Anyone else NOT reading A Dance with Dragons yet?

[Lara Amber]

At least your name means "well spoken" instead of "Russian hussy". Okay, that was only in one book.

Though I almost threw something at the TV when I saw a VP of Eidos Interactive mispronounce on national television Lara Croft.

[Yefim]

You should just call yourself Larissa and tell people you're Greek :)

[Chris]

Dough Sta F Ski. (Sta should be pronounced about halfway between Sta and Stoy)

[Yefim]

..is that supposed to be "Dostoyevsky?" Uh, no, it's dəstɐˈjefskʲɪj, so it should be Da("a" as in "about")-stu("u" as in "Bud")-ya("y" as in "yes," a as in "pay")-fskeey ("y" as in "yiddish")

[Lara Amber]

Yefim wrote: "You should just call yourself Larissa and tell people you're Greek :)"

This highland lass could never pass for Greek. Unless there is a population of Greeks running around with red hair and blue eyes.

[Snail in Danger (Sid)]

Wow, this thread got long when I wasn't looking. I'm going to throw my two pennies in the pool and then probably disappear again for at least a couple pages. /lazy

On King and Gaiman vs. Martin — in terms of sales the former two have done better than Martin, I suspect. In terms of mainstream success and recognizability, I would guess that King blows the other two out of the water.

And pronouncing Russian ... English speakers are not helped at all by competing transcription systems. (Which all seem non-obvious to me. But anyway.)

[Lara Amber]

Oh and last night I was thinking about Dwarf's comment about Hamlet vs. Martin's characters. I think it would be unfair to compare them (you can read a lot more into a character from a play that only lasts a matter of hours vs. a character that recurs in multiple volumes where you DO get to see inside his/her head, half of the appeal of Hamlet is the mystery of his mindset). I will say this, I can completely believe that Shakespeare, were he alive today, would read this series and appreciate the characters in it for both how they turn convention on it's head and for the complexity as they develop over time. He might have some notes for Martin on how to improve the storyline for flow.

[[deleted user]]

Chris wrote: "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. "

Bravo!

This is pretty much what I tell people who give me shit because of what I like to read, watch, or listen to. Life is too short to subject yourself to something that doesn't interest you.

[Trike]

I missed some stuff, apparently. I skimmed and took this away:

Ayn Rand's head was found in Gor along with Kafka, King and Gaiman who were off to see the wizard in the Highlander with Lair-uh and the Dwarf (on the Morning Zooooooo!) with wolves from Russia where literature reads you.

That about it?

...say, this orange juice tastes funny.

[Stan]

Lara Amber wrote: "Oh and last night I was thinking about Dwarf's comment about Hamlet vs. Martin's characters. I think it would be unfair to compare them (you can read a lot more into a character from a play that o..."

I would hazard that The Hound, Littlefinger, and maybe Tyrion are each as complex as Hamlet.

[[deleted user]]

Trike wrote: "...say, this orange juice tastes funny."

I'll have what he's having.

[J.A.]

Trike wrote: "I missed some stuff, apparently. I skimmed and took this away:

Ayn Rand's head was found in Gor along with Kafka, King and Gaiman who were off to see the wizard in the Highlander with Lair-uh and ..."

There were some My Little Ponies involved, too, but they only spoke Cantonese.

[Yefim]

Lara Amber wrote: "Oh and last night I was thinking about Dwarf's comment about Hamlet vs. Martin's characters. I think it would be unfair to compare them (you can read a lot more into a character from a play that o..."

I believe that if Shakespeare were alive today, he'd be working with James Patterson trying to figure out how to make even more money from his works. Shakespeare was writing the equivalent of summer blockbusters of his day. Martin, sad to say, probably won't even be on his radar. :)

[Yefim]

John wrote: "Trike wrote: "...say, this orange juice tastes funny."

I'll have what he's having."

I'll have some too! Share the love!

[Rowena]

Having read a bit of this "discussion" all I can say is that I believe there are three types of books.

