asoiaf's place in cultural/literary history

[UVA]

Yeah, perhaps I am over-intellectualizing ASOIAF. But then again, maybe it is you who are under-intellectualizing it.

Lol, I can't claim that I've never been guilty of this, although I admit I'm surprised at your derisive tone here but whatever. My stance continues to be that Martin grapples with ethics, gender, symbolism in the series but not on par with canonical texts (eg. The Great Gatsby, Lolita).

For example, maybe you were reading into Martin's chat with a law professor. I mean, law professors are the biggest experts on law and the history of legal systems. When talking to someone like that, of course Martin is not going to claim his saga is grounded in actual feudal systems. Especially because he doesn't even attempt to leave that impression in his books.

Right, I don't expect Martin to construct a complex legal system or have more fleshed out ideas on the matter per se, but the issue concerns how are we to analyze and interpret how law operates in Westeros. To that end, Martin is vague and oversimplifies the concept of law, such that I don't know how he would address the contradictions and inconsistencies that organically arise in the text. When previously asked about succession laws Martin appealed to the "vague" and "often contradictory:" nature of these concepts in feudal history (SSM 11/2/99). Succession 'laws' are anything but clear cut, as is the validity of precedent, and this is the case because they are not fleshed out or presented in a consistent way. The fact is Martin applies a broad template because he has to; and that is what was clear about the podcast with the law prof. There's nothing wrong with that and it doesn't detract from his prodigious craft at world building.

He modeled ASOIAF after known historical systems, but it doesn't mean he created a system that is as thorough as those historical were.

I agree and I think this should inform an analysis of Ice and Fire.

And, what 'lessons' was I talking about? All I said was that there's an extraordinary depth in ASOIAF even in regards of social and political aspects. GRRM came up with no less than four different religions, plus one cult. Any writer who does that, is probably after something that is bigger than the fates of his particular characters

What do you think Martin's conception of religion is in the series? What its function and what exactly do you think Martin is after?

speaking of gods, that Stannis Baratheon fellow is a pretty strong hint at Martin's ambition. For all we know, Stannis didn't denied the existence of a deity behind The Seven, but he decided to replace him with The Red God (Proudwings story, in Davos I in ACOK), because The Red God may be of a bigger practical use for him; and The Red God proves to be very useful to Stannis; and yet, there isn't s single line that suggests Stannis' views on deities are any different than in Davos I in ACOK, when he tells him of Proudwings. Stannis doesn't have to believe in gods. He knows they're up there. However, at the end of the day, he doesn't give a damn about them. They aren't subject to any duty, which makes them uninteresting for him. He's interested only in forms that are subject to at least some duty. Therefore, divine authorities don't concern him at all. But, he wants to serve as a king, which is the position given by gods. So, in a way, possibly even unwittingly, Stannis wants to overtake the position of a monarch away from gods. How's that for a revolution inside a human hearth, that can't help but have consequences on the entire society? Divorcing human from the perfect image of a god was one of the biggest changes in human mindset in our history, you know. It could easily be that important for Westeros, also.

Stannis approaches religion in a pragmatic and cynical way. But to extrapolate from this that Martin is addressing the rise of secular governance, I'm less certain. You make an interesting point, however, and I may be just under-intellectualizing things and less willing to see the larger picture.

And, you don't need Martin'd podcasts to realize how futile all those debates about rightful kings may be.

Oh god, lol! Yea, most of my posts on this forum are in response to this and how there is not a rule of law, no codified succession norms as we understand them. So right I don't need you or a podcast to enlighten me on this matter but thanks anyway.

I listened through it, and, if we're definitely talking about the same podcast

Yes we are, and I do not negate my impressions.

I can't even fathom how did you draw your conclusions. It's quite the opposite of how you described it. GRRM hold admirably in the conversation with a law expert, even in parts that dealt with legal expertise. He didn't laugh off anything, and for every simplification he applied in the books he offered a perfectly understandable explanation.

You kind of prove my point here. But understand that I wasn't criticizing how well Martin contended with a law prof (I think he did well), the key takeaway is that Martin approaches legal concepts on an ad hoc basis. I think I was wrong to bring up the issue of law in Westeros because, as I previously stated, it's a tangential point. How well the role of law is explicated in the series is not critical to an evaluation of Martin's work.

