asoiaf's place in cultural/literary history

[Lala]

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?

Welcome to forums!

I feel pretty much the same way - I also tend to see LoTR and ASoIaF as fundamentally different types of stories (even though they're both considered "fantasy")

LoTR is more like the Chronicles of Narnia in that its a series that builds up this stark good/evil dichotomy and is fundamentally about a small band of adventurers trying to save the world. These are stories about good vs. evil - they're almost "biblical" in nature and indeed, both Tolkien and Lewis were heavily inspired by Christianity.

On the other hand, I find certain aspects of ASoIaF more comparable to, say, World War Z, where it's not about one character or two characters, but about many different people trying to live their lives in this fantasy world that Martin has created and to survive/win the game of thrones. The theme of both these stories is about people and human society. I tend to see the dichotomy between fire/ice as a false one (that the Others are the big bad and the dragons are world saviors) but maybe I'll be proven wrong :P

[Lord Ravenstark]

Everything depend of how it will end.

ASOIAF have a lot of potential.

[FacelessMan21]

Welcome to forums!

^ Thanks!

I completely with what your saying about the books being about different people trying to live their lives! It sounds silly but you actually feel a part of Westeros, whereas Middle Earth is always somewhere that feels foreign and distant, even if you do feel like you know the characters.

As for the people above discussing whether ASoIaF will ever be studied at university, I find it hard to ever see that. Having just finished my degree, in History not English to be fair, I think it takes a work that tests the boundaries of literature to break into a syllabus today and as much as we all love Ice and Fire it's simply an outstanding fantasy series and nothing overly new to scholars!

[mushroomshirt]

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

What a great quote. Thanks for posting it.

[Florina Laufeyson]

ASOIAF is more about character study where LotR or Narnia are more story/plot driven. ASOIAF is its characters. While we all remember Aragorn, Frodo, and Gandalf, we remember the trek to Mordor and the battle for the One Ring over all of that. ASOIAF, we recall the characters first and foremost. It wont be "Oh hey remember the War of Five Kings or the Battle of the Others?" it will be "Man, that Tyrion Lannister! What a card! Hahaha Arya Stark was such a badass! I miss Ned... Oh hey, Dragons! Jon Snow! Jon Snow!" Other than the Red Wedding, the characters themselves stick in people's minds.

As for the show, think of it as a springboard for people to get acquainted with the series and its characters. Most people i talk to who are fans of the show, eventually wind up reading the books.

[lifefullofwords]

I would be surprised if in the future ASoIaF wasn't considered one of the greatest fantasy series ever written - which doesn't mean that Martin is going to be mentioned in the same breath as Austen and Hemingway. That seems highly unlikely. GRRM is an extremely gifted genre writer but ASoIaF just isn't literary enough to join the canon. There are a number of reasons but chief among them is Martin's workmanlike prose.

However, given that genre fiction is increasingly considered an appropriate topic for academic study it's not impossible that in the future Martin will be written about by scholars. For all I know he has been already.

[Morienthar]

I'll wait for the last two books to decide if ASoIaF is as Good as the stories of Middle Earth.

But from a purely literary point of view I think LOTR will always trump other fantasy books.

[Ser Not Appearing]

It will be considered one of the finest works of fantasy and will easily stand the test of time, aided by a well-wrought and popular TV show... but even beyond that it isn't as much a genre forerunner as LOTR, (which lends a certain type of permanence in collective consciousness), the adult content, some of which is integral to the story, will prevent it from rising to quite the same level of cultural ubiquity - certainly in terms of children studying it.

[Miodrag]

When a writer serves his characters rather than his ego, his prose - if written in a 'close third person' technique - can probably look unchallenging to readers who like sophisticated language in literature. It is also a matter of taste, of course, as one may like a certain type of prose more or less than other types. But, I don't think Martin's prose is bad or underwhelming or sub-par. On the contrary, his prose is perfectly suited for delivering a story he envisioned. When talking through your characters, none of which is highly-educated (compared to our modern standards, at least), it would be artificial and contrived to give them some highly sophisticated lines.