1. Those you read to extend your mind, your thoughts, and your knowledge - AKA literature. There are plenty of examples in SciFi/Fantasy and some of those are not well written, but it is their message and their ideas that make them important. Others are considered exceptionally well written but trying to wade your way through can be an exercise in sheer determination.

2. Those you read of enjoyment, escapism and fun - like Martin.

3. Those you personally fail to engage in on any level - for me that is Jordan *shudder* (although I intend to try again soon, it has been 10 years since I last gave it a go and things change).

But that does not make my choices better or worse than anyone else's. I too have read Tolstoy, Eco, Shakespeare, Byron, Hesse etc but I still enjoy Martin and a plethora of other less illustrious authors. Because the point is enjoyment, not critical or analytical reading.

I found Martin's plot unpredictable in places and his characters dynamic and most importantly evolving. What they first appear to be is not necessarily what they end up being, they change in reaction to what happens to them. All good reasons to engage with the characters, even the ones you dislike, which is the point after all.

I think if I approached every book I read as an intellectual exercise I'd not read, it would cease to be enjoyable. More often than not I read to escape and entertain, and for me, Martin provides both.

[Stan]

Rowena wrote: "Having read a bit of this "discussion" all I can say is that I believe there are three types of books.

1. Those you read to extend your mind, your thoughts, and your knowledge - AKA literature. T..."

Rowena, even though I'm happily married, have two children, and live on the other side of the world... I think I just fell in love with you a little bit.

[Rowena]

Stan wrote: Rowena, even though I'm happily married, have two children, and live on the other side of the world... I think I just fell in love with you a little bit.

Hehe I suspect that's related to not finding Jordan that engaging :)

The succinct way to put things is probably -

There is "good literature", some/most of which is unreadable (does ANYONE actually enjoy Atlas Shrugged?), and there is a "good read", some/most of which is poorly written!

I don't recall seeing anyone suggesting Song of Fire and Ice was good literature, just a good read :)

There's a lot of "good literature" I just cannot bring myself to read yet others love. I can't force my way through Grapes of Wrath, yet it is considered brilliant and a classic, I've tried twice but end up throwing the damn thing across the room about a quarter of the way through. But I love Solzhenitsyn and deliberately wade through Umberto Eco and feel like I have accomplished a great feat when I finish. But I don't _enjoy_ these in quiet the same way as zooming through Martin, laughing with Piers Anthony, smirking at Gaiman or immersing in Banks. It's just different...

Okay, hijacked the thread enough now...

[Genia]

I find good literature to be mostly eminently readable - Tolstoy is readable, Bulgakov is readable, Eco is (mostly) readable. I would easily contest that Atlas Shrugged is not good literature.

Insofar as Martin is concerned, I have few strong feelings one way or another. I've long since become inured to epic fantasy of all sorts; when I was younger I read the sword and whatever type stuff - not exclusively, by any means, but with fair enjoyment. Nowadays I find that I am bored stiff by it. I've stopped reading fantasy almost completely, barring some urban fantasy Butcher style, for brain candy.

So, you know, I find it really difficult to worship at Martin's feet. He's fairly unrealistic, albeit in a gritty way, and his plots are all pretty much predictable and hinge on 'there will be backstabbing'. But I can still pass a day or two with a Martin book and not feel too much tearing guilt about it, especially if I am satisfying an urge for fast and hollow literary calories.

[Yefim]

I don't think that there is such a thing as "literature." There are just books you like, and books you don't. Some of the books have an emphasis on prose, or are written in a certain way. Others emphasize characters, or plots, or the setting and/or an idea. But all of them, even the so-called "literary" books or "classics" are, inherently, no different from any other book. How can someone who, for example, likes literary escapism and is bored by reading about everyday life be expected to enjoy Dickens, or "The Grapes of Wrath?" If somebody is bored by philosophical musings, how can he like "Atlas Shrugged" just because it's a "classic?"

