GRRM is a bad writer?

[Skythe1]

Multiple POVs require from the author to create believable internal thoughts for each character, often with very different mindsets, and to move the plot forward without the advantages of an omniscient narrator.

Yeah that's why I said arguably, both ways of doing it have their own drawbacks. Stylistically the multiple POVs works well for ASOIAF.

[Skythe1]

This just goes to show how subjective literary quality actually is. I just can't be bothered to argue one way or another with these things, as it's not worth my time.

My point exactly :)

There's a big difference between literary quality and a good story.

[Game Of Thrones]

Does fantasy of this sort ever become "classic lit" and not just classic fantasy? Is Tolkien "classic lit"? I would argue yes, but there are those who would say no.

Tolkien is the single most horrible dialogue author ever.

[michaelx]

I'm sorry but Milton, Dickens and Austen are 3 of the most boring writers I have ever read. Comparing them to a fantasy novelist is way off base anyway, and they weren't academics at all.

Boring? Maybe

Better? Yes, by a landslide.

They weren't academics at all? They are considered to be prominent writers by Harold Bloom (Greatest literary critic on the planet) and other academics. Do some research.

[Skythe1]

Boring? Maybe

Better? Yes, by a landslide.

They weren't academics at all? They are considered to be prominent writers by Harold Bloom (Greatest literary critic on the planet) and other academics.

They are certainly better at writing prose, but not better at crafting a story in my opinion. Especially Dickens, his characters are shockingly poor.

Being a prominent writer doesn't make you an academic I'm afraid.

[michaelx]

The writers recommended by Harold Bloom are studied by academics. Hence the recommendation. Head at Yale University.

So, according to you shakespeare, goethe, dante etc... are not studied? In his list of Western Canon - they are all mentioned.

[Skythe1]

The writers recommended by Harold Bloom are studied by academics. Hence the recommendation.

So, according to you shakespeare, goethe, dante etc... are not studied? In his list of Western Canon - they are all mentioned.

Yes, they're studied by academics. But that doesn't make the author an academic. They are, for the most part, not scholarly people. They're fiction writers.

Now Dante, I like.

[sj4iy]

Yes, they're studied by academics. But that doesn't make the author an academic. They are, for the most part, not scholarly people. They're fiction writers.

Now Dante, I like.

I'm not getting why it matters if the authors were academics or not. Most writers are not academics. Mark Twain wasn't an academic, but that doesn't mean he isn't one of America's greatest authors.

[The Sleeper]

For my part I found "Great Expectations" to be the most aptly named book in the history of literature.

[Skythe1]

I'm not getting why it matters if the authors were academics or not. Most writers are not academics. Mark Twain wasn't an academic, but that doesn't mean he isn't one of America's greatest authors.

No, it doesn't matter at all, somebody posted that the authors mentioned were academics and I was just pointing out that they weren't.

Being studied by 'academics' doesn't make somebody a great author either.

Anyway my point was, comparing George Martin to authors like Twain, Dickens, Austen etc is pointless.

[Ingelheim]

He's not Cervantes, Dante, Dickens, etc but he's an excellent writer.

[sj4iy]

No, it doesn't matter at all, somebody posted that the authors mentioned were academics and I was just pointing out that they weren't.

Being studied by 'academics' doesn't make somebody a great author either.

Anyway my point was, comparing George Martin to authors like Twain, Dickens, Austen etc is pointless.

Oh, I agree. His works shouldn't be compared to theirs, but that doesn't mean his books are rubbish. They are excellent distractions, and for the most part, fun to read. It's more than can be said for most fantasy these days.

[Skythe1]

Oh, I agree. His works shouldn't be compared to theirs, but that doesn't mean his books are rubbish. They are excellent distractions, and for the most part, fun to read. It's more than can be said for most fantasy these days.

Yeah exactly, it's an excellent plot driven series with great characterisation and it keeps you guessing from one page to the next. Something most literary authors wouldn't do because they're too busy worrying how many syllables their sentence contains.

[Ygritte]

Yeah exactly, it's an excellent plot driven series with great characterisation and it keeps you guessing from one page to the next. Something most literary authors wouldn't do because they're too busy worrying how many syllables their sentence contains.

