asoiaf's place in cultural/literary history

[Lonin]

I would like to thank the posters on this thread... you have reminded me of many classics that I have not read in many, many, many years... I believe that I will reread some of them... tks

[Stannis ftw]

I called conformism, and explained where I recognize it and why. I may be right or wrong, but it's not 'attacking strawmen'. Not really. Not by a long shot.

I would understand conformism if there is some authority to conform to, or some pressure or incentive to do that. As it is, there is no authority who has set this valuation that you call conformistic and no pressure or incentive to conform to it. It seems that many people arrived at roughly similar opinion on their own: ASOIAF is great when valuated inside fantasy genre but not so great against true heavyweights and against more serious criteria. If you were left more or less on your own with contrary opinion, that does not automatically make that opinion any stronger. This forum is also not a go-to forum for literature snobbery, so that explanation is not so convincing.

[Miodrag]

I would understand conformism if there is some authority to conform to, or some pressure or incentive to do that. As it is, there is no authority who has set this valuation that you call conformistic and no pressure or incentive to conform to it.

So far, no authority confirmed ASOIAF as a serious literature; hence, ASOIAF can't be a masterpiece outside of it's genre.

That would be the essence of the conformism I'm talking about, and I don't think it was that hard to understand. That is why those who oppose me brought recognized classics in the discussion. It wasn't me who brought them up. And the funny thing is, those who brought them up usually weren't interested in an actual comparison. I was, and whenever a classic novel I read was mentioned, I tried to compare it's values with ASOIAF values, and it's faults with ASOIAF faults. But my most vocal opponents, you included, didn't look like ready to go that road. You seem to think that it's enough to mention Hemingway or Faulkner or Nabokov or Kafka, and a discussion automatically has to end. Like poster MachoGrande wrote few days ago: It's almost as if it was a disgrace to mention Martin in the same sentence as those other "great novelists".

And even more funny thing is, my most vocal opponents are almost always comparing ASOIAF to undoubted classics. You were an exception there with Frenzen, but I can't recall other opponents of mine bringing modern novelists in a comparison. It's almost always Tolkien, with rare exceptions like Hemingway or Nabokov or some other long gone and already established author. Many of my opponents were only making what they taught as 'safe bets'. It is nothing but conformism, whether you accept it or not.

It seems that many people arrived at roughly similar opinion on their own: ASOIAF is great when valuated inside fantasy genre but not so great against true heavyweights and against more serious criteria. If you were left more or less on your own with contrary opinion, that does not automatically make that opinion any stronger. This forum is also not a go-to forum for literature snobbery, so that explanation is not so convincing.

No, my opinion isn't any stronger because it's in a clear minority. If it is stronger, it is because I tried to support it with reasons and examples. In discussions, I'm not dealing with impressions, because if I was, I'd say very bad stuff about some 'classics' that were mentioned here. And by the way, what is considered a literature masterpiece in America, maybe isn't as highly regarded in Eastern Europe, or Latin America. And it's not like Eastern Europe or Latin America are without strong literary tradition. I'm not a literary theorist, which is why in no particular case I didn't want to go that road - as in, I didn't want to hide behind theoretical thinking I had no part in - but let me tell you, some of the novels mentioned in this discussion aren't nearly as respected throughout the world as some here think. (Only exception I made was Nabokov's "Lolita", and I feel sorry for that because, while everything I said is true, it doesn't have to take anything from the value that novel has for it's readers here, and it was never my intention to doubt any novel's place among classics - I just want to express my opinion that ASOIAF may be on it's way there, too.)

And that rough consensus you're talking about, maybe it does exist. Just as consensus on Martin's simplifications of medieval laws seemed to exist, until Nacht en Ontij rebutted it with his expertise on the matter. But, even besides that, not so small part of those you say arrived at roughly similar opinion, didn't really offer their opinions. They but confirmed opinions they thought safe, refusing to go into any explanation whatsoever. For all I care, they can reach not rough, but a total consensus that ASOIAF is on the level with Harry Potter - as they were about to, several pages ago. And it's not that I necessarily have anything against a comparison between ASOIAF and Harry Potter. Whoever thinks they're in the same category, go ahead, make your case, you might be able to convince me or whoever. But no, some were suggesting that ASOIAF and Harry Potter are of the same quality because they're both popular. Speaking of consensuses, I see no reason to be bothered by that one at all.

