asoiaf's place in cultural/literary history

[Miodrag]

In this round, before I leave for a couple of hours, I'd just like to point you once again to your post I replied to. Just read the way you described the podcast. Like that Martin not only taking the matter lightly (laughing and all) during the conversation, but that he also admitted that he wasn't that thorough in creating the social and legals system of Westeros as readers usually think. Well, sorry, you can think what you want and have an impressions you feel or choose, but that description is as biased as any. It doesn't correspond with neither content nor the tone of the podcast. And i definitely don't know what are you talking about when you say that I kinda proved some of your points. Yes, Martin made some simplifications, just as every author does with any subject he deals with. But, his simplifications were minimal (or, at least, mush smaller and rarer then you implied), and they weren't results of Martin's lack of expertise, as you implied in your post, but, on the contrary, of his expertise, that enabled him to simplify thing without loosing the spirit of the period (not the actual period, of course, but the period he modeled his world on).

[Southron_Ambitions]

I don't know whether it will or won't be widely considered a literary classic or whether it will be studied at university level, but IMO it certainly should be. It will never have a fraction of the impact of, say, greek tragedies like the Illiad, but ASOIAF is much better in every way (admittedly in large part due to having been built on the backs of the many tales that were built from tales like the Illiad).

[Stannis ftw]

Yes, Martin made some simplifications, just as every author does with any subject he deals with. But, his simplifications were minimal (or, at least, mush smaller and rarer then you implied), and they weren't results of Martin's lack of expertise, as you implied in your post, but, on the contrary, of his expertise, that enabled him to simplify thing without loosing the spirit of the period (not the actual period, of course, but the period he modeled his world on).

Simplification - in the subject of law - with relation to what? If you mean simplification wrt high middle ages, the simplification is actually huge, not minimal at all. Not that it matters much one way or another to the subject at hand.

[Miodrag]

Simplification - in the subject of law - with relation to what? If you mean simplification wrt high middle ages, the simplification is actually huge, not minimal at all. Not that it matters much one way or another to the subject at hand.

I'm not an expert on legal systems of today, let alone on systems from middle ages. I was only talking about the podcast UVA mentioned. In that podcast, for every simplification that was brought up, GRRM offered a reasonable explanation, and there was just a few simplifications to begin with. Anyway, I'd like to know what is so huge in a simplification of legal system in ASOIAF. I'm asking this out of curiosity, and not to challenge what you're about to say. For all I know, you may be an expert on the history of legal systems, which would make your knowledge that more precious, because then we'd be able to analyze how did Martin simplified things and was it justifiable and effective in a narrative sense.

[Miodrag]

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.

That's the thing: there actually aren't. This internet crazy era never happened before, and this much nitpicking is practically dependent on internet. How were fans to nitpick works of art 30 or 60 years ago?

It doesn't have to take anything away from those works of art that weren't nitpicked. For some of them, at least. Of course there are academics' darlings that don't actually deserve the place among all time best, but academics are humans after all and they're allowed their weaknesses, I guess. As for the rest of the classics, they did pass the test of time. As in, they were read and loved and analyzed by generations, and in different eras, and that has to count for something, even if Balzac or Hugo or Goethe may look a little outdated (for the record, they don't look outdated to me; I'm just saying).

But, all this nitpicking ASOIAF is exposed to should also count for something. As far as I know, not a single work of fiction was analyzed as thoroughly as ASOIAF is. In this internet era, not that many works of fiction attracted this much attention in the first place, and among those that did, ASOIAF could very well be the most complex and the longest lasting one. Other fictional works that, to my knowledge at least, were analyzed in details, are mostly movies, and popular ones at that. And movies - even the best ones, that are usually don't subjected to this thorough analysis - just can't compare to ASOIAF in that regard. TV shows are one more thing, and those are not to be dismissed as easily as movies. The Sopranos and The Wire were and are analyzed in details, for example. But, even they lack the complexity and scale of ASOIAF. And, to my knowledge, there isn't a single site that analyzes these or some other shows as thoroughly as people here analyze ASOIAF.

