Do many famous Writers that view George RR Martin and Song of Ice and Fire with Contempt?

[Woofless]

The Man Booker prize was won last year by The Luminaries. I am not really a bibliophile but two close acquaintances who are, tried, well more than tried, one of them succeeded in slogging through this winner. Sales are poor and reviews are not very good, but this particular book is supposed to be the best of the best.

Would the jury that picked this ever promote or vote for ASOIAF? Not on your life. Would they read and enjoy it in private? Very probably.

[Wilbur]

Is there any more fantasy by Eddison besides "The Worm Ouroboros"? (Which is kind of cool, but also close to unreadable, so I am not sure, I will ever read it again, but neither have I culled it from my shelves).

Eddison also wrote the Zimiamvian Trilogy, which includes the following books.

• Mistress of Mistresses (1935)

A Fish Dinner in Memison (1941)

The Mezentian Gate (1958)

The third book was unfinished at his death, and none of the three are any more accessible to modern readers than Mervyn Peake. However, given how much Tolkien liked Eddison, I have a hard time thinking that the sex and violence inherent in ASOIAF would have been enough to deter JRRT from reading and appreciating GRRM.

Using Eddison as a proxy for GRRM, both feature struggles for power between strong-willed characters willing to engage in morally questionable means to their ends. Both include romance and sex and royal bastards. And finally both engage the tropes of high fantasy in a subverted form to tell a tale.

Similarly, C.S. Lewis wrote The Great Divorce, Till We Have Faces, and The Discarded Image, all of which deal with both human sexuality and violence in pursuit of power in both a contemporary and high medieval settings. Furthermore, Lewis' work is rife with pagan gods and characters from classical mythology, and he doesn't flinch from describing their earthier characteristics even in his children's novels. For good measure, Lewis uses extensive metaphors from Edwardian and Elizabethan astrology, a sentient bear who channels Merlin, and a character in That Hideous Strength who is into femdom S&M, in case you didn't think the pagan gods were weird enough.

Finally, both Lewis and Tolkien wrote appreciations of Mary Renault's works, many of which include homosexual or bisexual protagonists, slavery, murder for power, betrayals, pagan gods, and total war.

Just because Lewis and Tolkien were Christians doesn't mean that they would automatically refuse to appreciate literature with strange theologies, moral ambiguity, outre sex and extensive violence. Such an assumption is a small-minded view of both Christians and Christian literature, which includes books ranging from The Inferno to Genesis, none of which shies away from topics such as incest, rape, bastardy, murder, adultery, corruption, shame, guilt, forgiveness or atonement.

Tolkien and Lewis might have something to say about GRRM as a stylist, but rejection on the basis of immorality? No.

[protar]

These people should just give in and begin worshipping the fantasy master race.

[sj4iy]

I will say I don't see the value of studying the show, save as a means of visualising the books. All of the artistic merit of the show is in the books but more.

Exactly. The show is somewhat watered down in many ways to the books, though of course this happens with many adaptations.

Disagree completely. The books are limited its POV format. The show is able to expand on many of the secondary characters who often have very little characterization in the books. Cersei, Margaery, Tywin, Oberyn, etc etc...all of these characters have been rounded out in the show in a way that was impossible for the books to do. Studying both allows students to compare and contrast the characters, and to see which storylines and plots have been emphasized in one version vs the other. There's also the fact that the books are heavily dependent on prophecies, dreams and visions...whereas the show has forgone much of that and instead has turned to symbolism and foreshadowing.

The show isn't simply a 'watered down version of the books'...if the books are going to be studied, then the show should be, as well, because both have quite a lot to offer to anyone willing to break them down.

[Tears of Lys]

The answer will drive you crazy. Just walk away.

It will be as if you beheld the Inverse Fire.

There are some barriers that must not be crossed, so too with asking Solo to explain himself.

[Darth Richard II]

The answer will drive you crazy. Just walk away.

This thread has already driven me at least halfway there.

[Happy Ent]

There are some barriers that must not be crossed, so too with asking Solo to explain himself.

Some corruption begs not the cloth, but the knife.

[Lyanna Stark]

Disagree completely. The books are limited its POV format. The show is able to expand on many of the secondary characters who often have very little characterization in the books. Cersei, Margaery, Tywin, Oberyn, etc etc...all of these characters have been rounded out in the show in a way that was impossible for the books to do.

