes the series. Its not an uplifting song. It deals with real human bodies. Real human bodies, when they are nervous, feel the need to piss and shit.

>his huge sword

This is pretty sub-par description, but its better to have a quick description to move forward. That is what happens in a lot of ASOIAF. He doesn't give extreme detail to very unimportant parts of the narrative. Very anti-Tolkien. I don't know whether its because he wants to stray from the "Amerian Tolkein" description or what, but its appreciable when he tries to keep his books on track.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:32:30 2013 No.3834844 >>3834839 fluttering is a poor choice if you're trying to be gritty >He doesn't give extreme detail to very unimportant parts of the narrative. ha

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:33:30 2013 No.3834849 >>3834844 Why?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:37:30 2013 No.3834857 Could someone pretty please post the picture of listing all the books you could read in the same amount of pages as the Game of Thrones series

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:37:30 2013 No.3834859

>>3829497

GRRM's prose reminds me of a piece of investigative journalism. It might be a little descriptive here or there (but not too much), might employ a simile or metaphor here or there (but nothing too unconventional), but mostly it just communicates what happened to who and where, possibly also why.

But hey, it's a fairly interesting piece of journalism, I care somewhat about what he's reporting on. So whatever.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:52:31 2013 No.3834894 >>3834859 I wouldn't compare Martin's prose to journalism. McCarthy and Hemingway write/wrote like journalists.

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 17:56:30 2013 No.3834915

>>3834894

Investigative journalism, not just straight journalism. Investigative tends to have a bit more flair to it than regular newspaper journalism. Think like, Time, or a feature in The New Yorker (which might not be investigative journalism always, but is about the level of journalism I'm talking about), or something like that.

And Hemingway didn't write like a journalist, not really. He just took stylistic cues from his work as a journalist, but I don't think any actual journalist could get away with writing like Hemingway.

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 18:19:30 2013 No.3834985

>>3829497

I don't credit him with good characters and a passing narrative because these things are delivered with prose ranging from bland to nasty. We don't call a writer good simply because he can structure a story. We further require that he write it well. Mr. Martin does not write it well, even if you insist the story itself is sound. On that note, I don't credit him with an interesting setting (Westeros) because it's a cut/paste of all those horrid medieval cliches, somewhat restyled in purely cosmetic ways as I have come to expect in all contemporary fantasy. To this last point; I don't mind some historical borrowing, but I insist that there be some of the author's own genius. Off the top of my head, I can not recall a single thing peculiar to his series or even a peculiar take on the old things. If I were to grant that his magical whatsits were peculiar, I would surely have to call anything magical in any series peculiar. It is a very mechanical plot device and I shall not credit it as a quality addition - rather a *qualifying* one for the genre.

The above notwithstanding, I apparently read every single one of his books...so. The only excuse I can offer for this is that I find it relaxing to read this sort of genre literature while winding down, and it requires next to no deep thinking. I mean that less as an insult and more as a qualifier for why I find it relaxing.

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 18:29:30 2013 No.3835009
File: 30 KB, 406x441, cantletyoudothatstarfox.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3829497
>Objectively good
Holy fuck, lit, you call yourselves thinkers?
Jesus Christ this is fucking pathetic.
I'm going back to /b/ where people aren't this fucking stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 18:39:31 2013 No.3835035 >>3835009 Apparently they're more easily trolled though.

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 19:20:30 2013 No.3835141

>>3834985
>I don't credit him with good characters and a passing narrative because these things are delivered with prose ranging from bland to nasty.

This seems like a very specific or even blinkered way of looking at literature. His characters are rendered through the creation of the events they find themselves in more than anything ie setting and plot are often as much focal points for Martin's ideas as his characters are. While his prose is stylistically unremarkable, it does succeed at things like literal descriptions, internal monologues, and dialogue. His characters are terrific not because of the quality of Martin's language explicitly revealing their thoughts and emotions with mind blowing writing, but because of how they perceive and react to the events and situations they find themselves in. Their actions and the actions levelled at them are where you consider their depth of writing, I think. Saying prose is the be all end all aspect of literature is going to limit you from seeing what many books can achieve.