Now, it doesn't mean the humanity should recalibrate itself and start nitpicking classics, in order to prove them worthy of their reputation. As I said, many of those classics did stand the test of time. What I do mind, however, is when complaints derived from nitpicking ASOIAF, are used against ASOIAF in comparisons with classical literature. Because, classical literature can be nitpicked the same way. Maybe not all, but many do. Take "Gatsby", for example, and the fatal car accident: if nitpicked as ASOIAF often is, it would be called contrived and stretched and unbelievable. I don't think it was, because Fitzgerald used a situation that isn't highly likely, but isn't impossible either, and he used it in a narrative and dramatic sense, and skillfuly enough. But, the entire novel is built around that event - so, what would all those that complain over Cat and Tyrion meeting at the inn, think of "Gatsby's" crucial event, if they apply the same standards on both novels? Would they call the plot-hole there as well?

[SeanF]

I'm not an expert on legal systems of today, let alone on systems from middle ages. I was only talking about the podcast UVA mentioned. In that podcast, for every simplification that was brought up, GRRM offered a reasonable explanation, and there was just a few simplifications to begin with. Anyway, I'd like to know what is so huge in a simplification of legal system in ASOIAF. I'm asking this out of curiosity, and not to challenge what you're about to say. For all I know, you may be an expert on the history of legal systems, which would make your knowledge that more precious, because then we'd be able to analyze how did Martin simplified things and was it justifiable and effective in a narrative sense.

I don't think it matters much at all, it's Martin's world after all.

I just think that a world as sophisticated as Westeros would have developed a sensible legal system.

[Miodrag]

I don't think it matters much at all, it's Martin's world after all.

I just think that a world as sophisticated as Westeros would have developed a sensible legal system.

Maybe it doesn't really matter, but I'd like to analyze the way Martin boiled down legal systems of middle ages. (And, for the record, that is a vague area, because different regions had entirely different legal systems.) But, you're right that Westeros may be too sophisticated for it's legal system. But, here's the thing: Westerosi religious system is definitely too sophisticated for Westeros. As far as I know, there weren't multi-confessional states prior to modern times (Austro-Hungarian Empire was probably the first after Alexander's empire and Rome, but those were exceptions and from before what Will Durant called 'An Age of Faith'). Under multi-confessional, I mean a single realm in which several religions are more-less equal. In Westeros, we have The Seven, The Old Gods, and The Drowned God. Three legitimate religions in a single realm. Pretty unusual. But, used brilliantly, if you ask me, and it made all those 'sophisticated' ideas on religion - like Lannisters' atheism - that more believable.

[SeanF]

The Byzantine Empire, crusader states, Sicily, Spain, Poland, and Lithuania managed to accommodate different religions at various points of the Middle Ages.

[Miodrag]

The Byzantine Empire, crusader states, Sicily, Spain, Poland, and Lithuania managed to accommodate different religions at various points of the Middle Ages.

I'm not so sure about Byzantine Empire, for example. It lasted more than any other empire in the history, and it was huge, so in a strict sense you're right, various religions were practiced in peripheral parts of the realm. But, the Orthodox Christianity was the state religion, and above all else. And, even with all their religious diversity, it's not the same as Westeros, where the largest region - The North is almost half of the realm, as I recall - practices a different religion. The Drowned God situation is similar to Byzantine experience, I'd say, but The Old Gods is something else.

As for crusader states, they didn't last long, nor were they proper states in terms of their intents and purposes. As for other states you list, I wasn't aware of those examples. But, am I right to suggest that those were also not that similar to Westeros, in terms of how deep and lasting religious division is?

[Whitering]

I'm not so sure about Byzantine Empire, for example. It lasted more than any other empire in the history, and it was huge, so in a strict sense you're right, various religions were practiced in peripheral parts of the realm. But, the Orthodox Christianity was the state religion, and above all else. And, even with all their religious diversity, it's not the same as Westeros, where the largest region - The North is almost half of the realm, as I recall - practices a different religion. The Drowned God situation is similar to Byzantine experience, I'd say, but The Old Gods is something else.

