SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
What Else Are You Reading?
>
Anyone else NOT reading A Dance with Dragons yet?
message 251:
by
Dwarf
(new)
Jan 18, 2012 09:25PM
Thx
reply
|
flag
Now then, I've read your whole post.
It doesn't change my feelings towards the series, nor does it make me think less of you in some way.
You didn't like it and have stated your reasons. That's fine with me. I enjoyed it(mostly) and will continue along with the series.
To each their own.
But to your second post, the whole idea of "broadening your horizons" and reading more than simply "american books". While broadening ones literary horizons can be a good thing, the way you state it here can be construed as condescending and rude.
Simply because someone likes this series and you don't, doesn't mean they're sheltered and in need of "horizon broadening".
Just saying.
It doesn't change my feelings towards the series, nor does it make me think less of you in some way.
You didn't like it and have stated your reasons. That's fine with me. I enjoyed it(mostly) and will continue along with the series.
To each their own.
But to your second post, the whole idea of "broadening your horizons" and reading more than simply "american books". While broadening ones literary horizons can be a good thing, the way you state it here can be construed as condescending and rude.
Simply because someone likes this series and you don't, doesn't mean they're sheltered and in need of "horizon broadening".
Just saying.
Dwarf, the only thing I don't understand about your post is where you say that you'll be happy if 30% of the things you predict come to pass. You could do the same vague surmises for any book and have an accuracy rate greater than 30%. I think your summary for each character is spot-on as a simplistic reading of the first-half of the first book. What I love most about the series is that none of the characters remain as you describe them. They might start there, but the series is built around literary topoi get turned on their heads. Not just one(tempted to capitalize...) example, but every(tempted to capitalize again...) example you put of a predictable character is foiled.
I'm debating getting into it. I feel like I have to address each one if I start or it will be just a skimpy unsubstantiated reply.
I'm a glutton... spoilers below... read at own risk...
The Father is disgusted by his friend and meets a tragic, ignoble end. He doesn't get to leap out and take a bullet for the king.
The Wife is the worst/most evil character in the series. (This is, I suppose, a little bit debatable.)
I wish that your surmise for the eldest son came true: "Just a little before or a little after he won the war something will happen that will change everything." I'll pretend that happened.
The second son, I don't see him being a cliche but I am probably not as well read as you, has departed on his very own hero's journey. He possesses no magical abilities that are not also possessed by his kin, though he is drinking lots of goop and talking to a weird ol' dude so that might change.
The younger son never sees his mommy again, is now MIA, but as all of the Stark children have wolves, yes, I do imagine his wolf will be in the story.
The eldest daughter who started out so enchanted with nobility, jousting, chivalry is married to the ugliest man in the land. Her charms did not tame the Hound. She is primed to take over manipulator responsibilities.
The younger daughter sounds like a Disney princess by your calculations, and is quite as far from that as you can get.
Bastard. He's not the antihero, he's the archetypal hero that the Eldest Son should have been. Rising through the ranks, becoming the stoic leader unable to mingle with his friends anymore, learning from those around him, and trying to get everyone to focus on the real war. He's perfect. Until the end of DwD, when he makes one small error in judgement that is his undoing (come on Starks, learn to listen to your wolves.)
The King - "nice and good man" who beats and rapes his wife, ignores his kids, and is present more in the past than the present.
The King Killer is humbled, bent, broken. Rebuilt.
The Queen is batshit crazy.
The king heir possesses the worst daddy issues this side of the Narrow Sea.
Tyrion Lannister - Most stand-up dude in the series despite being a King & kin killer.
Son of the dragon king - Beggar King, true heir to the throne. As you should know, receives his golden crown.
Daughter of the dragon king ... I have a hard time even getting into this one. There's no saying that the ending you wrote for her couldn't happen, but it does not seem likely. She is a problematic character though. Some parts of the series seem like they're from a YA novel called Daenerys: Figuring out love and life as she plots revenge for the murder of her family.
There are plenty of characters that you don't mention that don't fit into any character molds or plot devices. The ward, Theon, sticks out most readily in my mind.