Haha no. Just seriously no.

They haven't been so much "rounded out" as streamlined and simplified. Books = books, TV-series = something else. One thing is the real stuff, the other someone's hamfisted attempt at visualising it with a limited budget, a huge boob-quota and Hollywood style dramaturgy.

Plus if you think the POV format is limiting, you ain't reading it right. Just sayin. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a genius to put things in perspective despite the third person limited narrative mode.

[Jo498]

Eddison also wrote the Zimiamvian Trilogy, which includes the following books.

• Mistress of Mistresses (1935)

A Fish Dinner in Memison (1941)

The Mezentian Gate (1958)

The third book was unfinished at his death, and none of the three are any more accessible to modern readers than Mervyn Peake. However, given how much Tolkien liked Eddison, I have a hard time thinking that the sex and violence inherent in ASOIAF would have been enough to deter JRRT from reading and appreciating GRRM.

Thanks!

I now remember that I have seen these titles, probably after I read Ouroboros 10 or more years ago. They seem to be oop now, but promised for Kindle in October. Interestingly, they also have been translated into German. Although Eddison's style will be hard to translate (and they might even be abrigded) I might try one of them, if I can get it cheaply used.

I agree that Tolkien and Lewis were not philistines, but the sex and violence in modern fantasy feel often gratitious or overly explicit. Certainly compared to what I remember from Ouroboros.

[swordswallower]

GRRM: "Oh, I just make up Dothraki words as I need them."

Tolkein: *snorts* "Amateur."

Love it!

[The Marquis de Leech]

kickass, WS.

I want to draft a fake HPL review, but can't quite strike quite the right balance between distrust of martin's lack of distrust for swarthy characters, prudish response to all the sex, and apocalyptic horror at the lack of malevolence in the setting.

"Martin shews[sic] moments of true terror, with the unknown abominations that lurk beneath the waves and beyond the Wall. Long did Westeros think itself centred on human values and human wars, until the creatures from beyond snuffed it out."

[The Marquis de Leech]

I will say I don't see the value of studying the show, save as a means of visualising the books. All of the artistic merit of the show is in the books but more.

There are plenty of improvements that the TV version made. Robert, Viserys, and Sam are all superior to their book counterparts. I'd argue Jon is too.

[polishgenius]

Quite honestly, the show > the books in a lot of ways. Overall I'd place them about equal - of course it loses some richness of backstory and things like that, but the main thing I find it gains is that the interactions of the characters are much better realised. This goes from simply cleaning up some slightly clumsy dialogue on occasion to introducing whole new interactions and conversations that were never there before.

Quite a few of my favourite scenes from the show were never in the books.

[Lyanna Stark]

Quite honestly, the show > the books in a lot of ways. Overall I'd place them about equal - of course it loses some richness of backstory and things like that, but the main thing I find it gains is that the interactions of the characters are much better realised. This goes from simply cleaning up some slightly clumsy dialogue on occasion to introducing whole new interactions and conversations that were never there before.

Quite a few of my favourite scenes from the show were never in the books.

I can't think of any scenes in the TV series I prefer over the novels. None.

To me the TV-series is a Hollywoodised, streamlined, simplified and often dumbed down version with extra boobs, extra brothels, extreme whitewashing of Tyrion and male gaze galore. Did I mention the extra boobs? And the brothels? It is not chance and chaos theory that made Game of Thrones coin the phrase "sexposition".

Oh and with extra bonus creds to whomever thought it was a good idea to have Tyrion talk to Jaime for five minutes about toads.

You know, as much as it grates on me that Dany's, Cat's and Arya's characters were used for something totally different than they are in the books (and most of the time totally inferior with far lower levels of complexity) what grates the most I think is that Tyrion is a shadow of his interesting complexity in the novels. One of, if not the most psychologically complex and conflicted character is turned into a freaking white knight hero who's so righteous and amazing it's a wonder he doesn't have fucking rainbows coming out of his buttcrack.

To each their own of course, but in my view, the show adds nothing. It taketh away. Unless farting rainbows is what people want. :p

[The Marquis de Leech]

Oh and with extra bonus creds to whomever thought it was a good idea to have Tyrion talk to Jaime for five minutes about toads.