As for crusader states, they didn't last long, nor were they proper states in terms of their intents and purposes. As for other states you list, I wasn't aware of those examples. But, am I right to suggest that those were also not that similar to Westeros, in terms of how deep and lasting religious division is?

Well, even the Muslims at the start, and later the Ottoman Empire had periods of religious tolerance that was actual government policy. It most depended on the rulers and whether they needed a scapegoat for economic downturns and such as to when such periods ended, there was also anger between the groups if one was seemingly enjoying more status than the rest.

[Miodrag]

Well, even the Muslims at the start, and later the Ottoman Empire had periods of religious tolerance that was actual government policy. It most depended on the rulers and whether they needed a scapegoat for economic downturns and such as to when such periods ended, there was also anger between the groups if one was seemingly enjoying more status than the rest.

Wouldn't say that was the case with the Ottoman Empire, which controlled most of the Balkans for quite a long time (more than five centuries). It was far from religious tolerance. Not only that Christians were denied many rights, but they were also subjected to various kind of extortion, humiliation and torture. For example, there was something that could translate as a "blood tribute" (we Serbs call it "danak u krvi", if anyone can help me with a translation), and that was the custom of forcible taking of sons of Christian families (usually one son per family, though there were exceptions) and bringing them to the capital of Istanbul, where they were trained as soldiers in Janissary unit, which was kind of a foreign legion of Ottoman Empire. In order to avoid their sons being taken away from them, mothers of the period were maiming them (cutting their fingers, for example), so they aren't suitable for army. Also, throughout most of their rule over these parts, Ottomans entertained the "first night" right, which, as you may guess, the right of a lord to sleep with a bride on the first night of her marriage. In short, no, there wasn't a religious tolerance in Ottoman Empire. Don't know about other Muslim states, in Middle East for example, cause they tend to be a different case, but Ottomans weren't crazy for tolerance of any kind.

[mushroomshirt]

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.

Not to nitpick, but Ned makes it pretty clear that no one will have any responsibility for the wolves except the kids. He particularly excludes the kennelmasters. He's telling Bran this so I suppose he might not mean Rickon, too.

I believe there is a GRRM interview where he states somewhere that he didn't really understand child development when he wrote the books (he doesn't have kids, after all). Implying that Bran and Rickon probably should have been a few years older.

That being said, I don't have a big problem with Rickon & Shaggydog. It could easily be explained by your rationale or by a quite minor mistake with character's ages by GRRM.

[Errant Bard]

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.

1. I never said anything about my feeling on ASOIAF's "depth". I never asked anything about what would be "deeper" in ASOIAF (unless "relevance to one's life" took a whole other meaning while I wasn't looking.) For someone who aims to to promote his analysis of ASOIAF, it is not a good show to misrepresent simple short paragraphs like this.
   
2. You keep dodging the subject: ASOIAF's place in cultural and literary history, trying to force you subjective opinion on the position of ASOIAF on a simplistic "greatness" scale as objective instead, restricting yourself to the text and completely ignoring the context outside, except for your popularity means quality implicit argument, and it's especially egregious that you get to ignore the actual history of the literary genre considering the thread title, though it's equalled by your disdain of other real practical reasons, like language, diffusion, timing, current culture, or story length.
   
3. I see you've taken to attacking strawmen, in an attempt to demean those who disagree with your views. It is pathetic.

So, in the end, you are not really interested in discussing ASOIAF's place in literary and cultural history, you're just interested in gushing about it, demeaning other works in the process. The only thing distinguishing you is that you wrap your fanboyism in walls of text written with a hipster's touch (anticonformism, "I can criticise better than you", really?) If I want to read about ASOIAF depth, I go to the foreshadowing or reread threads, at least there they abstain from drifting into a discussion on which book would objectively win in a pissing contest. I am done taking you seriously.