[Errant Bard]

To conclude, I find characters in ASOIAF way deeper than how you described them in your post, just like the setting is significantly more complex than what you described, and just like the themes are infinitely more rewarding than what you listed. And all that is supported in the text itself.

Man, that was not even what I was talking about. The characters can be as deep as they want, and the setting as complex as possible, what matter is what people get out of it, how relevant it is to them, how it touches them. It's not about the text itself, it's about the readership in relation to the text. I already said it in the post you quoted the least significant part of, but you still went ahead to rave about the supposed deepness of ASOIAF, and I do not even disagree with the richness of the setting (in westeros at least) or the consistency and multilayering of the characters.

You bring up examples of stuff that could be said about any other Fantasy story around, though, it feels quite mundane: some people can do this, some people can do that, yeah you can see that in the news, or in history. Characters are deep there too, and so is the setting. This stuff is minor. Plus nobody is going to be that impressed because an author managed to craft a complex world in more than 10000 pages, of course, size matters. You take Joyce, he can evoke a character, his friends, his setting, his history, his dreams, his fears, his goals, his neuroses and his flaws in less than ten pages.

[Randyll Flowers]

Funny how firm some people are in denying Martin (and everyone else, for that matter) a chance to be as good as Tolkien is, but not elaborating what makes Tolkien so untouchable (other than his language, which everybody agrees was masterful), while at the same time leveling Martin with Rowling.

Actually I did elaborate on this very point earlier. And it's not about Tolkien the writer, but Tolkien's legacy: he effectively created modern fantasy, from D&D through to World of Warcraft. It is simply impossible for GRRM to do the same (tho he may well influence sub-genres or the direction of the genre for years to come). You can only have one progenitor, and Tolkien's pre-eminance comes from this, not from any inherent quality of the author or his writing.

[Randyll Flowers]

One more thing I keep posting in various threads:

Theon Greyjoy had once commented that Hodor did not know much, but no one could doubt that he knew his name.

This is a quote from AGOT, from Bran's chapter after he awakes from coma, when we meet Hodor for the first time. It could be written only by an author who's confident enough that the line will be reread after Theon's arc under Ramsay. Talk about the command of a story.

I absolutely disagree (no surprise there!) This sentence is most naturally read as "Theon had once commented that Hodor did not know much, but no one could doubb that Hodor knew Hodor's name", referring to the only word that Hodor utters. Taking this sentence in isolation, there is nothing prophetic in it at all. It's easy to ascribe post-hoc meaning to writing, people have been doing that to Nostrodamus for years, but it doesn't mean that the intent was there from the start.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Actually I did elaborate on this very point earlier. And it's not about Tolkien the writer, but Tolkien's legacy: he effectively created modern fantasy, from D&D through to World of Warcraft. It is simply impossible for GRRM to do the same (tho he may well influence sub-genres or the direction of the genre for years to come). You can only have one progenitor, and Tolkien's pre-eminance comes from this, not from any inherent quality of the author or his writing.

Tolkien is the most important influence in the genre, but he is not the progenitor. Jack Vance's Dying Earth is the grandfather of D&D, while Vance himself was influenced by Clark Ashton Smith, who in turn owes much to H.G. Wells and the French Decadents. The first major secondary world epic fantasy was E.R. Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros, sword and sorcery a la Conan has an ancestry of Dumas and Lord Dunsany, and so on.

[Randyll Flowers]

I'm thinking that "goodness" and "badness" does not necessarily equal "flatness". I might pare your list down to the following:

Potentially Flat

The Starks (yes, even Arya, even if she is a goodie more in the Clint Eastwood revenge-killer ilk) Certainly not Arya, Sansa, Robb or Rickon, perhpas Jon and Bran though.

Davos Seaworth

Tyrion Lannister

Daenerys

Barristan he seems to be going through a Brienne like arc where he is not sure what his vows really mean.

Jorah (Lando Calrissian-esque traitor with a heart of gold!) A traitor but Dany's most loyal man at the same time

Tywin Hard and cruel but not flat, I don't think

Cersei

Gregor Clegane

Littlefinger I don't get flatness from him at all. He seems quite complex with the whole Cat/Lysa/Sansa thing.

