After his interviews and critique of LoTR I feel like Martin has some strange parasocial relationship with Tolkien.

After his interviews and critique of LoTR I feel like Martin has some strange parasocial relationship with Tolkien. It's like Martin is a 14 years old emo girl and Tolkien is her conservative father and so this girl tries to do everything in opposition to her father's believes. He really likes to FORESHADOW things and right now it seems like 99% there gonna be a plot line where Jon Snow talks with white walkers with the power of friendship and it is revealed that ice demons are misunderstood quities patooties and it's actually the white me... I mean northerners, who were wrong all along! Because Tolkien had an objective morale in LoTR, but Martin has to do the "expectations breaking" ritual. Like with the wildlings. "They raid, kill and rape but you know there's actually a few good people there and they also live "free" like hippies and so they just can't be bad! Also they are like refugees and stuff!"

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anxiety of Influence--Bloom was right.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He merely conceptualized a problem that is as old as civilization, though that is not to say that this problem is a constant.
      At any rate, first post, best post.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm more confused why an older and (presumably educated) guy like himself started virtue signalling. The Stephen King mind virus, you can see it in his blog.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      most people stop maturing after 15. In the past a lot of the scribal and literary elites were often intellectual giants, but now it's a hive of people of various quality, most moronic midwits gripped with some naive bs like rad liberalism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "Educated" isn't the same thing as "smart". Hunter Biden went to Yale.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >"Educated" isn't the same thing as "smart". Hunter Biden went to Yale.
        that's just american higher education corruption. ever heard about legacy admissions?

        GRRM went to some pepe mcdonalds university in god knows where in some flyover state, but he did seem genuinely intelligent at least by the scifi fantasy community standards back in 2000-s when i read his blog

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Jews, Irish and WASPs come ready made with liberalism. It’s their default factory settings. If you don’t fricking know this you must be one of them too to not see this. That’s why GRRM and King are such moronic liberals.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Liberalism is by design intended to make people moronic, and not in a pejorative sense, but in a literal sense — stagnant, uninspired, impotent, regressed. Liberalism at any age and in any environment will turn a person into a boring fricking idiot with no real ambition.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What’s better? A good alternative? Does one exist that is not totalitarian?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Anon, what exactly you mean with "liberalism"

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Liberalism as an ideology and system invented at the tide of modernity

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Because Tolkien had an objective morale in LoTR, but Martin has to do the "expectations breaking" ritual.
    It only seems like a ritual now, it was actually pretty interesting in the 90s when those books were written

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >critique of LoTR
    what critique?

    >I feel like Martin has some strange parasocial relationship with Tolkien
    Which was entirely constructed by other people, specially by his detractors
    The fat man never imposed himself that

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The entirety of his work is literally dripping with anxiety to Tolkien.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        what?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        proof though

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He's not MIchael Moorwiener.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He, of course, never stated directly that he places himself in opposition to Tolkien and old world views, but he had 2 important quotes that made me believe what I wrote in OP post.
      The first is:
      >Much as I admire Tolkien, I once again always felt like Gandalf should have stayed dead...His last words are, 'Fly, you fools!' What power that had, how that grabbed me, then, he comes back as Gandalf the White, and, if anything, he's sort of improved... I think it would've been an even stronger story if Tolkien had left him dead

      Couldn't find the full quote but he then starts ranting that in HIS books, characters who are resurrected change and it all cooler and more logical.

      The second quote is not about LoTR, it is about literature in general and he said:
      >We had enough of good guys against bad guys

      He actually has surprisingly a lot of LoTR ranting, but I don't think he's some salty moron who just hates Tolkien and LoTR, and I don't think Tolkien and LoTR are above all criticism, but I think that Martin subconsciously tries to subvert Tolkien's world views and it's kind of the main core thing behind his fantasy books. Which is moronic because it's just another le heckin deconstructivism and as anon said here

      >Because Tolkien had an objective morale in LoTR, but Martin has to do the "expectations breaking" ritual.
      It only seems like a ritual now, it was actually pretty interesting in the 90s when those books were written

      it was maybe cool a few decades ago, but it became very old very fast

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Aragorn's tax policy
        >Hobbits fricking
        >Gandalf's resurrection
        >black and white bad, grey good
        Tolkien has been hounding him his entire career

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He basically complained that Tolkien didn't write plot-irrelevant information to pad out the word count. Tax policies are irrelevant when civilization is being actively annihilated and a final battle for the planet is about to take place.

          This is actually my problem with GRRM as a whole when reading GoT. He puts so much time and effort into padding out his story by mentioning various legends or things happening thousands of years ago on his timeline, and all of them are irrelevant and don't inform the plot. Sauron existing as a timeless spirit who created objects of immense power thousands of years ago is plot-relevant, because those objects occasionally reappear and cause trouble. Some girl faking being a guy so she can join the Night's Watch and then ending up being raped and murdered is definitely a tale, but it is not plot-relevant and never comes up again. And yet GRRMs books are filled with that kind of thing. It's flavor without substance. Do I really give much of a shit about Lord So-and-So who ruled this castle 5000 years ago and then was murdered by Lord Bimbledeebop who was cucked by Lady Butterslacks and sired bastard offspring who inherited the castle thereafter? Not really. Will that information ever become relevant later on? No. Will some plot point that appears later involve this previously stated factoid? Nope. Okay then. So why add it, George?
          >because muh word count

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >mentioning various legends or things happening thousands of years ago on his timeline, and all of them are irrelevant and don't inform the plot.
            >worldbuildng is irrelevant
            well done you just defeated the point of fiction
            besides those long past myths and historical events parallel current and future events
            next time try actually reading

            It's still a fallacious argument. GRRM is a post-post modern author arguing against someone who hadn't been steeped in decades of cynicism and irony, like he has.
            >Why aren't you as bitter about the world as I am?!?!?!?

            Tolkien didn't need any morally gray characters at all, because his was a morality tale. I would actually flip this on GRRM and say the problem with his novels is that they have no morality tales. His "good" characters are either pussies or stupid, his "bad" characters are almost omnipotent or comic-book evil. The evil characters also often win, not because they were intrinsically clever, but because GRRM is cynical and just assumes they will as that's how it is in "the real world". But a character like Euron can only exist precisely because what he's writing isn't like the real world. In the real world, someone that evil would just be murdered by those around them. The only morality tales I can see in GoT are painfully obvious self-inserts, like Jon being nice to the fat kid. That's GRRM putting himself in the book. And the message there is what? Be nice to fatties? Okay. We can do that. But that doesn't really inform one's life like Frodo and Sam's tale of friendship could.

            >Why aren't you as bitter about the world as I am?!?!?!?
            >implying

            knowing he was a working writer in the 70s/80s and is on record saying shit like
            >If I were really cynical...I wouldn't write what I'm writing now, these novels. I would start some sort of medieval sword-and-sorcery thing and say it's a trilogy...and then keep writing it for the rest of my life
            I have literally zero respect for him. he LARPed as a fantasy author to take advantage of a trend in the early 90s, with zero intention of ever finishing
            same with him lying about taking a confirmation second middle name despite being an atheist, just so he can pretend to be in the same league as Tolkien

            source?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >next time try actually reading
            An exceedingly poor attempt at a defense. Explaining why a ruined castle is ruined because the characters are standing there in the middle of it, is worldbuilding. Explaining the layout of a city or a street because the characters will have to do something there later, is worldbuilding. Talking in-depth about two minor figures on the other side of the content, away from the action, who fought a battle 3,000 years ago, which has no bearing on the plot or anything that is taking place, past, present, or future, is not worldbuilding. It is padding a word count, because it's extraneous information and doesn't drive anything. Include that in the legendarium on the back pages.

