asoiaf's place in cultural/literary history

[Florina Laufeyson]

Oh no, its not gonna become a classic of fantasy literature. Sure. Let us all just nevermind the multi million dollar budget HBO adaptation garnering viewers with each season.

Sure. Ok.

:dunno:

<_<

[Brother Walfrid]

I'm on this forum, I obviously care enough about the books to join, but they are never going to be described as literary classics

For me, the vast majority of literary classics are unreadable turgid cures for insomnia

[Daecon Dayne]

I personally think that ASOIAF is bigger than LOTR in terms of realms, history and language.

I don't know about this...

Tolkien's world was bigger, the history was more explored and extravagant.

LOTR's lexical diversity kinda trumps ASOIAF's. However, if you're talking about the languages of the novels' universe (e.g Quenya, Dothraki) then, well, LOTR trumps ASOIAF through-and-through. Tolkien created languages for shits and giggles.

Having said that, I have forsaken LOTR as my favourite fantasy series. ASOIAF has my heart all to itself now. Who knows though, come the end of TWoW, I might resent it.

I think as soon as I read/saw Martin discussing his disappointment at Gandalf coming back from the dead, my reaction was close to "OMG I'M NOT ALONE, MARTIN'S THE BEST, FUCK YEAH ASOIAF". I really had to take Gandalf the White with a pinch of salt. Martin's hardly shy on resurrection, but I find some consolation in that it's not a 'I've come back a hundred times more powerful and wise' type. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I prefer ASOIAF. But I digress...

[Lala]

I'm on this forum, I obviously care enough about the books to join, but they are never going to be described as literary classics

For me, the vast majority of literary classics are unreadable turgid cures for insomnia

A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read - Mark Twain

?

[The Great Walrus]

I'm on this forum, I obviously care enough about the books to join, but they are never going to be described as literary classics

For me, the vast majority of literary classics are unreadable turgid cures for insomnia

Agreed, many books considered to be classics are vastly overrated and outdated.

[The Sleeper]

I really doubt that any decent universities will be studying ASOIAF. It's absolutely brilliant, but what you see is what you get - it's a straightforward fantasy adventure story. You can't really study it in the same way you can Hemingway or Steinbeck.

No good book has ever been written that has in it symbols arrived at beforehand and stuck in. ... I tried to make a real old man, a real boy, a real sea and a real fish and real sharks. But if I made them good and true enough they would mean many things.

Ernest Hemingway in 1954

[Daecon Dayne]

I really doubt that any decent universities will be studying ASOIAF. It's absolutely brilliant, but what you see is what you get - it's a straightforward fantasy adventure story. You can't really study it in the same way you can Hemingway or Steinbeck.

I'd wouldn't quite say it's "a straightforward fantasy adventure story", but I know what you're getting at. It's not high literature, but the sheer capacity for identifying the residue of literary movements such as romanticism, modernism, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, surrealism, realism, etc. is pretty bountiful. I suppose that's why it mightn't be studied at university-level; it's almost too easy to point and say "metafiction! pastiche! the inward turn!".

I don't think it'll become a fantasy classic purely due to the fact that it already is :smoking:

[newwb]

I personally think that ASOIAF is bigger than LOTR in terms of realms, history and language.

lolwut

[Dany Girl]

I really doubt that any decent universities will be studying ASOIAF. It's absolutely brilliant, but what you see is what you get - it's a straightforward fantasy adventure story. You can't really study it in the same way you can Hemingway or Steinbeck.

I disagree. GRRM paints a world that morality is quite different. The good guys aren't always good. The bad guys aren't always bad. There is sexism, homophobia, and a million other topics to explore. The books we read in my college English classes were far less developed as far as characters went. I think ASOIAF has a lot to offer as far as a college course goes.

Heck, there's a major college in Oregon (U of O I believe) that offers a course on "find your Patronus" so I think this series could lend itself to a college course.

[FuriousGeorge]

Literally impossible to tell. Edward Bellamy's 'Looking Backward' sold something like a million copies in the late nineteenth century but today no one has heard of it really, and for the most part the texts we think of as classics from that period didn't sell that well. But in 30/40 years literary theory will have moved on and as that happens other texts that are thought little of now from the nineteenth century will be elevated to the status of 'literary classic' to reflect that shift. But it doesn't mean anything anyway like people have said most stories regarded as classic literature are actually shit and for the most part simply highly esteemed outside of the academic establishment because people think that it is oh so cultured to fall in love with a book just because it has 'Henry James' or 'Henry Thoreau' stamped on the front of it.