Melisandre

Kettleblacks and numerous other henchmen

Bolton I'm not sure Roose is "flat" she seems interesting to me (not sure that is the same as non-flatness). Ramsay probably is flat

Qyburn

Actually, you're probably right. I stand by my original good/bad list, but I 100% accept that it's just my opinion. But flatness is probably a more useful measure, in which case I'd agree with everything you've said.

[Randyll Flowers]

Tolkien is the most important influence in the genre, but he is not the progenitor. Jack Vance's Dying Earth is the grandfather of D&D, while Vance himself was influenced by Clark Ashton Smith, who in turn owes much to H.G. Wells and the French Decadents. The first major secondary world epic fantasy was E.R. Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros, sword and sorcery a la Conan has an ancestry of Dumas and Lord Dunsany, and so on.

Absolutely, there were a huge number of other influences. And, of course, Tolkien himself simply derived a lot of his ideas from older myth and legend. But the modern fantasy of dwarves, elves, orcs; warriors, wizards, thieves; in a pseudo-medieval setting comes directly from Tolkien, and it's a Tolkien-esque model that most people will have in mind if asked to describe what the "fantasy" genre is.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'm thinking that "goodness" and "badness" does not necessarily equal "flatness". I might pare your list down to the following:

Potentially Flat

The Starks (yes, even Arya, even if she is a goodie more in the Clint Eastwood revenge-killer ilk) Certainly not Arya, Sansa, Robb or Rickon, perhpas Jon and Bran though.

Davos Seaworth

Tyrion Lannister

Daenerys

Barristan he seems to be going through a Brienne like arc where he is not sure what his vows really mean.

Jorah (Lando Calrissian-esque traitor with a heart of gold!) A traitor but Dany's most loyal man at the same time

Tywin Hard and cruel but not flat, I don't think

Cersei

Gregor Clegane

Littlefinger I don't get flatness from him at all. He seems quite complex with the whole Cat/Lysa/Sansa thing.

Melisandre

Kettleblacks and numerous other henchmen

Bolton I'm not sure Roose is "flat" she seems interesting to me (not sure that is the same as non-flatness). Ramsay probably is flat

Qyburn

I wouldn't call Davos flat. He's got some reasonable complexity when he has to make up his mind in deciding whether to choose Stannis (the man to whom he owes everything) or Edric's life. In some ways, his decision to defy Stannis there was the greatest act of courage in the series.

[Miodrag]

I absolutely disagree (no surprise there!) This sentence is most naturally read as "Theon had once commented that Hodor did not know much, but no one could doubb that Hodor knew Hodor's name", referring to the only word that Hodor utters. Taking this sentence in isolation, there is nothing prophetic in it at all. It's easy to ascribe post-hoc meaning to writing, people have been doing that to Nostrodamus for years, but it doesn't mean that the intent was there from the start.

There's the whole difference in our respective approaches to assessing ASOIAF. You don't see any other meaning in that line, while I do. And, strictly speaking, there's nothing prophetic or foreshadowing in that line. It is simply a sentence that inevitably has a different reading to it after a reader is familiar with Theon's loss of identity under Ramsay. You may think it's a coincidence and I don't see what could possibly make you to change your mind. Even if, somehow, GRRM himself was to say that he did intended for that line to have a deeper meaning on rereads, you probably wouldn't believe him. And it's OK, you don't have to.

But, I happen to think GRRM planned Theon's arc from the get-go. Theon is one of the most complex characters in ASOIAF, and one of my personal favorites by the way, and I'm 110% positive that his arc was thoroughly planned and detailed in advance. There are some improvisations in ASOIAF (and they're quite good, by the way), but Theon is not one. His importance in the bigger picture, like, his role in the war and in Starks' demise, had to be designed from the start. Which is why I'm once again 110% positive that GRRM knew Theon's fate while he was writing that line. He could've give that line to anyone else from the Stark household, but he gave it to Theon. And at the end of the day, it's nothing but a lovely detail. And you may still see only a coincidence there; however, I see anything but.

Will be back in a few hours, to reply back to other posters that replied me.

