I read an interview in relation to the premiere of the sixth season of the show where some literature graybeard was talking about how the books were great fun, if not exemplars of high literature.
Now, there is an age-old debate underscoring this issue among literature students around the world. Why do adherents of literature as art scoff at the average bestseller? Now, I'm no liberal revolutionary when it comes to this subject. There are many excellent reasons for drawing lines of differentiation between the likes of Joyce and the RL James (Or whatever the 50 shades writer's name is).
However, getting to ASOIAF:
I've read all of the books twice, and still there are details that go completely over my head (I'm a literature student myself, whatever credibility that fact in and of itself might lend me). The prose is admittedly not the series's strong point, but isn't prose ultimately the mere trappings of a story?
The scope of the narrative and the amount of details that have been smushed into the work is often staggering.
Being an aspiring writer myself, (I am a far, far better critic than a writer, no delusions of grandeur here) I would consider it nearly as daunting to try and emulate Martin's asoiaf as I would Joyce's Ulysses. For wildly different reasons, of course, but still. Although Martin's prose is almost laughably riddled with cliche he has a fine eye for pacing and story structure.
Well, I'm short on time so I won't be able to flesh out my argument any more. If the subject turns out to be interesting I'm sure many of you will be able to offset that with reflections of your own.
I'll be interested to know what you think.
>>8019219
Scoffing at bestsellers is legit because quantity of books sold does not reflect on the quality of the writing or its contribution to humanity or any qualities of art outside of entertainment or self gratification. The second thing is, and this is something fantasy nerds obsess about, is that the quantity and detail of a story don't reflect anything but gratuitous quantity and detail. The idea of "world building" that aspiring fantasy writers fawn over is a non-factor in what traditionally makes good literature. World building is exactly what the tired axiom of "show don't tell" is telling writers to avoid. Gratuitous details and character descriptions, and descriptions of politics which may or may not be analogous to our own in the real world. It's all so trite.
Good literature doesn't draw the reader in to be entertained, it draws the reader into be challenged. To challenge their worldviews, to challenge their ideas, to give voice to the dilemmas the reader faces everyday, to maybe make sense of world that can be confusing at times.
GoT on the other hand, works as well as a TV show as it does as a book. It tells a story to entertain viewers without them having to invest anything emotionally beyond their likes and dislikes for the characters.
>>8019262
>Good literature doesn't draw the reader in to be entertained
Except with the exception of one or two examples like Finnegans Wake, the entire history of good literature drew people in to be entertained.
>>8019276
>Finnegans Wake
>good literature
Moby-Dick was a commercial failure. That's all that's needed to discard the "bestseller=quality" argument.
>>8019219
ASOIAF is shit because it panders to the reader with moronically pointless sex, violence and edginess. Into the trash.
There should be standards even in mindless entertainment.
>>8019262
you need to learn to write and to logic
>>8019219
I like the books, but i find george a bit boring. I could say the same about LotR. Great worlds and characters, but my mind can only take so many "their bellies rumbled by the fire" nahimsayin niqqa?
generally very few ppl actually bitch about popular literature outside of shit like /lit/, I like to come here and get ideas about what to read or get opinions before I buy a book, but I know most of these people are pseudo-intellectuals or highschool kids thinking theyve found some secret book club.
fantasy nerds in real life are generally well rounded. also you have to consider that MOST people think 50 shades was a laughable attempt by some housewife, which is why it got so popular. go to the romance section at barnes n noble, 90% of the books are written the same way, its their style.
quantity of books sold can definitely reflect quality or contribution to the world, in a world where only a tiny population actually reads. again using 50 shades, its a shit book, written by a woman with the brain of a 13 year old goth girl, but its gotten so many people turned on to the idea of S&M. It might turn out that it contributed a lot towards normalizing sex, probably far more than george martin has (and his books might not be romances, but sex is in every chapter, he tries to write good romance scenes, and fails every time)
>>8019330
>Being an aspiring writer myself, (I am a far, far better critic than a writer, no delusions of grandeur here) I would consider it nearly as daunting to try and emulate Martin's asoiaf as I would Joyce's Ulysses.
For the sake of argument, let's say both asoiaf and ulysses were just as difficult to write. The catch: it doesn't matter. What matters is what it provides the reader. Let's say asoiaf is decently paced and structured (I would argue that it's not decently paced: it masks this by being chock-full of action, much of which is redundant or irrelevant to the plot and characters), from a purely technical point of view (a.k.a. the critic) it is impressive, but from an emotional and intellectual point of view (a.k.a. the reader) it has almost no scope beyond purely plot-driven shocks, the literary equivalent of jump scares.
The prose is bad as well but we all know that.
>>8019338
great another useless infograph that nobody will use.
>>8019219
>Martin's prose is almost laughably riddled with cliche
I think this in itself makes it not high art.
The fact that it expects no real thought from the reader, and that almost all the characters are one dimensional makes it at best middle-brow, and you would expect deep characters from a book like this.
I find it funny how people guessed the father and mother of jon snow, simply because of how one dimensional ned was, but i'm not sure how to really feel about this.
Also, the pacing is not great.
>>8019330
>This rectangle is not a square. That's all that's needed to discard the "squares are rectangles" argument
>>8019276
>FW
>pure entertainment and no critical thought
?