I'm typing all of this and realizing it is useless. I'm not upset by what you wrote or by your opinion. I've read enough books that came to me highly recommended and left me with a bad taste to think that I couldn't possibly highly recommend a series that someone else gets a bad taste about. However, it is useless because my opinion about the series did not change with what you wrote, just as I bet yours will not change with what I wrote.
For what it's worth, Lily, I enjoyed your post. Nice.
Lily, I enjoyed your post, not least because you wrote it before I could. Now I don't have to do the work.:)
*spoilers below*
However, I disagree with you about Jon Snow. I don't think what he did with Gilly's baby could be classified as "good" or "heroic" even if he did have a good reason. The same goes for what he was forced to do with the Half-hand and the betrayal of the Wildlings (and his girlfriend). All of these might have been necessary things, but they are not, by any stretch, "heroic."
I'd also like to point out that the supposedly good characters like Ned, Rob, and Jon go around lopping people's heads off for relatively minor offenses. I think they display a certain lack of compassion.
And, of course, Arya turns out to be a murderous little wench, doesn't she? Killing people when it is not even necessary. But you sort of hinted at that.
Also, someone above mentioned that Cersei was totally evil, but I don't think that's true. First of all, you have to realize how she came to be the way she is. She was beaten and raped by a husband that she initially admired. Then (albeit due to some of her own poor decisions) she was placed into a position where she was forced to do unspeakable things to protect her own children (bastards of incestuous beget though they be). I used to live in Alaska, and I know one of the most dangerous things you can meet in the woods is a mama bear with young cubs, and that is all Cersei really is. But how can it be completely evil to do what is necessary to protect her children?
With the exception of perhaps The Mountain, none of the characters in Martin's novels are simple or even cliched.
Ala,how can I even begin? I don't mean to be rude... but how can I explain the construction of a good char to people that never read one Dostoyevsky ? never read a Julio Verne ? A Franz Kafka... for heavens sake most of you never read William Shakespeare how can I even begin? I can't explain how neutron star works if the people barely understand the concept of star... I just can't. It’s like explain color for a born blind.
See, how can you say that a writer that in the first book he paint their chars like stereotypes from the worst specie them in the second he start from the beginning again and say " ohh they are not that bad and not that good" and then puts a lot of things that don’t fit in is a good writer? Now Cercei isn’t a cruel mean bitch she was just abused by the funny and lovable husband (that now you realize is evil), and her stupid son that hit one poor little girl that loves him are just a sad kid that his former cuckolded father don’t gave enough love. The chars just doesn't evolves it changes. It's a trace of a bad writer can’t you see?
When you are the author you can give any “twist” you want but is important to dose it or just have to give your main char the power to overcome any new enemy that appears. The chars need to be believable, you can’t just say that a man who kill one king he sworn fealty then cuckolded the next one, plotted against him are now “humbled, bent, broken. Rebuilt.” He was a char that have every bad aspect someone can have… then in a magic pass he is a different person. And you guys find it amazing?? he uses the "deus ex machina" power of authors and changes everything and you clap and are amazed….
It’s like that bad soup operas that the good guy have a evil twin and the bad guy does a lot of bad things… but them miraculously you realize that he have a great motif to do that and everything was just a misunderstanding… and everyone get married in the end.
When I first wrote the post, I just don’t like first the book, now when you start to explain the others I see its worst than I thought.
And as you can see the Bran now have mystical powers.
I don’t want you to dislike the book, just understand it’s not a Nobel prize winner, there are people that says he is the Tolkien of that generation nor that Tolkien are that good… but come’ on
And Lily,
read One Hundred Years of Solitude and if you can predict 5% I will give you the game. And did I made vague surmises? Bran has mystical powers in the new book. Arya becomes a knight respected and feared mostly feared if I understood what Stan said. The other one will tame the hound. The father know there he will be killed in the start of the book. He is so noble that he tells a murderous crazy that he knows she is nuts^^ before act. Why the mother are evil? Tirion Lanister again it’s a very very bad joke made by some one that don’t have any clue how a genius are, it’s a grotesque caricature that only shows the lack of understanding. The Snow is a anti-hero. He rides in black (again one stupid color to use in the snow army) are self-righteous, have a different king of moral standards. I may have mistaken about the older brother…
Lily I can see you read a few nice things, you read Gaiman, Dostoyevsk, Tolstoy, Hamlet, how can you say this guy are a good writer… say that you like the books for they are entertainment and you like it. But don’t say he is a good writer… I believe that you can see the difference.