[Lyanna Stark]

I absolutely disagree (no surprise there!) This sentence is most naturally read as "Theon had once commented that Hodor did not know much, but no one could doubb that Hodor knew Hodor's name", referring to the only word that Hodor utters. Taking this sentence in isolation, there is nothing prophetic in it at all. It's easy to ascribe post-hoc meaning to writing, people have been doing that to Nostrodamus for years, but it doesn't mean that the intent was there from the start.

You have not read the foreshadowing thread, have you? There are lots of little details in ASOIAF, especially the earlier novels, which work very, very well as foreshadowing.

Obviously not all of them are intentional, but logic dictates that if there are *that* many, a fair amount will be intentional.

Further, a literal reading of ASOIAF as you suggest is really boring. You should take a look at some of the re-read threads, perhaps the Tyrion re-read, as it is quite illuminating on that even if ASOIAF isn't Joyce, it still has a fair amount of layers to explore.

[Errant Bard]

You have not read the foreshadowing thread, have you? There are lots of little details in ASOIAF, especially the earlier novels, which work very, very well as foreshadowing.

Sorry to butt in, but I have read this thread, and it comforted me in the idea that most "foreshadowing" is essentially readers twisting things with with no secondary meaning into what they want it to mean. It's cool, death of the author and all that, but it does not prevent me from considering those "foreshadowing" discoveries to be on the same level as conspiracy theories, and to think the most relevant "foreshadowing" has not been placed on purpose, but rather exploited afterwards when the author wrote the last book (stuff like like "hey, what could I write that would sound cool considering what I already wrote? ") There is no shame in that, Hugo or Dumas were writing like that, it's also closer to how you write for TV, which is relevant to martin's experience, and also his "gardener" style.

It did not seal the deal, but it's a good example: over the years I've seen sure a large number of people having an epiphany about Renly's sexual orientation due to the rainbow guard "foreshadowing", I mean it's not subtle, heh? But no, Martin came out to say he bever intended for it to be such thing, and it had actually a whole other meaning altogether. And then you have arguments about how one word four novels back when read upside down a tree during a full moon could "foreshadow" anything. It does not sync.

Anyway y'all be a bunch of crazies in the foreshadowing and to a lesser extent the reread threads.

[Stannis ftw]

Anyway y'all be a bunch of crazies in the foreshadowing and to a lesser extent the reread threads.

If that is not siggy material I don't know what is.

[yolkboy]

Sorry to butt in, but I have read this thread, and it comforted me in the idea that most "foreshadowing" is essentially readers twisting things with with no secondary meaning into what they want it to mean.

It did not seal the deal, but it's a good example: over the years I've seen sure a large number of people having an epiphany about Renly's sexual orientation due to the rainbow guard "foreshadowing"

I don't think you understand what foreshadowing actually means. Renly being gay could have never been foreshadowed because he was always gay, and it's an inherent part of his character. It wasn't a plot development, and therefore could not have been foreshadowed by the revealing of the rainbow guard or anything else.

[Lummel]

...Anyway y'all be a bunch of crazies in the foreshadowing and to a lesser extent the reread threads.

As a committed and devoted rereader I agree with that, at least insofar as foreshadowing is concerned. Its a mug's game in any case, the extent to which some in jokes and ironies are deliberate rather than fortuitous is debatable and comments regarding the alleged foreshadow of events not yet published look suspiciously like wish fulfilment to me but some people like it :dunno:

I do think that GRRM is in ASOIAF an ambitious writer, and rereading just how dense and complex even short chapters can be referring back to earlier events, images and ideas shared and debated across POVs. However I'm not so optimistic that quality wins any work a place in cultural or literary history. One only needs to look back to see writers whose work was widely esteemed who are largely forgotten within fifty years or only remembered for one or two books out of their oeuvre, or to consider say the work of Virago Press in attempting to make available writers who were long out of print. There simply is too much flooding on to the market and too much a hunger on the part of us readers for the new and shiny.

The number of contemporary books and writers currently in print who will still be available in fifty years time will be very, very small. And that goes for GRRM too no matter how valued, bought or praised the series will be.

[Stannis ftw]

The number of contemporary books and writers currently in print who will still be available in fifty years time will be very, very small. And that goes for GRRM too no matter how valued, bought or praised the series will be.

I would suppose e-book will change or has already changed this, and very much if not all of what is published now will be still available in 50 years.

