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

[polishgenius]

Because strong themes help to make one's point more vividly and clearly. Touching on many different themes as opposed to exploring only a few mean that there's less of an impact on the reader.

It's perfectly okay to write like that, but at the same time, it means that your work isn't as cohesive as it could be...which is a valid criticism of Martin's work.

I'm not sure what this even means, if I'm honest. Am I to believe that 'theme' is the only way to make an impact on the reader, and if that's the case, what precisely is a theme, then, in this context?

Again, you seem to be taking one way of writing and holding up as inherently superior, and I don't see why.

[Weeping Sore]

Cormac McCarty on George R R Martin's ASOIAF:

Whiskered and thick the high desert idler rose up from the jakes to belch out. Jus' dropped five volumes of shitbrown murder and rape. Dead walking flying lizards croweaten corpses slung over seven kingdoms. Looms a spikepunctured head, winter is coming. More like two thousand and twenty fore the winds of winter limn the dead waiting country.

[Arakan]

Frank Herbert on GRRM: my son, you made it well but as Usul so must Dany fail...

...or pray who else shall be the Kwisatz Hader...eh...the Prince that was promised ;)

[sologdin]

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.

[sj4iy]

I'm not sure what this even means, if I'm honest. Am I to believe that 'theme' is the only way to make an impact on the reader, and if that's the case, what precisely is a theme, then, in this context?

Again, you seem to be taking one way of writing and holding up as inherently superior, and I don't see why.

I explicitly said "It's okay to write like that". I never said "this way is superior". You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Martin is writing his story like he's writing a historical account. He's not writing to illuminate a specific problem with society or to delve deeper into the human condition. And while there's plenty to discuss about Martin's works, such as symbolism, metaphors, politics and so on, there's no real theme running through his books. There's nothing that connects all of the different elements and creates a strong impression on the reader. As a result, the story becomes somewhat disjointed and fragmented. Some people love that there are many different stories and different characters...for others, it's a hindrance.

I don't see Martin's work ever being in the pantheon of great literature...but so what? It doesn't have to be to be.

[polishgenius]

I explicitly said "It's okay to write like that".

Yeah, but then you gave a reason why it's less good than to write otherwise.

Although I think we have some crossed wires here, coz I'm not entirely sure as to how your answers correspond to my question. You telling me why Martin's work is weaker for covering many different themes and things doesn't answer why the exploration of themes or delving into the human condition or whatever is necessary for a book to be held in the highest echelon.

[wolverine]

I explicitly said "It's okay to write like that". I never said "this way is superior". You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Martin is writing his story like he's writing a historical account. He's not writing to illuminate a specific problem with society or to delve deeper into the human condition. And while there's plenty to discuss about Martin's works, such as symbolism, metaphors, politics and so on, there's no real theme running through his books. There's nothing that connects all of the different elements and creates a strong impression on the reader. As a result, the story becomes somewhat disjointed and fragmented. Some people love that there are many different stories and different characters...for others, it's a hindrance.

I don't see Martin's work ever being in the pantheon of great literature...but so what? It doesn't have to be to be.

How many series of 6 door stopping books are? Your criticism of the themes being disconnected seems really strange to me. He was only supposed to have one theme over the last 3,500 pages. I certainly think that many readers may feel differently about honor, duty, and power after having read these books. But maybe it is as you say and there is nothing that creates a strong impression on the reader. Despite their being thousands of words spilled on this site about whether Ned should have honorably allowed Cersei the chance to escape or should have ruthlessly imprisoned her and her children, that could be true.

[Weeping Sore]

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.

Thanks, solo- I'm lost, though. Who's HPL?

[sj4iy]

Yeah, but then you gave a reason why it's less good than to write otherwise.

Although I think we have some crossed wires here, coz I'm not entirely sure as to how your answers correspond to my question. You telling me why Martin's work is weaker for covering many different themes and things doesn't answer why the exploration of themes or delving into the human condition or whatever is necessary for a book to be held in the highest echelon.

How many series of 6 door stopping books are? Your criticism of the themes being disconnected seems really strange to me. He was only supposed to have one theme over the last 3,500 pages. I certainly think that many readers may feel differently about honor, duty, and power after having read these books. But maybe it is as you say and there is nothing that creates a strong impression on the reader. Despite their being thousands of words spilled on this site about whether Ned should have honorably allowed Cersei the chance to escape or should have ruthlessly imprisoned her and her children, that could be true.

Doesn't matter how many books or pages he's writing. A short novella can be a masterpiece. A lengthy series can be a masterpiece. It all depends on how well they are written.

I've stated several times that he doesn't have any strong unifying themes throughout his story...this can be problematic at times, because it can leave some readers lost or less engaged.

HOWEVER, I also stated that while thematic unity is a weak point of his books, world building is his strength. Some readers love this type of thing.

