|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Why does the 'quality of the prose' always come up in literary discussions? It's such an inherently bored and decadent thing to care about compared to the ideas expressed or the plot or characters or any number of other things. Unless the prose is so bad as to make the work difficult to read or something who cares, it's like complaining that a punk band can't play their instruments or Bob Dylan can't sing very well, ie largely irrelevent. The quality of the prose is tied very directly to the expression of ideas, plot, and character. It is how they are expressed. I don't see how you can separate them.
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
The quality of the prose is not a "decadent" concern for the discerning reader; it's one of the top concerns. Ideas, plot, characters, and anything else you can name, are expressed only so well as the quality of the prose allows. GRRM's prose, to me, is very straightforward and mostly uninspired. On the bright side, as I've said, his prose doesn't tend to "get in the way" of the story itself which makes the book fun, quick, and accessible. The downside to this is that there's not much beneath the surface, making for a relatively superficial text. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with that, it's just an observation. I take it that most folks feel that GRRM's writing is vastly superior to that of most other fantasy writers; I cannot speak to this type of claim as I don't read any fantasy at all and thus have no points of comparison.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 16:22
|
|
|
Buck Lodestar posted:The quality of the prose is not a "decadent" concern for the discerning reader; it's one of the top concerns. Ideas, plot, characters, and anything else you can name, are expressed only so well as the quality of the prose allows. GRRM's prose, to me, is very straightforward and mostly uninspired. On the bright side, as I've said, his prose doesn't tend to "get in the way" of the story itself which makes the book fun, quick, and accessible. The downside to this is that there's not much beneath the surface, making for a relatively superficial text. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with that, it's just an observation. I wonder how much of GRRM's prose might seem straightforward and uninspired as a result of the voice he's using, and how much of that is his writing ability. The Sansa POVs reflect the thoughts and reactions of a nobleman's prissy daughter. The Arya POVs are those of a tom-boy at odds with her older sister. Jon's chapters are those of a bastard born boy, beginning to feel the stinging injustice of how the world treats him. Whereas Tyrion is well aware of the facts of life, and has armored himself in other ways. Each POV offers something different.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 16:41
|
|
|
Buck Lodestar posted:The quality of the prose is not a "decadent" concern for the discerning reader; it's one of the top concerns. Ideas, plot, characters, and anything else you can name, are expressed only so well as the quality of the prose allows. GRRM's prose, to me, is very straightforward and mostly uninspired. On the bright side, as I've said, his prose doesn't tend to "get in the way" of the story itself which makes the book fun, quick, and accessible. The downside to this is that there's not much beneath the surface, making for a relatively superficial text. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with that, it's just an observation. If I get this right, and perhaps I don't, because I'm not an english native speaker, you say that the way he writes, his sentence constructions, grammar etc makes his whole story less complex? Because I couldn't disagree more. Off course, the writing quality matters up to the point where it stops being irritating, from there on it's only the quality of the story that matters for me. cheese posted:That said, I really don't recommend the series anymore to people - spreading the miserable realization that one of the greatest fantasy series ever is almost certainly not going to be finished by the author almost feels like cruel and unusual punishment I try to push it on all my friends just so I won't be alone.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 16:57
|
|
|
jmaze posted:I agree. I hated Sansa the first read-through, but on this one, I'm not hating her as much. The naivety makes her actions more forgivable than I thought the first time around. I think Sansa is one of the more interesting characters to see develop throughout the series. Sure she starts out as a naive dumb kid, but by the events in AFFC she's catching up to the people around her and learning how to play the game. Mark my words, all that time spent around Cersei and Littlefinger are turning her into a stone-cold schemer out to gently caress with some minds.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 18:16
|
|
|