The way some people here analyze, I'm pretty sure 100 years ago they'd tear Joyce to pieces for writing rubbish, just like today they seem convinced ASOIAF is more-less rubbish because it doesn't resembles Joyce's works.

[Miodrag]

I would like to thank the posters on this thread... you have reminded me of many classics that I have not read in many, many, many years... I believe that I will reread some of them... tks

I'm glad at least some good came out of this discussion. This attitude is the perfect reflection of what I think 'literature masterpieces' should mean: books that are widely recommended as great reads that are going to reward their readers in many ways. High-literature is not some 'members only' club in which novels are allowed by most rigid authorities, as some seem to think. High-literature is a book one can recommend to fellow demanding and experienced readers, and expect they're going to like it and be grateful for the recommendation. High-literature is a book that can be debated over and analyzed to details, and offer many intellectual pleasures in the process. High-literature is like chess on a master level, only, you don't need a player opposite yourself, because you have a book that will both entertain you and inspire you to think deeply of it.

Not all the books of that kind may find their way into university studies, for a number of reasons, but it doesn't mean they're not high-literature. For what it's worth, I recommended ASOIAF to a number of my friends, all of them avid readers, and some of them literary graduates. Not all of them were fascinated by it, but none of them was disappointed in ASOIAF, all of them were glad they read it, and quite a few of them were delighted with it. Literally none of them finds my opinion that ASOIAF may be a classic in making to be unfounded.

[Dragonstoned]

I think the show will have done and continue to do wonders for the popularity of the books. I doubt ASoIaF will ever become curriculum material on literature degrees, mostly because of its size, but people who read it will consider it one of the best books around. For me it is the greatest work of literature I have ever read and I don't expect it to be surpassed.

[UVA]

You were an exception there with Frenzen, but I can't recall other opponents of mine bringing modern novelists in a comparison.

Like Stannis ftw, I did too: Kundera and Richard Ford.

And that rough consensus you're talking about, maybe it does exist. Just as consensus on Martin's simplifications of medieval laws seemed to exist, until Nacht en Ontij rebutted it with his expertise on the matter.

Nacht en Ontij didn't rebut anything. You take this as fact because if fits into your myopic stance. He merely seemed to claim that despite no revelation of legal statutes or judicial bodies in the series, this doesn't necessarily entail that codified laws don't exist in-universe; or that Westeros doesn't have a sophisticated legal framework in place. Are there textual examples that suggest this more complex system? Because a review of legal controversies (cf. a dance of dragons, the Great Council, Wot5K) and at-large enforcement supports the view that there is no legal code or legitimate lawmaking body at work...you know these are crucial features of a "sophisticated system" btw. Yea, there this Master of Laws but what's this authority? Is this analogous to a Supreme Court judge?

In any event, I would argue that the absence of a formal, universal legal system in the series creates a framework where there can be several legitimate claims to power (Wot5K), that rightful doesn't imply legal (the succession problem), and that doing the right thing may not conform to custom, which is what passes for legality here. It is here where a great deal of the tension and drama of the story resides, where ethics and notions of power can be analyzed and debated. I'm not a medieval legal scholar but I am an US-trained attorney (licensed to practice in two states and the District of Columbia) and I don't see any evidence of a rule of law*. What's interesting is that the lack of a legal system produces a more nuanced take on these issues, and requires us to meditate on key concepts such as the acquisition of power, what makes a good ruler, who deserves power, and so forth.

My mea culpa is citing Martin's treatment of law in this particular thread because the question deserves a separate topic and is not pertinent to the OP.

But, even besides that, not so small part of those you say arrived at roughly similar opinion, didn't really offer their opinions. They but confirmed opinions they thought safe, refusing to go into any explanation whatsoever. For all I care, they can reach not rough, but a total consensus that ASOIAF is on the level with Harry Potter - as they were about to, several pages ago. And it's not that I necessarily have anything against a comparison between ASOIAF and Harry Potter. Whoever thinks they're in the same category, go ahead, make your case, you might be able to convince me or whoever. But no, some were suggesting that ASOIAF and Harry Potter are of the same quality because they're both popular. Speaking of consensuses, I see no reason to be bothered by that one at all.

The way some people here analyze, I'm pretty sure 100 years ago they'd tear Joyce to pieces for writing rubbish, just like today they seem convinced ASOIAF is more-less rubbish because it doesn't resembles Joyce's works.