>>8019336
>contributed a lot towards normalizing sex
Oh fuck, how did the human race ever manage to reproduce before sex was invented??
You're a fucking retard, please kill yourself.
>>8019516
>Oh fuck, how did the human race ever manage to reproduce before sex was invented??
they simply fucked
>>8019562
What's a 'good' book or 'bad' book, are we going off some old krauts taste?
>>8019565
Seeing isn't believing.
>>8019581
>Seeing isn't believing
How the fuck do you read then pham, do you snort the words outta the page?
>>8019702
You don't? How new are you?
>>8019368
I think it has more to do with being an unending mess without a point and a coherent structure. His characters are decently done and if it was 3 instead of 6+ books long it would be a much better work.
>there are details that go completely over my head
You are dumb or those details are the shit that GRRM left vague because he doesn't know what to do with them.
>scope of the narrative
The scope of the narrative is too wide, he doesn't actually know what to do with half the plotlines, and the story is stumbling over its own feet. See book 4, where the whole thing finally fell flat on its face.
>the amount of details that have been smushed into the work is often staggering.
Fantasy worlds with even more details can be generated by Dwarf Fortress. Adding details isn't impressive unless they are meaningful to the work.
>has a fine eye for pacing and story structure.
Book 4 was the most boring piece of shit I've ever read. Are you actually saying that reading pages upon pages of Brienne searching the world even though you know she won't find anything was interesting?
>>8019702
understanding is believing
and lies must be unbelieved
>>8019562
>grumpy cunt being a grumpy cunt
more news at 5
>>8019219
>The scope of the narrative and the amount of details that have been smushed into the work is often staggering.
This can be said for any fantasy work really, they emphasise detail over ideas and exploration of character as their goal is to create a universe that the reader can vividly imagine rather than examine humanity.
>I would consider it nearly as daunting to try and emulate Martin's asoiaf as I would Joyce's Ulysses.
Given that there are numerous attempts at creating something almost identical to ASOIAF by other authors in order to cash in, while there have not really been any serious attempts to mimic Joyce, I'd say that this statement reveals more about you than about ASOIAF.
> Although Martin's prose is almost laughably riddled with cliche he has a fine eye for pacing and story structure.
No he doesn't, the pacing, especially towards the later books, is all over the place, there are entire chapters, even an entire story arc (Brienne's wandering about Crackclaw Point) that could be completely erased and nothing of value would be lost, as they did not develop either the characters, the story, or the world in any meaningful way.
>I'm a literature student myself
>I am a far, far better critic than a writer
You should probably pick a new career path.
>>8020156
He'll make more money as a trash apologist than a good critic.
The books are shit and so is the show. Before the show it would have remained a garbage niche but now it's a shitty franchise for retards.
Thanks, Harry Potter. I'd rather people not read in place of reading drivel.
>>8019219
I would argue that serious academics scoff at pop lit for the same reason that hardcore gamers scoff at casuals and poor whites fear foreign refugees. They have invested a great deal of emotional energy in the construction of and participation in a subculture over which they now feel some sense of communal ownership. Pop literature represents a different set of values which they fear will subsume them, bastardize a culture which they value, or worse offer membership and equal status to individuals who have not earned it.
>>8019338
>the fallacies make an argument wrong fallacy
Biggest one of them all baka desu.
>>8019368
I think the books expect thought from the reader. Not as much as others might, I'll grant, but there are definitely recognizable themes which are not pursued purely through direct exposition. It may not compare to Crime and Punishment, but the series is a few hundred steps up from the Sword of Shannara.
>>8020412
Spotted the Sociology undergrad
>>8019336
your writing and logic skills are just as bad as his
>>8019219
>Why do adherents of literature as art scoff at the average bestseller?
They don't. It just happens that the majority of bestsellers are utter shit (probably close to %95 of any bestseller list is crap). If a bestseller has merit, /lit/izens will appreciate and recognize it (Case in point--LotR).
>I've read all of the books twice, and still there are details that go completely over my head
Then you aren't an attentive reader. Martin isn't as sophisticated as his adherents like to make him out to be. You can tell he loves Wolfe because he tries to mimic many of his techniques but with much less success and impact.
> but isn't prose ultimately the mere trappings of a story?
You dun goofed.
>The scope of the narrative and the amount of details that have been smushed into the work is often staggering.
But that doesn't give it any intrinsic worth as a a piece of literature. A wide scope and a plethora of details doesn't mean shit if the writer doesn't have any aim or central idea. Hence why GURRM is a bad writer. He's written thousands of pages which ultimately amount to jack and shit
>I would consider it nearly as daunting to try and emulate Martin's asoiaf as I would Joyce's Ulysses
Now I know you're baiting.
I've read all of ASoIaF. I can admit that it's entertaining on a base level, but to act as if GURRM is anymore better than most other SFF hacks is delusional.
Ask yourself this one question. If ASoIaF hadn't received a TV adaptation, would you even be posting this thread?
Asoiaf isn't about larger cultural movements. It's about entertainment. The sophomoric sentiments about morality and politics aren't all the interesting, and it serves better for escapism not literature.
>>8019219
The Tower of Joy scene is good. It has a nice, unpretentious poetic structure.
