Critics of ASOIAF

[Ser Greg of House House]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm not against the use of supernatural, fantastic elements or whatever. I love Márquez, Saramago and Guimarães Rosa. My opinion is that those writers are universal masters, they're better writers than Martin and Tolkien.

I mean, Cien años de soledad is so great I can't even imagine how they would translate that to english. I don't think you can compare that to ASoIaF or LotR.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy every bit of Martin and Tolkien.

btw... I'd take Hemingway over Shakespeare any day, but that's just me and very controversial :)

[Nacht en Ontij]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm not against the use of supernatural, fantastic elements or whatever. I love Márquez, Saramago and Guimarães Rosa. My opinion is that those writers are universal masters, they're better writers than Martin and Tolkien.

I mean, Cien años de soledad is so great I can't even imagine how they would translate that to english. I don't think you can compare that to ASoIaF or LotR.

Just out of curiosity. Why are you contradictive? The writers are universal masters yet you can't compare their works to those of Martin et al? I myself do not take a stance by the way.

[Ser Greg of House House]

Well, I'm not a native english speaker so maybe I'm having some trouble expressing myself. I say you can't compare because they are at another level. They're simply much higher quality. So while Martin and Tolkien are certainly great writers and very entertaining, their value is mostly world building, fantasy as a specific genre etc. Those other guys are the best writers who walked the Earth. My opinion is that there's enough space for both types of literature, but they're not quite the same thing.

Now, I know this is opinion, not fact. I didn't want to go off topic so much. As I said, I love Hemingway (and much of american literature like Twain or Steinbeck) and some people wouldn't agree that they're as good as I think. So there's no point in being bitter about it, it's just my humble opinion.

[Miodrag]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm not against the use of supernatural, fantastic elements or whatever. I love Márquez, Saramago and Guimarães Rosa. My opinion is that those writers are universal masters, they're better writers than Martin and Tolkien.

I mean, Cien años de soledad is so great I can't even imagine how they would translate that to english. I don't think you can compare that to ASoIaF or LotR.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy every bit of Martin and Tolkien.

btw... I'd take Hemingway over Shakespeare any day, but that's just me and very controversial :)

Sorry to say, but I wasn't impressed by "One Hundred Years of Solitude", despite the translation on my native language, Serbian, was a brilliant one. It's not the language that disappointed me, but the characters. I get symbolism. It's not my favorite storytelling, but I get it. However, even for symbolism, some characters and their meanings were too simplistic. For example, the guy (sorry, forgot his name, Marquez uses only few names for all those characters, so it's easy to confuse them), the leftist one, who stays in the room for god knows how many years (or decades?) without anyone so much as noticing him, and it all starts after that massacre of workers in protest: as far as depictions of neglected working class go, I can't see some sophistication there. If we want to compare, Martin's takes on the trials and tribulations of the 'working class' are much better in my eyes - BWB, for example, or the dynamics between small folks and Tyrion in ACOK that culminates in the famous riots scene.

"One Hundred..." was full of simplistic, cardboard hyperbolas, which is why I believe Marquez himself when he says that many reviewers would've find themselves embarrassed if he was to tell how mundane his inspirations and goals were. Personally, I find his "The Chronicle of a Death Foretold" to be true masterpiece.

Saramago is one of my personal favorites. And his prose is superb, but it's also unique. Like, nobody can be compared to him stylistically, that's how different he is from every other writer. His "Blindness" and "Death With Interruptions" are genuine masterpieces in my book (the book about the elephant and "All The Names" were rather disappointing, by the way, but let's not go there). While stylistically they can't be matched - nor they should be - I see a lot of thematic and philosophic parallels between Saramago and Martin. Like Martin, Saramago is at his best when dealing with deconstruction of a society on both macro and micro level. With both of them, we have a range as wide as they come, and a scope as big as they come, but at the same time we have loads of precious details that keep the story very close and intimate to readers. Not to mention that Saramago also uses supernatural elements a lot.

