asoiaf's place in cultural/literary history

[Morienthar]

Tolkien was a perfectionist. He would never have allowed an obviously unfinished book like ADWD to be published under his name. Being a perfectionist means that he published a lot less books than Martin, but it makes all the difference in regards to his reputation.

There are about 18 different versions of Bilbo's 111th(Eleventy One) birthday party.

[James Sucellus]

There are about 18 different versions of Bilbo's 111th(Eleventy One) birthday party.

Tolkien liked tinkling, he completely changed the Riddles in the Dark chapter in The Hobbit to fit in with its sequel, a move that would be seen as incredibly controversial today. But he never published a book missing its final act.

[The Sleeper]

The Hobbit is a stand alone novel. ADWD is an installment in a series.

[James Sucellus]

Yes, but it's obviously unfinished as the 2 battles it was leading up to the entire book were shafted because the book had gotten too long. It'd be like if the Battle of Blackwater was cut from ACoK because GRRM had spent too much time describing Arya's journey to Harrenhal. It's an irritating error and an obvious, glaring blemish on the series. Tolkien's work has nothing like that.

[The Sleeper]

Yes, but it's obviously unfinished as the 2 battles it was leading up to the entire book were shafted because the book had gotten too long. It'd be like if the Battle of Blackwater was cut from ACoK because GRRM had spent too much time describing Arya's journey to Harrenhal. It's an irritating error and an obvious, glaring blemish on the series. Tolkien's work has nothing like that.

It would still be unfinihsed if it had them in. And the Battle of Blackwater would have been in ASOS. Most story arcs so far don't coincide neatly with the books. This is a publication issue regarding the size of the books. It has little bearing on the story itself.

[Miodrag]

(just had an epiphany under the shower, so I have to post this before I really vanish for several hours)

Re: academic circles. A number of historians, like that Stephen Atwell guy from "The Race for the Iron Throne", and a number of philosophers, like this Dan Haggard who's a professor at The Sydney University (and his impressive three-part essay on ASOIAF may be found here here and here - both 'Elaena Targaryen', who brought the links, and myself, especially recommend the second and the third part; it's just Starks vs. Lannisters he's talking about, and look at all the depth he found there), are already considering ASOIAF a masterpiece. People like those are also academics, and they aren't unfamiliar with high literature, so it's not that their vote doesn't count.

Honestly, sometimes I think the literary academics are the only ones who still refuse to acknowledge how great this series is. So, either they know something the rest of us don't, or they're just being snobbish and wrong again, like so many times in the history. (In fact, is there a masterpiece that was actually acknowledged in it's own time? I guess there are some, but I can't think of any at the moment.)

And, it's not that they don't acknowledge Martin at all. But, the most frequent tone of the reviews I encountered would go like this: "This is really good stuff, but this isn't Shakespeare/Mann/Cervantes/whatever". In my eyes, that's just formulaic thinking and conformism. Especially because I don't see them judging other writers that way (can you imagine them saying something like that for McEwan, for example; like "He is good, but he isn't Fitzgerald"), which only strengthens my opinion

[James Sucellus]

It would still be unfinihsed if it had them in. And the Battle of Blackwater would have been in ASOS. Most story arcs so far don't coincide neatly with the books. This is a publication issue regarding the size of the books. It has little bearing on the story itself.

Well, I think the stumbling pacing of the series, leading to the inevitable fact that the HBO TV series will be the first to actually end the series, will be the biggest embarrassment of ASOIAF's legacy.

It'll likely always be one of my favourite book series, but I thought my Stephen King comparison was perfectly valid. GRRM and King are beloved writers, but will not be ranked as among the greatest writers of our time. Certainly not of all-time.

[Miodrag]

Well, I think the stumbling pacing of the series, leading to the inevitable fact that the HBO TV series will be the first to actually end the series, will be the biggest embarrassment of ASOIAF's legacy.

Sorry, but no. TV show will only embarrass itself with what D&D will come up with as soon as they set their foots on uncharted territory of TWOW or ADOS. Part of me would really like that to happen, because that would bring the focus back where it should have been all along: on the novels, and not on the TV show.

But, let's not ruin this thread bringing the show in. There's a whole section for that. And now I really have to go. See you later.

[Pearlthegirl]

Just to add, before I vanish for a few hours at least: I enjoy the discussion very much. I mean, this is among rare threads that are meant for a comparisons of all kinds. And what I do think ASOIAF desperately misses, is to be compared to other great works of literature. I believe that, after this many testing and analyzing it is regularly subjected to, ASOIAF is more than ready to pass that test, also. But, it has to be tested. And, as I said, this is one of the rare threads that attempts exactly that.