I think Martin is a fantastic writer. If that makes me an idiot, go fuck yourself.'nuf said....
Not idiot. I just think you don't have read enough. You read a few good things, but mostly american or english and mostly blockbuster things... I think that you just need to broad your horizons that's all. I too like bad things see my shelf, but to know the diference is important.
Dwarf wrote: "Ala,how can I even begin? I don't mean to be rude... but how can I explain the construction of a good char to people that never read one Dostoyevsky ? never read a [author:Julio ..."
Dude, I used to teach literature. I've read Dostoyevsky, Verne, Kafka, Shakespeare, and all the others in the literary canon. Until you go back to school, complete your degree in "letters," and then read the rest of the Martin novels, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You presumptuous bastard.
Martin's characters change in response to the things happening around them! Can you grasp that concept? Like real people, they don't stay the same person over the course of their lives.
And as far as the plot goes, dude, if you've only read the first book, you haven't even glimpsed the plot. You don't even know who the real mover and shaker is in the Seven Kingdoms. You're clueless, and you're struggling to defend an untenable position, you helpless prick.
I've read many of the world's great works of literature, and while I wouldn't call Martin's work "high literature," he is not guilty of writing simplistic, stereotypical characters or simple plots. If you're looking for high literature in the fantasy genre, I suggest you read Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series.
As of now, Dwarf, I label you a forum troll.
Dwarf wrote: "Ala,how can I even begin? I don't mean to be rude... but how can I explain the construction of a good char to people that never read one Dostoyevsky ? never read a [author:Julio ..."
well Dwarf, now you ARE just being a rude little idiot. and also rather pathetic. did you come onto this thread simply to be an asshole? do you have no other hobbies besides being an asshole? what a waste of time even talking to you! you have no clue whether or not folks have read any of those books. have you inspected everyone's Read list? do you realize that many folks have read books that aren't even on their READ list? what a ridiculous statement you've made; with just one post you've completely showed your own ignorance and tunnel-vision. sad, sad TROLL... get a life!
Dwarf wrote: "Not idiot. I just think you don't have read enough. You read a few good things, but mostly american or english and mostly blockbuster things... I think that you just need to broad your horizons tha..."Actually, I've read some of the stuff you keep mentioning. So there...
I don't need you to tell me what to read. I read what I wish, period. I have an opinion on what I read, and it's valid. To me. Everyone's got their own.
Yep I supose it was rude... I'm sorry but it is hard do have a discussion about a subject the people just love they don't think about it they just love.Stan "while I wouldn't call Martin's work "high literature," see that's all, if you like it ok. But it isn't that good that's all I'm saying.
and the only clue I have about what people have read are the things they say about others books they have read so it's hard to me to believe that some one that read "high literature" (as Stan said) think that the book is so good. It's a fun book, but there is a diference. That's all.
And in my defence, my first post was just one nice smal post about a book that I didn't like and I only geve my opinion. I made a mistake in my writing them all scalated.
If it's "ok" to like Martin, why are you still in here telling us it's not? And that we're "not thinking".Ala, I'm sorry. The other day I said that it was pointless for me to argue with this troll. I should have stuck to that statement, as I was proven right.
Pretty good for someone that doesn't read correctly, eh?
Dwarf wrote: "Ala,how can I even begin? I don't mean to be rude... but how can I explain the construction of a good char to people that never read one Dostoyevsky ? never read a [author:Julio ..."
Wait, did you really just use Jules Verne as an example of "good" characterization? Really? And you expect us to take you seriously afterwards?