Anders posted:If I get this right, and perhaps I don't, because I'm not an english native speaker, you say that the way he writes, his sentence constructions, grammar etc makes his whole story less complex? Because I couldn't disagree more. Off course, the writing quality matters up to the point where it stops being irritating, from there on it's only the quality of the story that matters for me. I'm saying that his prose leaves very little subtlety to the work. The characters are not particularly deep or complex in a literary sense because GRRM spells everything out using a combination of factual assertions about a character's mindset/desires/fears/etc. and italicized internal monologue just in case there's any confusion. That's all well and good for pulpy entertainment, but I'd say that Martin is essentially a fantasy version of, say, John Grisham. The book is meant to be a page turner with little substance beyond the plot.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
God this thread makes me want to reread the series but I was trying to hold out for A Dance. Oh well, I should probably just reread them now or end up waiting until 2015. Votes for Tyrion and the Hound as my favorite characters.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 20:03
|
|
|
kanonvandekempen posted:Just to be clear on this, starting week 1 (the 24th) we are no longer required to spoiler what happens in those chapters right? I think we should start discussion of those chapters, but continue to spoiler tag any events that happen until the end of the week. That way, if someone wants to finish the chapters over the weekend they don't get spoiled. Buck Lodestar posted:I take it that most folks feel that GRRM's writing is vastly superior to that of most other fantasy writers; I cannot speak to this type of claim as I don't read any fantasy at all and thus have no points of comparison. As someone who has read way too much fantasy and sci-fi, I assert that this is true.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 20:31
|
|
|
Roll Fizzlebeef posted:God this thread makes me want to reread the series but I was trying to hold out for A Dance. Oh well, I should probably just reread them now or end up waiting until 2015. Votes for Tyrion and the Hound as my favorite characters. haha I remember like 2 years ago I said "hey i will reread the series really slowly and when i'm done dance will be out!" uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 20:56
|
|
|
Roll Fizzlebeef posted:God this thread makes me want to reread the series but I was trying to hold out for A Dance. Oh well, I should probably just reread them now or end up waiting until 2015. Votes for Tyrion and the Hound as my favorite characters. I just re-read the series again about two months ago so while I wont be reading through with the rest I'm up to speed. (4th read through  )
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 21:18
|
|
|
Buck Lodestar posted:I'm saying that his prose leaves very little subtlety to the work. The characters are not particularly deep or complex in a literary sense because GRRM spells everything out using a combination of factual assertions about a character's mindset/desires/fears/etc. and italicized internal monologue just in case there's any confusion. That's all well and good for pulpy entertainment, but I'd say that Martin is essentially a fantasy version of, say, John Grisham. The book is meant to be a page turner with little substance beyond the plot. I've read Tom Clancy, John Grisham, Dan Brown, Michael Crichton, and Stephen King. I'd say that these writers best represent "Airport Fiction" or basic, simple prose written solely for the purpose of not getting in the way. They are "fast reads" in that you don't have to sit there and deduce what the author is trying to say. In the fantasy/sci-fi genre, I've read Asimov, GRRM, Tolkien, Card, Zelazny, Weis & Hickman, Abercrombie, Rothfuss, Heinlein, and Herbert, for starters. Out of these, Tolkien is the highest "quality" prose, I'd say, but in my opinion, it gets in the way of the story. Too often I found myself distracted by his terminology and the way he tells the story and not paying attention to where the story was going or why the history was being discussed. Weis & Hickman are the other end. When I was a kid I loved their "Dragonlance" novels, but I tried to re-read them a few years ago and it was nightmarishly bad and obvious. GRRM is readable for me but it's far from "simple" prose. It's not "Ulysses" or anything, far from it. But it's much more complex than many other fiction books written in the past 20-30 years, especially in the overly pedestrian sci-fi/fantasy genre. There's a reason sci-fi/fantasy doesn't get respect usually - it's largely crap. Most of the time it's all about the fantastic worlds or technology, but ignores the deeper conflicts within characters and the multi-layered motivations and plotlines that make good fiction good. I think people's perspective on GRRM's "quality of prose" is based on their perspective. If you come from reading classical fiction, or even Vonnegut and Bradbury, yeah, GRRM's going to seem a bit simple in comparison. If you come from reading Tom Clancy or Dan Brown, you'll probably be impressed by it. It's like the difference between a $1 cheeseburger from McDonald's and a $50 wagyu kobe beef burger with black truffles and prosciutto on top.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 21:29
|
|
|