To conclude, it is a matter of a personal taste, but it's also the matter of an opinion, which is not based solely on taste. And, I think this the right thread for that kind of discussion. I'm eager to compare Martin with modern greats or with classics. Which means, I'm not bitter at all about your opinion. I just want to challenge it, just like I can't wait for you or someone else to challenge mine.

[Miodrag]

Also, Tolkien was a serious contender for The Nobel Prize in 1961. So, he at least is comparable to modern greats. I mean, we don't have to take The Nobel Prize as the bible of literature (especially when we consider how persistent they were and are in ignoring Russian novelists), but, as far as awards go, it is the most respected one. And Tolkien almost got it.

He wasn't robbed of it, I assure you, because the award for that year went to the Serbian writer Ivo Andric, one of the best European authors of the 20th century. But, Tolkien was compared to Andric. And, while I love and respect Andric to no end (this is not just patriotism that speaks from me at the moment, because he truly is a giant of modern literature), I'm not sure the decision would've been the same if he was 'competing' against ASOIAF (if I'd have to vote, I'd rather kill myself than wrong any of them). Unfortunately, half a century later, it's almost unimaginable for the Nobel Committee or some other awarding jury to even consider Martin.

[Winter's Knight]

Because Martin is simply not on the same level. His writing is terribly inconsistent, with some chapters being very good and others bordering on terrible. He lacks brevity, yet doesn't write well enough to make you forget that he lacks brevity. His last two books has him going for cheap shocks and false deaths.

[aceluby]

Because Martin is simply not on the same level. His writing is terribly inconsistent, with some chapters being very good and others bordering on terrible. He lacks brevity, yet doesn't write well enough to make you forget that he lacks brevity. His last two books has him going for cheap shocks and false deaths.

Every writer is like this... even Tolkien. There is at least 300 pages of just walking...

[Miodrag]

Because Martin is simply not on the same level. His writing is terribly inconsistent, with some chapters being very good and others bordering on terrible. He lacks brevity, yet doesn't write well enough to make you forget that he lacks brevity. His last two books has him going for cheap shocks and false deaths.

Since all you say can be rooted in strictly personal preferences - because, honestly, I see much more than 'cheap shocks' and 'false deaths' in last two books - would you care to elaborate a little more? For example, compared to who is Martin simply not on the same level? And, does 'the same level' means strictly the quality of prose, or you consider also the characterization and plot?

[Miodrag]

Also, before I take a leave for a few hours, I have to note one thing. Martin is often chastised for 'lack of brevity'. Now, if that means his scope and range, then yeah, he isn't focused that much. I happen to love that, actually, because that is in agreement with the nature of the epic novels: if we're going to talk about clash of civilizations, let's have a detailed look at those civilizations and the conflict itself. I thoroughly enjoy it all being fleshed out from so many angles. But, I can understand why some readers may not like it that much (hence, they think some parts of the story are completely unnecessary).

But, if 'lack of brevity' means his prose, quantified by the sheer volume of novels and/or series as a whole... with that I strongly disagree. He's telling at least three almost separate stories (The 7 Kingdoms, Night's Watch and Dany). Take Dany's story, for example. How many chapters in total? 31 in all five books. Now, 31 chapters for all Dany's been through is hardly inefficient. What about NW story? 42 Jon's chapters, plus 10 Sam's, plus one Mel's, plus 3 prologues - total of 56 chapters for everything that happened in and around NW. (Sam's traveling chapters from AFFC are included here, but never mind.) Is that inefficient? I don't think so. And don't get me started with 7K. In there, we have at least 6-7 novels combined into one story. Again, pretty good ratio for everything accomplished.

Some chapters may be considered boring, all right, but in general, I don't think Martin lacks brevity. Even if he isn't the most efficient among writers, he certainly isn't inefficient. And, last but not least, all those details he delivers in his prose do help in depicting both the world and characters, which is why the world and the characters he created are so lively.