Does his choice of prose means that Martin isn't skillful enough with words? Wouldn't say so. The subtlety with which he embroidered some very delicate tapestries into his story, indicates that his wording skills are considerable. And, he did deliver more than a few chapters with a more sophisticated prose: Ned's execution seen from Arya's viewpoint is both dramatic and touching without ever going over the top; all of the Blackwater Battle chapters (Tyrion, Sansa and Davos); Red Wedding; Oberyn-Gregor duel; Bran's last chapter in ADWD; Cersei's walk of shame; Theon/Reek Winterfell chapters in ADWD... Those were just from the top of my head, but it's probably enough to show that Martin can write a sophisticated prose when and where he finds fit. (Cersei's walk of shame is possibly the best example; no author ever would be ashamed with that chapter in his/her resume.) Of course, there are lines and paragraphs that are justly looked upon by readers ("fat pink mast" comes to mind first), but I'd say that's inevitable in a story of this length, and I wouldn't chastise Martin over those. And some of his cliffhangers do look somewhat cheap, but those are in a clear minority.

Faulkner, who was obviously a great influence on Martin, used his prose in a very similar way. "The Sound and The Fury" and, even more, "As I Lay Dying", were written in a prose that may look unchallenging at first. But a deeper look at those novels shows not only that it was the right choice, but also a significant wording skills by Faulkner. He just used those scarcely. Another similar example would be "The War of the End of the World", Mario Vargas Llosa's epic masterpiece that is often overlooked, probably because he made the same decision as Faulkner and Martin did: prose is going to serve the characters and the plot, not the other way around. (Llosa's prose is extremely elegant even that way, but he did have a somewhat smaller scope to deal with than Martin.)

That's about prose. About everything else, I'm still to hear why would it be so unimaginable, or unwarranted even, if ASOIAF ends up in the literary Pantheon. It's themes, characterization and plot are nothing short of brilliance. In fact, I can't seem to remember reading an author who's equally ambitious and subtle both, as Martin is.

P.S. About comparison to LOTR: Tolkien wanted to create a mythology, while Martin wanted to create a world (that has it's own mythology, by the way). Both missions were extremely hard and demanding, and both are accomplished. And, because of the lasting values they were after, both are well suited to stand the test of time. Martin's achievement is, however, what I'd value more. All due respect for LOTR (which, truth be told, I read quite a while ago, and my memory is somewhat clouded by not very satisfying PJ's adaptation), but, because of the characterization first and foremost, ASOIAF does hit much more buttons in me than LOTR did.

[Burdette]

Opinions will be different. I think it will definitely be a top 5 fantasy series of all time, and possibly the best.

This will probably be an unpopular statement, but I have never been able to get into the Lord of the Rings books. I have tried on a few occasions, and reading it feels like a job. The writing is good, but I cant get into the characters or the plot, but I respect it as a literary masterpiece. But, IMO, it has already surpassed LotR, and is my #1.

(The LotR movies are excellent though)

[Mangomags]

One thing guaranteed to propel ASOIAF into the realm of the classics is if GRRM dies after the sixth book. The Nirvana effect. (Half kidding, I love Nirvana)

I'm not a great reader of fiction but have read LOTR a couple of times and ASOIAF once. I just wonder how it will stack up for future readers once all the books are out. For me all the fun is in theorizing and trying to predict what is going to happen. Most of the story is great, but the whole AFFC and most of the Mereen stuff is filler. The grand scheme might be richer to have it in, but it's a dull read. (I thought the same about the Frodo/Sam plot in LOTR)

[Morienthar]

This will probably be an unpopular statement, but I have never been able to get into the Lord of the Rings books. I have tried on a few occasions, and reading it feels like a job. The writing is good, but I cant get into the characters or the plot, but I respect it as a literary masterpiece. But, IMO, it has already surpassed LotR, and is my #1.