This has got to be one of the more insidious forms of an ad hominen attack I've seen on the forum. Conformity? So you attempt to discredit and devalue the balance of opinions that don't "conform" or support your own? You're transparent, I'll give you that. You also called me biased but failed to substantiate your claim. Have you clarified and defended what you mean by 'depth' using the text to support your points? What exactly do you think are the transcendental themes on the human condition that are operating here, what's the concept of religion, politics, gender? Did you address Errant Bard's comment that the value of a work is in proportion to the reader's reaction to it? How it resonates with the reader? Is ASOIAF a transformative piece of fiction for a majority of readers? To say that no one answered your claims is absurd. You just don't like what they have to say, and like EB I'm struggling to take your views seriously. So let's end it at that. :kiss:

*cannibalizing from another post of mine: the rule of law is a concept based on the idea that there are laws applicable to everyone enforceable by a sovereign power/government; and nowhere in the text does any simulation of this exist. There is no single power in Westeros, not even what passes for a centralized government (the IT), that has a monopoly on violence (or threat thereof) to enforce the law across the Seven Kingdoms. More importantly there is not a legitimate judicial body that can impartially apply these laws. (The Great Council is the closest thing to legal arbitration Westeros has ever had.)

[byroncato]

These books are life changing. Enough said.

[mushroomshirt]

These books are life changing. Enough said.

What a great first post. Welcome!

[Stannis ftw]

So far, no authority confirmed ASOIAF as a serious literature; hence, ASOIAF can't be a masterpiece outside of it's genre.

That would be the essence of the conformism I'm talking about, and I don't think it was that hard to understand. That is why those who oppose me brought recognized classics in the discussion. [...] Many of my opponents were only making what they taught as 'safe bets'. It is nothing but conformism, whether you accept it or not.

I can understand "safe bet" but only in relation to "stake" at the table. There is nothing at the table, there is no incentive or pressure to make those safe bets. Maybe it just felt natural for many to deal with this topic by using those classics as "measure stick".

And the funny thing is, those who brought them up usually weren't interested in an actual comparison. I was, and whenever a classic novel I read was mentioned, I tried to compare it's values with ASOIAF values, and it's faults with ASOIAF faults. But my most vocal opponents, you included, didn't look like ready to go that road.

As I remember I said upfront that I am not capable of thoroughly discussing or comparing due to lack of literary prowess.

[Miodrag]

Like Stannis ftw, I did too: Kundera and Richard Ford.

You did. But, I haven't read them, so I can't comment on them, let alone compare ASOIAF to them. But, since you say you're struggling to take me seriously, believe me, it is practically impossible to take you seriously after your first post on this thread, in which you gave as inaccurate a description of a podcast as possible. Because of that, I'd never chastise myself for failing to address, or remember even, something you wrote.

Nacht en Ontij didn't rebut anything. You take this as fact because if fits into your myopic stance.

Funny that you talk of someone else's myopia, as if it wasn't you who failed to understand and/or properly describe a single podcast. Allow me to quote you from the other day:

Tangentially, yesterday I listened to podcast Martin had with a law professor exploring the role law in Westeros. The prof asked him to what extent he'd read about medieval legal customs and histories that may have informed his views for the series. Martin laughed and said that while maybe he should have some of these scholarly texts on his bookshelves, he tended to draw more from the popular histories. He mentioned that the fandom desires more complexity but that he tends to simplify things for the sake of storytelling. For example, he trimmed the traditional feudal hierarchies (e.g.,the roles of barons and dukes) such that he only has knights, lords and kings. Similarly, his views on law in Westeros are quite vague and simplified. The prof probed him deeper about the notion of sovereignty in ASOIAF, citing that this has typically formed the foundation for our real-world concept of the rule of law. Martin essentially punted the question by saying that sovereignty in Westeros was derived from god, but then acknowledged that there are competing gods and this muddles the issue. Martin, by his own admission, hasn't thought too hard about these concepts (which makes these rightful king debates kind of ridiculous).

Martin didn't laugh on that question, but, more importantly, he didn't laugh off any question at all. He maybe mentioned popular histories, but certainly not as something he uses as a substitute for scholarly books. His views on law in Westeros weren't vague nor simplified, e.g. he answered every question and offered a reason for every simplification he made in the novels. He punted no question, on the contrary, he explained a rather complicated issue of sovereignty in Westeros by reminding of Aegon's conquest and what it resulted in. And he definitely didn't admit he hasn't thought too hard about these concepts.