[total1402]

Everything that happened in and around the Nights Watch in 56 chapters?

Expedition north to scout threat destroyed.

Jon joins wildlings and foils their plans with aid of Stannis.

Becomes Lord Commander and his actions cause him to be stabbed.

Sam goes to Old town to send warnings and train to be a Maester (No idea how Martin can pull that off BTW without a time jump)

Thats what actually happens with us left still waiting for the big threat to make its presence truly felt. Now, I am sure a lot of people like Jon reminising about Winterfell for the millionth time but his arc has essentially been about the same thing character wise. Bastard struggling to find identity and place. Struggling to live up to honour of family and do whats right. He already covers that in the first novel so everything else is just soap opera where he goes through the same character dilemas. Unless he moves the plot forward so they do something different then hes not really doing anything different except dragging the same material out. There is very little plot holding together Jons arc. Indeed some of the theories regarding him would require an earthquake of plot movement in order for these to happen (his parentage revealed, getting an army, getting a dragon, meeting Dany n marry n fall in love, becoming head Stark, becoming King, Lord of the Others etc etc) if all that were to happen in just 2 books; compared to whats went before.You do not need 56 chapters to tell Jons story. That much material is not needed to describe the character and its incredibly thin on events n plot movement. Never mind that the Wildlings are another irrelevant sideshow or threat to just pass the time.

[Elaena Targaryen]

Thanks for the link. I just read an entire review and I find it to be one of the precious few that are thorough and deep and at least trying (and succeeding, in large part) to do justice to ASOIAF. I share your disagreement with him about GRRM's writing style, and at the time of the writing he was obviously under the influence of the show (as almost everyone was after the first season), which lead to him being overwhelmingly focused on the conflict between Starks and Lannisters. However, his review does go into many important, but often overlooked, aspects and themes of ASOIAF, and he connects the dots meticulously. While I couldn't agree with everything he says, I did agree with a lot of it, and I really enjoyed his take on ASOIAF. Had other scholars cared to go this deep into Martin's saga, instead of dismissing it without giving it a fair chance (which is the case more often than not), I guess ASOIAF would enjoy much higher reputation, and justly so.

In case anyone has hard time finding the second and third part of the review/essay (which both me and the author himself find more important than the first part), here are the links:

http://reviewsindept...f-ice-and-fire/

http://reviewsindept...f-ice-and-fire/

You welcome and I'm happy you enjoyed it as I did too! I feel the same way about the review, as in, even though I didn't necessarily agree with everything I do feel it was an extremely thoughtful review that succeeds in doing justice to ASoIaF.

I also really, really, adore the second and third part (that you provided links for) because Haggard challenged me to look at things from a different perspective. I haven't read them in a while and I believe he has a few details wrong but I don't feel it effects or diminishes his conclusions.

I would love to read more reviews / essays by Dan Haggard! Maybe I should do a search, lol.

[Sansa_Stark]

As said above, they aren't important because they aren't women en they weren't raped. So they weren't mentioned. As one blog commenter put it:

"I think rape is the worst possible crime to commit. Worse than murder."

And that's the bottomline regarding the blog. Martin is creepy because he depicts rape. Context, social criticism and relevance can go to hell, the blogger is of the opinion that ASoIaF is one big racist, mysogistic rape fest in which only women are targets because sometimes they get targeted in this world as well and the all-powerful white guy [us] represses them.

This is why internet feminists aren't taken seriously....hell, why I'd say feminism in general isn't taken seriously at all these days.

They only look for the problems that effect women. They don't care about equal rights.

This is why even though I believe in equality I wouldn't call myself a feminist....no I think a better title for one like is to be called a GENDER EQUALIST.

I think feminism is inherently a biased title btw........because you're only focusing on womens rights!

[Winter's Knight]

Like how the NAACP only focuses on black rights?