Verne didn't write about people, he wrote about ideas and technology. He's created ONE sort of memorable character in all his years of writing, and even that is mostly because of the character's concept-- a promethean rebel with a HUGE submarine-- rather than any depths of characterization.
Having said that, I think you are being unfair on Martin. Sure, he's no Dostoyevsky, but then, who is?
" Now Cercei isn’t a cruel mean bitch she was just abused by the funny and lovable husband (that now you realize is evil), and her stupid son that hit one poor little girl that loves him are just a sad kid that his former cuckolded father don’t gave enough love"
Did you read it in English, by any chance? Because I am thinking you may have misunderstood what is going on in the series (particularly Jaime's transformation which is essentially him getting a taste of his own medicine and realizing that it sucks when people are mean to you). Tyrion was never supposed to be a genius, just a fairly intelligent guy who honed his mind to its fullest potential. Baelysh IS a caricature of a genius (because you're right, Martin has no idea how genius works, but then, neither do you).
I've had difficulty understanding the rest of your post (except the bit about the Night's Watch- they are not supposed to be fighting in the snow. They are there to fight when the Long Night comes again- THAT is what they're camouflaged for).
Martin is hardly a great writer (if he were, he wouldn't have written himself into a corner after AFfC and spent 5 years revising. Nor would we be facing the bloat issues that plague the series), but you are being unfair to him. His characters may not be entirely realistic, but they do grow and evolve naturally.
again with the asshole comments, Dwarf! why? are you actually not understanding what people are posting? clearly people ARE thinking about it; they simply don't agree with you. they have also proven you to be actually wrong in your various generalizations (Lisa's post in particular). you are not just saying "it isn't that good", you are actually just coming on to this thread to insult people. perhaps you don't realize this. perhaps you are unhappy in your life and you are taking it out on this thread with your pretentious nonsense. who knows. who even cares? this needs to be my last response comment to you; it is surely a waste of time having a dialogue with a thoughtless & offensive troll.
Yefim great post man.
Just read the first one, the Jamie bit was taken in the Lily post. So I may have mistaken.
I do difer in the Idea about Nemo, I think him like one lone scientist that give up.
And the thing about the Night's Watch yep you have a point.
I used the word "genius" because you don't have in english the construction we use to gifted people...
Dwarf wrote: "Ala,how can I even begin? I don't mean to be rude... but how can I explain the construction of a good char to people that never read one Dostoyevsky ? never read a Julio Verne ? A Franz Kafka... for heavens sake most of you never read William Shakespeare how can I even begin? I can't explain how neutron star works if the people barely understand the concept of star... I just can't. It’s like explain color for a born blind."
You can start by not being a presumptuous ass and assuming we haven't read the authors you've mentioned including quite a bit more. Most people when they join GoodReads don't go back and add every book they've ever read to their library. Some people only list books they actually own. Others only list books they've read since they created their account. But hey, if I was only 21, I'd probably swagger all over the damn place and tell everyone how they just don't get it.
Hell I took Honors Shakespeare in college. He's one of my favorite playwrights. I've read Crime & Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, etc. I read foreign fiction.
So Lara, do you think that some char of these book are near complex Hamlet or Jose Servo from "glas bead game?"I'm not "presumptuous ass" since I can work only with the informations I've.
most of the replyes of my initial post was "you are mistaken". When I enjoy a conversation about such themes it's comom things like that come with a lots of more information.
I'm not 21... in my profile I'm 21?
Dwarf wrote: "Yefim great post man.
I do difer in the Idea about Nemo, I think him like one lone scientist that give up.
And the thing about the Night's Watch yep you have a point."
The point is whether or not you think Nemo is a good character (I like him, but compare him with your own examples- Dostoyevsky or Kafka or Marquez and tell me if he holds up), he is pretty much the only one of note in the entirety of Verne's body of work, which includes more than 50 novels. The others- Phileas Fogg, Paganel, Michel Strogoff, etc are nothing more than one-dimensional archetypes. Martin blows Verne out of the water with his characters, since that is the one thing he does well (you don't think so? Consider that each of the PoV characters has his or her own clear voice, even those pretty far from Martin's own experiences, such as Dany or Sansa).