Everyone can listen the podcast and see how incorrect your description was. Which is strange, considering you come here accusing me of myopia.

Anyway, Nacht en Ontij did rebut the consensus reached between two or three posters that posted about legal system of Westeros. Just as I wrote. And it doesn't mean he addressed all the possible simplifications Martin was ever 'accused' of. Thanks for the help, but it wasn't necessary, since I understood what Nacht en Ontij wrote perfectly well. Maybe you should try the same with my line you quote.

What Nacht en Ontij's and some other posts suggest, is that so far nothing in the story seems contrived or contradicting because of Westeros' legal system being not fleshed out more. Readers are presented with enough legal system to understand what is happening and why is it happening. Even Tyrion's trial in The Vale (which was brought up by some poster, as I recall) is believable, if one believes the whole context of The Vale being ruled by a delusional woman whose underaged son is indeed the heir. Tyrion's trial is all kinds of crazy, just like Cat herself realizes, but delusional rulers tend to do that, especially in a remote and disconnected areas as The Vale seems to be, and especially in the young phases of their rule, before their delusion is fully exposed to their subjects. One's surely entitled to refuse to believe someone as delusional as Lysa would be given any kind of authority, but that's an entirely different matter.

And speaking of legal systems and succession laws, it's not that Martin didn't address the chaotic state of affairs: the riddle Varys challenges Tyrion with, in ACOK, is one of the gems of the saga in my opinion. In a world in which there's no such thing as monopoly on violence, the question of what authority people are going to follow and/or accept is of paramount importance, and Varys does explain why is the question so ad hoc, and his answer therefore suggests the reasons why isn't the legal system more sophisticated. Basically, if you have guys like Renly, who gathered the biggest army in the realm despite he himself knew he had no legal claim at all (because he comes after either Robert's son or Robert's oldest brother), no sophisticated legal system is to be expected, especially after the period of Targaryen rule in which all the power was concentrated in one center - no wonder Robert's Rebellion is often mentioned in Westeros as a precedent after which nothing can be the same any more, because Westeros clearly never faced a situation similar to the one it found itself in after Robert's death. If someone is to be blamed for the lack of a legal system, it would be Targaryens, and their failure to develop a more sophisticated society - not only a legal system, but a society as a whole - is properly explained, I'd say: not all of them, but a lot of their kings were interested in preserving the divine image of themselves more than in serving the realm (which brings me to the importance of Stannis' quest once again).

At the end of the day, I agree that the sophistication-level of the legal system Martin created isn't necessarily important in assessing his writing skills, though I see no harm in analyzing the legal system of Westeros, even in this thread, cause I still see no harm done by the lack of more sophisticated system. From the very start Westeros is presented as a place that advanced much more in philosophy (not so few atheists and those who question divine authority, for example) and practical aspects of everyday life (like currency, as someone said), than in technology and laws, e.g. aspects which require some deeper and more lasting devotion that, as it seems, no individual was willing to invest so far.

[Miodrag]

This has got to be one of the more insidious forms of an ad hominen attack I've seen on the forum. Conformity? So you attempt to discredit and devalue the balance of opinions that don't "conform" or support your own? You're transparent, I'll give you that. You also called me biased but failed to substantiate your claim. Have you clarified and defended what you mean by 'depth' using the text to support your points? What exactly do you think are the transcendental themes on the human condition that are operating here, what's the concept of religion, politics, gender? Did you address Errant Bard's comment that the value of a work is in proportion to the reader's reaction to it? How it resonates with the reader? Is ASOIAF a transformative piece of fiction for a majority of readers? To say that no one answered your claims is absurd. You just don't like what they have to say, and like EB I'm struggling to take your views seriously. So let's end it at that. :kiss:

You see ASOIAF as an entertainment, first and foremost, just as you explained not only in this thread, but also in some other threads as well (like the one about us older readers). That is your right, and, truth be told, ASOIAF is extremely entertaining. That notion alone doesn't trouble me one bit, and I usually don't debate it, unless it is brought up in a thread about overall importance/value/quality of ASOIAF. But, with your first post here, you raised the possibility I may be over-intellectualizing ASOIAF, which implies I'm seeing things that actually aren't there, as in, that weren't designed by the author himself. Only, you didn't support the notion with a practical example of my over-intellectualizing. No, you went ahead and misrepresented a podcast, twisting it to suit the theoretical possibility that I might be over-intellectualizing. I sensed some foul play even before I listened to the podcast, so believe me, your spinning isn't that sophisticated as you may happen to think.