[Miodrag]

Formulaic thinking - or conformism, more precise - is what irks me the most, especially in assessing a work of fiction. And sorry, but some of these posts are nothing but conformism, sometimes combined with cultural snobbery. Martin is not ________ (fill in the blanks: Tolkien, Joyce, Nabokov, Tolstoy, Hemingway...) This is probably the most frequent 'argument' against the claim that ASOIAF could be a literature masterpiece on its own right. And it is nothing but conformism.

First, I'm certainly glad Martin isn't Nabokov. Before this thread, I wasn't even aware that Nabokov is so respected. Because, in the region I live in - South Eastern Europe, more precisely Balkans peninsula - Nabokov isn't regarded nearly as high as in this thread. Russia produced more than a few much better writers. Allow me to name two of them that had a similar fate to Nabokov's: Zamyatin and Gazdanov (they both left Soviet Union and settled in the West, just like Nabokov did, but, opposite to him, they never turned against their homeland, which is why they weren't in favor of the Western cultural elite of the Cold War era either, and therefore their works aren't as well known as Nabokov's, but their works are significantly deeper than his). Nabokov is more-less on the level with Solzhenitsyn - the former was better stylist, and the latter was a deeper philosopher, but at the end of the day, their works are aging very badly, as in, they were products of the day and they dealt with taboos or issues of the time, but once those taboos and those issues are long gone, as they are today, Nabokov's and Solzhenitsyn's novels do loose a lot of their impact.

I'm glad Martin isn't Tolkien, either, because the world doesn't lack Tolkien wannabes. And Tolkien's work isn't as original as some of his fans here claim. He borrowed a lot from actual mythologies. And it's OK, he didn't steal, he was inspired by, just like every author ever was inspired by something. But the funny thing is, Martin's worldbuilding is lower regarded because he borrowed from an actual history, while Tolkien's worldbuilding isn't, even though he also borrowed, only from an actual mythology. That's what I consider double standards. And, if comparing the two, I'd easily give my vote to ASOIAF. While LOTR fascinated younger me more than ASOIAF would at the time, nowadays me is significantly more fascinated with ASOIAF than with LOTR. All due respect for Tolkien and his mastery, but I see themes and characters' depth in ASOIAF that I simply don't see in LOTR (which, theoretically, may mean that I remember LOTR poorly or that some significance of it escapes me, but so far nothing suggests that is the case).

And I'm extremely glad Martin isn't Joyce, though I deeply respect Joyce and I'm more than thankful for the impact he had on 20th century literature. But, that impact is long overdue. Joyce writing style was an experiment, influenced by his reading of Dostoyevsky's masterpieces (I believe it was "Karamazovs" specifically). As in, faced with all the depth of Dostoyevsky's characters, he imagined what would it look like if he was to give that kind of characters their voices. And he came up with a 'stream of conscience' technique. And it is a really important literary achievement, that enriched modernism. The experiment was a success. But that's it: an experiment. It was never meant to be a standard other works are measured against. Novels are a way of communication, and 'stream of conscience", or inner voices, or internal monologues, usually don't make for a good communication. Sometimes they can, as in the works of Joyce or, even better, in Faulkner's novels, but it shouldn't be a standard. Joyce and Faulkner and other similar authors did open the door for more personal and intimate storytelling, but it doesn't mean that now every author has to go through that door, nor that authors that use some other, older doors, are inevitably not as good as Joyce and Faulkner were.

And here's one more thing: it's not that Martin doesn't go intimate and personal in his storytelling. The voices of all his POV characters are heard very loudly. As far as I know, Martin said he was inspired by some other fantasy author, who also used 'inner thoughts' of his POV characters. Maybe that other author was also skillful in that, but the way Martin uses the inner voices of his POV characters is extremely demanding for him as a writer, and infinitely rewarding for readers. Is he on Joyce's or Faulkner's level? I don't think so, but not because he isn't capable of - any author who can joggle so many so distinctive characters as Martin does, is probably a master of that technique. It's just that his writing isn't determined by 'stream of conscience' technique, as theirs were, but he uses it with a pretty big success, and just enough to suit his narrative needs.

