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

[sj4iy]

*yawn*

Funny how whining about "lit snobs" pops up vastly more often than anyone actually acting as such.

I also find it interesting that people who complain about lit snobs also keep limiting 'fantasy' to mean "must have a dragon in it!" "Gulliver's Travels" is fantasy and also considered classic literature. Somehow, a genre as wide and as encompassing as fantasy has been limited by those who claim to love the genre.

[Suttree]

Really? I find quite the opposite.

It's something that get's referenced ad nauseam here at Westeros and yet "lit snobs" pop up about as often as a Sumatran rhino.

I also find it interesting that people who complain about lit snobs also keep limiting 'fantasy' to mean "must have a dragon in it!" "Gulliver's Travels" is fantasy and also considered classic literature. Somehow, a genre as wide and as encompassing as fantasy has been limited by those who claim to love the genre.

Indeed.

[rondo has three heads]

I had no idea you judged classic literature after which passages you found moving. Learn something new every day eh?

While ASOIAF is certainly a smashing story, a lot of its themes are what makes it have an appeal outside genre fiction and outside the normal genre fiction fans who will just as happily swallow a story about a farmboy with a Really Big Sword going off to foreign parts to Vanquish a Big Bad Evil.

You scratch a bit on the surface of ASOIAF, you'll find stories about finding agency, moral quandries about honour vs family, the values of knighthood, the corruption of society, criticism of war and patriarchy along with a healthy dose of old-skool courtly love romance stories. Among other things.

But then, I don't read classics for the moving passages either. I read them because they have themes, characters and stories that are of interest to me. And occasionally, like with The Sorrows Of Young Werther, to hate its guts forever. If I want moving passages, I tend to pick up poetry instead. IMHO.

I guess "moving" does sound a bit flowery, but I meant any string of sentences that cause you to pause, maybe reread a few times, either to suss out the response you're having, to appreciate the beauty of the language, or because the author has revealed something you knew to be true about yourself or the world but had never been able to put into words, and you want to experience those words again and again.

I reread passages in ASOIAF, for the most part, because I am trying to figure out some aspect of the plot, testing a theory, trying to determine someone's motives. I do not think one is better than the other, I'm only acknowledging that for me, there is a difference.

[Lyanna Stark]

I also find it interesting that people who complain about lit snobs also keep limiting 'fantasy' to mean "must have a dragon in it!" "Gulliver's Travels" is fantasy and also considered classic literature. Somehow, a genre as wide and as encompassing as fantasy has been limited by those who claim to love the genre.

Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no.

Lots of authors are treating genre fiction the same way most people would treat leprosy or ebola. I mean, sure, SF/F and stuff like Romance may reach slightly higher on the totem pole than Harry Potter/Furry cross-over fanfiction, but it's hardly something that generally enters the more esteemed parlours of literature.

See Margaret Atwood and being classified as SF/F for instance. If I remember correctly Rowling disagreed with getting the genre label as well. I suppose the idea is that once a work of fiction is famous enough, it can break out of the Swamp of Genre Fiction and Become More, as it were. Only then can it transform into True Literature.

I don't really give a fuck as long as it's labelled appropriately for me to find it on Amazon (I still have not forgiven the search algorithm for recommending me Space Cowboy Menage a Trois).

I guess "moving" does sound a bit flowery, but I meant any string of sentences that cause you to pause, maybe reread a few times, either to suss out the response you're having, to appreciate the beauty of the language, or because the author has revealed something you knew to be true about yourself or the world but had never been able to put into words, and you want to experience those words again and again.

I reread passages in ASOIAF, for the most part, because I am trying to figure out some aspect of the plot, testing a theory, trying to determine someone's motives. I do not think one is better than the other, I'm only acknowledging that for me, there is a difference.

Depends what I am rereading for. I can definitely reread Cersei's speech to Sansa at the Battle of the Blackwater as a most ringing feminist critique of patriarchy, or Jaime's Oathswearing bit to illustrate the problems with conflicting loyalties, or why not Septon Meribald's broken men speech regarding the horrors of war. Or to summarise the personal vs the political, or individuals vs the collective good how about Maester Aemon's love vs honour speech to Jon.