[Stannis ftw]

I'm not an expert on legal systems of today, let alone on systems from middle ages. I was only talking about the podcast UVA mentioned. In that podcast, for every simplification that was brought up, GRRM offered a reasonable explanation, and there was just a few simplifications to begin with. Anyway, I'd like to know what is so huge in a simplification of legal system in ASOIAF. I'm asking this out of curiosity, and not to challenge what you're about to say. For all I know, you may be an expert on the history of legal systems, which would make your knowledge that more precious, because then we'd be able to analyze how did Martin simplified things and was it justifiable and effective in a narrative sense.

I've done my share of medieval studies, not an expert at all in medieval law though, but you dont need to be. Just google some kind of summary presentation of law in the middle ages and then note almost complete absence of it in ASOIAF.

Same goes for network of universities and monasteries advancing high level of intellectual pursuit, philosophy and theology, pretty much totally lacking if ASOIAF. Yeah there is Citadel and scattered maesters mixing their potions.

However this is again diversion from the topic since the quality of "world-building" is good enough and it is certainly not determining ASOIAFs place in literary history.

[Nacht en Ontij]

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.

Speaking as someone who did study medieval law as well as culture [although the focus was on the early medieval period, especially on the European continent] I have absolutely no problem the supposed lack of judicial institutions, nor do I have a problem with the supposed lack of a broader cultural prism in the form of monasteries. When I started reading the series back in the day I wasn't expecting a one-on-one copy of 15th century English law or culture. That would be anachronous to start with since the feudal society in Westeros owes more to -say- the 13th century.

Point in case here is serfdom. Mr. Martin implies a lot of things about his society but is vague about specifics. He never tells us directly that the smallfolk is forbidden to move outside the village they live in, yet he implies they are, using sentences like 'Lord Cookiedoughs smallfolk'. They're his to rule.

Implications. There are a lot of them. We do visit a monastery, we know there is a master of Laws Both these two pop up in AFoC en ADwD, fairly late in the game. I dont think mr. Martin had everything concerning Westeros fleshed out from the beginning [i can imagine him reading about the word 'niello' somewhere between 2005 and 2011. ;)].

So, yes, there are monasteries, there are laws. There's an interesting mix of [real life] Germanic Law [declaring someone a 'wargus' ('wolf'= outlaw)] and Romano-Celtic Law [banishment; forced labour (Wall)]. The fact that we don't get a complete list of all the monasteries and detailed excerpts from law codes doesn't necessarily mean it's unsophisticated.

And let's not forget that serfdom existed in Russia until deep in the 19th century. Even in France, cultural heart of Europe since at least the 13th century, local nobles were able to wield a disproportionate amount of power up until the French Revolution.

Absolute monarchies? They're an invention rooted in the early modern period, when the centralisation of government agencies became possible because of more sophisticated means of acquiring resources. And let's not forget that until deep in the 12th century almost all kings were travelling around constantly.

I can argue that mr. Martin's world is not early medieval, as you state. There are too many different stages of development going on at the same time and since this is a fantasy world, that's fine by me. We see hardcore feudalism, owing more to 13th century northern France and at the same time we see clans with a very strong sense of kinship, like the early medieval 'sibbe'. Even the Ironborn adress their king as 'your grace' whereas it would be more historically correct to adress them as 'lord king'.

All in all, it's an interesting mix of different time periods. Westeros is incredibly medieval in almost every respect, but please keep in mind that historians see the mediaeval period as a period of almost a 1,000 years.

[EDIT]

'Dark Ages'? A very debatable description implying either a crapsack world or perhaps a not very well-known period in time?

[Miodrag]

I am done taking you seriously.

This could help, I guess, because if you were taking me seriously so far, you were doing a rather poor job.

I never said anything about my feeling on ASOIAF's "depth". I never asked anything about what would be "deeper" in ASOIAF (unless "relevance to one's life" took a whole other meaning while I wasn't looking.) For someone who aims to to promote his analysis of ASOIAF, it is not a good show to misrepresent simple short paragraphs like this.