            >besides those long past myths and historical events parallel current and future events
            Source?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Talking in-depth about two minor figures on the other side of the content, away from the action, who fought a battle 3,000 years ago, which has no bearing on the plot or anything that is taking place, past, present, or future, is not worldbuilding.
            It reveals character as the characters follow those informations with their opinions and thoughts on the matter
            It also gives color to the world
            But I guess IQfy is anti-fun these days...

            >Source?
            Read the fricking books

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>Time is a flat circle. All this has happened before, and all this will happen again. We're building something here, detective, and all the pieces matter.
            >basedjak_clapping.jpeg
            >make the same point subtly
            >basedjak_raging.jpeg

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >He basically complained that Tolkien didn't write plot-irrelevant information to pad out the word count. Tax policies are irrelevant when civilization is being actively annihilated and a final battle for the planet is about to take place.
            George struggled for 20 years as a working genre writer before GOT, his writing mindset has always been absurdly cynical
            first it was as a guy writing trash genre fiction meant to be sold as 50 cent paperbacks and that's where his obsession with word counts comes from
            then as a TV writer and that's where his obsession with lurid attention grabbing shit comes from
            it's his publishing world cynicism that let him see which way the wind was blowing and jump on the modern fantasy train right as it was picking up steam in the 90s
            the quote from the 80s someone else posted here sums up George perfectly
            >If I were really cynical...I wouldn't write what I'm writing now, these novels. I would start some sort of medieval sword-and-sorcery thing and say it's a trilogy...and then keep writing it for the rest of my life
            which is literally what he did for GOT. it was pitched as a trilogy which then was stretched out for the max amount of time through excessive padding, but now there's so much lingering plot in the air that even if he wanted to finish (which he doesn't, see above) he basically can't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            midwit take
            i advise you to throw all your books out and quit reading all together

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I suggest you stop throwing your toys around and come up with a more coherent criticism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Some girl faking being a guy so she can join the Night's Watch and then ending up being raped and murdered is definitely a tale, but it is not plot-relevant and never comes up again
            Until you find out who Satin is
            People actually believe Martin is *padding* his fantasy doorstop? The one his publisher is shitting bricks trying to get him to finish? The one that will rake in millions of dollars, even before the TV show?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Stannis's tax policy
          >Cat's resurrection
          >Everyone bad, Jon Snow good
          For all of gurm's complaints, the only place he's actually deviated from Tolkien is on the matter of children fricking.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >We had enough of good guys against bad guys
        Tolkien himself actually responded to a similar point, in the 1964 interview; remarking the existence of grey characters like Boromir and Denethor.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          (cont.)
          a "similar point" being, characters are either a 'goodie' or a 'baddie'.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's still a fallacious argument. GRRM is a post-post modern author arguing against someone who hadn't been steeped in decades of cynicism and irony, like he has.
          >Why aren't you as bitter about the world as I am?!?!?!?

          Tolkien didn't need any morally gray characters at all, because his was a morality tale. I would actually flip this on GRRM and say the problem with his novels is that they have no morality tales. His "good" characters are either pussies or stupid, his "bad" characters are almost omnipotent or comic-book evil. The evil characters also often win, not because they were intrinsically clever, but because GRRM is cynical and just assumes they will as that's how it is in "the real world". But a character like Euron can only exist precisely because what he's writing isn't like the real world. In the real world, someone that evil would just be murdered by those around them. The only morality tales I can see in GoT are painfully obvious self-inserts, like Jon being nice to the fat kid. That's GRRM putting himself in the book. And the message there is what? Be nice to fatties? Okay. We can do that. But that doesn't really inform one's life like Frodo and Sam's tale of friendship could.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you think GRRMs stories are so unbelievable? Has there ever been a morally good country? Pretty much every country no matter how rich or poor engaged in genocide, slavery or extreme oppression. It seems in the real world the bad guys seem to win more often than the good guys.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            midwit

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why don’t you explain yourself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are any of the things I listed good? While I mentioned oppression and leftists use that word very broadly and in ways that are incorrect, real oppression is bad. A good example would be how the people of the Soviet Union were treated.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >characters like Boromir
          I would like to go on the record as saying that boromir is objectively good and heroic.

          https://i.imgur.com/E6dyWko.jpg

          Most people who criticize martin for being a moral nihilist or that he wants to subvert Tolkien or even that he wants to prove that Tolkien’s ideals were wrong either didn’t read the books like you said, or have a very childish view of what fiction can be. For those who haven’t read the books they have latched on tot the memes about Martin criticizing tolkien. And this who have read them but still say he’s a moral nihilist stroke me as part of this new reactionary right wing. Everything has to be where there are clear good guys and bad guys. And the good guys have to be european. And any criticism of historical Europe is heresy to them.

          Martin clearly has a moral view that is objective like you said. Ned stark was one. People criticize Martin for making his good character stupid and that they always lose, but they miss the point of the series. Martin made a world where being good does not necessarily lead to reward or success. It is a very harsh world where the bad guys can take advantage of good and noble characters, just like in the real world, unless you think the people who run the world are good and noble. Martins world is where to be good requires sacrifice. That there is conflict to be good or not. Becuase if it is a world where good always wins and you are always rewarded for being good, why would anyone be bad?

          That is one thing that differentiates itself well from Tolkien’s world. In middle earth the good guys are backed up by the Valar and illuvatar. The Valar intervene to stop morgoth in the war of wrath to save the elves and men. And Illuvatar even intervenes. Why in middle earth would any rational person decide to join the side of mellow and Sharon when illuvatar is a known entity in the world? Middle earth is a world where it is known that good will be rewarded and evil will be punished. So an evil but rational person in middle earth will be good. Because if he cares about his own interest he will choose good because he wants to avoid punishment. Only an evil but stupid person in middl earth will be evil because he can’t see that him acting so will ultimately lead to punishment.

          In contrast margins world is one where an evil and smart person will choose to be evil. As there is no known punishment for being evil, and being evil can lead to rewards as such a person will be willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want. They will not self limit their actions to obtain their desires. And Europe Greyjoy is one such person who is evil and believes gods and morality are fake. He chooses to be evil because he sees nothing that will punish him and he sees that being evil is strategically smart to get what he wants. This is why when a character is good in asoiaf, it is all the more meaningful.