Regarding his world, I don't understand how anyone can call it an uninteresting cut/paste of cliches. It feels so ridiculously alive. All the different houses and families that rise and fall and are replaced by others to repeat the process make the theme of the ebb and flow of fortune something quite fascinating to watch unfold. More than most authors, Martin's setting feels as important as any of the human characters. The individual stories/arcs of characters are each very memorable and unique partly because they explore a different aspect of or take on Martin's world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 19:23:30 2013 No.3835146 >>3835009 >a non-/lit/friends makes an OP on /lit/ >LYL LIT UR FUCKEN STUMB Please be forever gone.

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 19:54:31 2013 No.3835237

>>3835141

The idea of delivering a story and its cast in a certain medium demands that they be delivered well in that medium. Otherwise, the particular product in question can rightly be called bad. If beauty in style is absent in the written medium, it can only be forgiven if the point of the selection was practical. I indicted his series as practical for my personal relaxation, so it was worth the read (for me). That is still not to say it is good literature. The kindest thing I can say is that it is functional literature for the aforementioned purpose.

Forgive me, but being familiar with the analogous historical period(s), I could find nothing fascinating about the here-and-there doings of a suspiciously familiar selection of houses and power-games. It isn't that different families playing for supremacy can't be interesting, but his entire structure is so blatantly based on the War of the Roses that it's hard for me not to find it samey.

To summarize my sentiment; I don't mind seeing historical borrowing or well-worn ideas, so long as a personal flare is added. It seemed to me that there was no personal flare to distinguish it from an as-such restyling of the aforementioned conflict - no beauty of prose or challenging of established ideas. The second half of my post is necessarily more subjective than the first. Take that as you like.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 20:02:32 2013 No.3835254 Is it a coincidence that the guys whose logo is a squid have the saying "That which is dead can never die" ? It seems a bit cvthulian.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 20:04:31 2013 No.3835259 His prose is weak. There are some interesting characters. It's worth reading for the plot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 20:05:31 2013 No.3835263 >>3835254 Also how the fuck does their summer/winter cycle work? What sort of orbit and rotation is their planet doing?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 20:09:31 2013 No.3835272 >>3835254 Not a coincidence. Inspired by Lovecraft. >>3835263 It's never gone into. Ignore the science. It's not about science.

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 20:17:31 2013 No.3835290

>>3835272
I don't want to ignore the science.
Why doesn't the temperature of the climate correspond to the latitude? The ice in the north extends significantly further south in the east than the west, and the Red Wastes just end on their western side. Beyond which is a huge forest growing in the middle of nowhere, miles from any rivers.
None of it makes any sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 20:23:32 2013 No.3835310 >>3835290 So?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 20:27:31 2013 No.3835318 >>3835310 So the world is very badly built. He didn't even bother to establish the foundations of his story.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 20:38:31 2013 No.3835339 >>3835290 >>3835318 And there's no such thing as dragons of Other (I suspect he just made the latter up!) either! What a bunch of horseshit this fantasy book is

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 20:47:31 2013 No.3835353

>>3835339

Then how come I'm not complaining about Ursula le Guinn?
Look, the skill in world-building is to get it so it makes sense. If you're going to bend the rules of reality in this genre just for plot you have to have an explanation for it.
>hurr but it's fiction
Is as pathetic a cop-out as
>hurr anything is art
Yes, sure it is technically, but it's also shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 21:06:32 2013 No.3835378 >>3835353 You strike me as very sad individual. Get over it, seriously. You're reading trash. Treat it as trash or stop reading.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 21:07:32 2013 No.3835379 >>3835378 I'm not reading it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 21:09:32 2013 No.3835386 >>3835379 Good. Now please fuck off, because no one cares that the science of Westeros isn't quite up to snuff.

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 21:15:32 2013 No.3835398
File: 401 KB, 787x1200, the-science-of-discworld-ii-the-globe-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3835386

What are you doing on a literature board if you have no interest in the integrity of writing?
Even The Elder Scrolls has a better developed world than GRRM's.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 21:31:32 2013 No.3835436 File: 603 KB, 1059x1006, someonehadtosayit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Everyone doubting the genius of GRRM's work needs to read this image.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 21:43:33 2013 No.3835458 >thinking worldbuilding is everything to do with fiction >being an escapist pleb

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 21:49:33 2013 No.3835464 >>3835458 >not being able to read

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 21:50:32 2013 No.3835465 >>3835458 You'd think everyone would have learned by now the only subject worthy of fictional representation is XVII-XX century bourgeoisie, amirite?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 8 21:56:32 2013 No.3835478 >>3830643 The development of Jaime's character is the best.