You can theorize from here to eternity about the possibility of over-intellectualizing ASOIAF, or any other work of literature for that matter. But, without any practical example, that theorization has no value in discussions. There are few themes I listed and examined in this discussion, that you or someone else may prove unsupported in the text itself. You referred only to the one that concerns Stannis (and, in a somewhat surprising moment of sincerity, you admitted there may be more than meets the eye in there). I also mentioned essays of other guys, experts on history and philosophy, in which themes are analyzed to great lengths (which kinda implies I'm not the only one who sees something more than pure character developments in this series), and I posted some links along the way. And it's OK, you don't have to analyze any example I brought up. You're perfectly entitled to find them boring, imagined, wrong, whatever, or to agree with them in silence if you want. What you have no right, however, is to claim I didn't clarify what I mean by depth, and to imply I presented no themes I find worthy of a high-literature status. I did that, and I'll happily do it again with some new examples in further discussion.

Granted, rebutting one's over-intellectualizing may be harder than it sounds. In theory. In practice, however, it may be easy. And in this particular case, it should be piece of cake, because I made it easier for skeptics like yourself by listing themes I favor and themes other guys analyzed in a manner I found satisfying: take any theme I brought up, whether it's 'mine' or some reference to an essay from outside, and show how unsupported by the text itself the theme is. Short of that, I can't see what grounds you have to claim me or anyone else is over-intellectualizing anything.

What is also odd, to say the least, is to ask from ASOIAF to be "a transformative piece of fiction for a majority of readers" in order to be considered something more than an entertaining story, as you seem to imply with your question and with a reference to Errant Bard. Quite a few works we recognize today as undisputed classics, didn't resonate with a majority of their readers at the time of their creation. You think Joyce's "Ulysses" was "a transformative piece of fiction for a majority of readers" right from the start? I'd say majority of it's readers today aren't transformed by it, let alone at the time of it's creation. You think "The Great Gatsby" was welcomed by readership right away? It wasn't, and, if I may add, it is widely misunderstood today from what I've seen, because readers seem to take it as Fitzgerald's attempt at deconstructing the American Dream, even though the very term "American Dream" was coined only years after "Gatsby" was out (I'm not talking of all the readers, of course, but not so few of them really don't go beyond limiting "American Dream" boundaries).

All this doesn't mean ASOIAF is automatically great because it is misunderstood, nor that it actually is misunderstood. Maybe there is nothing to be analyzed and/or deeply understood there, after all. Maybe there is, but Martin failed to present it properly, just as I speculated already. Theoretically, with some sub-par closure of his saga Martin can easily prove me wrong on almost everything I posted here. However, I'm practically certain that won't be the case. And what I'm absolutely certain of is that the high-literature reputation isn't earned by being similar to Fitzgerald or Joyce or Tolstoy or Shakespeare or whoever. There's a great quote by Victor Pelevin, a modern Russian novelist; when asked what particular tradition of Russian literature he's part of, he responded with: The only tradition of Russian literature I recognize and embrace, is trying to write differently from authors one read and was influenced by. (This is my English translation of a Serbian translation of his Russian quote, so it was possibly worded differently in original, but the tone and the meaning of it are preserved.)

To conclude: I have nothing against comparing ASOIAF to classic literature. I think it compares quite well, as I tried to prove with examples I'm familiar with, and as I'm probably going to continue in this discussion. What I do mind is when classics are uncritically thrown into discussion, as if the sheer mentioning of those works and authors should stop the discussion. It is but conformism. What's more, it implies misunderstanding of those classics and ASOIAF both. And, most of all, it shows misunderstanding of literature and art. It is to be enjoyed in, and talked about, and debated over. If it is written to cater and please academic circles - as some of the authors of today constantly do - it will probably fade to insignificance right after the era passes. Thankfully, ASOIAF can never be accused of that.

[Dendrophobic Ent]

In my personal opinion, ASOIAF is around the same level aesthetically as LOTR. ASOIAF has the better characterization and better use of symbolism; LOTR has a more complex set of themes that are mirrored in its structure and uses its references to myth and legend in a more adroit fashion.