          >mellow and Sharon
          Heh.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How is Boromir objectively good? He tries so seize the ring by force at the first real opportunity he has. He obviously regrets this choice and has a short redemption arc.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Boromir is a leader of his people in the fight against mordor. Unlike the others in the fellowship or at the council of elrond, he lives the fight against evil every day. Minas tirith was built basically as a prison gate against mordor and he is head guard, and he feels like they are going to lose. Yes, he is tempted by the possibility of the ring, but literally everyone is, that is probably the most recurrent theme in the novel. Gandalf doesn't want to even touch it because he fears that he won't resist it, galadriel barely manages to not reach out and take it from frodo, isildur couldn't even manage it. In the end Frodo couldn't resist it either
            Boromir, a man in a desperate situation, can not stand against evil without divine aid. The ring is designed to corrupt people, and corrupt him it does. The ring is designed to corrupt people, and corrupt him it does. The doesn't make him morally grey, it makes him a casualty to a weapon of the enemy.
            Keep in mind that he more or less is right to feel like the quest to mount doom is hopeless, because even gandalf will later admit that it basically is. Boromir's flaw is that he is unable to hope for divine intervention, and lacking that hope must plan for a different outcome where the ring will not be destroyed. He is a hero, and he is destroyed by a weapon doing precisely what it was created by Satan's lieutenant to do.
            The only person to have ever held the ring, knew what it was, felt it directly trying to tempt him with power, and then give it up was Sam. There wasn't a single other person in middle earth capable of that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Correct. WE know the game was rigged by Eru, but no one on Middle-Earth could possibly know that. Even Gandalf while boosted with the Ring of Fire (bravery buff) was constant doom & gloom. The quest to destroy the ring really did seem hopeless and everyone just went with it because they couldn’t do anything else and surrender wasn’t an option. Boromir would have been desperate for a game-changer and that was the in the Ring needed to corrupt him. But the Ring can corrupt ANYONE, literally anyone (in Middle-Earth) it was just a matter of how long they could hold out, and thanks to Boromir’s desperation that just happened faster. The Ring was a corruption super weapon and if it wasn’t around Boromir would have remained as good a person as would be possible.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Correct. WE know the game was rigged by Eru, but no one on Middle-Earth could possibly know that. Even Gandalf while boosted with the Ring of Fire (bravery buff) was constant doom & gloom. The quest to destroy the ring really did seem hopeless and everyone just went with it because they couldn’t do anything else and surrender wasn’t an option. Boromir would have been desperate for a game-changer and that was the in the Ring needed to corrupt him. But the Ring can corrupt ANYONE, literally anyone (in Middle-Earth) it was just a matter of how long they could hold out, and thanks to Boromir’s desperation that just happened faster. The Ring was a corruption super weapon and if it wasn’t around Boromir would have remained as good a person as would be possible.

            I don't disagree with any of this really. However, I don't think you've made a case that he is "objectively good" so much as that he is a good guy doing his best. Sam even uses the ring, but he is able to return it to Frodo immediately upon request. We can reasonably suppose that things would've gone very badly if Boromir had actually obtained the ring. I think we can also somewhat infer that he wanted the ring from the start, from the first time he sees it at the council. The very moment he has Frodo away from Aragorn and the rest of them, he is overcome by his desire for the ring and attempts to take it by force. I don't disagree that this is reasonable from his perspective. I think it is similar with Denethor. Here is another great man, and from his perspective, Gandalf's plan is madness. He has doomed them all. He should've brought the ring to Gondor and they could've at least attempted to make a last stand. Maybe he too thinks he can master the ring. I think they're both good examples of 'grey morality' characters, which I think is what was originally claimed by the other poster.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The first is:
        That is no proof that he intenionally placed himself in opposition to Tolkien, it's merely his personal opinion on Gandalf's ressurection

        >Couldn't find the full quote but he then starts ranting that in HIS books, characters who are resurrected change and it all cooler and more logical.
        He never ranted nor said that his spin on ressurection is cooler
        He said that he prefers that death and ressurection (in fiction) should be a radically transformative experience for the character
        Hence why Catelyn becomes Stoneheart (a character which was once merciful and, somewhat, fair, becomes hatefilled and cruel), why Berric (once a vain and proud warrior) becomes a humble "champion" of the downtrodden (but gradually at the cost of his sense of self), why Theon symbolically goes from the "The Prince of Winterfell" to the lowly Reek

        >We had enough of good guys against bad guys
        Don't know about that, never heard that one
        But I know this
        >He actually has surprisingly a lot of LoTR ranting,
        is bullshit
        Most of the times the fat man talks about Tolkien is when people directly ask him something in comparasion to the Professor
        The few times he talks about Tolkien of his own volition, he has nothing but good things to say about him
        Ffs he even once said something on the lines of "They keep Heaven, when I die I want to go to Middle Earth"

        >I think that Martin subconsciously tries to subvert Tolkien's world views and it's kind of the main core thing behind his fantasy books.
        So this is all just a wild guess based on contrarian feelings
        Martin writes what he writes because that's what he likes to writes, he doesn't write tolkienesque fantasy because he's unable too - as he both lacks the skill and interest in that thing of writting - and these facts are something he admitted himself in the preface of the Hedge Knight

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        he was right

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >>We had enough of good guys against bad guys
        In hindsight, all these years later, the prologue of a game of thrones is the funniest thing about martin's writing to me. He sets up a character, a poncy, well bred noble son too far down the family tree to get any meaningful inheritance, who basically bought in to what turns out to be bullshit about the noble cause of serving on the watch or whatever its called. The dude is a complete tool for about 4 pages, sort of understandable since the eatch is actually shit, but when presented with an otherworldly foe, demonstrates that beneath his air of superiority there is some real courage and determination. Then he immediately dies in a way that is pointless and achieves nothing for anyone and is never mentioned again in the entire rest of the series.
        It is funny to me because it is such a blatant thesis statement of martin's tastes regarding fantasy, in that actually acting like a hero in a genre more or less defined by having heroes is stupid and worth nothing. It is like a well written essay introduction.
        But on the other hand, it is also funny to me that a character that Martin wrote for the purpose of humiliating and killing to prove a point managed to have more of a character arc in 12 pages or whatever than his pet characters have over the course of multiple books. I'd have preferred a book about that guy that his waifu wandering around justifying all her killing. Despite his clear contempt for heroes he nevertheless manages to make something even worse with dany: a character that does not act like she is a moral hero, but that the narrative reacts to as though she is.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Since you didn't read the books i'll simply tell you that there's precedent for "making peace" with the others and by that i mean a truce after enough blood is shed. And Jon won't be the one doing it.
        .
        I actually agree with the fat frick, between Boromir and Gandalf's deaths i much prefer the first book to what comes after. The sense of urgency completely fades after the fellowship falls apart. But you can't criticize Tolkien and in between that and his funny comments about tax policies and sex, you autists made a headcanon where he's obsessed with him.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The man who resurrected Catelyn Stark talking about characters who should have stayed dead.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >2 important quotes
        They're only important in your head. Consider that Martin was speaking in response to a journalist's prompting, and that, absent their questions ("Game of Thrones is like Lord of the Rings, huh? Elaborate on that"), he may not have brought it up at all - ergo how can we say with certitude it's important to him?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        this guy is an amalgam of the psyche of the modern era. soulless, banal, degenerated, debased and impure. Humanity has always to some extent been impure, but it is so sad that as we reach the modern era, with all the advancements behind us, people like this will still be a deadweight anchor tied to the foot of humanity, dragging it down, preventing it from ascending to the next step and shedding at least some of what has always made it imperfect. It's unfortunate and ironic though, that my tirade should be read in the sewer of the internet of all places.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >banal
          that's it
          that's the word that best describes your post
          thanks anon