Martin's not writing "Gulliver's Travels" or "The Jungle", where there's a specific point he's trying to make and he's getting the reader to look at it in a different way. His books are a blend of historical fiction and fantasy. It's like reading a historical account of a different world. There's no big point he's trying to make or something he's specifically trying to get the reader to focus on. There's no universal truth in the story.

[Arakan]

Doesn't matter how many books or pages he's writing. A short novella can be a masterpiece. A lengthy series can be a masterpiece. It all depends on how well they are written.

I've stated several times that he doesn't have any strong unifying themes throughout his story...this can be problematic at times, because it can leave some readers lost or less engaged.

HOWEVER, I also stated that while thematic unity is a weak point of his books, world building is his strength. Some readers love this type of thing.

Martin's not writing "Gulliver's Travels" or "The Jungle", where there's a specific point he's trying to make and he's getting the reader to look at it in a different way. His books are a blend of historical fiction and fantasy. It's like reading a historical account of a different world. There's no big point he's trying to make or something he's specifically trying to get the reader to focus on. There's no universal truth in the story.

I think I understand where are you coming from...as I understand it you miss a meaningful meta-level, the all encompassing big philosophical themes.

From time to time ASOIAF can make a rather "profane" impression, Telenovela like (Soap Opera would be too much), due to this.

It all depends how GRRM finishes the series.

Btw I agree with you ;)

That said of course ASOIAF doesnt need to have these big overarching themes, but I think without them, the books will not age well in the sense that people in 30/40/50 years will remember them as "classics" (like e.g. LOTR, Dune, Nibelungenlied, Asimov's Foundation). more like Conan (not qualitywise but pop-cultural wise).

[Starkess]

Thanks, solo- I'm lost, though. Who's HPL?

H. P. Lovecraft, I assume.

[Happy Ent]

Thanks, solo- I'm lost, though. Who's HPL?

The answer will drive you crazy. Just walk away.

[Weeping Sore]

H. P. Lovecraft, I assume.

Ah, yes. Thanks.

[protar]

Tolkien (and I assume Lewis, though I know nothing of him save for his strong Christian views) definitely would have been shocked and disgusted at ASoIaF, and slammed it massively.

As to other writers not liking Martin's work. Well, they are entitled to their own opinions. While a portion of those people would simply ignore ASoIaF because it's fantasy, a larger majority simply don't consider it to be among 'high literature,' a stance I also agree on. ASoIaF is incredibly entertaining and exciting, but not particularly well written in any remarkable way. It will never be studied or discussed in the ways that works like Lolita and Lord of the Flies are, two examples off the top of my head. It's not thematically deep, nor remarkably written, so I understand why other writers wouldn't look upon it too kindly. I definitely wouldn't if I were a writer seeing a guy get praise endlessly for making some entertaining fantasy that's ultimately shallow (I'm not slamming ASoIaF, I love it, but I know what it is and isn't).

I agree that ASOIAF probably won't be studied in years to come, but that because it's fantasy and literature snobs dismiss fantasy. Not because it isn't worthy of being studied, because in my opinion it is. It touches on a lot of themes and in my opinion is rather extraordinarily written. Martin's only big flaw is his lack of concision and even that has only crept into his recent books. The first three, while they are large, feel like they're exactly as big as they need to be. I certainly wouldn't call ASOIAF shallow. I don't know how anyone could say that.

Honestly this whole concept of "high, classical literature" is nonsense. Most classical literature is mind numbingly dull. If ASOIAF manages to be interesting and exciting it's surpassed those books. That's where a lot of this genre snobbery comes from I think. Literary fiction writers spend their time being "deep" and "philosophical" and then genre fiction comes along and manages to be infinitely more entertaining, often while being intelligent literature in it's own right. In my opinion at least.

[Woofless]

Tolkien and Lewis would probably be appalled mainly by the sex and gore because of their (christian) conservatism.

I guess most "serious" contemporary writers simply ignore fantasy fiction. Many of them would probably regard it as shallow and trivial.

And with all due respect, GRRM is not very good as far as language and style are concerned which is one aspect "serious" writers and critics focus on.

I agree. Both of these writers (if memory serves) were devout Roman Catholics, I'm pretty sure that this is what GRRM (himself being born RC) was thinking about when he made the statement. However, if they could get past the sex and profanity I have no doubt that they would both view it as a great body of work.

[dietl]

Relevant to the discussion, I think:

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/westeros-101-game-of-thrones-taught-in-college-seminar-20140722

[Queen of Whores]

Relevant to the discussion, I think:

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/westeros-101-game-of-thrones-taught-in-college-seminar-20140722

I wonder if they're studying the entire series or just the first book.

[dietl]

I wonder if they're studying the entire series or just the first book.

The hit HBO show [...] and George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire book series are at the heart of this discussion-based English seminar,...

[protar]

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.

[Queen of Whores]

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.