Allow me to quote you once again:

If you look at Martin, then, beyond entertainment and acknowledgement of his craft mastery (though he can be very workmanlike at times,) what would readers get out of the story that is relevant to their life? Pseudo medieval society building? Theme about honour versus love? The whole bildungsroman thing? Good people making mistakes? In the end I don't see what one could see as significant in ASOIAF to make it a classic, academically studied, enough to forget its mind-boggling length (nobody will include 10000+ pages works in a curriculum.) I do think it will be remembered as one of the best Fantasy stories published, if it ever gets finished, though, but nothing beyond that.

Yeah, I definitely misunderstood you. You surely didn't imply there's nothing deeper and more significant (or, in your strange wording: more relevant to readers' lives) than 'pseudo medieval society building', 'theme about honour versus love', 'the whole bildungsroman thing' and 'good people making mistakes' in ASOIAF. What could have given me that idea?!

You keep dodging the subject: ASOIAF's place in cultural and literary history, trying to force you subjective opinion on the position of ASOIAF on a simplistic "greatness" scale as objective instead, restricting yourself to the text and completely ignoring the context outside, except for your popularity means quality implicit argument, and it's especially egregious that you get to ignore the actual history of the literary genre considering the thread title, though it's equalled by your disdain of other real practical reasons, like language, diffusion, timing, current culture, or story length.

Jesus, is that what you mean by 'taking me seriously'? First, neither I think nor I said anything even remotely similar to 'popularity means quality'; all I did was rebutting the notion that ASOIAF is, due to it's popularity, in the same category with Stephen King and J.K. Rowling; ASOIAF was even called populist, and later it turned out that the poster was confusing populist with popular; I simply refuse to view popularity as a fault, but it's really not the same as viewing popularity as a measure of quality.

Second, I never showed any disdain for practical reasons. I'm just not interested in discussing practical reasons, because other posters did a better job at that, and they said all there is to be said on the subject. Yeah, ASOIAF probably won't be enlisted in literary courses in universities, if for nothing else, than for pure length. How's one to argue that further?! The topic, however, may consider a lot more than practical reasons, and the discussion is only richer if we look beyond those. And university courses aren't the only way for a novel to reach eternity.

Third, it's not that I avoided what you call 'practical reasons'. Only, I examined them theoretically. Language, for example. I addressed it more than a few times. Maybe you missed it. You do that a lot.

Fourth, and the most important one: what does it mean that I'm trying to force my subjective opinion?! Every opinion in this thread, and on these boards, and in internet discussions in general, is a subjective one. An opinion is always subjective. It may be more or less founded and/or thorough, but subjective it is. Opinions are not facts. Especially in arts. So, I was offering my opinions, that indeed are subjective. How does it make for 'trying to force' those opinions on the topic? Once again, if you find your opinions poorly explained and inferior, it's not my fault, nor is it a result of some forcing from my side.

I see you've taken to attacking strawmen, in an attempt to demean those who disagree with your views. It is pathetic.

I called conformism, and explained where I recognize it and why. I may be right or wrong, but it's not 'attacking strawmen'. Not really. Not by a long shot.

So, in the end, you are not really interested in discussing ASOIAF's place in literary and cultural history, you're just interested in gushing about it, demeaning other works in the process. The only thing distinguishing you is that you wrap your fanboyism in walls of text written with a hipster's touch (anticonformism, "I can criticise better than you", really?) If I want to read about ASOIAF depth, I go to the foreshadowing or reread threads, at least there they abstain from drifting into a discussion on which book would objectively win in a pissing contest.

If you're implying I have no right to criticize other works in the process, well, that's the very definition of conformism. Why wouldn't I express my negative opinions on certain novels that are considered classics, especially because we are comparing ASOIAF to classical literature on this thread?! No pissing contest there. And I try to support every opinion I offer with reasons for it. Anyone can disagree with those reasons and make me look like a fool, if my reasons are foolish.