Anonymous Sat Jun 8 22:01:32 2013 No.3835495

>>3835478

Perfect example of how someone that everyone else sees as a traitorous douche can be a fully-realized person with motivations, fears and desires.

In Jaime's mind, he did nothing wrong in killing the mad king. He realizes he's done some bad things but he did the all for love, which in his mind justifies it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 01:59:32 2013 No.3835977 File: 113 KB, 700x910, yousackofsuet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3829497 He really is.

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 05:06:32 2013 No.3836216

>>3835237
>Otherwise, the particular product in question can rightly be called bad.
Again, this is so incredibly dismissive and simplistic. Thematic concepts, emotion, introspection, plain use of imagination; these are not entirely reliant on quality of prose. Martin proves that true, at least for some of these things. 'Beauty of style' may be the most obvious conduit for what a book has to say, but it certainly isn't the only one. That's why I feel the need to read both literary and genre works, because I need the full range of strengths at literature's disposal.

>I could find nothing fascinating about the here-and-there doings of a suspiciously familiar selection of houses and power-games.
Then this boils purely down to taste. I appreciate it doesn't hit home with everyone, but I still can't help myself asking why not.

>but his entire structure is so blatantly based on the War of the Roses that it's hard for me not to find it samey.
The work is in many regards *supposed* to be 'samey'; Martin wasn't inspired by the War of the Roses in the sense that he was hoping no one would spot the influence; it's a very loose retelling, no confusion intended. The power plays and politics of his families and houses appeal to me because of my interest in the history and politics of the analogous period, but the appeal isn't automatically guaranteed. Martin's individual contribution to this setting are things such as his impressive level detail, his look at institutions of power, a particularly cynical view of people as subject to the forces as a result of these institutions, people as pieces of a larger game, so to speak. Thematic conventions more that technical skill, and that goes back to the beginning of my post; Martin's ideas come through despite his writing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 05:18:32 2013 No.3836235 >>3829542 Highbrow lit: >the horns blowed >everyone was concerned >the battle commenced >many died, but there was a day tomorrow too

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 05:21:32 2013 No.3836244

>>3835353
Christ dude, we don't even know what exists other than the portions of the two continents we've been given a glimpse of. Why does there have to be an explanation of the orbital characteristics of the planet a story takes place on? We the reader share the character's knowledge of their world. Surrender to the mystery of it, bathe in its wonder. Don't seek to question it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 05:42:33 2013 No.3836267 >>3830755 Why don't you take your goalpost and move it to a place where it will be appreciated? Up in your ass.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 05:46:32 2013 No.3836271 >>3835398 >Even The Elder Scrolls Elder Scrolls has a really unique and fleshed out world to it, though the games never quite reflect that. It's a terrible example to cite if what you were going for was a poorly developed fantasy setting.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 05:47:32 2013 No.3836275 >>3835436 /thread

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 05:50:32 2013 No.3836283

>>3836271
I was going for an example of a medium in which the setting is traditionally badly developed. That a game's setting is better thought out than such a popular books is a travesty.

>>3836244
If you don't want to question it, why do you care what happens in it at all?

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 06:15:32 2013 No.3836310

I've read a bunch of Fantasy novels since I was a kid and only started reading ASOIAF, due to the popular television series (which I didn't like), recently. I heard the books were better and I wanted to give it a chance; However, now that I've done some reading, I find his writing dull and boring. I'm not entirely sure if it's because I've read so many Fantasy books before, but when I read his novel, it just doesn't feel anything new to me, which in the end bores me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 06:19:32 2013 No.3836317 >>3836283 >If you don't want to question it, why do you care what happens in it at all? Because of the trials and tribulations of the people in that world? Like, hello?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 06:30:32 2013 No.3836329 >>3835436 >>3836275 Isn't James Joyce just trying to make the reader feel familiar with the setting as the character would? I am not sure why I'm even in /lit/. I had to google who James Joyce was.