There is absolutely nothing in common between the so-called "classics" other that someone somewhere, usually long ego, liked the book well enough to recommend it. Some of the books will interest you and expand your horizons, others won't. But it's a deeply individual thing. Personally, I can't get enough of Eco's writing but no one should force themselves to read though his works any more than they should be forced to read Robert Jordan. You'll gain nothing from it, other than being able to say "I've read it," which only matters if you're in school and have to take an exam on it.

This pointless lumping of incredibly diverse works into one group, as well as the concept of reading a work of fiction because one must, is something that is best left behind as soon as one's schooling is done.

[Snail in Danger (Sid)]

My most influential English teacher convinced me that one suitable definition of literature is "things that are read." But at the same time, I turn up my nose at things that try too hard to be literary and fail. So I do recognize a qualitative difference. (Qualitative in the scientific sense, not "poor quality vs. good quality.")

Rowena, I liked your post, and Genia, I totally agree with your last sentence. There is literary junk food and sometimes it's what I want.

[Rowena]

Hmm I'm sure I said "But I don't _enjoy_ these in quiet the same way", implying I enjoyed them in a different way not that I didn't get anything from them.

Yes, wade is still the word I would use to describe myself reading Eco. I love it though, it takes me a lot longer to get through - thus "wade", although "wallow" would also adequately describe it. Do love a good word wallow which Eco provides in abundance.

Can't say I ever worshipped at Martin's feet, fluff it most certainly is - but I still contend that that is the point. It has enough points of difference with other fantasy I've read to keep me reading at least.

[Karen]

I surprised myself by actually enjoying Atlas Shrugged as a novel. (I just barely skimmed the speeches (whether so designated or not).)

Rowena wrote: "Having read a bit of this "discussion" all I can say is that I believe there are three types of books.

1. Those you read to extend your mind, your thoughts, and your knowledge - AKA literature. T..."

[Cynthia]

mark wrote: "real non-American literature. Non-English too, I reckon

if it is english blockbuster, then it is stupid!! except Shakespeare! and Jules Verne, who is a master of characterization!"

Jules Verne was French. Jane Austin's books are also blockbusters. Her books are not stupid. Jayne Eyer is also an English blockbuster. It is not stupid. Bronte and Austin make Verne look stupid.

[Cynthia]

Martin's books described as hinging "on 'there will be backstabbing'" is truly delicious in its truth.

[Kevin]

There is an article that was posted on Black Gate's website stating why the author of the article would not read A Dance with Dragons in part due to the fact that Martin has past his prime, along with other author's major work written in their prime. Here is the link: http://www.blackgate.com/2012/01/25/a...

[Cynthia]

Yefim wrote:"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. "

Martin did a lot of work writing for TV, so there is great deal of theatrical conventions and drama theory in the Game of Thrones series. What you mention here is an elementary drama theory--"the tragic flaw." Brutus of Julius Caesar is usually held up as the example, so honorable his honor destroys him, just like Ned Stark. TV series are written such that individual shows are refered to by the character the show centers on that week. Martin does that, focuses each chapter on a certain character and names the chapter for the character. He also writes the language of the chapter in the language of the character. For instance, the chapters about Stark's eldest daughter (tired forgetting characters' names) tends to emphasisze descriptions of fine clothing and castle luxeries, and dialog is more refined. Ari's chapters describe suffering, poverty, and violence. I really hate where he took her character. John Snow's chapters are written differently again, all in accord with his character.

I'm forgetting the name of the important "dwarf" character (though he's one of my favorites!) I'm finding him very interesting in that he really sounds to me like he's based on Toulouse Lautrec. I do wish Martin would do a little more research for his characters. For instance, the kind of deformity this character is described as having, is not a natal birth defect, to the best of my knowledge. It is caused by spinal injury caused in childhood. Until the feeling and use of the legs returns, the growth of the legs stops. The rest of the body which does not suffer from the atrophy from the injury, grows normally. This is exactly what happened to Lautrec. He suffered an injury as a child that put his legs out of commission for awhile and so they did not grow propery. There is the same accuracy problem, I think with the elderest Stark daughter. Sort of an after thought, Martin is giving her a sweet singing voice as a quality. In a noble family she would recieve singing lessons, and he makes no mention of them. Basically people do not learn to sing well unless they have formal training or unless they are in a culture where everyone sings all the time. There has to be some sort of model to learn from, sweet singing does not just happen. I also don't like that Martin desposes of character for shock value. I also get the sense that he is rushed, writing under publishing date pressure and problems creep up as a result.

