Jump to content

Will ASOIAF stand the test of time?


ViserysLAD

Recommended Posts

I think Martin is (or was) a better short story writer than he is a novelist. This may actually be one of the structural reasons he's lost control of ASOIAF in the last couple of books.

While I have probably only read one short story by Martin (in some 80s SF anthology), and the first two Dunk&Egg novellas, I'll probably agree. Even in the 2nd and 3rd books which are overall very good, it shows that GRRM is better at short vignettes (e.g. take all the prologue and epilogue sections).

 

I am not sufficiently familiar with making books but I also think that especially book 5 (but probably 4 as well) are victims of the success of the series. More than anything else they would have needed a ruthless editor with enough guts to put pressure on the author to cut out large swaths of verbiage, heraldry, clicheed witticisms from Tyrion while shaking the last drops off after taking a piss, food porn and maybe even whole subplots. But especially with #5 deadlines were apparently so tight and it would sell like hot cakes anyway, so very little effort was spent on proofreading and editing. (Most obvious might be the nonsense, that after 4 books suddenly the nightly hours have customary names.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roose Bolton's Pet Leech

 

I still enjoyed Books 4 and 5 a good deal, but I  think some of the best chapters in the series do read like short stories (eg Catelyn's last chapter, the Queenmaker, the Dragontamer, Mercy, The Prologue and Epilogue to ASOS).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
You're denying the influence of his work based on the argument that other authors have influenced the genre more? Should I then deny Robert Heinlein's influence on science fiction because he hasn't had quite so great an impact as Frank Herbert or Issac Asimov?
 
For the record I disagree with the idea that Stephen Donaldson has had the same impact in the same time frame as Martin.

You are being disingenuous: he is obviously denying that Martin had an exceptional influence on the genre, and saying he cannot be compared to Tolkien, not that did not have any influence.

I think he majorly influenced the next generation to write with PoV structure (third person limited) and was also big in the current though fading trend of low magic gritty setting stuff... But having said that, Jordan was the bigger influence when it comes to the fantasy series structure as we know it currently, and Donaldson definitely was the biggest influence when it concerns grittiness, while Vance dwarfs them all in the dragons and dungeons and magic department.

This is rather meaningless anyway: if anyone knew what makes a work stand the test of time, everyone would use the formula. It's not about influence, literary skills or present popularity anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're denying the influence of his work based on the argument that other authors have influenced the genre more? Should I then deny Robert Heinlein's influence on science fiction because he hasn't had quite so great an impact as Frank Herbert or Issac Asimov?

 

For the record I disagree with the idea that Stephen Donaldson has had the same impact in the same time frame as Martin.

 

You were the one who brought up the American Tolkien thing as being reflective of genre influence. I was merely pointing out that by that reasoning, Jack Vance would be a far better candidate for the title than Martin.

 

As for Donaldson, it was he (not Martin) who introduced the conflicted anti-hero into modern doorstopper fantasy, and who (ironically with Terry Brooks in the same year) showed that lengthy fantasy novels were a viable market opportunity post-Tolkien. Martin didn't even invent the grimdark sub-genre; he's simply popularised it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing though: Tolkien never was the be-all and end-all of fantasy. You had the sword and sorcery strain of fantasy continuing via Leiber and Moorcock, you had Peake and Vance and Zelazny and McKillip and Le Guin (none of whom are particularly Tolkienesque) well before Donaldson and later Tad Williams took the Tolkienian framework and twisted it (Martin himself credits Williams as a major influence on ASOIAF). This idea that Martin "freed" fantasy from Tolkien imitators just isn't true, not least because ASOIAF's popularity didn't even take off until about 2003... ironically as a result of Peter Jackson's LOTR adaptions. 

 

And of course in raw popularity. J.K. Rowling dwarfs them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit off topic, but since you brought up Rowling lemme ask, do you think that the Kingkiller Chronicles would be as popular as they are if we didn't have an entire generation that grew up reading Harry Potter?

Since we are off topic anyway: why the kingskiller chronicles specifically?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRRM is already a superstar, and the first three books are undisputed classics. Even if he botched the landing he would be remembered just for these accomplishments, but if the ending is great then it will further solidify his legacy.

 

Legacy within sf/f fandom and readers, possibly -- particularly since he's male. Again, Bulwar-Lytton.

 

Which also teaches us that conventions and fashions still come and they also still go, in terms of recognition and popularity, no matter how successful within their time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that possible trend-setting is not all that important for the reputation. But to claim that SoIaF is "already a classic" seems really premature. The actual popularity and reputation today (or in the last 10 years or even in 2025) is not in dispute.

But the comparison to Bulwer-Lytton or dozens of other writers of (genre) fiction of the 19th or early 20th century was made to show that the popularity today should not lead to conclusions about what people in 2056 or 2100 will think about the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vance would be a good choice as well I'd agree although I think what really set Tolkien apart is that it not only created a basic framework that would be copied by vast numbers of authors he also created arguably THE definitive version of that framework.

 

You look at Vance's original Dying Earth work that helped create the often used framework and I don't think the stories or world stands up to the quality and complexity of Tolkiens LOTR and Middle Earth, For me it would take something like Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun to take that concept and elevate it to a similar level to Tolkien.

 

Its that status as both innovator AND creator of arguably the definitive work of his sub genre that sets Tolkien apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't buy that ASoIaF had this wide spreading instant omg the rules have changed effect that some people claim it did. Although if we're talking his influence on the genre from his work as a whole, maybe.

Edit: when did they start calling him that anyway? Cause for a long time I temver Jordan got called the same thing.

 

Lev Grossman's review of A Feast for Crows.

 

It's also fairly standard. Dragon Magazine called Feist "The American Tolkien" in their review of Magician in 1982, and Locus called Tad Williams "The American Tolkien" (and IIRC and way over-hyperbolically, also the "Fantasy Tolstoy") in their review of The Dragonbone Chair.

 

I don't think Jordan actually was called "The American Tolkien". The closest was the New York Times saying, "With The Wheel of Time, Jordan has come to dominate the world Tolkien began to reveal," which is more of a sales judgement than a quality one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think George will be remembered more for that record breaking tv series then his books for the world at large

Within the book reading circles, I feel it still depends on how he or if he finishes the story. As the books stand the first three are right up there with the best I've read
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think so, and to me they are an achievement greater than pretty much anything else I have ever read, including classics like Salinger, Joyce, Clarke, Le Guin, etc... but I am probably biased, being a huge speculative fiction nerd who has re-read ASOIAF more times than any sane person probably should, haha. They just do it for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I do like Martin's work but he will never be at the same level with the Tolkien, Lovecraft and C.S.Lewis.

 

Well, Tolkien's first book came out in 1937, and The Lord of the Rings came out in 1954-1955, yet he didn't become really popular until the 1960s.

 

Lovecraft was a nonentity at the time of his death in 1937. His legacy was only saved via Derleth keeping the stories alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I do like Martin's work but he will never be at the same level with the Tolkien, Lovecraft and C.S.Lewis.

 

GRRM's impact has already surpassed Lovecraft

 

The cosmic horror of Lovecraft is awesome, but it doesn't play that great a role in the public imagination. His biggest impact is probably inspiring Stephen King

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...