Now, when you want to evaluate their place in the 'wider' canon, it becomes more difficult. At the moment, fantasy fiction is not widely studied academically, even compared to other genre fiction. However, fantasy criticism is becoming more prominent, Tolkien studies being a burgeoning area of study(at least, as far as I can tell from talking to my professors, reading online journals etc). Assuming that a work's place in the canon will eventually be solely determined based on aesthetic merit and importance in its cultural tradition, I think it's fairly likely that quite a few universities will teach fantasy within, say 50 years. ASOIAF definitely deserves its place in the fantasy canon, and in the canon of great genre fiction.

I don't think, however, that either Tolkien or Martin are anywhere near the top few tiers of great writers. In terms of prose, themes, structure, complexity, there is a vast gap between them and the likes of Nabokov or Faulkner, let alone James Joyce and Shakespeare. I'd venture, very tentatively, to say that that ASOIAF and LOTR are roughly at the level of the average Booker winner. Not in terms of prose necessarily, but I'd say that Martin's strengths-his characterization, plotting, ability to integrate plot, theme and character development, - are stronger than a lot of contemporary Lit Fic writers and make up for his deficiencies in prose. I'd say that Martin is roughly as talented as someone like Martin Amis or Ian McEwan, although in completely different categories. It's difficult to rank writers when their talents, intentions, and genres are so disparate.

[Miodrag]

I can understand "safe bet" but only in relation to "stake" at the table. There is nothing at the table, there is no incentive or pressure to make those safe bets. Maybe it just felt natural for many to deal with this topic by using those classics as "measure stick".

For some, you're probably right: it just felt natural to them, and classics do serve as a standard. But, I was talking about some posters that, for example, were calling my comparison between Martin and Faulkner ridiculous, even though a second ago they admitted there is some similarity between the two in some aspects. Or claims like: nothing ever will beat LOTR. Or: can you imagine Martin in the company of Shakespeare, Kafka, Dante, Tolstoy?! That's what I mean by conformism. And, while I was typing this reply to you, Dendrophobic Ent just posted something that I find a valuable contribution to the discussion: even though I don't agree with his conclusion, it was presented reasonably as opposed to arrogantly and because of that it can't be confused for conformism.

As I remember I said upfront that I am not capable of thoroughly discussing or comparing due to lack of literary prowess.

You did, and I really didn't mean you in my post you refer to.

[Miodrag]

I don't think, however, that either Tolkien or Martin are anywhere near the top few tiers of great writers. In terms of prose, themes, structure, complexity, there is a vast gap between them and the likes of Nabokov or Faulkner, let alone James Joyce and Shakespeare.

I beg to defer. Maybe I missed some themes these authors you listed did explore, but themes Tolkien and even more Martin explore are no less admirable, in my opinion. Strictly on topic, I find themes of ASOIAF to be of the highest order. Those themes maybe aren't completely original (for example, Arya's arc does resemble Faustian motif), but they are explored in ways that are quite unusual (once again, Arya's soul was never 'officially' asked for, which is unparalleled - to my knowledge at least). And some themes are possibly original even, for example: Stannis quest may be an allegory on human's attempt to divorce oneself from the perfect image of gods, which I can't think of a similar example at the moment (and certainly not on the scale Martin operates on, because, other than The French Revolution, the actual history doesn't offer opportunities of that magnitude, and fantasy, which isn't limited by historical examples, seems to avoid approaching the matter on this scale; SF could offer an example or two, I guess, but I can't say I encountered one so far). Than there's the theme of heritage and legacy (any house in ASOIAF, with it's words and values it stands for, can be analyzed in that regard - not to mention the words themselves, which can stand for ideals that vibrate through Martin's world and can easily resonance in ours), and of degeneration caused by social decadence (Boltons may fit this one perfectly, though Targaryens are a strong case as well).

Then there's the theme of honor, that Dan Haggard analyzed in great length and in details, in his three-part essay to which I'll post links once again here here and here - his piece is a great example of the depth found in just one segment of the story (Starks vs. Lannisters conflict is his main focus), and I can't agree with him more when he says that what Martin accomplished is breathtaking.

Complexity of ASIAOF is also on par with examples you named. Structure may be a problem, true that, because of Martin's compromising with publisher in AFFC and ADWD, and for the sheer fact that the saga isn't finished yet. As for prose: once again, GRRM's good enough for what he wants to accomplish, which may be bellow writers famous for their styles, but he's often efficient, and occasionally he's brilliant (Red Wedding, Cersei's walk, Ramsay's wedding in Winterfell, prologue of ACOK, Blackwater Battle chapters, Oberyn vs. Gregor...) And, last but not least, his dialogues are masterful.