On that note, I absolutely love Dostoyevsky, but have you looked at his female characters recently? They're rarely real, living, breathing people, as much as personifications of ideas (Sonya or the moneylender woman in Crime and Punishment being prime examples).
Yefim wrote: "Martin blows Verne out of the water with his characters,.."I actually love this comment, metaphorically as much as anything.
Kafka is also not particularly noted for the depth of his characterization. he is known for his stark prose, the depth & richness & ambiguity of his themes, the fascinatingly stylized and archetypal worlds he creates, his commentary on the human condition... but never for the realism of his characters. they are often ciphers and often function on more of an allegorical level rather than as living, breathing humans.
And here I thought he was the Lithuaian guy on Taxi.
ha! typical ignorant Game of Thrones loving american! you need to read real literature!
Yep, I tend to agree with you in the whole but I believe that Nemo is a deep char... it's a man haunted by his genius and tired of the mankind... he chooses to be away but interfere a little. Hes profound and it have only 300 pages. I think, that Martin work and polish his chars but they are too stereotypes. His line of work gravitates around the humanities of his chars but I think he lacks the Dostoyevsky comprehension of the soul for example.
He tells a history that you like. But when you read “The Insulted and Humiliated” you feel your own mistakes coming to haunt you. They work almost in the same line “the people and the indignities of mankind”.
Don’t you agree?
I hate the douches of "the Idiot". agree with you.
Heh...real non-American literature. Non-English too, I reckon.
Chris wrote: "Yefim wrote: "Martin blows Verne out of the water with his characters,.."I actually love this comment, metaphorically as much as anything."
Liked the construction 2^^
real non-American literature. Non-English too, I reckonif it is english blockbuster, then it is stupid!! except Shakespeare! and Jules Verne, who is a master of characterization!
Dwarf wrote: "Chris wrote: "Yefim wrote: "Martin blows Verne out of the water with his characters,.."I actually love this comment, metaphorically as much as anything."
Liked the construction 2^^"
Why, thank you. I do try :P
He's the guy that created Finding Nemo, right?
Kafka is a bit too nonsense for me but I like him. The iniquities of the "process" are overwelming.We have to contextualize that it was a kind of protest book. He is much more than only a writer.
Chris wrote: "He's the guy that created Finding Nemo, right?"stupid english language film with no characterization! people who like it have never watched classic russian or eastern european films of the 30s!
Dwarf wrote: "Yep, I tend to agree with you in the whole but I believe that Nemo is a deep char... it's a man haunted by his genius and tired of the mankind... he chooses to be away but interfere a little. Hes p..."Blaming Martin for lacking Dostoyevsky's understanding of the human condition is like those people who call Salieri a hack because he was not as good as Mozart. Nobody can be as good as Mozart, that's why he's bloody Mozart; but you can still be a genius and a mentor to a whole generation of geniuses (Beethoven, Schubert, and Liszt being the most famous).
Much the same way, one doesn't need to be Dostoyevsky to write good characters. In fact, imitating him would probably be disastrous in any kind of plot-driven story, with the amount of introspection and soul-searching that goes on in his books.
stupid english spy has no characterization on the level of Jules Verne or Kafka! if he was russian or eastern european, then he would have soul like Dostoevsky! plus is a blockbuster like Game of Thrones! stupid! people love it and they don't know why, they just love it! stupid
Yefim wrote: "Dwarf wrote: "Yep, I tend to agree with you in the whole but I believe that Nemo is a deep char... it's a man haunted by his genius and tired of the mankind... he chooses to be away but interfere a..."Agreed
The problem as I see it is to think at Martin like one of the best writers today. He's a nice writer, makes fun books and that's all.
You have a few great writers alive today and I find it surreal that everyone are making such a fuss about him.
Gaiman is one exemple of a great english writer, Mr. King too (I don't like all his books but I know he have merits) and no one make that fuss about. If I've said the same things (my fist post not the stupid ones I made after) in a topic about one of Gaiman's books no one wuold have minded.