Buck Lodestar posted:I'm saying that his prose leaves very little subtlety to the work. The characters are not particularly deep or complex in a literary sense because GRRM spells everything out using a combination of factual assertions about a character's mindset/desires/fears/etc. and italicized internal monologue just in case there's any confusion. That's all well and good for pulpy entertainment, but I'd say that Martin is essentially a fantasy version of, say, John Grisham. The book is meant to be a page turner with little substance beyond the plot. I agree that GRRM's prose is middling when it comes to fiction and above average when compared to genre fiction. However, I can't agree that the characters suffer as a result of his straight-forward style. Having access to an internal monologue does make the prose less dense with meaning, but that doesn't reflect on the individual whose thoughts we are reading. The characters themselves, their motivations, their internal conflicts -- none of these become less complex just because everything is spelled out for the reader; we simply don't have to "work" to uncover their complexity. That being said, some of of my favorite character development arcs in any fiction come from ASoIaF. Specifically events in book three and the fallout in book four. Ahem.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
therapy posted:or even Vonnegut and Bradbury, yeah, GRRM's going to seem a bit simple in comparison.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
Am I too late? I just loaded up Nook. Can I play too? I'm totally new to GRRM. Never read ANY of his books. I'm completely unspoiled, and all I know is it's a fantasy series. There are wizards and castles, right? My knowledge of the books comes from the OP, and I don't think much of that stuck. I haven't read too much fantasy in the past. Sword of Truth and Renshai series are about the limit of my knowledge of the genre. I guess the Dresden Files too.(does that fall under fantasy.. He's a wizard) I just finished the 6th book last night, so I'll take a break from Harry and pick these up.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 01:22
|
|
|
It's fantasy, but not your standard fantasy. The writer goes out of his way to violate genre tropes. That said, there are castles and there are wizards. One of those plays a much larger role than the other.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 01:34
|
|
|
There are no wizards, what are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 01:43
|
|
|
I've been meaning to read this series for, well, forever. I bought the audiobook for a trip and never got into it - fiction is really hard for me to listen to sometimes. But dammit, I'm going to read this now. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 02:34
|
|
|
Welcome, new readers!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 03:56
|
|
|
I'm gonna jump on the wagon of not a Jon Snow fan. My favorite character is kind of obvious. The Spider is also awesome as a side character, the finger waggling nancy boy act is amusing. The Red Viper was the poo poo for a while as well. MARTIN! 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 04:38
|
|
|
^^ I don't know why you spoilered that..? quote:There are no wizards, what are you talking about? I think he's talking very broadly (and he said they don't play a big role, which is true)
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 05:09
|
|
|
yuk_mistress posted:Am I too late? I just loaded up Nook. Can I play too? You are definitely not too late, we start on Monday. But seriously, as the OP warns, be VERY careful in avoiding spoilers (even, sadly, in this thread). Be especially wary of glittery text.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 05:25
|
|
|
Dendra posted:^^ Just being careful. No idea what ruins poo poo for people. I know folks who won't even watch movie trailers because it "spoils" things.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 05:52
|
|
|
Dendra posted:I think he's talking very broadly (and he said they don't play a big role, which is true) There are no wizards in ASOIAF. At all. Not even really close.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 06:17
|
|
|
Buck Lodestar posted:I'm saying that his prose leaves very little subtlety to the work. The characters are not particularly deep or complex in a literary sense because GRRM spells everything out using a combination of factual assertions about a character's mindset/desires/fears/etc. and italicized internal monologue just in case there's any confusion. That's all well and good for pulpy entertainment, but I'd say that Martin is essentially a fantasy version of, say, John Grisham. The book is meant to be a page turner with little substance beyond the plot. While I wouldn't put him as low as Grisham, I agree with all your other sentiments. quote:I'd definitely put GRRM over Vonnegut and Bradbury, prose-wise. And oh, how I pity yours. Having read other Martin stories, I can say that his plotting is excellent and trope inversion pretty good; but he's still very on-the-surface. ASoIaF is p much the best tv series I've ever read. Also, it's hard to compare the gulags of fantasy to that of sci-fi; most sci-fi is bad because most of those authors are technical or logical to the point of being stilted, whereas most fantasy authors are terrible because they are terrible (i listed the few good ones in the bad thread).