[grand old duke of stark]

'FuriousGeorge' wrote:

Literally impossible to tell. Edward Bellamy's 'Looking Backward' sold something like a million copies in the late nineteenth century but today no one has heard of it really, and for the most part the texts we think of as classics from that period didn't sell that well. But in 30/40 years literary theory will have moved on and as that happens other texts that are thought little of now from the nineteenth century will be elevated to the status of 'literary classic' to reflect that shift. But it doesn't mean anything anyway like people have said most stories regarded as classic literature are actually shit and for the most part simply highly esteemed outside of the academic establishment because people think that it is oh so cultured to fall in love with a book just because it has 'Henry James' or 'Henry Thoreau' stamped on the front of it.

I disagree that most classics are shit--they just reflect their times and style of those times. A true classic stands the test of time, even if it is a bit dated. Memorable characters, excellent plots, winning style, universal themes and the patience and understanding of future reading generations make them live on. Whether you like them or not, Jane Austen and Dickens and the Brontes and Mark Twain are still worth having a look at. FWIW, this week a group I'm in re-read a couple of the Canterbury Tales. One thing that shocked us was how modern the attitude of the writer seemed, and how similar the characters are to people today. Not bad for 600 years later. But you couldn't drag me through another Henry James novel. Anyone who writes 3-page paragraphs should be hanged, drawn, and not quoted.

As to Asoif, I think it's bigger, deeper, more modern, more realistic, more thrilling, more democratic than LotR. But LotR is the grandfather of fantasy lit and Tolkien wrote the book on how to do it (figuratively speaking). It's mythic, it;s archetypal, it is metaphorical, it's pure fantasy with no grounding in the real world. Also, if college classes in 2050 assign a fantasy series to the students, LotR is the better bet simply because it's much shorter. GRRM's work may well be highly regarded, but probably more among aficionados of the genre than the wider reading audience. That is, if anyone still reads in 2050.

[Shane the Llama]

The level of snobbery concerning the fantasy genre in some of these posts is a bit shocking honestly, given that we are on a website dedicated to the discussion of this fantasy series. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the terminology involved to debate anyone over whether it is "high literature", but to claim that it is not even literature at all, as one poster did, is simply ridiculous. The genre of a work does not disqualify it from being a classic, or indicate that it does not contain anything worthy of study or analysis. The fact that something is entertaining, and can be appreciated by someone purely on the basis of its plot, does not mean that there is nothing more beneath the surface.

Classics are often seen as untouchable masterworks, and dismiss any suggestion that a new work could join their ranks. This is especially common when the new work achieves popularity. However, the effort to elevate classics to such an extent is actually counterproductive; by establishing a small (and somewhat arbitrarily chosen, in some cases) group of books as the absolute height of the medium, many less-prestigious (but not less-deserving) works are overlooked.

Finally, the claim that the series is unlikely to be a classic within the fantasy genre is, perhaps, the most absurd statement in this thread. Of course the ending could be terrible, but at this moment, everything points to A Song of Ice and Fire becoming one of the most well-known and highly regarded entries in the fantasy genre. It does not have to "top" Tolkien's work to do so, and the idea of it surpassing his contributions to the genre is not entirely unfounded. Although Martin's world cannot compare to Tolkien's, the depth of his books is, in my opinion, far greater. This is in no way a criticism of Tolkien; he simply did not set out with the same goals as Martin. Middle Earth is a land of myths and legends, while Westeros is one of people. Martin goes to great lengths to explore a vast range of human experiences and perspectives, and this is the key to his series' depth.

[FuriousGeorge]

'FuriousGeorge' wrote:

Literally impossible to tell. Edward Bellamy's 'Looking Backward' sold something like a million copies in the late nineteenth century but today no one has heard of it really, and for the most part the texts we think of as classics from that period didn't sell that well. But in 30/40 years literary theory will have moved on and as that happens other texts that are thought little of now from the nineteenth century will be elevated to the status of 'literary classic' to reflect that shift. But it doesn't mean anything anyway like people have said most stories regarded as classic literature are actually shit and for the most part simply highly esteemed outside of the academic establishment because people think that it is oh so cultured to fall in love with a book just because it has 'Henry James' or 'Henry Thoreau' stamped on the front of it.

I disagree that most classics are shit--they just reflect their times and style of those times. A true classic stands the test of time, even if it is a bit dated. Memorable characters, excellent plots, winning style, universal themes and the patience and understanding of future reading generations make them live on. Whether you like them or not, Jane Austen and Dickens and the Brontes and Mark Twain are still worth having a look at. FWIW, this week a group I'm in re-read a couple of the Canterbury Tales. One thing that shocked us was how modern the attitude of the writer seemed, and how similar the characters are to people today. Not bad for 600 years later. But you couldn't drag me through another Henry James novel. Anyone who writes 3-page paragraphs should be hanged, drawn, and not quoted.