The important thing to understand is that any work of speculative fiction (any work of literature, really, but most visible in spec fic) is essentially story+world+characters. A work can be great on the strength of just one of the three (think Tolkien on worldbuilding, or yes, Dostoyevsky), and in fact, having more than one is extremely hard due to constraints in space, time, and yes, the writer's imagination. So, you have writers like Gaiman, whose novels are great in worldbuilding and imagination, decent in characters, but plot-wise are just short stories on steroids. Martin is decent in all three areas, but doesn't excel at any one. His world is good (even if he's admitted that one of the greatest challenges in ADWD was simply figuring out who arrives to Mereen when. We know he's never bothered to work out the distances-- the works are full of inconsistencies, and now it's come back to bite him in the ass). His characters are good. His story was good, before it got bogged down with all the blot. It's the combination of all three, rather than brilliance in any one area, that makes the ASoIaF books good. He's like the humans in roleplaying games- jack of all trades, master of none.
When you tell me that my reading choices are shit and that I'm beneath you for reading them, I don't care what examples you back it up with. I love reading Gaiman too. But I'll still tell you to go fuck yourself.
And yes, there is a difference between attacking the books and attacking the people who read them. It's like saying "Twilight sucks" versus "people who like Twilight suck." The first is okay, the second will ensure you won't get laid for a month. Unless you're talking about Ayn Rand or Gor. It's okay to insult their readers, because people who like either DO suck. :P
The Fountainhead of GorTarnsman Shrugged (in Gor)
The Slavegirls' Anthem (of Gor!)
GAH! NO! THE HORROR!
MY EYES! THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!
Yefim wrote: "The important thing to understand is that any work of speculative fiction (any work of literature, really, but most visible in spec fic) is essentially story+world+characters. A work can be great o...""but plot-wise are just short stories on steroids"
LOL great.
But Yefim, don't you think that when you praise some one just for "being ok" is a bit strange? I do think he's ok. but that's all no fuss no award winning.
Ok in the 3 areas are better than exceptional in one and ok in other and a bit lame in other ? (I don’t think he have a great plot but I give you that point).
See I just like to talk with people like you. You understand that you can like something and that don’t means that it’s the finest work on Earth. You like, sees the positive points and the negatives ones.
Chris,
Not shit, but since I've no reference about your readings besides the way you talk about books and one book that isn't that good (in my point of view). I tend to show that there are much more in the world and if you have read the rest and still believes that what you are reading is that good ok, nice for you. The problem is parameters, good or bad long or short are just a question of parameters. I read lots of "high literature"(as Stan have said, you guys use this term?) and lots of craps too and I like some craps. But when some one come and says.. man the Gaiman plots are "short stories on steroids." I agree and lol. I don't dismiss him for use of "CUZ" or for talking bad about a thing that I love.
Dwarf, thanks for trying to educate me and help me become more wordly. I'll try to read more books from authors I cannot pronounce. On my way home now. Maybe I'll stop by the library and pick up some Tolstoy. Or Pokeman.
I cannot pronunce Dostoyevsky too. And in russian they have a few sounds that I can't even make.On my way home now 2 but it's raing a lot... no reading today.
Chris I hope I made miself more clearer now and don't have hurt you in some way.
Yefim
Sorry I missed the joke ... what is GOR?
Dwarf wrote: "Yefim wrote: "The important thing to understand is that any work of speculative fiction (any work of literature, really, but most visible in spec fic) is essentially story+world+characters. A work ..."I've never said that Martin is a great writer, or that ASoIaF is a seminal work of American literature (although better him than Robert Jordan. Believe it or not, I've come across a poster here on Goodreads arguing just that). I've said that your criticism of him is unfounded- you attack his plausibility and his characterizations, neither of which are actually serious problems with his writing.