It was beetles, damn it, and there was plenty of lovely thematic depth to that conversation. It works on several levels.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Paramount, could you edit your first post to make the headline grammatical? (Choose full editor on your first post.)

For instance, remove that (if thats what you want to say).

I agree.

[Arakan]

I can't think of any scenes in the TV series I prefer over the novels. None.

To me the TV-series is a Hollywoodised, streamlined, simplified and often dumbed down version with extra boobs, extra brothels, extreme whitewashing of Tyrion and male gaze galore. Did I mention the extra boobs? And the brothels? It is not chance and chaos theory that made Game of Thrones coin the phrase "sexposition".

Oh and with extra bonus creds to whomever thought it was a good idea to have Tyrion talk to Jaime for five minutes about toads.

You know, as much as it grates on me that Dany's, Cat's and Arya's characters were used for something totally different than they are in the books (and most of the time totally inferior with far lower levels of complexity) what grates the most I think is that Tyrion is a shadow of his interesting complexity in the novels. One of, if not the most psychologically complex and conflicted character is turned into a freaking white knight hero who's so righteous and amazing it's a wonder he doesn't have fucking rainbows coming out of his buttcrack.

To each their own of course, but in my view, the show adds nothing. It taketh away. Unless farting rainbows is what people want. :p

hahaha great and funny post, like it :)

And btw @sj4iy: why do you always have to derail threads with your TV show comments at every opportunity? This is a pattern which is very visible.

Maybe you like the show more than the books which is no problem for me (I didnt watch it) but it is tiresome. This thread has nothing to do with TV versus book.

[polishgenius]

I can't think of any scenes in the TV series I prefer over the novels. None.

I can think of plenty. Lots.

The main additions that I approve of is the series of conversations between Varys and Littlefinger (a lot less subtle than the slow unveiling of that plot in the books, but this is where the show can't really be that subtle because, for example, Arya might not recognise certain people in the tunnels but we would, and the dialogue between them is great) and the change that Arya is Tywin's cupbearer.

But there's also lots of some things like Jaime's conversation with the guard in season 1, some Tywin scenes with Joffrey... and just generally, the dialogue is better handled.

The sexposition was pretty terrible, but they did take that on board and reduce it a lot later on, plus you can't really believe that GRRM is somehow less sexually skeevy just because you can't see the tits. I mean, Dany's first sex scenes with Drogo. :ack:

[protar]

I can think of plenty. Lots.

The main additions that I approve of is the series of conversations between Varys and Littlefinger (a lot less subtle than the slow unveiling of that plot in the books, but this is where the show can't really be that subtle because, for example, Arya might not recognise certain people in the tunnels but we would, and the dialogue between them is great) and the change that Arya is Tywin's cupbearer.

But there's also lots of some things like Jaime's conversation with the guard in season 1, some Tywin scenes with Joffrey... and just generally, the dialogue is better handled.

The sexposition was pretty terrible, but they did take that on board and reduce it a lot later on, plus you can't really believe that GRRM is somehow less sexually skeevy just because you can't see the tits. I mean, Dany's first sex scenes with Drogo. :ack:

...is vital to the plot. Maybe Martin isn't the best at writing sexy sex scenes (though in fairness most of his aren't supposed to be.) but at least they contribute something to the story. For Martin the plot comes first and if that happens to require sex so be it. For D+D the sex comes first and they try to find a way to work it into the plot. And they usually don't bother very much. Putting plot relevant exposition side by side with a sex scene does not make plot relevant sex.

[sj4iy]

hahaha great and funny post, like it :)

And btw @sj4iy: why do you always have to derail threads with your TV show comments at every opportunity? This is a pattern which is very visible.

Maybe you like the show more than the books which is no problem for me (I didnt watch it) but it is tiresome. This thread has nothing to do with TV versus book.

...you mean the pattern of answering someone else who made a comment about the show? Because I didn't 'derail' the thread, if you had payed attention. And I would pay attention if I were about to call someone out publicly for something so asinine :P

If you want to call someone out for bringing up the show, why don't you find the person who actually did instead of accusing me of "liking the show more than the books"...especially given that I wrote quite a lot before then about the use of themes in the books.