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 06:33:33 2013 No.3836333

>>3836317
"What's going to happen?" is no less a question than "How does it work?".
I think "How does it work?" is far more important, because if it doesn't work in any particular way, it may as well be a random series of events, and that's not very interesting.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 07:11:32 2013 No.3836364 >>3836333 So before we understood how the weather functioned on this planet, all history may as well have been a series of random events?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 07:27:33 2013 No.3836383 >>3836364 Our planet is not a book, but yes, to all those living through history it has been quite unpredictable. Not a very compelling narrative, what it has is realistic characters, originality and absolutely no need for suspension of disbelief.

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 07:34:33 2013 No.3836389

>>3836383

>Our planet is not a book, but yes, to all those living through history it has been quite unpredictable.

Really. You said yes. So now that we know how weather works, history is entirely predictable and stable, yes? This is your retarded, autistic ass logic.

I would be very surprised if there is another person living who cares as much as you do about made up worlds' weather systems. It's really pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 07:37:33 2013 No.3836392 His writing has dramatically improved since the first book. He's an excellent storyteller too.

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 07:43:32 2013 No.3836394

>>3829542
A war horn sounded, chilling the air like a cold wind from the North. There was a silence, then a new sound filled the gap. The Lannisters returned and accepted the call to arms with a flutter of their own brass horns. The sound was unique to the South though felt out-of-place, considering how far north these virgin soldiers were. They were young men, no older than 25. “It would be a quick victory”, “the northerners are undisciplined”, they told themselves. The lies almost started to sound believable. Tyrion squirmed and wriggled in his saddle as he wiped at his brow – he was sweating, despite the chill of the air.

>I'm better than GRRM

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 07:44:32 2013 No.3836397
File: 31 KB, 400x533, Pierre-Simon_Laplace.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3836389

Again, our planet not being a book, we have other reasons to be interested in it. If a story has large, unaddressed plot holes then the whole thing loses integrity. These are quite broad strokes I'm making here, you're the one insisting on the fine details.

As it happens, we don't have perfect knowledge of the weather. If we ever do, I imagine perfect knowledge of absolutely everything else would come with it, yes.

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 07:49:32 2013 No.3836403

>>3836397

An oddly functioning weather system is not a plot hole.

The same reasons we would want to read history are present in some made up stories. And hell, for good measure, the reasons we would want to read made up stories are also present in history. Lest we forget that history as an academic discipline is only about 120 years old.

>As it happens, we don't have perfect knowledge of the weather. If we ever do, I imagine perfect knowledge of absolutely everything else would come with it, yes.

Oh so now it's Perfect Knowledge. Please tell me, how does one explain their made up bullshit weather system so the reader has Perfect Knowledge of it? What the fuck is Perfect Knowledge you goal post moving autistic coward?

You have a mental disease, did you know?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 07:56:33 2013 No.3836414 >>3836403 It is a plot hole if there's absolutely no good reason for it. There's no logic behind the story, he's just making shit up as he goes along. Every single thing is essentially deus ex machina. You seem to be mad about something.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 07:57:32 2013 No.3836415 >>3836403 >history as an academic discipline is only 120 years old how do people like you live?

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:07:32 2013 No.3836423

>>3836414

You are incapable of distinguishing between people and weather. You should think on that. Thanks for ignoring my post, though. I will take that as you conceding my points. I hope you will be soon seeing someone about your mental issues.

>muh logic

Yeah, definitely autistic. You can't understand people, and you think politics is a pure expression of natural processes. There are no such things as people inside your head. Do you realize how worrisome that is?

>>3836415

The modern graduate school, and with it academic disciplines as we know them, only came about around the latter half of the 19th century.

You can call history before that academic if you like, but it was not in any contemporary sense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:13:32 2013 No.3836429 >>3836329 By pretending that the reader is familiar with the setting? Maybe. But it's goddamn convoluted.