(The LotR movies are excellent though)

Exactly why you should read the books,so you can realize how bad the movies are compared to them.

[fiekie]

I feel pretty much the same way - I also tend to see LoTR and ASoIaF as fundamentally different types of stories (even though they're both considered "fantasy")

LoTR is more like the Chronicles of Narnia in that its a series that builds up this stark good/evil dichotomy and is fundamentally about a small band of adventurers trying to save the world. These are stories about good vs. evil - they're almost "biblical" in nature and indeed, both Tolkien and Lewis were heavily inspired by Christianity.

On the other hand, I find certain aspects of ASoIaF more comparable to, say, World War Z, where it's not about one character or two characters, but about many different people trying to live their lives in this fantasy world that Martin has created and to survive/win the game of thrones. The theme of both these stories is about people and human society. I tend to see the dichotomy between fire/ice as a false one (that the Others are the big bad and the dragons are world saviors) but maybe I'll be proven wrong :P

LOTR was written right after The Wars. I think it's hard not to think in terms of good vs evil if you saw what happened to the world.

I try not to compare the two directly since the focus is way different. Martin is obviously also a product of his time, and his art is thus darker, greyer and nastier.

You can compare particular literary aspects though. For example I think Martin's characterisation is way better than Tokien's, but Tolkien's world building kicks ass. He invented a whole new language! And all those (seemingly endless) chapters of songs and poems and non-story stuff truly painted a magnificent world, utterly unique and compelling.

[Burdette]

Exactly why you should read the books,so you can realize how bad the movies are compared to them.

I want to, and I know someday I will sit down and make it through them, but I like reading to be fun, and as of yet, I don't feel that with LotR.

[Miodrag]

I just wonder how it will stack up for future readers once all the books are out. For me all the fun is in theorizing and trying to predict what is going to happen.

If that was the case with most of the readers, there probably wouldn't be so many so detailed analyzing of the past books and completed storylines (like the tragedies of Ned and Robb, for example). Nor, I suspect, rereads would be as rewarding as they are.

Tolkien's world building kicks ass. He invented a whole new language!

It undoubtedly is a grand achievement. But, I wouldn't say Martin's world-building is lesser because he didn't invent new languages. GRRM 'invented' whole cultures (invented probably isn't the right word, because he didn't create them out of nothing: he modeled them after known, historical examples) and religions, that are as palpable and vivid as any, and all that clearly contributes to the story and the characters, giving them important foundations and backgrounds. Whole new languages wouldn't hurt, of course, but it wouldn't add any richness or depth into ASOIAF that isn't already there.

[Andrés Garcia]

William Shakespeare, Dante Alighieri, Geoffrey Chaucer, Molière, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Jane Austen, Walt Whitman, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, George Eliot, Marcel Proust, James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, Franz Kafka, and... George R. R. Martin?

[King Aerys the Just]

It will depend a lot on how well GRRM manages to wrap up the story in these last coming books for sure.

For me ASOIAF is definitely better than LOTR already, and there is only one "fantasy" series I like more, but when it comes to achieving long lasting literary fame pure quality doesn't seem to be the most decisive thing. It rather seems to be about standing out by being the first at something.

That fantasy as a genre is also a bit looked down upon by literary critics could cause trouble.

[Miodrag]

William Shakespeare, Dante Alighieri, Geoffrey Chaucer, Molière, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Jane Austen, Walt Whitman, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, George Eliot, Marcel Proust, James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, Franz Kafka, and... George R. R. Martin?

Mario Vargas Llosa, Jose Saramago, Gabriel Garcia Marques, Ian McEwan, Cormack McCarthy, Roberto Bolano, Victor Pelevin, Lyudmila Ulitskaya AND George R. R. Martin. (Now, I'm still to read Ulitskaya, and I'll do that very soon I hope, but some of my friends who adore her books also adore ASOIAF, so I guess they're at least comparable. And, I'd like to add that I respect Martin much more than McEwan, for a number of reasons, but I included McEwan on this list because he is among the most hailed authors of today. In fact, I'd put ASOIAF right up there with Llosa's and Saramago's masterpieces and with "2666" by Bolano as the best contemporary novels I've read.)