I think GRRM's work will go down as great literature when it's all said and done. I agree many and more comparisons can and need to be made. I'm tired of it always being Tolkien! Tolkien. Tolkien. Tolkien. They each have their merits and you Ser Notasir nail it with : Tolkien wanted to create a mythology that could inspire our world. Martin wanted to create the world that resembles and resonates in our world.

[James Sucellus]

I think Dune is a better comparison than The Lord of the Rings, and I think GRRM will be ranked as highly as Frank Herbert. An outstanding genre writer that made a huge contribution to SF+F literature.

But not a literary great that changed the form. I.. don't see how people are even seeing that as a possibility.

[Xasthur]

It lacks the stylistic elaboration, the cultural or social relevance. It remains fiction, it is a story written down.

It definitly has some revolutionary moments, like the embodiment of real, byronic, gritty characters into a classic fantastic enviroment, but in the spectrum of literary science it's just another step inside the whole modern entertainment literature/Belles Lettres branch.

I'd say the main reason why ASOIAF isn't of academic relevance is the simple language.

[Errant Bard]

Tolkien wanted to create a mythology that could inspire our world. Martin wanted to create the world that resembles and resonates in our world.

Mythology stays because it's myth, but something that merely resonates with our world will fade away, because "our world" is actually an ever changing entity, while stories in books are not. Some stuff becomes rather dated that way.

I'm not not convinced about the staying power of ASOIAF just as I'm not convinced for Harry Potter or Twilight and co, the current society eats up entertainment at a huge pace, celebrities of yesterday are quickly forgotten, and I don't really see it being iconic or revolutionary enough to endure. People like it, but I doubt they are changed by it.

But heh, that's for time to decide. First he'll have to finish the series, anyway.

[James Sucellus]

I think ASOIAF will always remain excellent, as it isn't an allegory for the political thought of the day. The fantasy genre tends to age better than science-fiction, as it rarely feels the need to be socially relevant for the trendy thinking of the time. As somebody with a fair amount of right-wing leanings, this appeals to me.

[Pearlthegirl]

I think ASOIAF will always remain excellent, as it isn't an allegory for the political thought of the day. The fantasy genre tends to age better than science-fiction, as it rarely feels the need to be socially relevant for the trendy thinking of the time. As somebody with a fair amount of right-wing leanings, this appeals to me.

More so as the fallible humans that we are, you can always find allegory for the political thought of the day in the text. The setting gives it a historical timelessness and the characters are flawed like human beings are, struggling to be better.

[daario's man]

The first book I remember reading as a child that I thought was worth it (reading came hard to me) was the Hobbit quickly followed by LotR, for years I thought they were the best books ever. The idea of fantasy has always been appealing to me but I found little to match Tolkien in literature or film. Before the the LotR films came out I decided to read the books one more time so as not to cloud my memories of the original story and although I enjoyed them I found everything to be very simplistic and childish.

Since then I fell out of love with the fantasy genre as I started to find everything silly and childish or good ideas poorly created, both in literature and film although I still held onto the idea that fantasy should and could be amazing.

When the GoT TV show came out it was recommended to me by friends and although I prepared myself for disappointment I went ahead with it and actually watched the whole thing in one night, re watching the last two episodes the next morning as I couldn't quite believe my drunk tired mind.

A couple of weeks later I found myself waiting for a train and realised I had nothing to read, on entering the bookshop I found myself confronted with display of GoT books and instantly started an internal argument of books are usually better/more detail vs it's going to be awfully written. Happily I relented and by the end of the train ride I was not only hooked but I had realised that I was onto something great, not only could fantasy be amazing but it could also incorporate all of the things that make so many other genres so rich.

Of course this does not make fantasy great, after all this is more than a fantasy series it appeals to many who would not consider themselves fantasy fans. Also while the writing can be simple, it can be interpreted in so many ways and leaves so much open to debate, or else a lot of us would not be here. I personally think that if ASoIaF continues as it started it will be one of the great series of all time and it deserves to be credited as such.

Sorry if I went a little off topic there but I couldn't think of another way to put that across.

[mushroomshirt]

It will depend a lot on how well GRRM manages to wrap up the story in these last coming books for sure.

For me ASOIAF is definitely better than LOTR already, and there is only one "fantasy" series I like more, but when it comes to achieving long lasting literary fame pure quality doesn't seem to be the most decisive thing. It rather seems to be about standing out by being the first at something.

That fantasy as a genre is also a bit looked down upon by literary critics could cause trouble.

Don't keep me in suspense! What fantasy series do you like more than ASOIAF and LOTR? I would like to read it.

[DraculaAD1972]

ASOIAF is an important literary work of the fantasy genre, similiar to LOTR and Dracula in terms of popular appeal and quality of writing. When those books came out they were't exactly compared to Ulysses or Shakespeare - but time has confirmed their greatness.