I don't really judge as I probably often trend towards the conventionally trashy myself. Unless it's the Davinici Code cos that shit needs to go. Preferably down the drain.

[Shryke]

It's something that get's referenced ad nauseam here at Westeros and yet "lit snobs" pop up about as often as a Sumatran rhino.

You are surprised at the lack of people who look down on a fantasy literature on a forum dedicated to fantasy literature?

[Suttree]

You are surprised at the lack of people who look down on a fantasy literature on a forum dedicated to fantasy literature?

No I'm surprised by the amount of people that complain about it incessantly in these threads as it's not something I encounter all that often anywhere. It's far overblown. At one point it may have been true, not so much anymore imo. Shrug.

[Larry of the Lawn]

We pick apart George's word trying to find clues, because that's what he does. He is a master story teller. He sometimes uses symbolism as part of his trickery, such as the blue roses and the sphinx/Sphinx debate. But...compare the first 180 pages of GOT (or ADWD :drunk: ) and hold it up to what Fitzgerald completed in the same space.

For those putting GRRM on the level with "high literature classics," what are a few paragraphs you find particularly moving? Or simply beautifully written? I don't put this as a challenge, reading books is the same as watching TVs or movies. All just opinion, I'm just curious.

Funny you mention Gatsby, I'd argue that book, while.beautiful on the level of the.sentence, says almost nothing about human nature or typical 'high art' concerns.

Sure the last paragraph is kind of poetic.but other than that its just a bunch of self-involved uppercrusters hanging out and being sad.

I'd argue that Septon Merribald's broken man speech, the Red Wedding chapter, Sansa's last sword of storms.chapter, are all of comparable quality to the literature you referenced, and certainly superior in my subjective opinion to Holden Caulfield's whiny teenage angst.

Same goes for pretty much the entire.Northern arc in Dance, especially the Ghost of Winterfell.chapter.

[Lyanna Stark]

Funny you mention Gatsby, I'd argue that book, while.beautiful on the level of the.sentence, says almost nothing about human nature or typical 'high art' concerns.

Sure the last paragraph is kind of poetic.but other than that its just a bunch of self-involved uppercrusters hanging out and being sad.

:lol: I admire you more than time-travelling angsty vampire angel navy seals for that. I never dare tell people I think Gatsby is totally overrated, but ya, I agree. Language is great, but the rest is more eh.

Oh as for other totally overrated classics, along with the idiot Werther, let me nominate Balzac the Great Misogynist and general all around Fucktard. And August Strindberg too. Fuck him.

You are surprised at the lack of people who look down on a fantasy literature on a forum dedicated to fantasy literature?

Self-loathing is the most sparkly thing since the really sparkly vampire over there in the corner.

[protar]

It's something that get's referenced ad nauseam here at Westeros and yet "lit snobs" pop up about as often as a Sumatran rhino.

Well if you're talking just about this site then sure. This is a site about a series of fantasy novels, of course there aren't going to be people who hate fantasy.

I also find it interesting that people who complain about lit snobs also keep limiting 'fantasy' to mean "must have a dragon in it!" "Gulliver's Travels" is fantasy and also considered classic literature. Somehow, a genre as wide and as encompassing as fantasy has been limited by those who claim to love the genre.

I don't think it's "us" who are doing that. It's the lit snobs. For example, note how ASOIAF/GOT is marketed as "fantasy for people who don't like fantasy". Whenever something does manage to break the mould and be considered classic or great literature it's suddenly discounted as being "not really fantasy", as though somehow people need to assure their friends that no it really is serious literature, even with dragons or miniature people. There was a thread a couple months ago on here where someone tried to debate that ASOIAF wasn't really fantasy.

[sj4iy]

No I'm surprised by the amount of people that complain about it incessantly in these threads as it's not something I encounter all that often anywhere. It's far overblown. At one point it may have been true, not so much anymore imo. Shrug.