And, your list lacks not only modern authors, but also American ones. And Martin is, the way I see it, following the best tradition of American literature, as he's influenced by and comparable with Faulkner and Fitzgerald (after ASOS, I can't help but see Littlefinger as a more cynical and more cruel and much less romantic 'version' of Jay Gatsby; only, he isn't interested in repeating the past, but in avoiding the future that was projected for him by the society, and he manages that by tearing down the entire society to pieces).

And your list lacks one significant name: Fyodor Dostoyevsky. In my eyes, and not only mine, the greatest writer ever, who, I keep repeating in this kind of discussions, did inspire Freud to invent a science (psychology). Now, from your list, which does contain some rather overrated authors (though, truth be told, that would be a matter of a personal taste, because they all are universally regarded as literature elite), how many of them could compare with Dostoyevsky in terms of, say, characterization, in which Dostoyevsky is still widely regarded as unmatched? Shakespeare, of course. Tolstoy to an extent. I'm possibly missing someone, and I can't say I've read all the authors you listed, most of them I did, and I don't remember their characters that could 'compete' with Karamazovs, or with Raskolnikov, or Miskin, or Stavrogin... On the other hand, Martin's characterization is on a level that is at least comparable to the one of Dostoyevsky. And, they both (along with Faulkner and Llosa, for example) belong to the same type of writers: themes that concern very basics of a human society are explored through turbulent and bleak fates of flawed but extremely passionate characters.

The way I see it, ASOIAF would benefit greatly from being measured against higher standards (as an ambitious literary achievement that is meant to - and either succeeds or fails in it - explore the most important and the most basic forms of human behavior, both individual and collective), than against lower ones (a genre piece that may be more or less entertaining and/or intelligent than other genre pieces).

ETA: just to correct something, you did include one American, Walt Whitman, but he was a poet, as far as I know, not a novelist, which is why I'd say he doesn't exactly belong in this analysis.

[The Sleeper]

What is considered a classic is about how it comes to be considered in the collective consciousness, which may or may not have to do with the quality or popularity of the work itself. Personally, I can't for the life of me understand why Ursula Le Guin is not considered a classic. Works of her like the "The Dispossessed" and "The Left Hand of Darkness" are essentially flawless and profound and the rest are really fucking good. Yet, I heard from someone who is interested in literature that their impression of Le Guin was of someone who writes children's books...

ASOIAF does have its weaknesses. The prose is unremarkable and it could stand revision and editing (and being split into volumes) as a completed body of work, however, its depth, scope, premise and structure, its intricately woven narrative, its seemless characterization, the intense and poignant drama, the profound visceral experience it offers its readers and its ambition and daring in tackling subjects that are usually avoided, are extraordinary by any stanards.

[Miodrag]

ASOIAF does have its weaknesses. The prose is unremarkable and it could stand revision and editing (and being split into volumes) as a completed body of work, however, its depth, scope, premise and structure, its intricately woven narrative, its seemless characterization, the intense and poignant drama, the profound visceral experience it offers its readers and its ambition and daring in tackling subjects that are usually avoided, are extraordinary by any stanards.

I agree with you much more than I don't. Our one disagreement is about the prose. The parts I bolded in your quote - I don't think all that could be achieved with bad prose. Maybe Martin isn't the most skillful of writers when it comes to the prose itself, but in that case, he at least managed to work around that weakness of his. And, I can't help but repeat that more than a few of his chapters were written in quite a remarkable prose. Along with those I listed earlier, I just remembered the prologue of ACOK: it is fascinating what he managed to cover in a single chapter, and he did all that with some elegance and style.