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >this guy is an amalgam of the psyche of the modern era. soulless, banal, degenerated, debased and impure
          I think you're a bit too hopped on ideology, anon. Martin is a little goblin who resents the genre he is writing in, and presumably his audience as well. He is missing the reason people read fantasy on purpose because he dislikes it.
          I ended up finishing the 5th book despite having lost interest, won't be reading any more of them (>implying they'll ever exist lmao).
          Martin's writing is the fantasy lit equivalent of bojack horseman, a show that lost my interest for similar reasons. The show sets up this character as sympathetic but broken, and writes a redemption arc, that he then crashes and burns at the end of the season. Ok, makes sense, that happens and it aligns with who he is. But then the next season does it again. And the next. And it is impossible to care enough to sit through 18 episodes of the exact same "oh he's going to get his shit together for real this time" so that the writers can set him up to fall again. Once the surprise of it ceases being interesting it becomes impossible to care about the set up.
          Martin is basically long winded bojack horseman without any funny animal gags. His addiction to doing the opposite of normal fantasy story telling makes it impossible to care about what is going on because everything is setting up some shocking twist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Which character exactly are you thinking of? Jaime's redemption arc hasn't crashed and burned yet. Theon's fulfilled his by saving Jeyne Poole. Be specific.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Like half of them anon. I'm not talking about redemption I'm talking about the way that too many characters are set up for Martin to yank the rug out for the sake of surprise.
            It worked the first time with ned. Then it happened again with Rob. He implies at the end of the same chapter that arya died but haha got you she's fine. Jon snow is actually the heir and oh nevermind he's dead actually no he's bak haha bet you weren't expecting that also catelyn is an evil zombie now. What happened to jorah mormont? I forget, I think maybe he died or something. Tywin lannister is set up as a mastermind running the show and dies in a way that does nothing for either any plot or character development, just for the sake of surprising the reader. I can't even remember who killed joffrey, and I can't even remember what happens with stannis but I imagine that like everything else in his books it came across as completely anticlimactic. Bronn or whatever his name is just bails and exits the story more or less because he is bored with it and sure that's realistic but it isn't interesting to read.
            I don't care about Jaime because martin has shown his main interest is not in writing anything satisfying of conclusive, but in trying to surprise me. I don't care about aegon targaryen and jon connington because I know that no matter what happens it will come across as brief and unsatisfying like everything else he does.
            Martin deliberately does the opposite of what he is setting up half the time for the sake of trying to avoid fulfilling genre tropes instead of just not doing them at all. Maybe it is more "realistic" for things to end in abrupt or unsatisfying ways, but that doesn't make them interesting to read. I no longer trust him to write any sort of satisfying conclusion to any story line and as such have completely lost interest. He has successfully dissuaded me from bothering to read the rest of his writing by showing me that he doesn't care. His prose simply isn't good enough to carry however many thousand pages, and his plotting is bad on purpose. Which is surprising, sure, but still bad.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >ned
            didn't have a redemption arc
            he died because his character was complete and killing him, like Robert, was necessary to get the ball rolling
            >Rob
            also no redemption arc
            Rob was "punished" because he pursued vengeance and ultimately lacked the maturity and pragmatism the game demanded
            >He implies at the end of the same chapter that arya died
            no he didn't, she had obviously got knocked the frick out by based clegane
            >Jon Snow is actually the heir and oh nevermind he's dead actually
            we still didn't get that revelation in the book
            Jon arc in the 5th book was his internal conflict over his duty to the Watch and his love for the Starks (plus his desires for power and glory)
            if you didn't get this, then you sorely lack in reading comphrension
            he ultimately choose love and for that was going to put the Watch in serious trouble
            also it's heavily foreshadowed by Melissandre that he'll live as Ghost for a while before being ressurected
            >catelyn is an evil zombie now
            a cool addition
            it fitted the darker tone of the 4th book and was a nice ending to Brienne's quest
            before death Catelyn was entirely consumed by grief, death turned that into pure hatred (like

            >The first is:
            That is no proof that he intenionally placed himself in opposition to Tolkien, it's merely his personal opinion on Gandalf's ressurection

            >Couldn't find the full quote but he then starts ranting that in HIS books, characters who are resurrected change and it all cooler and more logical.
            He never ranted nor said that his spin on ressurection is cooler
            He said that he prefers that death and ressurection (in fiction) should be a radically transformative experience for the character
            Hence why Catelyn becomes Stoneheart (a character which was once merciful and, somewhat, fair, becomes hatefilled and cruel), why Berric (once a vain and proud warrior) becomes a humble "champion" of the downtrodden (but gradually at the cost of his sense of self), why Theon symbolically goes from the "The Prince of Winterfell" to the lowly Reek

            >We had enough of good guys against bad guys
            Don't know about that, never heard that one
            But I know this
            >He actually has surprisingly a lot of LoTR ranting,
            is bullshit
            Most of the times the fat man talks about Tolkien is when people directly ask him something in comparasion to the Professor
            The few times he talks about Tolkien of his own volition, he has nothing but good things to say about him
            Ffs he even once said something on the lines of "They keep Heaven, when I die I want to go to Middle Earth"

            >I think that Martin subconsciously tries to subvert Tolkien's world views and it's kind of the main core thing behind his fantasy books.
            So this is all just a wild guess based on contrarian feelings
            Martin writes what he writes because that's what he likes to writes, he doesn't write tolkienesque fantasy because he's unable too - as he both lacks the skill and interest in that thing of writting - and these facts are something he admitted himself in the preface of the Hedge Knight

            anon said, death and ressurection are fundamentally transformative experiences)
            >What happened to jorah mormont?
            What happened is that you clearly haven't read the book and I'm not to going to bother with the rest of your post

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"I'm not talking about redemption"
            >"didn't have a redemption arc"
            Your level of reading comprehension is about what I ought to have expected, honestly. I guess the joke is on me.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What makes the Gandalf resurrection criticism so strange is that most believe that Jon is going to be resurrected. Most believe it will come with a handicap as well, but one could easily say as Martin did about Gandalf "I think it would've been an even stronger story if Martin had left Jon dead"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >>Much as I admire Tolkien, I once again always felt like Gandalf should have stayed dead...His last words are, 'Fly, you fools!' What power that had, how that grabbed me, then, he comes back as Gandalf the White, and, if anything, he's sort of improved... I think it would've been an even stronger story if Tolkien had left him dead

        That's stupid. That's a stupid thing to say. Every time I think he's said the dumbest thing possible he manages to open his mouth and in the brief moment there's not food or a wiener in it he manages to say something even dumber.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not just his detractors, his supporters too
      Everybody has formed this idea based on one or two quotes taken from interviews with moronic journalists, as if these quotes can reasonably be taken as "mission statements" or whatever
      Everybody, that is, except for you and me, anon

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the best way to push yourself up is to try and push down the people who came before you.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    GRRM is actually based and redpilled. His masterplan panned out exactly as he planned it decades ago. First he wrote the most moronic slop filled diarrea, food and le sex descriptions to attract the liberal moths to this lamp and then suddenly before they reach it, he turned the lamp off, leaving the libtarded fantasy geeks seething for an entire childless generation.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >After his interviews and critique of LoTR I feel like Martin has some strange parasocial relationship with Tolkien
    It's called a feeling of inadequacy.

    Here's the thing when comparing their books: Game of Thrones is lauded for being a "realistic" approach to medieval fantasy. Imagine dark ages Europe, when some random warlord gets access to a dragon. What do you think would happen? He'd naturally conquer everyone and burn those opposed to him. It's akin to giving Haitian gangs a nuclear weapon. They'd definitely use it. Them using it would be an inevitability, really. So that aspect of his story is interesting because of that.