To see how strong this conformism is, just look at the novels that are thrown in these discussions. Other than LOTR, and "War and Piece" that was mentioned only once, and "One hundred years of solitude" that is a peculiar case, no other epic was brought up, as far as I can recall. Which is strange, to sat the least, but not stranger than how few epics is usually included in all those best-of lists of modern literature. Bias against epics is, in my humble opinion, even harder than bias against fantasy. Look at Llosa's opus, for example. His "Conversation in the Cathedral" is often hailed as his best book, and it is a fascinating novel indeed. And "The Bad Girl" is probably his most rewarded novel (possibly crucial for the Nobel prize he received three years ago). But, "The War of the End of the World" is often overlooked, even though it is probably the best work he produced: the reason could very well be that it is an epic, because honestly I see no other reason. If I'm right, and doctrine of postmodernism does indicate I could be, then the bias against epics could be one more thing that works against stories like ASOIAF is, even though ASOIAF does contain a lot of drama that is usually hailed by postmodernists.

And on top of this conformism, we have a terrible nitpicking ASOIAF is subjected to on a daily basis. Every detail Martin didn't elaborate on - and, by the nature of the saga, it should go without saying that there's a number of details he couldn't and shouldn't elaborate - is used against him. On another thread, a poster said that Rickon-Shaggydog thing is nonsense and bullshit. Like, no three year old would ever be given a wolf for a pet, because wolves are dangerous animals that must be raised by proper kennel masters. And other posters agreed, to my infinite surprise. It's like that Martin didn't emphasize enough how special is the bond between Stark kids and their direwolves! Is it really that hard to imagine any explanation for Rickon-Shaggydog thing along those lines? Could it be that, for example, Ned and Cat and all of their household, kennel masters included, saw how bonded kids and their respective direwolves are, which is why they abandoned usual pet-training procedures and allowed Rickon to take care of Shaggydog? And didn't Martin describe how Rickon was neglected after Bran's fall, which could also be yet another explanation, because by the time everyone noticed how dangerous Shaggydog can be, it was already too late - not to mention that, after Bran was saved by Summer, no reasonable person would ever separate a Stark kid from his/her direwolf? But no, people prefer to call it bullshit and nonsense. Sometimes it does seem like a competition in criticizing ASOIAF.

To conclude, because of conformism and/or nitpicking, ASOIAF is rarely analyzed as a literary achievement. And it's about time to be analyzed like that. Which, of course, doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticized. A friend of mine, more avid reader than I am, read ASOIAF (first three books), and he isn't a fan, but when he criticizes ASOIAF, he does it with full respect for all the extraordinary things Martin accomplished. His complaints are philosophical ones, first and foremost. And those are serious complaints, which the two of us debated at length. and yet, he, who isn't a fan (nor is he a hater, of course), respects ASOIAF much more than many here who claim they're fans. When I tell him people here find Nabokov superior to Martin, he laughs. By the way, he's a literature graduate.

(It doesn't mean Nabokov should be laughed at, of course. But, holding him in a regard so high that he's used as a standard contemporary epics should be measured against, is a laughable notion in and out of itself, for me at least.)

For all it's worth, I can criticize ASOIAF more seriously than some of the posters here, which, truth be told, isn't that hard, because all I have to do is to leave conformism and nitpicking aside. I just might do that when I'm online again, in a few hours.

[David Selig]

Formulaic thinking - or conformism, more precise - is what irks me the most, especially in assessing a work of fiction. And sorry, but some of these posts are nothing but conformism, sometimes combined with cultural snobbery. Martin is not ________ (fill in the blanks: Tolkien, Joyce, Nabokov, Tolstoy, Hemingway...) This is probably the most frequent 'argument' against the claim that ASOIAF could be a literature masterpiece on its own right. And it is nothing but conformism.