So there are some very fine, interesting things going on with Martins writing, and some problems, problems that I think are a result of the demands of the commercial requirments of Big Boy Publishing (rush to meet deadline, quality be damned).

[Cynthia]

Trike wrote: "I missed some stuff, apparently. I skimmed and took this away:

Ayn Rand's head was found in Gor along with Kafka, King and Gaiman who were off to see the wizard in the Highlander with Lair-uh and ..."

Funny! Funny!

[Cynthia]

Rowena wrote: "I think if I approached every book I read as an intellectual exercise I'd not read, it would cease to be enjoyable.

I found Martin's plot unpredictable in places and his characters dynamic and most importantly evolving. What they first appear to be is not necessarily what they end up being, they change in reaction to what happens to them..."

Unless I have a bad cold or flu and need a book for brainless mind salve, I do read all books as an intellectual exercise. That's part of the enjoyment for me.

The evolving nature of Martin's characters is an aspect that sets his books more on the side of literature than of brainless mind salve. He explores his characters deeply in way that is pretty new and more in accord with how people today view personality. As others have mentioned, his treatment of female characters is wholly like most male fantasistists, that is they tend to be believable, not stock caricatures. He also uses different writing devices to create different moods, atmoshpheres; this too makes his work more literary than not.

Literary quality is not determined by "I like this and not there and I've read all the stuff my teachers said to read so ha on you." Literary quality is determined by a vast array of qualities. I had the pleasure of being part of reading group that had many readers educated in literature. We would all find the same faults and strengths in the books we read, but we each had vastly different reactions to them. Some members would hate a givin book, love a given book, or feel it was soso. Our liking was based on how much we could overlook the problems and how much we appreciated the strengths. If the problems were types a person hated, then they hated the book despite the good points and vice versa. By and large we always agreed on the quality of the book, but disagreed about whether we liked it or not.

And yes I love lots of trashy books, there's nothing like a trashy book when you feel awful or just need to vegitate. After awhile of trash reading, I halt in my reading, thinking "this is truly stupendously bad," and want a book I can sink my intellectual teeth into. Then the cycle swings around again--if I read one more ponderously artful word I'll go mad. Give me trash!

[Cynthia]

There is "good literature", some/most of which is unreadable (does ANYONE actually enjoy Atlas Shrugged?), and there is a "good read", some/most of which is poorly written!

I don't recall seeing anyone suggesting Song of Fire and Ice was good literature, just a good read :)
.."

Atlas Shrugged is unreadable garbage, not good literature at all, and yes, SofFandIce has literary merit. It is uneven and has problems, but nevertheless is much more deservign of the literary label than Atlas Shrugs.

[mark]

Cynthia wrote: "Jules Verne was French. Jane Austin's books are also blockbusters. Her books are not stupid. Jayne Eyer is also an English blockbuster. It is not stupid. Bronte and Austin make Verne look stupid ..."

um, that post was mockery, aimed at some past posts. context

obviously Verne is french and just as obviously, blockbusters are not necessarily stupid. especially not Austen! who i LOVE. although i am not sure i would necessarily agree that Austen makes Verne "look stupid". maybe. or not. different genres/different goals, you know? hard for me to measure without giving Verne a more recent read.

[mark]

The Fountainhead of Gor
Tarnsman Shrugged

this is maybe my favorite thing i've read today. awesome!

[Kevin]

So many people here hating on Any Rand, especially Atlas Shrugged.

[Chris]

Not just here.....

[Kevin]

I did not really enjoy the way Atlas Shrugged was written, but I did not hate it. I understand why she felt it had to be written.