And I really think most of the "great authors" of the past, the ones who get studied in literature class, were also trying to write good stories (and/or to make money) more than they were trying to Create Great Art. And they ended up Creating Great Art by accident while writing a ripping good yarn. Shakespeare was just considered entertainment, in his own time. I think where some authors go wrong these days is they self-consciously try to Create Great Art instead of just writing and seeing what happens. I'm not sure we can even guess, from where we sit, which popular authors of today will be remembered centuries in the future. (Assuming ice zombies don't get us all.)

[Liver & onions]

He sucks. I mean he just wrote one of the most beloved series ever.

Really?

[Skythe1]

He sucks. I mean he just wrote one of the most beloved series ever.

Really?

So did Stephanie Meyer ;)

But I don't think anybody here has said that he 'sucks'

[Panos Targaryen]

To all the people comparing him to Shakespeare, Tolstoi etc: do you really except ANY sci-fi/fantasy author to be like them? There are none. Maybe Tolkien comes close in terms of pure prose.

He doesn't appear to be as good at writing prose as them because he doesn't have to be as good as them. He writes as well as he has to in order to make his story accessible to a wide audience. He writes a great and engaging story and awesome, complex and realistic characters, and that's ALL he has to do. What's with all this Shakespeare/Milton bullshit? You expect him to invent new words too? How can you compare authors of realist social dramas from the 19th-16th centuries to a 21st century fantasy author?

And by the way, his prose is excellent. Passages like Reek being in Winterfell, descriptions of the Free Cities and Slaver's Bay, Bran's Bloodraven stuff, Sansa at the Eyrie. I could read them again and again. If that makes my taste in literature bad and "uncultured" so be it.

[Alex21]

To all the people comparing him to Shakespeare, Tolstoi etc: do you really except ANY sci-fi/fantasy author to be like them? There are none. Maybe Tolkien comes close in terms of pure prose.

He doesn't appear to be as good at writing prose as them because he doesn't have to be as good as them. He writes as well as he has to in order to make his story accessible to a wide audience. He writes a great and engaging story and awesome, complex and realistic characters, and that's ALL he has to do. What's with all this Shakespeare/Milton bullshit? You expect him to invent new words too? How can you compare authors of realist social dramas from the 19th-16th centuries to a 21st century fantasy author?

And by the way, his prose is excellent. Passages like Reek being in Winterfell, descriptions of the Free Cities and Slaver's Bay, Bran's Bloodraven stuff, Sansa at the Eyrie. I could read them again and again. If that makes my taste in literature bad and "uncultured" so be it.

Excellent statement! , thanks for share it here! I think as you do, it's wrong and unfair to compare him (Martin) with authors who lived centuries ago and helped to build genres and languages even

[The Imperator]

No, GRRM is most certainly not a bad writer. He's an excellent writer.

Now, is his work for everyone? No. Some people may not like the fact that the characters are morally ambiguous or that they live on a world where there is much misogyny or that anyone can die (such as Ned Stark). So be it. There are other books to read. But GRRM wrote a story that's unpredictable, realistic, dark, and morally ambiguous and that's why many of his fans like him.

[sj4iy]

To all the people comparing him to Shakespeare, Tolstoi etc: do you really except ANY sci-fi/fantasy author to be like them? There are none. Maybe Tolkien comes close in terms of pure prose.

He doesn't appear to be as good at writing prose as them because he doesn't have to be as good as them. He writes as well as he has to in order to make his story accessible to a wide audience. He writes a great and engaging story and awesome, complex and realistic characters, and that's ALL he has to do. What's with all this Shakespeare/Milton bullshit? You expect him to invent new words too? How can you compare authors of realist social dramas from the 19th-16th centuries to a 21st century fantasy author?

And by the way, his prose is excellent. Passages like Reek being in Winterfell, descriptions of the Free Cities and Slaver's Bay, Bran's Bloodraven stuff, Sansa at the Eyrie. I could read them again and again. If that makes my taste in literature bad and "uncultured" so be it.

Shakespeare wrote quite a lot of fantasy ;)