As to Asoif, I think it's bigger, deeper, more modern, more realistic, more thrilling, more democratic than LotR. But LotR is the grandfather of fantasy lit and Tolkien wrote the book on how to do it (figuratively speaking). It's mythic, it;s archetypal, it is metaphorical, it's pure fantasy with no grounding in the real world. Also, if college classes in 2050 assign a fantasy series to the students, LotR is the better bet simply because it's much shorter. GRRM's work may well be highly regarded, but probably more among aficionados of the genre than the wider reading audience. That is, if anyone still reads in 2050.

Haha yeah Cantebury Tales is definitely not shit Geoffrey was a dirty bastard and, personally, I love that. I was being flippant when I said 'most classics are shit' I really don't think that but my point is that the process by which texts become thought of as literary classics is imo flawed and if a novel or series doesn't (or can't) enter that canon we shouldn't use that as a way to judge the worth of the story.

[Miodrag]

Let's not get carried away. There is very little chance it will be considered a literary classic in 50 years. It may well not even be a fantasy genre classic.

Does this mean you don't believe theorists are going to consider it a literary classic, or that you yourself don't think it is?

[Theda Baratheon]

more like Pop Culture history.

[JeepCSC]

It's significance will be culturally, as the tv show will provide most of the context. It's literary contribution will not be insignificant, but the HBO show (sadly) will be what most people think of in the future.

[JeepCSC]

It will be below LOTR and Harry Potter culturally, should have more sustainability than Twilight. Unless something unforeseen happens, we are looking at about a decade run from the show. With Emmys and what all, it will likely begin to seep in to daily life more completely as people start to catch up to the fuss. But these things are hard to predict.

[Florina Laufeyson]

more like Pop Culture history.

Which is still an important part of history. HP Lovecraft has a lot of pop culture cred despite not being a huge hit in his own time. Now you see ol' Nyarly and Cthulhu popping up everywhere as Lovecraft's works are now public domain.

ASOIAF may not be on a syllabus for a classroom later down the line, but that doesnt mean its not gonna be on people's summer reading lists or in the minds of the world. Book sales climb each day due to exposure. Its ludicrous to suggest that this series isnt going to be remembered.

[Miodrag]

I really doubt that any decent universities will be studying ASOIAF. It's absolutely brilliant, but what you see is what you get - it's a straightforward fantasy adventure story. You can't really study it in the same way you can Hemingway or Steinbeck.

What you see is what you get? A straightforward fantasy adventure story? Strongly disagree. I see a lot more in these books. And I have a feeling I'm not the only one. Just the sheer number of threads about characters, for example, and all the layers of those characters that are analyzed and debated to no end, and everything that may come up as a conclusion from those discussions - all that actually proves that ASOIAF can be studied extremely thoroughly and very seriously. In fact, I'm not certain books considered moderns classics would be able to sustain as much analyzing as ASOIAF is regularly put through. None of those books was ever subjected to that kind of analyzing.

[FacelessMan21]

Hey, first post woo! :D

I was actually discussing this with a friend the other day. As a story ASOIAF trumps LOTR, mainly just because of the sheer diversity of cultures and numerous characters there are to engage with. However, LOTR for me will always have the edge as it seems to have been a benchmark for the creation of worlds and races that would, at first, seem unimaginable to the ordinary person!

I would argue that ASOIAF is by far the best series of books to come out since LOTR, other novels that I have enjoyed have been the Drenai series by David Gemmell but Ice and Fire surpasses those by someway and invites the reader into their world like no modern book has. Ice and Fire are also of stand alone quality just because of the unpredictable nature of them, books often use sneaky little twists to shock the reader but always end up with the main character pulling through and succeeding. I feel with Ice and Fire that the fact anyone could die at any moment and all manor of things could happen at any time means that they are always interesting and will be read and enjoyed for years to come.

In terms of the TV series, I always find myself thinking "meh" at it. Part of me thinks it's because I know what is going to happen all the time but another part of me probably feels under whelmed because of the elaborate world the books have created in my head. In comparison to LOTR the on screen version is just not as good (granted LOTR probably had a higher budget) but everything is just more EPIC. On top of this friends of mine who have only watched the tv series of GOT (fools I know) often struggle to keep up with everything if they look away for even a split second. I think the vast choice of quality tv means that GOT (Boardwalk Empire, The Sopranos, The Wire), for me, doesn't stand out as a classic for future years.

So, book = timeless and will be enjoyed for years to come. TV series = A hit right now, will it be remembered in 10 years?