[Dawn]

Not any Rand, I like WoT Rand.

[Chris]

He's kind of a putz, but I enjoy his stories. Now, Perrin on the other hand. He's a likeable guy, but I can't stand his stories. Every time I see the (view spoiler)[fucking wolf avatar (hide spoiler)] on a chapter heading, I cringe and roll my eyes. (view spoiler)[No, not another wolf dream! (hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

Never read her, but I hate her anyway.

Just because

[Chris]

Wait a minute. Wasn't she Captain Kirk's yeoman?

[J.A.]

Chris wrote: "He's kind of a putz, but I enjoy his stories. Now, Perrin on the other hand. He's a likeable guy, but I can't stand his stories. Every time I see the [spoilers removed] on a chapter heading, I crin..."

I was always more of a Mat hater.

[Chris]

Mat hater? Oh no. That wounds me.

[Dawn]

Wounds me as well. Mat rocks. Rand is ok. Perrin is annoying. Thems the rules.

[J.A.]

He admittedly is cooler, conceptually, than Rand or Perrin just because of the nature of his particular enhancement. I mean it was super-human without being super-human, which was a nice twist.

He just started rubbing the wrong way after a while.

[Dawn]

He can rub me any way he wants. Mmmmm, Mat... Yummy :)

[[deleted user]]

O_o

[Chris]

Holy crap.

[Reginac1]

Cynthia wrote: "So there are some very fine, interesting things going on with Martins writing, and some problems, problems that I think are a result of the demands of the commercial requirments of Big Boy Publishing (rush to meet deadline, quality be damned). "

You must have forgotten that it took 6 YEARS for Martin's latest volume to be published.

[J.A.]

For that matter it took five years between Storm of Swords and and A Feast for Crows. On top of it, Martin claimed in a note at the end of AFfC that the next book (which was originally just half of the AFfC manuscript) had already been written they just needed to split it up for publishing purposes.

As I read them through Crows all back-to-back last year, I was rather surprised when I read that note then realized FfC had come out that many years ago.

Whatever one thinks of merits of Martin's writing (positive or negative), it's hard to consider an 11-year time-span for two books to really be that much of a "rush to meet a deadline."

[Evilynn]

Cynthia wrote: "...I'm forgetting the name of the important "dwarf" character (though he's one of my favorites!) I'm finding him very interesting in that he really sounds to me like he's based on Toulouse Lautrec. I do wish Martin would do a little more research for his characters. For instance, the kind of deformity this character is described as having, is not a natal birth defect, to the best of my knowledge. It is caused by spinal injury caused in childhood...."

I thought Tyrion was supposed to have achondroplasia or something similar, which is genetic, not caused by injury. I never saw similarities between him an Toulouse-Lautrec except for the alcoholism. Then again, I have an Art History background, so I think of Toulouse-Lautrec primarily as a painter.

[Trike]

Reginac1 wrote: "Cynthia wrote: "So there are some very fine, interesting things going on with Martins writing, and some problems, problems that I think are a result of the demands of the commercial requirments of Big Boy Publishing (rush to meet deadline, quality be damned). "

You must have forgotten that it took 6 YEARS for Martin's latest volume to be published."

Yeah, the problem that Martin has is the same one Peter Jackson and George Lucas has: there's no one to tell him "No, that's idiotic. Stop it."

Once Song of Ice and Fire became a huge success, the editing apparently went away. Compare how concisely-written and lean the second novel is to any of the following ones, especially the fourth one. Someone clearly kicked Martin in the caboose and told him to cut out all the crap.

Once they realized they could make a huge amount of money publishing every single word he wrote, they let him get away with painful redundancies in story and waaaay too much exposition.

[Lara Amber]

Trike wrote: "Yeah, the problem that Martin has is the same one Peter Jackson and George Lucas has: there's no one to tell him "No, that's idiotic. Stop it."

Martin never decided that Jar-Jar was a good idea.

/completely disagree on Jackson, I don't think any of his work suffers from bloat or hubris