[Dendrophobic Ent]

I beg to defer. Maybe I missed some themes these authors you listed did explore, but themes Tolkien and even more Martin explore are no less admirable, in my opinion. Strictly on topic, I find themes of ASOIAF to be of the highest order. Those themes maybe aren't completely original (for example, Arya's arc does resemble Faustian motif), but they are explored in ways that are quite unusual (once again, Arya's soul was never 'officially' asked for, which is unparalleled - to my knowledge at least). And some themes are possibly original even, for example: Stannis quest may be an allegory on human's attempt to divorce oneself from the perfect image of gods, which I can't think of a similar example at the moment (and certainly not on the scale Martin operates on, because, other than The French Revolution, the actual history doesn't offer opportunities of that magnitude, and fantasy, which isn't limited by historical examples, seems to avoid approaching the matter on this scale; SF could offer an example or two, I guess, but I can't say I encountered one so far). Than there's the theme of heritage and legacy (any house in ASOIAF, with it's words and values it stands for, can be analyzed in that regard - not to mention the words themselves, which can stand for ideals that vibrate through Martin's world and can easily resonance in ours), and of degeneration caused by social decadence (Boltons may fit this one perfectly, though Targaryens are a strong case as well).

Then there's the theme of honor, that Dan Haggard analyzed in great length and in details, in his three-part essay to which I'll post links once again here here and here - his piece is a great example of the depth found in just one segment of the story (Starks vs. Lannisters conflict is his main focus), and I can't agree with him more when he says that what Martin accomplished is breathtaking.

Complexity of ASIAOF is also on par with examples you named. Structure may be a problem, true that, because of Martin's compromising with publisher in AFFC and ADWD, and for the sheer fact that the saga isn't finished yet. As for prose: once again, GRRM's good enough for what he wants to accomplish, which may be bellow writers famous for their styles, but he's often efficient, and occasionally he's brilliant (Red Wedding, Cersei's walk, Ramsay's wedding in Winterfell, prologue of ACOK, Blackwater Battle chapters, Oberyn vs. Gregor...) And, last but not least, his dialogues are masterful.

Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear. I didn't mean that the thematic concerns of the writers I mentioned were more admirable in and of themselves. What I meant to say was that their explorations are more nuanced in my opinion than those of Martin and Tolkien. I should have clarified that. My bad.

I'm not going to go into too much detail, but a succinct example should clarify what I meant. Take, say, Faulkner because he is one of the writers I mentioned and he is just the best. In Light in August there are many many thematic threads-for example, free will vs fate, racism, the burden of the past, class, man's relationship with God, isolation, identity, and plenty more. Now, you'll find these themes in plenty of writers. Invoking them doesn't automatically make a work great. But what Faulkner manages to do is intertwine them all so that it's a perfectly formed work of art, embody them so they are all acted out in a variety of ways within his characters, and offer counterpoints for each apparent summation of that particular theme. That is impressive enough. But he also manages to integrate it on the level of structure, both on the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels, with a rejection of traditional vocabulary to symbolize the failure of narrative and his use the wheel structure to create a dialogue between the Lena and Joe elements of his themes. And on top of that there's the whole ironic, grotesque crucifixion thing, his use of Joe as a chrontope of his society, as well as the dozens of motifs and symbols. I don't think there's anything in ASOIAF that matches that level of complexity. I suppose what elevates him above Martin is depth and artistic unity.

And to be fair, I never said Martin wasn't a good writer. I think he's great. But you can't read a page of Nabokov and a page of Martin and call them equals. Like I said, I'd probably put his artistic prowess at the level of the average Booker/ National Book Award winner.

Out of interest, if you were to formulate your own canon, where would you put Martin? Who would you class as his equals/ near equals? Not that it's any of my business of course. I'm just curious.

[Miodrag]

Out of interest, if you were to formulate your own canon, where would you put Martin? Who would you class as his equals/ near equals? Not that it's any of my business of course. I'm just curious.