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:13:32 2013 No.3836432

>>3836423
There are no people and there is no weather. It is a story. All the aspects of the story, whether they're fictional characters or fictional cumulonimbus are heavily interrelated. The way the characters behave are equally unrealistic, but we can ignore that because they're all heroes and villains, so they're not really subject to normal human impulses. Originally I just wanted to know if there was an explanation for the odd and possibly even impossible weather, but people like you seem to get so angry at little questions that it's hard to resist continuing to pick at them just to irritate you further.

I'm sorry I have to be the one to inform you but politics are a pure expression of natural processes. You didn't think people were supernatural, did you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:15:32 2013 No.3836434 >>3836394 Is there going to be a battle? :-/

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:20:33 2013 No.3836440 >>3833079 Like this? http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/1fcuhw/

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:22:33 2013 No.3836444

>>3836432

>lol i was jus trolln

Fuck you you coy little faggot.

>I'm sorry I have to be the one to inform you but politics are a pure expression of natural processes. You didn't think people were supernatural, did you?

You know damn well what I mean, you autistic fuck. Actually maybe you don't.

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:25:33 2013 No.3836447

>>3836444
All your points I ignored are irrelevant as you seem to be refusing to differentiate between reality and a story. In the pauses between your fits of accusations of autism.

I know what you think you mean, but you're wrong. Please do tell, in what way are politics not an expression of natural processes? Are we exempt from nature?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:26:32 2013 No.3836448 >>3836414 >Viserys Targaryen >pimps his sister Daenerys to Khal Drogo >totally impatient >cannot into dothraki culture Totally unlogical but also totally plausible, because people are fallible.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:27:32 2013 No.3836449 >>3836448 Yes, that is a synopsis of his behaviour.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:30:33 2013 No.3836451 File: 16 KB, 253x218, up ma ass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3836449 With these facts ratified and approved of, do you think that Viserys is cool or uncool?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:32:33 2013 No.3836454 >>3836451 He's a massive bellend and his hair is ridiculous. So: uncool.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:46:32 2013 No.3836474 >>3836394 meh...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:47:32 2013 No.3836480 >>3836451 And therefore the book is bad because he played the role of a Jonas pimp instead being a finesse pimp that rode his dragons and re-conquered Westeros?

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:55:32 2013 No.3836489

>>3830643

You must be fucking retarded. Get the FUCK out.

>>3830761

Right, let's stop for a minute and switch "a huge sword" with "the massive ultra cool weapon of war and death that shone defiantly in the merciless rays of the sun" you dumb fucking shit.

Just realized /lit/ is fucking FULL of hipsters. FULL OF IT.

Anonymous Sun Jun 9 08:56:32 2013 No.3836492
File: 1.12 MB, 1416x2128, tyrion-shield.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3836434
“They’re waiting for the command, lord Tyrion”, a Lannister official said. Tyrion turned to look at the archers he’d been delegated to order. They stood close to the cracked road, side-by-side in uniformity, restless in anticipation and anxiety. “I know”, Tyrion replied. “If we didn’t wait, our arrows wouldn’t serve much use hitting the ground, would they?”

Footsteps in the fog were approaching, growing louder every second. Tyrion raised his arm – and the archers followed the motion, aiming their bows towards the overcast sky. As the hand of the dwarf came down, the Lannister arrows had already disappeared upward through the blanket of fog – filling the air with a hum of whistles. Instead of running feet, the sound of moans and yelps instead emerged from the fog.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 09:05:32 2013 No.3836507 >>3836492 Why are there two "insteads" in the final sentence?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 09:09:32 2013 No.3836511 >>3836507 It's the unabridged version.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 09:12:32 2013 No.3836517 >>3836511 >lel

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 09:13:32 2013 No.3836518 >>3836511 Which probably has a lot of grammatical flaws. Meh.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 09:22:33 2013 No.3836528 >>3829542 is that quote really in the books? which book?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 15:22:32 2013 No.3837624 >>3829542 /thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 15:24:32 2013 No.3837631 >>3836235 thanks ernest

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 17:42:32 2013 No.3838274 >>3829602 I lol'd

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 9 18:13:33 2013 No.3838451 >>3837624 >this guy felt the need to post this and only this. You wont find this kind of desperation on any other thread on /lit/

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