asoiaf's place in cultural/literary history

[The Sleeper]

I agree with you much more than I don't. Our one disagreement is about the prose. The parts I bolded in your quote - I don't think all that could be achieved with bad prose. Maybe Martin isn't the most skillful of writers when it comes to the prose itself, but in that case, he at least managed to work around that weakness of his. And, I can't help but repeat that more than a few of his chapters were written in quite a remarkable prose. Along with those I listed earlier, I just remembered the prologue of ACOK: it is fascinating what he managed to cover in a single chapter, and he did all that with some elegance and style.

Unremarkable doesn't equal bad, it means that it doesn't stand out. It definitely works and he can boast of setting very distinct tone and ambience for each individual POV. How many authors can adopt a dozen or more different voices? He also has some great highlights spread across the books and I feel it has improved during the course of the series. Still, overall I have read better prose.

[Miodrag]

@just an Other

I guess I misunderstood you then: we're in a total agreement. The pleasure is all mine, and sorry for the confusion.

[James Sucellus]

I really don't expect ASOIAF to be treated with the same reverence as Tolkien or Heinlein's work, let alone Chaucer or Tolstoy.

I think it'll be as well regarded as Stephen King or JK Rowling's work. Above average populist literature that helped people who otherwise don't read, check out more books. To believe otherwise strikes me as fan-ish wishful thinking. A Dance With Dragons is not a literary masterpiece. I'm sorry, it just isn't.

People on this forum rarely discuss the quality of the prose, or the themes of the story. They discuss who characters' long lost parents are, or what the resolution to cliffhangers will be. This is how a message board for a sensationalist TV show usually resembles, not one for a work of high literature. GRRM has written an incredibly exciting story that has us always excited for the next installment, but Tolkien captured life-changing beauty. I'd say Martin ranks as a distant second behind Tolkien when it comes to writers of epic fantasy. But distant second is a highly respectable ranking.

[Miodrag]

I really don't expect ASOIAF to be treated with the same reverence as Tolkien or Heinlein's work, let alone Chaucer or Tolstoy.

I think it'll be as well regarded as Stephen King or JK Rowling's work. Above average populist literature that helped people who otherwise don't read, check out more books. To believe otherwise strikes me as fan-ish wishful thinking. A Dance With Dragons is not a literary masterpiece. I'm sorry, it just isn't.

ASOIAF (ADWD included) is not on the same level as King or Rowling. I'm sorry, it just isn't.

My evaluation may very well be fan-ish wishful thinking, but even with that, I can't see how is ASOIAF on the level of Rowling's work. Sorry again, but it's much less unrealistic to compare ASOIAF to any of the classics, than to Rowling's books. Just like ASOIAF is much more than just a populist literature. Because, populist literature is mostly uninterested in themes that Martin explores, and in characters as deep and layered as Martin's are.

Honestly, is there a populist literature in which an entire region ends in unheard of chaos because a teenage girl uses her unconventional weapons (dragons), and an army of castrated&dehumanized slaves she herself set free, to fight not this enemy or that one, but a social system that exploited the misery of millions for thousands of years? Is there a populist literature in which an inexperienced but firm and ironwilled commander of an ancient military order undertakes a subtle but all-consuming revolution by making peace with the traditional enemies whose way of life threatens the very foundations of the realm the order is sworn to protect, only to be stabbed by his own subordinates at the end? Was there any populist literature ever that has anyone or anything that even resembles Stannis Baratheon and his unparalleled quest?

[James Sucellus]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. George R.R. Martin is a best-selling writer, his books have tremendous worldwide appeal and are currently a pop culture sensation. Probably the most discussed books in the world right now. How is ASOIAF not populist literature?

It wasn't a criticism either. I'm a big fan of Stephen King, and from ASOIAF I would only rank A Clash of Kings and A Storm of Swords as being up there with the best of King's work, such as The Stand.

[Miodrag]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. George R.R. Martin is a best-selling writer, his books have tremendous worldwide appeal and are currently a pop culture sensation. Probably the most discussed books in the world right now. How is ASOIAF not populist literature?

Is that what you meant by populist literature a moment ago?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

as much as I love ASOIAF I don't think that is nowhere near Tolkien's work.

[Miodrag]

as much as I love ASOIAF I don't think that is nowhere near Tolkien's work.

I know this is going to look like I'm hired to question other posters ,but what the hell, I can't help it: Would you care to explain why you think ASOIAF is nowhere near Tolkien's work? This notion may often be found on internet, but I can't remember I've ever seen it explained properly. Would you be the one to elaborate a little?

[twizz]

There are already college course where the books are part of the text of that course. Not the central text, but still one of a group of required readings.

[James Sucellus]

Is that what you meant by populist literature a moment ago?

Martin writes very accessible stories, largely due to their emphasis on emotions, and character relationships. It wasn't a criticism when I called them populist, as plenty of my favourite writers would be classed as such. I just think it's losing perspective to say they'll be as well regarded as War and Peace in the future.

Would you care to explain why you think ASOIAF is nowhere near Tolkien's work?

It isn't really a slight on Martin, I think most people would agree Tolkien's achievement was more impressive than anybody else's in the genre. He captured a level of beauty and detail that is rare in literature, let alone fantasy literature. I credit Tolkien with helping me view the wonder of both language and nature with renewed interest. By contrast, Martin just gets me really, really excited to read the next page. It's a valid way of storytelling, but not quite as impressive as changing my life.

[Morienthar]

I know this is going to look like I'm hired to question other posters ,but what the hell, I can't help it: Would you care to explain why you think ASOIAF is nowhere near Tolkien's work? This notion may often be found on internet, but I can't remember I've ever seen it explained properly. Would you be the one to elaborate a little?