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 06:26
|
|
|
IRQ posted:There are no wizards in ASOIAF. At all. Not even really close. You could argue Thoros or Melisandre, maybe the Quartheen or Faceless Men in that they appear to do magic, but it's a stretch. No pointy hats either way.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
Right after I finish Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance in the next few days, I'm going to undertake this Summer challenge. I've had the first book of ASOIF sitting on my shelf for...it must be two years now (please don't hurt me) and I finally want to give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 06:38
|
|
|
Crisco Kid posted:You could argue Thoros or Melisandre, maybe the Quartheen or Faceless Men in that they appear to do magic, but it's a stretch. No pointy hats either way. Yeah this was my thinking as well. Not classical wizards but they can go under the broad stereotype/category.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 06:59
|
|
|
Yeah in that post I defined 'wizards' as 'dudes who do magic.' It appears that this definition is quite objectionable to the discerning wizard aficionados among us. Cease your curses, sirs; I meant your pointy-hatted patrons no harm. I was merely attempting to give as few spoilers as possible in answering the question. Shark Mafia fucked around with this message at 11:42 on May 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 10:41
|
|
|
SaviourX posted:Having read other Martin stories, I can say that his plotting is excellent and trope inversion pretty good; but he's still very on-the-surface. ASoIaF is p much the best tv series I've ever read. Bingo - the best TV series observation is dead-on. I think in my first post I noted that I can definitely see this series turning into a great HBO show. As for the complexity of the characters, when the reader is provided with every detail of every motivation, every competing emotion, every perspective, etc. that's not complexity of character. That's plot. The novel is very well plotted and the things the characters do and say and think and feel are nothing more than pieces of that plot. Depth of character does not come from fulfilling a plot role, no matter how intricate the plot may become. Also, to the guy who stated that Martin is a better writer than Vonnegut, you should probably take that back. That's just an astoundingly stupid thing to say, even in TBB.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 16:19
|
|
|
Magic gets more important later on. Let's leave it at that. For now we have swinging cocks, lemoncakes and war. EDIT: and I agree on the TV series concept. It READS like an HBO series. It's basically Rome set in a quasi-fantasy world of knights.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 16:19
|
|
|
Buck Lodestar posted:Bingo - the best TV series observation is dead-on. I think in my first post I noted that I can definitely see this series turning into a great HBO show. I do not disagree with the books reading like a great TV show. He was a TV writer. I do disagree that every detail of every motivation is bared to all, though. At least some are kept hidden or purposefully omitted, particularly in Eddard's case, though in service to one of the many plots running through the series.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
Buck Lodestar posted:I'm saying that his prose leaves very little subtlety to the work. The characters are not particularly deep or complex in a literary sense because GRRM spells everything out using a combination of factual assertions about a character's mindset/desires/fears/etc. and italicized internal monologue just in case there's any confusion. That's all well and good for pulpy entertainment, but I'd say that Martin is essentially a fantasy version of, say, John Grisham. The book is meant to be a page turner with little substance beyond the plot. I still don't understand why that means it's just good entertainment and not a good book. To me, this is like saying music can't be good if they didn't write a partiture to show it. I can't understand what's more important to a book than the story it's trying to tell. In this story it's important to know what the characters think and feel, because we, the readers, get an emotional reaction based on what we think the other characters will do, relating to the world around them. The Mountain that Wrote gives us more overview than most of his characters, and that builds suspense, making us go "No, don't do [x] because [y] is [z]". For me, the emotional reactions I got to this book, far surpasses most of the "good prose" literature I've read, and thus is also a better book.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 17:15
|
|
|
Anders posted:I still don't understand why that means it's just good entertainment and not a good book. To me, this is like saying music can't be good if they didn't write a partiture to show it. I'm with you on this one. But literature, as a well-established and "high art" form, tends to be narrowly defined, or at least in terms of what "good literature" is. It's hard for some people to think that different novels might "work" for different reasons, or that different types of characterization might be aesthetically acceptable, etc. This is the curse of majoring in English.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 17:28
|
|
|
whowhatwhere posted:Ah....Viserys/Daenerys or generally? Also are you on the chapter where Bran climbs things? (don't think that's a spoiler, but dunno) If anyone has read these and the Codex Alera series, am I wrong getting the feeling that Jim Butcher took a lot of inspiration from these books?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
IRQ posted:There are no wizards in ASOIAF. At all. Not even really close. What about the maesters who earn links of Valyrian steel in their chains? E.g., Archmaester Marwyn with his candle of dragonglass ... Outside the Seven Kingdoms there is also the House of the Undying, said specifically to house warlocks.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
MeerkatHero posted:What about the maesters who earn links of Valyrian steel in their chains? E.g., Archmaester Marwyn with his candle of dragonglass ... The maesters are more like tutors, doctors, and scientists. They study the actual science (or the understanding of it at this time) and dismiss magic out of hand. As for wizards, there aren't any in the typical fantasy sense, but there are occasional practitioners of magic.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 19:36
|
|
|
therapy posted:The maesters are more like tutors, doctors, and scientists. They study the actual science (or the understanding of it at this time) and dismiss magic out of hand. I know this is the spoiler-free thread, but I think it's safe to say setting lore doesn't count as spoilers.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
Magic, as of the time of A Game of Thrones is thought to have died out with the dragons. It's either considered a fading myth, or a lost art. Maesters are basically Academia. Some studied about magic, but magic is unable to be invoked. Later stuff is later.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 19:48
|
|
|
There are people who practice what is obviously magic. Therefore, the series has wizards! QED
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:There are people who practice what is obviously magic. Therefore, the series has wizards! QED I thought we weren't supposed to talk about stuff beyond the first few chapters? why are we having this argument?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 19:59
|
|