First, I'm certainly glad Martin isn't Nabokov. Before this thread, I wasn't even aware that Nabokov is so respected. Because, in the region I live in - South Eastern Europe, more precisely Balkans peninsula - Nabokov isn't regarded nearly as high as in this thread. Russia produced more than a few much better writers. Allow me to name two of them that had a similar fate to Nabokov's: Zamyatin and Gazdanov (they both left Soviet Union and settled in the West, just like Nabokov did, but, opposite to him, they never turned against their homeland, which is why they weren't in favor of the Western cultural elite of the Cold War era either, and therefore their works aren't as well known as Nabokov's, but their works are significantly deeper than his). Nabokov is more-less on the level with Solzhenitsyn - the former was better stylist, and the latter was a deeper philosopher, but at the end of the day, their works are aging very badly, as in, they were products of the day and they dealt with taboos or issues of the time, but once those taboos and those issues are long gone, as they are today, Nabokov's and Solzhenitsyn's novels do loose a lot of their impact.

I very much disagree. For my money Nabokov is the best writer I've ever read, period. Certainly the best stylist. There's nothing dated in his novels which I've read. I've read Zamyatin, and he nowhere near as good or "deep".

The main reason he's more popular West than other Russian writers of his calibre is that he wrote most of his novels in English, so no translation issues in the English speaking world.

And other posters agreed, to my infinite surprise. It's like that Martin didn't emphasize enough how special is the bond between Stark kids and their direwolves! Is it really that hard to imagine any explanation for Rickon-Shaggydog thing along those lines? Could it be that, for example, Ned and Cat and all of their household, kennel masters included, saw how bonded kids and their respective direwolves are, which is why they abandoned usual pet-training procedures and allowed Rickon to take care of Shaggydog?

No. Right from the start, before observing any special connection, Ned decided that his 3 year old would take care of a giant wolf completely on his own. Which I find totally absurd. No parent would ever do that.

Anyway, fans nitpicking minor stuff is pretty much the default for any popular work of art. I am sure there are plenty of places where people nitpick minor details from Lolita or The Great Gatsby.

[Miodrag]

Man, that was not even what I was talking about. The characters can be as deep as they want, and the setting as complex as possible, what matter is what people get out of it, how relevant it is to them, how it touches them. It's not about the text itself, it's about the readership in relation to the text. I already said it in the post you quoted the least significant part of, but you still went ahead to rave about the supposed deepness of ASOIAF, and I do not even disagree with the richness of the setting (in westeros at least) or the consistency and multilayering of the characters.

Well, is it a supposed depth, or is it an actual one? Make up your mind. And about your post I replied to, go read it again, and you'll see why I replied the way I replied. You asked is there anything deeper in ASOIAF than what you listed. I answered accordingly by listing aspects that indeed are deeper than what you listed. It's not my fault if in your post you failed to portray the depth you see in ASOIAF.

You bring up examples of stuff that could be said about any other Fantasy story around, though, it feels quite mundane: some people can do this, some people can do that, yeah you can see that in the news, or in history. Characters are deep there too, and so is the setting. This stuff is minor.

Once again: is there a depth in ASOIAF, or not? If there is, but you happen to think other fantasy works have the same level of depth, please provide some examples. Otherwise, what you're contributing is nothing but an empty internet talk, I'm afraid.

Plus nobody is going to be that impressed because an author managed to craft a complex world in more than 10000 pages, of course, size matters. You take Joyce, he can evoke a character, his friends, his setting, his history, his dreams, his fears, his goals, his neuroses and his flaws in less than ten pages.

You're welcomed to be impressed by whatever you like, but, do you really think Martin isn't efficient in depicting characters?! There's a legion of characters in ASOIAF that are barely described, and yet, they're as vivid and multidimensional as any. Sandor Clegane would probably be the best example, but Tywin isn't far behind. Roose Bolton also. Or Bronn. Martin doesn't waste a word in depicting those guys. What amount of pages did he waste on these or some other characters?

It did not seal the deal, but it's a good example: over the years I've seen sure a large number of people having an epiphany about Renly's sexual orientation due to the rainbow guard "foreshadowing", I mean it's not subtle, heh? But no, Martin came out to say he bever intended for it to be such thing, and it had actually a whole other meaning altogether. And then you have arguments about how one word four novels back when read upside down a tree during a full moon could "foreshadow" anything. It does not sync.

Some readers do get obsessive with foreshadowing. But, does it mean there isn't a foreshadowing at all? Or subtlety, for that matter? For instance, do you think Jon Snow is Ned's illegitimate son? Or, maybe there is some truth in claims that he actually isn't? And, if it does turn out Jon wasn't sired by Ned, would you think that in that regard Martin wasted some amounts of words that, say, Joyce never would've, or would you agree with me that it was a pure mastery in subtlety?