I've noticed it pop up when people who love the books also admit that they don't consider the books to be amongst the best books ever written. Then the term 'lit snob' gets thrown around.

[sologdin]

wasn't really fantasy

impotent human celery.

[rondo has three heads]

Funny you mention Gatsby, I'd argue that book, while.beautiful on the level of the.sentence, says almost nothing about human nature or typical 'high art' concerns.

Sure the last paragraph is kind of poetic.but other than that its just a bunch of self-involved uppercrusters hanging out and being sad.

I'd argue that Septon Merribald's broken man speech, the Red Wedding chapter, Sansa's last sword of storms.chapter, are all of comparable quality to the literature you referenced, and certainly superior in my subjective opinion to Holden Caulfield's whiny teenage angst.

Same goes for pretty much the entire.Northern arc in Dance, especially the Ghost of Winterfell.chapter.

I will not begrudge you your opinion, but the bold is just flat out misguided..though the characters are all MOST DEFINITELY self-involved. The dangers of aspiration, the unrealistic desire to recreate the past, the hope and inevitable failure associated with personal reinvention, I think all of these things relate to human nature.

The exploits of new money, meanwhile, make up the majority of reality television, which unfortunately makes up the majority of TV, period.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Well if you're talking just about this site then sure. This is a site about a series of fantasy novels, of course there aren't going to be people who hate fantasy.

I don't think it's "us" who are doing that. It's the lit snobs. For example, note how ASOIAF/GOT is marketed as "fantasy for people who don't like fantasy". Whenever something does manage to break the mould and be considered classic or great literature it's suddenly discounted as being "not really fantasy", as though somehow people need to assure their friends that no it really is serious literature, even with dragons or miniature people. There was a thread a couple months ago on here where someone tried to debate that ASOIAF wasn't really fantasy.

Look at your average fantasy book cover from the last 40 years. I blame that. Seriously grab a random one off your bookshelf. go stand in front of the mirror with it. Yeah, I thought so.

Eta: @ rondo re: Gatsby

I'll amend 'says nothing about' to 'says nothing about that stuff that your average John Grisham or Stephen King or Agathie Christie doesn't also say'.

[sj4iy]

Look at your average fantasy book cover from the last 40 years. I blame that. Seriously grab a random one off your bookshelf. go stand in front of the mirror with it. Yeah, I thought so.

^This.

[Shryke]

No I'm surprised by the amount of people that complain about it incessantly in these threads as it's not something I encounter all that often anywhere. It's far overblown. At one point it may have been true, not so much anymore imo. Shrug.

It's happening in this thread. And it's definitely still a thing, as Lyanna mentions examples above.

Genre has and still is seen as a ghetto.

[Shryke]

Look at your average fantasy book cover from the last 40 years. I blame that. Seriously grab a random one off your bookshelf. go stand in front of the mirror with it. Yeah, I thought so.

Eta: @ rondo re: Gatsby

I'll amend 'says nothing about' to 'says nothing about that stuff that your average John Grisham or Stephen King or Agathie Christie doesn't also say'.

They've just gotten differently worse imo.

So now you get generic angry guy snarling at you.

It's especially bad on US covers in my experience.

[Suttree]

They've just gotten differently worse imo.

So now you get generic angry guy snarling at you.

It's especially bad on US covers in my experience.

:agree:

[sj4iy]

They've just gotten differently worse imo.

So now you get generic angry guy snarling at you.

It's especially bad on US covers in my experience.

Even the covers on some of the original GoT paperbacks were pretty bad.

I much prefer the simplistic covers they have now.

[protar]

Look at your average fantasy book cover from the last 40 years. I blame that. Seriously grab a random one off your bookshelf. go stand in front of the mirror with it. Yeah, I thought so.

Which came first and caused the other, the covers or the genre snobbery?

[Shryke]

Even the covers on some of the original GoT paperbacks were pretty bad.

I much prefer the simplistic covers they have now.

These ones?

http://westerosi.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/asoiaf.jpg

Those are fine looking to me. I mean, they aren't great or anything, but they aren't objectionable.