    But compare his "realistic" fantasy setting to Tolkien, and what do you immediately notice?

    Tolkien has permanency. What Tolkien wrote, and the legendarium he created, is about the same level as Homer's tales. Tolkien will be read forever. Game of Thrones will fade away in relevance in a few decades. Tolkien wrote a timeless epic. GRRM wrote pulpy entertainment.

    That's the source of his angst.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The worst part is that Asoiaf is not realistic but selectively realistic. I'm not talking about the existence of dragons or magic, I'm talking about things you would find in a medieval setting like how people died (during infancy, childbirth, by infections or falling a horse), the hundreds of members of a house, the marriage between cousins, etc. You can even get more autistic if you start talking about dialects or the size of the seven kingdoms. The only realistic things that grrm takes are the ones that paint a grim picture like rape and atrocities.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >how people died (during infancy, childbirth, by infections or falling a horse), the hundreds of members of a house, the marriage between cousins
        ASOIAF has all of these things. Why do I always get the impression that people that hate on GRRM havent actually read his books

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          because they haven't
          they just drank the contrarian kool-aid

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You can find specific examples (and more in the backstory) but is not close to being as prevalent as a medieval society
          >Everyone dies violently or by intrigues
          >Everyone reaches adulthood (even Marty says that on an interview)
          >Killing 3 people makes the Baratheon and Stark houses disappear when there should be hundreds of relatives or minor houses (there's the Karstarks but it's only 1)
          I like asoiaf for what it is but for all the talk about realism the series is lacking. And it's fine anon, nobody would like to read about how King Chad II died by falling from his horse

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Now go look up what happened to Jaehaerys' children.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Again the key word is prevalent. You had to mention a character from a spin-off to make your point.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's considerably less realistic than advertised, but that's a fault of the marketing (and GRRM's opinion), not the books themselves. I don't think anybody can read the books and think that they're especially realistic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Tolkien has permanency. What Tolkien wrote, and the legendarium he created, is about the same level as Homer's tales
      The only reason Homer is still read today is because it’s seems as “intellectual” to praise the classics. The actual metric books should be based on especially fiction is the amount of enjoyment that is received from what I with the book. Homer would just not be enjoyable to anyone and in my opinion even some literary snob type person would do that Homer is garbage if they didn’t prior to reading know it is considered a “classic.” The classics only are put on that pedestal because of their reputation. The actual material inside the covers though are not good. The way to think about this would be to imagine if a certain classic were released today as a new book with everyone having zero knowledge of that book existing in the past. Would that book be seen highly by literary snobs if they thought some rando wrote it last year in Ohio? Probably not. It’s all just a cycle where you are told that a book is considered a classic and so you go into reading it with the knowledge of how you are “supposed” to think of it. No matter how boring it is that doesn’t matter. You have been told it is a classic and will tell yourself and everyone else how amazing it is.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >would just not be enjoyable to anyone and in my opinion even some literary snob type person would do that Homer is garbage if they didn’t prior to reading know it is considered a “classic"
        I read an admittedly simplified prose translation of the Iliad when I was about 10, and it was the coolest thing I'd ever read. Every time I encountered a name I'd spend a minute or two trying to get the rhythm of it in my head, working out "Agamemnon" until I could say it confidently in a way that sounded like something one man might actually calp another.
        I had no concept if "the classics", and I wasn't trying to appear elite to anyone. I'd read a tiny booklet on Greek mythology and played Zeus: Master of Olympus. I had to convince my mother to buy it for me when I found it at the book shop.
        It's ok that you didn't enjoy it anon. But the rest of us aren't pretending. Hector was the most amazing character I had ever read, and it's nice to know now that medieval poets agreed with my assessment of him. But there's been a long time between now and then, and while I value the notion of reading the classics now because I feel that an understanding if them is vital to developing an understanding of the entire extended family of European and Mediterranean literature, at 10 years old, on a beach holiday, all I cared about was the incredible book I'd convinced my mother to buy.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          People at age ten will like most anything novel. But my point still stands. If we could erase everyone’s knowledge of the odyssey and tell people it was written last years by some fantasy author, it would be seen as not interesting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >People at age ten will like most anything novel
            Are you capable of conceptualising that the minds of others exist or are the man shaped objects around you merely canvases to project upon?
            >If we could erase everyone’s knowledge of the odyssey and tell people it was written last years by some fantasy author, it would be seen as not interesting.
            I suspect I know the answer.
            Give me a novel written last year that reads like the Iliad and I'll make a good reads account to give it 5 stars.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Give me a novel written last year that reads like the Iliad and I'll make a good reads account to give it 5 stars.

            Pretty much this. Whoever wrote that Homer wouldn't be as interesting has never read Homer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >People at age ten will like most anything novel
            Are you capable of conceptualising that the minds of others exist or are the man shaped objects around you merely canvases to project upon?
            >If we could erase everyone’s knowledge of the odyssey and tell people it was written last years by some fantasy author, it would be seen as not interesting.
            I suspect I know the answer.
            Give me a novel written last year that reads like the Iliad and I'll make a good reads account to give it 5 stars.

            Reading about every character who dies in war and having whole chapter detailing the ships sounds pretty boring. And for a thread dedicated to shying on Martin one aspect him being overly detailed on things not needed, I find it odd Homer would be put up so high when he does it far worse.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And here we are, back at the issue of you being unable to crept that other people actually enjoy Homer.
            >And for a thread dedicated to shying on Martin one aspect him being overly detailed on things not needed, I find it odd Homer would be put up so high when he does it far worse.
            The thread is about Martin's relationship (or the one he perceives himself having) with other authors. You're making up a headcanon for the thread to give yourself an opportunity to complain about Homer.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Classics are classics because they set the standard, no? Or at the very least, they are the oldest available, well-known and researched record for that standard. Tolkien's body of work is to fantasy literature what Shakespeare's is to modern theater.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >this guy is OBSESSED with Tolkien
    Says man who read all Gurms interviews starting his 30th thread this month complaining about the fat man.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I like his books I'm just afraid he will try to be "not like the other writers" too much and make canon ending even worse than tv show, especially after the flop of a tv show and his raising hatred towards fans

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >t. 30th time suck(l)ing the fat pink mast

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He's one of the tribe, of course he can't create anything truly new or exceptional. It is their collective cultural destiny to be the Salieris to the gentile Mozarts of their fields, the orbiting dark moons to the blazing suns of true genius.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You can't get more pseud than an allusion to the film Amadeus, which was a complete fabrication of events. First, Salieris was not that bad. Second, it's better to be a Salieris than to never try at all. It's not just genius vs. non-genius.
      I don't particularly care for either Tolkien or GRRM.
      I'd rather read the Kalevala than to waste time with either a pompous Christcuck salty Brit or fat edgelord c**t.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We need a synthesis to Tolkien’s thesis and Martin’s antithesis.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's probably an interesting debate to be had that it already exists. Would you mind defining your terms? What are the big themes that really make them what they are.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Tolkein's thesis
      Completed his magnum opus
      >Martin's antithesis
      Will never complete his magnum opus
      >Rothfuss's synthesis
      Will some day unsatisfactorily complete his magnum opus