[Sansa_Stark]

Like how the NAACP only focuses on black rights?

Kind of. Being an Asian male, I feel offended by the fact that no one is willing to stick up for my kind. After all, we are "foreigners" to America.

[Winter's Knight]

Kind of. Being an Asian male, I feel offended by the fact that no one is willing to stick up for my kind. After all, we are "foreigners" to America.

Tch. You need to look beyond names:

The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination.

Vision Statement

The vision of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure a society in which all individuals have equal rights without discrimination based on race.

Objectives

The following statement of objectives is found on the first page of the NAACP Constitution - the principal objectives of the Association shall be:

• To ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all citizens
  

• To achieve equality of rights and eliminate race prejudice among the citizens of the United States
  

• To remove all barriers of racial discrimination through democratic processes
  

• To seek enactment and enforcement of federal, state, and local laws securing civil rights
  

• To inform the public of the adverse effects of racial discrimination and to seek its elimination
  

• To educate persons as to their constitutional rights and to take all lawful action to secure the exercise thereof, and to take any other lawful action in furtherance of these objectives, consistent with the NAACP's Articles of Incorporation and this Constitution.
  

Similarly, feminism fights for gender equality and ends up focusing on women's rights because that is the more severely disadvantaged group of the two.

Sady's piece was written in a humourous vein, with the prologue referencing the backlash she received over a previous article on Harry Potter. She is specifically poking fun at people who react like that to people making fun of their stuff.

[danm_999]

Yes but Nynaeve also shamelessly DOMINATES Lan. Theres one point where she says that the other supergirls shouldn't boss their man around and they can't believe she just said that.

Yeah in public, but I think (and I haven't read the relevant book in years) the Sea Folk custom is that women are in charge in public, men are in charge in private.

[Whitering]

I will say this, Quentyn Martell was perhaps the most useless character and storyline I've ever run across. The Silmarillion is my favourite ever book, or collection of stories or however you want to characterize it.

So, while that comparison is probably not helpful to most people, I will simply say, I do not compare the two. The Lord of the Rings was extreme saccharine compared to The Silmarillion, yet it is the work that spawned generations of fantasy writers, some of whom I enjoyed. My favourite book after The Silmarillion is Storm of Swords, but it's a fairly distant second place. However, the series as I read it is much, much closer. I skip Quentyn Martell, except his love life chapter and his dragon tamer chapter. I skip large parts of Sansa, but I do read the certain chapters I know I like. I devour Arya's chapters.

I don't know what prompted GRRM to label his chapters mostly by character names but it has made the series easier to read exactly how you want to read it and the series is excellent that way.

Also, umm, Nynaeve has what's called a character arc, and she is mostly pretty awesome, like even when she's being annoying you can see why with just a bit of empathy, and Jordan wrote her for comedy a large part of the time, but many people don't get that. Also, Lan doesn't seem to mind heh

However, those books, umm, the Sea Folk were probably the worst culture ever in how annoying they were, and he wrote them that way, which I don't get, but I am not the least bit creative.

Edit, oh, but Jordan wrote the best ever girlfriend - Min, so he gets big props for that if nothing else.

[danm_999]

Edit, oh, but Jordan wrote the best ever girlfriend - Min, so he gets big props for that if nothing else.

I would argue Min's awesomeness is almost cancelled out by Elayne's terribleness :P

[FacelessDude]

Well at least this critic isn't like Sean Speakman, that guy is a skeevey, arrogant and entitled "literary critic". He supposedly is a writer and the book bombed.

[Miodrag]

Sady's piece was written in a humourous vein, with the prologue referencing the backlash she received over a previous article on Harry Potter. She is specifically poking fun at people who react like that to people making fun of their stuff.

In that case, she failed miserably. Not only that I, for one, saw nothing amusing or funny there, and not only that so many posters here saw nothing amusing or funny there, but the comment section under her piece clearly suggests that even her readers didn't take it as humorous.