1.The Language

2.The World Depth(World Building or whatever that is called)

3.Staying the same through out,Tolkien's writing never dipped in terms of quality,Heck even the stuff edited by Christopher are almost at the same level as Tolkien's own work.

4.The peripheral world building through letters and other media.

4.

[James Sucellus]

3.Staying the same through out,Tolkien's writing never dipped in terms of quality,Heck even the stuff edited by Christopher are almost at the same level as Tolkien's own work.

I'd actually rank The Silmarillion as my favourite fantasy book. It's phenomenal.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I know this is going to look like I'm hired to question other posters ,but what the hell, I can't help it: Would you care to explain why you think ASOIAF is nowhere near Tolkien's work? This notion may often be found on internet, but I can't remember I've ever seen it explained properly. Would you be the one to elaborate a little?

Well the complexity of the writing and the way it is written, the amount of history, the language the mythology behind it, the fact that it’s not only one two three books but Tolkien made a whole new world till the last detail etc… all of them. All of them make me believe that Tolkien’s work is and always will be the best of the best, like Iliad and Odyssey, there are others Greek ancient text stories etc but Homer’s are the best.

edit

I'd actually rank The Silmarillion as my favourite fantasy book. It's phenomenal.

:agree: Silmarillion was phenomenal

[twizz]

I know this is going to look like I'm hired to question other posters ,but what the hell, I can't help it: Would you care to explain why you think ASOIAF is nowhere near Tolkien's work? This notion may often be found on internet, but I can't remember I've ever seen it explained properly. Would you be the one to elaborate a little?

I just don't understand the obsession we have with comparing things, like boys in the shower after gym. Tolkien had a better command of language and some of the most beautiful prose I have ever read. Martin doesn't have the same command of language, however he has some of the most compelling characters I have ever read. His works are much more character driven then Tolkien, the depth here for me is the drama. Too vastly different works, from authors that set out to do two completely different things. They cannot be compared in terms of which is better.

[Morienthar]

I'd actually rank The Silmarillion as my favourite fantasy book. It's phenomenal.

Yeah but most people find it a tough read.

[MachoGrande]

People on this forum rarely discuss the quality of the prose, or the themes of the story. They discuss who characters' long lost parents are, or what the resolution to cliffhangers will be. This is how a message board for a sensationalist TV show usually resembles, not one for a work of high literature.

But there are countless threads about character motivations, themes (like morality, ruling, parenting, legacy etc.) and even literary techniques (foreshadwing, symbolism). And what about all those "rereading/ rethinking X"-Threads, in which every chapter is closely examined and often leads to completely new insights? All those topics show, as NotYouSir said, that ASOIAF can indeed sustain a great amount of critical thinking and analyzing, no?

So to say that people "rarely discuss those things" just isn't true, in my opinion. Granted, the amount of threads discussing "What's gonna happen to X" or "What about this prophecy?" is still in a higher relative percentage, you need just look at the General forum for that. But that also comes from the fact that Martin places a high emphasis on plot, after all! Those are questions readers are dying to find the answers for, because the story is so enticing and Martin goes a great way to keep us "on the edge", so to speak.

[James Sucellus]

Yeah but most people find it a tough read.

I found A Dance With Dragons a tough read ;).

A Feast For Crows is the work of a great writer though.

[Miodrag]

Martin writes very accessible stories, largely due to their emphasis on emotions, and character relationships. It wasn't a criticism when I called them populist, as plenty of my favourite writers would be classed as such. I just think it's losing perspective to say they'll be as well regarded as War and Peace in the future.

First, there are Tolstoy's own books that are better, in my eyes, and even more respected, by some scholars, than War and Peace. Second, Tolstoy himself is recorded saying that War and Peace and Anna Karenina are probably his weakest novels ever. Third, he never received any international award for any of his novels, so it's fair to say that, while very popular at the time (and very respected in his native Russia), snobbish critical circles of the time didn't acknowledge his greatness until well after his death.

So, speaking of perspective, it does change from age to age, so I have no idea how will ASOIAF, or War and Peace for that matter, be perceived in the future. But, if Martin finishes his saga in style, he'll be hard to be denied a place in the literary Pantheon. As popular as he may be (popular is not the same as populist; and ASOIAF is popular this much because of the show, first and foremost, but I don't see what that has to do with anything), he did manage to create something that is very demanding and very complex. Some may read it simplistically, as a struggle for power or a zombie threat. Some may watch The Sopranos as just another mafia show, and, you know what, it can be entertaining that way, but it doesn't mean it doesn't go deeper than that.

[James Sucellus]

I obviously agree that ASOIAF is incredibly powerful and well-written (Apart from half of the last book!), otherwise I wouldn't be here. I'm as obsessed as anybody here. I just find it unlikely it'll ever be viewed as high literature by the academic community.

[MachoGrande]

I just don't understand the obsession we have with comparing things, like boys in the shower after gym. Tolkien had a better command of language and some of the most beautiful prose I have ever read. Martin doesn't have the same command of language, however he has some of the most compelling characters I have ever read. His works are much more character driven then Tolkien, the depth here for me is the drama. Too vastly different works, from authors that set out to do two completely different things. They cannot be compared in terms of which is better.

Yes. It's almost as if it was a disgrace to mention Martin in the same sentence as those other "great novelists"; as if we would have to protect their legacy and honour by keeping them on their pedestal. Goethe and Tolkien are long dead, so is it their honour that we think needs defending, or is it more our own? ;)

So I agree, stop comparing. If one can find an equal amount of depth in ASOIAF as in other masterpieces (and if he can support his claims), he has every right to count in among their ranks, too.