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    knowing he was a working writer in the 70s/80s and is on record saying shit like
    >If I were really cynical...I wouldn't write what I'm writing now, these novels. I would start some sort of medieval sword-and-sorcery thing and say it's a trilogy...and then keep writing it for the rest of my life
    I have literally zero respect for him. he LARPed as a fantasy author to take advantage of a trend in the early 90s, with zero intention of ever finishing
    same with him lying about taking a confirmation second middle name despite being an atheist, just so he can pretend to be in the same league as Tolkien

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >claim your books are not silly stories about good guys killing bad orcs like T*lkien's because "real life ain't like that"
    >by book 2 all your characters neatly fall in into Good Guy or Bad Guy category
    lol

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This post was made by someone who watched the show and never read the books

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All of the people who make these threads:
    Have not read Martin's books (which are bad because his prose is shit and he's a pervert, not because of "muh moral relativism" which isn't in his books, he clearly has morality)
    Have not seen the interviews they're mad about because in them Martin very obviously loves Tolkien more than any other writer
    Have not read any actually great literature because if they had they wouldn't still be obsessed with Tolkien
    Have not even read Tolkien, the parasocial relationship they have with "western culture" that they've never interacted with beyond wiki articles and youtube vids is more disturbingly degenerate than any number of passages about a teenage girl squatting at sunset, not only do they not love any art, they don't even know what love is any more

    Tolkien is not a great writer, Martin's writing is shit but he isn't le subversive postmodernist

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >western culture in scare quotes
      good goy

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I love western culture, but western culture is not genre fiction written in the latter half of the 20th century, also tolkien was a defender of ~~*them*~~. I mock the idea that western culture is a bunch of pop art nerd mediocrity and not something truly beautiful.
        It's especially shocking (and telling of the fact that they don't read any books) that these homosexuals mention Tolkien more than they do Chesterton, whose books are older, shorter, better written, and more relevant to today

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          could you recommend me some books that capture the beauty of western culture? or other works?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I see it like with language. We can write in klingon, or Spanish, or Esperanto, or create a whole new language like Tolkien did, or we can accept that English is the lingua franca of our age. We can debate the merits of Tolkien til the sun goes down, but the reason people are pissed at Martin is that inadvertently or not he tried to unseat him as being the "king" of fantasy. Both leave an awful lot to be desired, but ask yourself who you would rather set the standard?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Most people who criticize martin for being a moral nihilist or that he wants to subvert Tolkien or even that he wants to prove that Tolkien’s ideals were wrong either didn’t read the books like you said, or have a very childish view of what fiction can be. For those who haven’t read the books they have latched on tot the memes about Martin criticizing tolkien. And this who have read them but still say he’s a moral nihilist stroke me as part of this new reactionary right wing. Everything has to be where there are clear good guys and bad guys. And the good guys have to be european. And any criticism of historical Europe is heresy to them.

      Martin clearly has a moral view that is objective like you said. Ned stark was one. People criticize Martin for making his good character stupid and that they always lose, but they miss the point of the series. Martin made a world where being good does not necessarily lead to reward or success. It is a very harsh world where the bad guys can take advantage of good and noble characters, just like in the real world, unless you think the people who run the world are good and noble. Martins world is where to be good requires sacrifice. That there is conflict to be good or not. Becuase if it is a world where good always wins and you are always rewarded for being good, why would anyone be bad?

      That is one thing that differentiates itself well from Tolkien’s world. In middle earth the good guys are backed up by the Valar and illuvatar. The Valar intervene to stop morgoth in the war of wrath to save the elves and men. And Illuvatar even intervenes. Why in middle earth would any rational person decide to join the side of mellow and Sharon when illuvatar is a known entity in the world? Middle earth is a world where it is known that good will be rewarded and evil will be punished. So an evil but rational person in middle earth will be good. Because if he cares about his own interest he will choose good because he wants to avoid punishment. Only an evil but stupid person in middl earth will be evil because he can’t see that him acting so will ultimately lead to punishment.

      In contrast margins world is one where an evil and smart person will choose to be evil. As there is no known punishment for being evil, and being evil can lead to rewards as such a person will be willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want. They will not self limit their actions to obtain their desires. And Europe Greyjoy is one such person who is evil and believes gods and morality are fake. He chooses to be evil because he sees nothing that will punish him and he sees that being evil is strategically smart to get what he wants. This is why when a character is good in asoiaf, it is all the more meaningful.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        well tbf, in Tolkien's world, evil characters a lot of the time dont really know about illuvitar i think, and they receive rewards that convince them to be evil.
        Sauron and Morgoth are evil because they're selfish or controlling and Morgoth believes he can defeat the Valar, while his apprentice believes the Valar don't care about Middle-Earth anymore so he can do whatever he likes

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Melkor would have to be delusional. He knows illuvatar exists and he only gets weaker as the first age goes on. He would have to think it is worth it to possibly be the kind of arda even if it means once the time of arda ends that he will be cast out into the void forever or destroyed by illuvatar. Sauron is even more delusional in that he is a lower class of spirit than melkor and the Valar. And in the second age illuvatar destroys numenor. He is the trope of the naive evil villain. Personally I think the silmarillion ruins a lot of the mystique of lotr. All the stakes are ruined. Nothing sauron does is really any threat. The good guys if they wanted could destroy sauron but they just don’t feel like it. The concept of the Valar wanting the elves and men to handle things on their own makes the story essentially one like a parent letting their child solve things but the parent is right there to stop anything from going wrong. And that actually happens as Tolkien apparently wrote in a letter that illuvatar tripped Gollum. Thankfully you can head canon it to at Gollum was cursed by the ring for breaking his oath to Frodo he swore on the ring. And that was what caused his doom.

          Anyone who dismisses the argument that the stakes are ruined because Tulkas could on his own walk up to Barad dur and crush sauron, are simply jsut incomprehensible to me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Thankfully you can head canon it to at Gollum was cursed by the ring for breaking his oath to Frodo he swore on the ring. And that was what caused his doom.
            Frodo takes the ring in hand and curses gollum to be cast in to mount doom if he should ever try to take it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Anyone who dismisses the argument that the stakes are ruined because Tulkas could on his own walk up to Barad dur and crush sauron, are simply jsut incomprehensible to me.
            Tolkien was a Catholic. He believes that God allows evil. It would be weird for him to do it any other way

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Im unsure how well it works in literary fantasy fashion. Even if it is the case I don’t think it adds anything to state outright how pathetic the antagonist is compared to the good guys who allow him to exist

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I think you fundamentally do not understand how evil works in Tolkien's world. The source of all evil is the discord that Melkor, the most powerful of the Valar, had woven into the fabric of the world during the song of creation, and he continued to challenge, destroy and manipulate everything the other Valar ever created. Evil in Tolkien's world is very much a corrupting force, one so powerful that even an Istari like Saruman or an Ainur like Sauron can be bent and reshaped by it. There is much less of a choice involved than you seem to insinuate.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      its just /misc/tards that see Tolkien as the heckin based traditional christian white man from the good old days and Martin as the cucked libtard atheist so they immeadiately feel the need to talk shit about one and sing high praises about the other while pretending Martin hates Tolkien

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >cucked libtard

        Yes. George is probably one of the biggest shitlibs out there. One look at his blog will confirm that.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          George write a book about an evil rich liberal who was an ex hippie who tried to use satanic occult magic to destroy america to get revenge that america betrayed the ideals of the 60s