[Summerqueen]

I give credit to Martin wherever I can. I am not a stranger to the idea of SF&F as worthy of academic study. I've taken seminars about Star Wars and the Cold War, taught works by Angela Carter and Ursula LeGuin in a modern novel class, and written a couple of papers on various other SF works that explore issues of colonization, etc.

But if you can read through to the midpoint of Nabokov's Lolita and still think Martin has anything approaching the facility, play, and discretion with words that a true master of the craft has, then I just don't know what to say. Martin may well find his way into cultural studies classes in some way, shape, or form, but I doubt ASoIaF will ever become a "great work" of the literary canon. One of the main reasons: his work won't have enough study and exposure at the academy to even make this consideration possible. Angela Carter and Ursula LeGuin (both writing very worthy SF&F before Martin) are still struggling in this regard, both of whom have plenty of exposure, and endless reams of paper have been printed out by many a student to suggest that their works are worth studying. It is not easy to wiggle into the canon of great works.

Let's look at the situation practically, shall we? Academic classes are taught by professors who usually pull from a canon of great works. In the 20th-21st century alone, there are many great authors to explore, all of them with more apparent cultural relevance than Martin. **But let's say you are teaching at a university that allows you to try new things (maybe you have tenure because you've written two or three important and influential book-length works of criticism, or maybe you are just that old and your many minor accomplishments have piled up and the administrators are keen to keep you happy and teaching rather than on pension and some new bloke teaching all the standard stuff in your place).** What would it take to fit out a novel or cultural studies seminar with works to study? 1. All works have to have literary merit (they must show a certain accomplishment of literary form and style). 2. All books must be read by students in a pre-determined amount of time unless the seminar covers only one author; undergraduate classes will rarely be dedicated to one author unless that author gains the cultural acclaim of Shakespeare or Chaucer (seriously, folks, those are almost the only two authors in the entire canon taught at undergrad level as an author-based course). 3. The material has to be justifiable to peers (relevant in some way to the current contemporary context or true innovations of literary style) and students (worth paying for as part of your education on the road to becoming a professional critic) alike. There will no doubt be Martin courses from time to time. Experience tells me that they will be heavily petitioned for by the teaching professor, they can expect to seat a very small amount of students who aren't worried about taking classes that will see them through their comprehensives (for whatever reason), and most of the rest of the academy will go about its business, shaking heads at those wily cultural critics who see so much merit in popular literature (I've been on the receiving end of that head shake myself).

The primary strike against Martin is that his books are not of easily digestible lengths. On a strictly practical level, no teacher in her right mind would assign ASoIaF (even just one of the series) as a study-worthy example of the Fantasy genre for that alone.

Any professor wanting to do a seminar on Martin would have to justify exploring Martin's books over a lot of other very worth SF or F that has more immediate contemporary cultural relevance. Added to this concern, how many grad students would think Martin was worth an entire class's study just so they could explore real politik when so many other works have already grabbed a toe-hold in the canon of great works and are a quarter the size of one of his books?

Anyone authorized to teach Martin would be teaching 20th-21st century lit or cultural studies (they are hired to teach the specific lit that the academy already deems worthy). You don't get hired to teach Medieval British lit or colonial American lit and then get a shot at teaching SF&F in a seminar. Add to that, teachers won't risk setting aside a third of the material to study one of Martin's works with the chance that their modern novel students will get bored reading medieval fantasy. (ETA: Don't get me wrong! I think there is a lot to say about Martin's Medieval fantasy and the current cultural moment, but it's not the easiest sell.) When you consider that one of Martin's works could be replaced by 4 authors to be studied instead? He just doesn't show the level of wordsmithing required or capture a definitive real-world context in his work the way other writers (LeGuin and Angela Carter among them--both of whom I've studied or taught) do. He isn't so innovative (Joyce) or facile with language and form (Nabokov, Carter, Byatt, Rushdie), nor does he bring a heavily mineable real-world context to his Medieval-based fiction to warrant constant consideration as an author seminar candidate at the grad level. It simply wouldn't happen in the undergrad level.

[Lord Ravenstark]

I don't know where I am right now, not after reading that Stephen King isn't remarked as one of the greatest writers of his genres (and of literature as itself).

But, in my humble reader opinion, A Song of Ice and Fire is a story more interesting than The Lord of the Rings. I also don't like to compare because at the end everything will be (this is better because I like more than this other and nothing else matter)

[James Sucellus]

I don't know where I am right now, not after reading that Stephen King isn't remarked as one of the greatest writers of his genres (and of literature as itself).

I don't think I'm being remotely controversial when I say that George R.R. Martin, JK Rowling and Stephen King aren't as revered as Dostoevsky, Chaucer, Orwell, Nabokov and Tolstoy. Frankly, I'm surprised my post got the reaction it had.