[Miodrag]

Not to nitpick, but Ned makes it pretty clear that no one will have any responsibility for the wolves except the kids. He particularly excludes the kennelmasters. He's telling Bran this so I suppose he might not mean Rickon, too.

I believe there is a GRRM interview where he states somewhere that he didn't really understand child development when he wrote the books (he doesn't have kids, after all). Implying that Bran and Rickon probably should have been a few years older.

That being said, I don't have a big problem with Rickon & Shaggydog. It could easily be explained by your rationale or by a quite minor mistake with character's ages by GRRM.

There's nitpicking and there're nitpicking. And yours does strike me as a very good-spirited one, which is why it is welcomed, even if I don't get along with it. What bothered me with the initial complaint I saw on the other thread, is the ill spirit of it. Rickon raising Shaggydog was called bullshit and nonsense. Granted, no real harm is done if any aspect of any novel is called bullshit or nonsense, but I was bothered by the lack of a good spirit. I mean, nine years old girl may be thorn to pieces by a direwolf just as easily as a three years old boy can, and a nine years old girl doesn't necessarily know anything more about raising direwolves than a three years old boy does. And yet, the complainer wasn't complaining about Arya being given a direwolf, but about Rickon - probably because Rickon isn't fleshed out at all, so he's convenient for nitpicking.

Anyway, the whole direwolf thing is presented as a somewhat mythical and mystical one from the very start. Even Robert says to Ned: direwolf is not a pet. Which means that the very fact Starks did keep those direwolves as pets, does suggest some deeper connection between kids and animals was evident from the beginning. What I'm interested in, would be an explanation of that deeper connection. If Martin fails to deliver that in the remaining novels, then I'd have a problem with an entire concept of direwolves as Starks' pets. Bit, singling out any particular kid and a matching direwolf at this point was just a nitpicking, and an ill-spirited one (I'm talking only of the initial complainer; posters like David Selig are a different case; he is much more rigid on the subject than I would've been, but at least he isn't using his complaints to imply ultimate conclusions on ASOIAF's quality).

Finally, to reply directly to your 'nitpick': maybe Ned changed his mind about kennel-masters; or maybe, as I happen to think, he wasn't dead serious when he warned his kids no kennel-master will help them; maybe he just 'threatened' them in order to force them to rethink the situation once again, as parents often do.

As for ages of kids, you're on to something there. That is a rather serious issue, which doesn't necessarily mean it's a problem or a plot-hole. But, ASOIAF, and AGOT as the introduction novel especially, could do with a little elaboration, tangential one if you want, on maturity of kids in Westeros. With a paragraph or two of exposition, GRRM could highlight how different are standards for childhood in his world, compared to modern standards from ours. And I'm talking standards, not exception like Jon's idols he tells Benjen and Tyrion about.

[mushroomshirt]

Anyway, the whole direwolf thing is presented as a somewhat mythical and mystical one from the very start. Even Robert says to Ned: direwolf is not a pet. Which means that the very fact Starks did keep those direwolves as pets, does suggest some deeper connection between kids and animals was evident from the beginning. What I'm interested in, would be an explanation of that deeper connection. If Martin fails to deliver that in the remaining novels, then I'd have a problem with an entire concept of direwolves as Starks' pets. Bit, singling out any particular kid and a matching direwolf at this point was just a nitpicking, and an ill-spirited one (I'm talking only of the initial complainer; posters like David Selig are a different case; he is much more rigid on the subject than I would've been, but at least he isn't using his complaints to imply ultimate conclusions on ASOIAF's quality).

I missed that other thread & I would have never considered that anyone would have had a problem with the Starks / direwolves connections. Summer's saving Bran in aGoT or Ghost's finding the wildlings in Clash or Grey Wind misliking Rolf Spicer seem like Martin already delivering on the deeper connection to me. Nymeria's bond with Arya also seems very important for her story because it is keeping her connected to her "Stark-ness" but I'm not sure that his "delivered" yet.