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Have not read any actually great literature because if they had they wouldn't still be obsessed with Tolkien
      Please do tell about this great literature which Tolkien can't even compare to

      https://i.imgur.com/xqOQeep.jpg

      > Language is hard. This was maybe my answer to Martin, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. A Song of Ice and Fire had a very modern philosophy: that if the king was a good man, he would get his dick chopped off. We look at history and it’s not that simple. Martin can say that Bran became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Martin doesn’t ask the question: How was High Valyrian conjugated? Does the pluperfect tense of Bravosi derive from the suffix? How did dragons understand the verb “dracarys”? And what about all those lost Westerosi languages? By the end of the war, the Night King is gone but all of the autists aren’t gone – they’re in the Godswood, watching beautiful sisters be beautifully raped. Did Bran pursue a policy of monolingualism and kill all other languages? Even the little baby dialects in their little dialect regions?

      you got an honest out of me
      well done anon

      >would just not be enjoyable to anyone and in my opinion even some literary snob type person would do that Homer is garbage if they didn’t prior to reading know it is considered a “classic"
      I read an admittedly simplified prose translation of the Iliad when I was about 10, and it was the coolest thing I'd ever read. Every time I encountered a name I'd spend a minute or two trying to get the rhythm of it in my head, working out "Agamemnon" until I could say it confidently in a way that sounded like something one man might actually calp another.
      I had no concept if "the classics", and I wasn't trying to appear elite to anyone. I'd read a tiny booklet on Greek mythology and played Zeus: Master of Olympus. I had to convince my mother to buy it for me when I found it at the book shop.
      It's ok that you didn't enjoy it anon. But the rest of us aren't pretending. Hector was the most amazing character I had ever read, and it's nice to know now that medieval poets agreed with my assessment of him. But there's been a long time between now and then, and while I value the notion of reading the classics now because I feel that an understanding if them is vital to developing an understanding of the entire extended family of European and Mediterranean literature, at 10 years old, on a beach holiday, all I cared about was the incredible book I'd convinced my mother to buy.

      The anon makes a good point
      Alot of works we today deem as "Classics of the Western Canon", are such because over time their popularity grew to enormous porpotions and said work got reframed as high art

      Take Shakespeare. I like Shakespeare, but today the general perceive that even in his own time he was already seen as an elite writer for the intelectually gifted
      Nope. Most on his play's profits came from the small folk that came in droves to see his plays. They were literally the soap operas of the time. The reason MacBeth (widely considered one of his best works) immedeatly starts with "action" and has "occult" elements in the story, is because MacBeth was meant to grab the audience as soon as possible and for as long as possible. It was a crowd pleaser. The popcorn flick of his theater. Duels, intrigue, magic, a hero, a villain, tragedy - literally the Game of Thrones of the times.
      It was enjoyed so much, for so long, that now it has ascended to a holy cow status.

      How about we try anon exercise of taking a book from the canon, and wondering how it would fare today?
      How abot the Divine Comedy. The medieval masterpiece. The most famous part of the work being Inferno (which I personally think it's the weakest). Why did it made such an impact back then? Mainly because of the dread the vivid and horryfying imagery of hell instilled in the exceedingly religious culture.
      What if it had been released today?
      Imho, the most likely outcome is it would be lambasted, ridiculed and ultimately discarded as the fanfiction schizo ramblings of a very resentful, fanatic wretch

      You can even see this with LotR and Tolkien's Legendarium overall
      50 years ago, most literary critics and scholars held the same opinion as this

      I love western culture, but western culture is not genre fiction written in the latter half of the 20th century, also tolkien was a defender of ~~*them*~~. I mock the idea that western culture is a bunch of pop art nerd mediocrity and not something truly beautiful.
      It's especially shocking (and telling of the fact that they don't read any books) that these homosexuals mention Tolkien more than they do Chesterton, whose books are older, shorter, better written, and more relevant to today

      anon, that Tolkien is at worst mediocre and at best decent
      That despite it's popularity with nerds, it would never be part of the greats of the Western Canon
      Come Tolkien's death and the opionions started to go the reverse way. Come the greater exposition of the movie triology and now the books are the premier work of English literature of the 20th century, worldwide
      I'm guessing in 50 years time, the Legendarium will be an adition to the Western Canon beyond reproach and people that would even dare to call it mediocre, will be seen as illiterate plebs

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm guessing in 50 years time, the Legendarium will be an adition to the Western Canon beyond reproach and people that would even dare to call it mediocre, will be seen as illiterate plebs
        lol that kind of already happens nowadays

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Speaking as an appreciator of his work, tolkien manages to be overrated by fantasy fans and underrated by his critics.
        Strawman enthusiasts pretend that he wrote an allegory despite disliking them for the sake of criticising him, revealing that the don't understand the concepts they are discussing.
        Fanboys act as though he invented the fantasy genre, revealing that they simply don't care to explore the literary history of the genre they claim to love.
        Haters qre always looking to detract from his work by pointing to things they insist he "stole" from like Norse mythology, without ever noting the clear and deliberate line straight from old and middle english literary traditions that he taught and published on as a professor.
        Fanboys pretend everything he did was purely original inspiration, buying completely in to the romantic myth of the artist, instead of personal reconfigurings of existing traditions, his own world view and experience, and his original creativity that he would have happily admitted to.
        Smug idiots pretend the work is simplistic without ever acknowledging its nature as a postmodern novel where the author takes on the voices of multiple authors being collated in to a single text.
        Blind fanboys don't bother interrogating the structure of the book at all and take it all at face value, denying themselves the complexity it contains for the sake of not being like the literature snobs they dislike, pretending it is an epic instead of novel.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the author takes on the voices of multiple authors being collated in to a single text.
          I see picrel, but is this ever evident in the novel itself?
          >Blind fanboys don't bother interrogating the structure of the book
          What would one find if one did?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I see picrel, but is this ever evident in the novel itself?
            There is are tonal elements present in the early part of the, up until the fellowship leaves rivendell, that are not present later. There is a generally more whimsical tine from the narrator, a good example being the bit about what would the fox think. It matches the tone of the hobbit more, because it, like the hobbit, is the part of the text written by Bilbo. Lots of people draw attention to the tonal shift psot rivendell and assume it was an accident, but the stuff tolkien wrote abiut the manuscript history explains it. The battle of pelennor fields is another example, the text keeps being interspersed with weird flash forwards that contain historical details about gondor and rohan thst the hobbits wouldn't know or particularly care about, but read like they were just added in to the middle of an existing historical text, probably because they were, by findagil or some other later human: like when it is describing men bearing away the body of theoden, the narrative suddenly switches to describing how they buried theoden's horse, and how grass never again grew on the spot where they burned the dead beast, before jarringly snapping back to describing merry exactly as it had been doing a couple paragraphs before. It does it again at the end of the chapter to introject a long poem.
            Then there's bits in the text where it will go from describing how awful the situation is or something, then two sentences about how great frodo sort of apropos of nothing, and then back. It reads as though Sam, who inherited the text that frodo and Bilbo had written, added in some stuff to make emphasise frodo's heroism.
            Actually the fact that the lord of the rings is written within the frame of being a historical text that revised kept adding to might explain a lot of the poetry and weird asides that people dislike about it, but if you read it after paying attention to the introductory material that forms the frame narrative the sudden shifts and interjections seem far more coherent.
            >What would one find if one did?
            It's a fake meta text. Like the iron heel, if you've ever read that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Intredasting. Will have to reread with this in mind.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      /pol/tards are seething at this post lmao