By the way, I've looked over your analysis of the characters, and while I don't have time to go into it in detail, I think there are quite a few things you're missing. The first is that ASoIaF is a response to the traditional conventions of heroic fantasy, it takes them and turns them on their head. Take the example of Ned Stark, who, as you said, is the perfect hero, yet his honorable actions cause untold suffering for the entire realm. He has failed in his every goal- to protect the king, to protect the realm, and even to protect his own family, all because he wouldn't compromise his heroic ways. Likewise the other characters start out as fantasy archetypes (you've noticed that), but they are either forced by circumstances to outgrow this, to rise above the mold, or they are destroyed by it. That is the whole point of the series, and this organic process of growth and change is what people like about the books.
Dwarf, you picked a great example to counter what I said. I have read One Hundred Years of Solitude (I just joined Goodreads on the New Year and am adding books to my library everyday), and I couldn't predict anything that would happen.I do still think your predictions were vague enough that they were unhelpful (an example: Rickon/Youngest son has a wolf that likes him!) or they were completely wrong. I felt the ones you are right about were more on-par with reading a chick-lit novel and predicting "There's going to be a happy ending!" Well, yea. Also, when you say "Bran has mystical powers in the new book" it makes me wonder how far you have read into the series. I can be prescient about any series too, if I've read updates on all of the characters. However, you are misinformed because Bran does not have abilities beyond any of the other Stark children. They are all wargs, some are more in control of their power than others. He's learning the ways of the Weirwoods (drinking the goop and talking with the old dude) so we'll see how that goes, but I still think his arc is a hero's journey that brings him back to Winterfell as the next generation Bran the Builder.
It's not the point by point character summaries that made me want to respond to you. It's sashaying into the thread with the idea that your opinion about the characters is the be-all, end-all of discussion on the series, coupled with the false-modesty of apologizing to everyone who enjoys the series or disagrees with you. "I'm sorry to ruin all of your plebeian views!" - is what your post boiled down to.
You say that Martin is a bad writer, but I honestly don't know what it takes to be a bad writer and I can't figure it out from the writers you list. I've read Dostoevsky disparaged as second-rate hack in comparison to other Russian authors. Even books I've disliked have had enough good writing in the plot, character formation, dialogue, or prose that I wouldn't consider anything I've read as wholly bad writing. (Except, possibly, my Saddle Club fan-fictions from third grade. And yes, I have read Twilight.) Certainly not Martin, who is great at narration, suspense, and feast descriptions. ;)
Dwarf wrote: "I cannot pronunce Dostoyevsky too. And in russian they have a few sounds that I can't even make.On my way home now 2 but it's raing a lot... no reading today.
Chris I hope I made miself more cle..."
It's okay. Portuguese has sounds that can only be produced by a Lovecraftian horror from beyond. :P
Gor is a fantasy series written by John Norman. It starts out as a generic fantasy series in the vein of Edgar Rice Burroughs, with the exception that all the women in the setting are docile slaves happy to obey their masters' every wish. Then, the story takes a back seat and the books are just about slaves in chains being tortured into realizing the "natural" order of the world, with women being chattel to their almighty male masters. At least three books are about haughty Earth college girls being abducted to Gor and eagerly embracing their new identity as slaves (because every woman secretly wishes to be dominated).
What's worse, people actually decided to take the works seriously, and there is now a "Gorean" subculture based on the principles espoused in the novels. God help us all.
Sigh, everyone knows it's the MEN who want to be slaves. That's why they wear ties, it's a subliminal cry for "please someone lead me around like a puppy!"Dostoyevsky is hard to pronounce? No, my name is hard to pronounce. I swear 90% of the people think it's Laura even after I explain 100 times, no it's Russian, it's Lara, like Larceny. There are days I want to say "F it, call me Amber". Thanks mom & dad.
You think that's bad? You should hear people trying to pronounce "Yefim" :P
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Chicago Manual of Style (other topics)The Elements of Style (other topics)
The Elements of Style (other topics)
From Russia with Love (other topics)
Crime and Punishment (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Edgar Rice Burroughs (other topics)John Norman (other topics)
Fyodor Dostoevsky (other topics)
Fyodor Dostoevsky (other topics)
Fyodor Dostoevsky (other topics)
More...