I suppose it shows how different people can read the series very differently.

[Northernmonkey]

One of the reasons that it won't be considered a literary classic is that GRRM overuses cliffhangers and other cheap gimmicks (eg. characters being brought back to life). You tend to get these things in fantasy and adventure books, and not genuine classic novels.

[Miodrag]

One of the reasons that it won't be considered a literary classic is that GRRM overuses cliffhangers and other cheap gimmicks (eg. characters being brought back to life). You tend to get these things in fantasy and adventure books, and not genuine classic novels.

Agree only partially. Some of his chapter endings do look cheap, for example, in AGOT, when Varys tells to Ned about Jon Arryn: "He started asking questions". A following line or two about, say, Ned's thoughts on what he just heard, would make the tone much more serious and elegant. The way it was left, it looks like a poor attempt at suspense, that is bellow standards GRRM already established. One more example would've been the last Cat's chapter in ACOK, when, after talking to Jaime, she asks Brienne's sword: this is not necessarily a cheap ending of a chapter, but it's highly problematic, because a reader can't help but feel lost there, and the situation isn't resolved until next book, and once it is resolved, we see that Jaime's life wasn't in danger at all, so in hindsight it can look like a pure manipulation (and what's 'worse', the whole chapter is superb before the conclusion).

But, what some posters on these boards see as cliffhangers are simply not. Yoren cutting Arya's hair at the end of AGOT is not a cliffhanger, for example, even though it is often brought up - of course Yoren isn't going to hurt her, because why would he save her a minute ago then? Sandor knocking Arya unconscious after RW is also not a cliffhanger: she's unconscious, hence the chapter ends, but inside the same book we find out she's alive. Same thing with Tyrion falling in the river in ADWD. Theon's last chapter in ACOK: again, he's unconscious so the chapter can't help but end, but midway through the next book we find out he's in the Dreadfort and alive, though not so well. As for Brienne's last chapter in AFFC, she does shout a word, which is ambiguous, but I wouldn't say it's cheap, just like Arya's 'blindness' in the same book. As for ADWD cliffhangers, there are too many of them, indeed, but the fact that it was publisher's decision and not GRRM's may be somewhat comforting, and hopefully everything will look better in hindsight, when ADWD comes out.

The issue of fake deaths is also exaggerated frequently, because people tend to list all kinds of strange cases. Like, Theon killing 'Bran and Rickon' - not only that in the very next Theon's chapter it was revealed as a scam, but their hiding in the crypt is a brilliant storytelling 'twist' that once again brings back the importance of heritage in ASOIAF. Sandor Clegane also - Arya lefts him to die, but, since that kind of death scene would be not only underwhelming but also untypical for GRRM, it's hardly a surprise when in the next book it turns out someone with his physical description is in the monastery. Davos too isn't 'fakely killed' in those two instances people sometimes mention: his way out of Blackwater Bay was handled as elegantly as any, while Manderley's rumor about Davos was an elaborate plan that was meant to fool Lannisters, and I can't see any other way it could've been handled. Cat and Gregor actually die, only to be brought up to 'life' again, but with consequences that were explained, or at least foreshadowed, so it really isn't a cheap trickery.

The only bringing back from death I have problem for now, is Mance's, because that could've been handled with more style and elegance. I do get Mance's disguise was needed to show part of Mel's secret (a jewel on her neck is strikingly similar to the one on Mance's hand), but it was bellow Martin's standards. Though, all that trickery around Mance was barely touched in ADWD, so I'm open to further explanations on the matter in remaining books.

To conclude: some 'cliffhangers' and at least one 'fake death' may be weaknesses, but, concerning the magnitude of the story, it isn't a grave one, nor does it have to stand out among narrative weaknesses of some other classical novels. But, if academics get as nitpicky as some posters here, no doubt they'll take those as a reason enough to burn GRRM along with his books.

ETA:

Re: fake deaths - not to mention how many deaths in ASOIAF were real, so, percentage wise, the fake ones are in a clear minority.