[SeanF]

Right, I don't expect Martin to construct a complex legal system or have more fleshed out ideas on the matter per se, but the issue concerns how are we to analyze and interpret how law operates in Westeros. To that end, Martin is vague and oversimplifies the concept of law, such that I don't know how he would address the contradictions and inconsistencies that organically arise in the text. When previously asked about succession laws Martin appealed to the "vague" and "often contradictory:" nature of these concepts in feudal history (SSM 11/2/99). Succession 'laws' are anything but clear cut, as is the validity of precedent, and this is the case because they are not fleshed out or presented in a consistent way. The fact is Martin applies a broad template because he has to; and that is what was clear about the podcast with the law prof. There's nothing wrong with that and it doesn't detract from his prodigious craft at world building.

That's a fair point (although it doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the series). Legally, and constitutionally, Westeros is in the Dark Ages, or at any rate, very early Middle Ages. Government consists of absolute monarchy, tempered by the power of the Crown's vassals, whose power in turn is tempered by their vassals. And, the legal system is very primitive. The idea of trying Tyrion before Sweetrobin is farcical. And law is basically whatever the local lord says it is in his domain. But, in other ways, Westeros is pretty advanced. The use of coin is widespread; the Maesters are extremely knowledgeable; there's extensive international trade and a rich merchant class; and, there's a large royal civil service, comprising tax collectors, harbour masters, coiners, clerks etc. One would expect all of these latter (literate) groups to be in the forefront of pressure to create written laws and procedures, effective courts, town and city councils, and so on.

[Miodrag]

I very much disagree. For my money Nabokov is the best writer I've ever read, period. Certainly the best stylist. There's nothing dated in his novels which I've read. I've read Zamyatin, and he nowhere near as good or "deep".

The main reason he's more popular West than other Russian writers of his calibre is that he wrote most of his novels in English, so no translation issues in the English speaking world.

Could be the translation thing, because Zamyatin wrote in Russian, which is very similar to Serbian, so a Serbian translation of Zamyatin tends to preserve all the beauty of his prose. And, while Nabokov's prose is indeed masterful, I find Zamyatin's clearly better, because it wasn't written as it was written just for the sake of beautiful prose, but also because it was suited to deliver all the philosophical depth Zamyatin was interested in. Of course, we both can be 'right', because the prose is not independent from a personal preference. But, as for the depth, Zamyatin was the first to address the totalitarian nature of modern governments, and he did it so brilliantly that is resonates even today, almost 100 years later. On the other hand, Nabokov's most famous novel "Lolita" - the only one I read, by the way - is addressing the matters of morality, on both personal level and on the level of a community. He did quite a good job at that, but the truth is, the morality of that era is mostly gone by now. Older man's infatuation with a young girl would be sort of a scandal today, but not nearly as big as in his time. Personally, I prefer taking "Lolita" as an allegory of a child in us destroying an adult in humanity, cause in my eyes it would be a more significant and a deeper issue, but I honestly can't agree with Nabokov's conclusion if that was what he wanted to say. On the contrary, I'm more and more convinced that the child in us should never be neglected, or otherwise it will go wild and uncontrolled and devastatingly rebellious (in which Lolita doesn't fit either, because, if she's the antagonist, as some think, she's vile, not wild, and that makes all the difference in the world).

And, by the way, I consider Nabokov as an exact opposite of Dostoyevsky, with which both would probably agree. Did you read Dostoyevsky? If you do, I'd be very interested to hear why do you find him inferior to Nabokov?

No. Right from the start, before observing any special connection, Ned decided that his 3 year old would take care of a giant wolf completely on his own. Which I find totally absurd. No parent would ever do that.

Well, we don't know that for sure. In Bran I, he decides that the kids are going to take care of pops. It isn't elaborated on will the kids have some kind of help from kennel masters, for example. And, even if they didn't, Shaggydog was a pop at the time he was brought to Winterfell. Why not give a pop to a child, until it grows up a little at least? And, before Shaggydog grew some more, maybe they saw how strong is the bond between the two. And when Shaggydog did show his wilder side, it might have been too late, as I said.