Not surprisingly, my personal canon contains much more epics than dramas. In no particular order: Gogol's "Taras Bulba", Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", Llosa's "The War of the End of the World" and "Conversation in the Cathedral", Saramago's "Death With Interruptions" and "Blindness", Bolano's "2666", Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" (this one is a combination of utter disappointment and equal brilliance for me), Dumas' "The Count of Monte Cristo", McCharty's "Blood Meridian". Also, dramas that have more than a touch of epic in themselves, like Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and "Othello". Political and social allegories also, like Zamyatin's "We" and Orwell's "1984". Not to forget "Iliad" and "Odyssey", cause they kinda started everything. And also Pressfield's "Gates of Fire", reasonably ambitious and impressively executed novel. Older I get, more I adore the stories that deal with civilizations looked at from various and/or unorthodox angles, which is why Fitzgerald and Faulkner, while I do like them and read them gladly, don't fascinate me - they put everything in the wider perspective of a society, and that is admirable, but I prefer to 'see' the society in all it's richness (without loosing the angles of individuals, of course), and that is why I'd put Martin's complexity above the complexity you described (though I'm yet to read "Light in August", which I'll do before the end of the year for sure).

Absolute favorites are two Serbian greats of the 20th century: Milos Crnjanski and Ivo Andric. Both were greatly influenced by the Serbian folk tradition in epics, which is, by the way, famous in European theoretical circles (Goethe even learned Serbian in order to read our epic poems in the language they were created in). Crnanjski's "Migrations" and Andric's "The Bridge Over Drina" are epic and deeply personal at the same time. Andric won The Nobel Prize, so he's fairly known in circles, but Crnjanski is even better - and, due to my friendship with the president of "Crnjanski Foundation", I know for a fact how deeply respected he is throughout Europe, so be advised to read his "Migrations" if you come across good translation, or his extremely bleak and depressing but equally rewarding nevertheless "A Novel about London".

My number one writer of all times is definitely Dostoyevsky, whose influence isn't fading away even 15 years after I read his best known works. In the words of late David Foster Wallace: the thing about Dostoyevsky's characters, they are alive! In my humble opinion, he looked into the soul of homo sapiens deeper than anyone else. But, he never forgot society, not for a moment. All of his most famous novels are grounded in unmatched psychological depth, but also in ultimate care for and knowledge of the society, which is why his characters are so rich: they all are parts of the bigger picture, even though they are memorable as individuals. His dramas are epic in essence, if not in form.

With this company, Martin fares very well. The ultimate verdict has to wait for the completion of ASOIAF, but if he finishes it in style, he'll firmly be among literature greats. I see that the spirit of our time, or, more precisely, the spirit in The Western countries, favors dramas over epics, so I don't expect any big 'official' recognition coming Martin's way any time soon, even though he has quite a lot drama in this saga (for example, his array of fully developed and 'alive' female characters speaks volumes, and it's range and depth both is above female characters created by "usual suspects" like Faulkner or Fitzgerald or Nabokov, even though all three of them were brave and innovative for their time). What fascinates me with Martin's characters is how passionate they are. And I'm not talking about twisted, perverse passion, that we got accustomed to in postmodernism (though Ramsay and Cersei/Jaime are more than twisted), but passionate as opposite to blase, lifeless characters that became a staple of late 20th century fiction. In ASOIAF, people live and kill and die for their ideals, and it is all the more powerful because they're all fully developed individuals (they're 'alive', as Foster Wallace would say), and because they all play clear but complicated parts in the bigger picture. Anyway, ASOIAF was big throughout the world even before the show (which, I have to say, done plenty in the popularity department, but also created a lot of damage as far as reception of the novels is concerned), which may suggest that ASOIAF transcends national and language and cultural boundaries. Due to it's timeless themes, I wouldn't be surprised if it transcends even the time boundaries, which may be the ultimate achievement for any work of fiction.

[SeanF]

The fact that certain things have happened in real life doesn't necessarily mean they were bound to happen, or need to be reflected in a fictional society.

I think that Westeros' legal system is very primitive, compared to its level of economic development. But, there's no reason in principle why a society can't be advanced in some respects, but not in others. And, it may well be that some of Westeros' political problems do stem from it's failure to create a legal system and political institutions that match it's economic development.

[Stannis ftw]

I think that Westeros' legal system is very primitive, compared to its level of economic development. But, there's no reason in principle why a society can't be advanced in some respects, but not in others.

Actually I think there are reasons, meaning: those things are interdependent in many ways. Complex economical system needs laws to govern it to be able to function and to allow it to develop further.