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > it's actually the white me... I mean northerners, who were wrong all along!
        why do /misc/tards even read books and then make up their own /misc/tard takes and theories?

        why do you hate poltards so much

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What’s there to love? They’re cancer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            any coherent statements? or is it just feelings?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but you asked why the hate, hate is a feeling so it's an appropiate response.
            Thanks for coming to my ted talk goodbye

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I asked the reasons of a feeling and not giving any reasons is appropriate response because hate is a feeling? What?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you a /misc/tard? Be honest

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So you just came to thread, started to reply to every post you don't like "you are a stinky /misc/tard" and now when asked why do you do this you reply with "you are /misc/tard as well!"? Fricking moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like I hit a nerve.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How? You can't answer basic question and you use strawman funny image to prove your point

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I answered your silly question already. You’re somehow upset.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I answered your silly question already. You’re somehow upset.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >thanks for coming to my Ted talk.

            homosexual

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You absolutely spot on OP and I find it hilarious, thanks bud

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > Language is hard. This was maybe my answer to Martin, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. A Song of Ice and Fire had a very modern philosophy: that if the king was a good man, he would get his dick chopped off. We look at history and it’s not that simple. Martin can say that Bran became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Martin doesn’t ask the question: How was High Valyrian conjugated? Does the pluperfect tense of Bravosi derive from the suffix? How did dragons understand the verb “dracarys”? And what about all those lost Westerosi languages? By the end of the war, the Night King is gone but all of the autists aren’t gone – they’re in the Godswood, watching beautiful sisters be beautifully raped. Did Bran pursue a policy of monolingualism and kill all other languages? Even the little baby dialects in their little dialect regions?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it's
      >whom
      for me
      bravo

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Man, it's just personal opinion. I also have my personal opinion about LOTR, but I don't have a loud enough voice to be heard.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I find this tendency among modern writers really annoying that they think older writers used absolute morality because they never thought about things being le grey n sheit rather than them using absolute morality because it is what they actually had in mind for their stories.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >now it seems like 99% there gonna be a plot line where Jon Snow talks with white walkers
    lol there's not gonna be any more plot lines
    his ultimate subversion of tolkien will be leaving the series unfinished

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >secular atheist nice israeli fat boy son of a longshoreman draft dodging Baby Boomer Hollywood screenwriter

    His gimmick is profanation-- obviously he will be at loggerheads with a brilliant academic making a prose epic for Northern/Western Europe from the perspective of a WWI trench fighter and dyed in the wool Catholic.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Martin discovering he has israeli ancestry he never knew about is proof subversion is genetic.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like GRRM and Tolkien, but I really have a soft spot for Erikson. The Chain of Dogs was one of the only times a fantasy novel has made me cry, and the fact the dude has a Masters (or was it PH.d?) in archeology really helps with all of his worldbuilding being relevant. I need to finish the series, though, as I'm only up to book seven. The thing is, most of these authors aren't even competing with each other. They all have good things to say about each other's works.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The thing is, most of these authors aren't even competing with each other. They all have good things to say about each other's works.
      Yup, most of these pissing matches and flame wars are entirely the creation of obessive fandoms and culture war bullshit of the terminally online

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When GRRM answered a fan question about Jamie vs Aragorn at a book signing event(?) and said that Jamie would win if he had armor — was that actually wrong? Of course you could imagine everyone soi-raging over a wrong opinion (ie how dare you say Tolkien loses to something ever) but I thought about it and don’t think it’s wrong automatically. The books make it clear that Jamie is a phenom of the sword and truly exceptional and all but unmatched. Aragorn was certainly strong but I don’t recall him being described as a stand-out, head-and-shoulders above his peers master of the sword. Yes he has superhuman blood but it’s very diluted in him and he’s still a Man, it just on the tall and long-lived side with an aura of charisma / greatness. Why is it so absurd that Jamie would be inferior in battle?

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Another salty Tolkien gay. It’s so pathetic how you got filtered by Martin, his fiction and his opinion which isn’t even that wild. You are a fricking moron and that’s the truth. You have no room for nuance in that peanut head of yours and probably operate only on archaic conceptions of the world.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm an industry insider and I predict a winds of winter release late into 2025

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >an author who wrote fantasy stories about beauty, love, poetry, wisdom and who works have a heavy philosophical basis in the author’s Christian religion is completely misunderstood by a pornographer who writes cheap smut
    >”Hurr how come Tolkien never gave his characters diarrhea or a venereal disease? How come Galadriel never had an extramarital affair and cheated on Celeborn before stabbing him while he was on the shitter? Why is good always portrayed as good and not as evil?”
    Frick off you fat perverted degenerate frickwad.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Its always amazing how people miss the point that ASoIaF isn't George's view on life, but the theme he chose for his most popular series.

    Trying to paint him as a pessimist or opposed to heroic characters not only shows you haven't read the books (Brienne is unambiguously heroic), but is totally refuted by the existence of the Hedge Knight books.

    The standards applied in this thread would have people shitting on arthurian stories for being 'modern degenerate writing' or whatever.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the theme he chose for his most popular series
      which in your opinion is what?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A Lannister always pays his debts

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Brienne is unambiguously heroic
      Of course the feminist girlboss. Quite convenient.
      >Arthur stories
      Where explicitely moral, of explicit religion, with christianity centered on traditional heroism (feminism is neither heroic nor traditional of course). What is not moral in these stories are clearly condemned in unambiguous morality that often makes for a spiritual and moral progress of the heroes,...
      And by the way the societies have changed, it's not religious and clerics writing the stories and the society now rejoice in the grr martin's deconstructivism
      Of which your post partake

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What would be the reason why Brienne is not a good character for a hero?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's not about her being good or bad character. Martin is not "pessimist" he's postmodernist and the only thing he can do is deconstruct. You took Brienne as an example of Martin having a sincere honorable good character, but it's a bad example because her whole existence is being a tool of subversion. She's only allowed to be strong, big and morally one-sided good because she's a female character(and also not conventionally attractive, so it's literally a bingo). In case of characters like her the whole "deconstruction" aspect is just her being a woman who behaves like men

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What is a pay modernist. I look for a definition but the best I usually get is
            >that which is post modern
            Or
            >that which came after modernism.

            Anyway typical heroes that would be traditional i style I’d say are Jon, Duncan the tall if he counts, barriston. Guess that’s it I can think of.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > Where explicitely moral, of explicit religion, with christianity centered on traditional heroism (feminism is neither heroic nor traditional of course). What is not moral in these stories are clearly condemned in unambiguous morality that often makes for a spiritual and moral progress of the heroes,...
        She’s obviously inspired by Jean of Arc, a literal Catholic saint.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Brienne
        >Feminist girlboss
        For a character to be a girlboss, they actually have to be smug c**ts. Brienne is on the other side of that spectrum. She's filled with self-doubt but is otherwise obsessively virtuous. Another trait of a girlboss is that they are strong, independent women who don't need men. Brienne is a broken woman who was obsessively simping for a gay man. She's obsessed with romance with these pretty boys she can't have. Then she replaced Renly with a literal sister fricker as the object of her desire.

        If Brienne were just a deconstruction, she wouldn't get her ass kicked constantly and wouldn't be fawning over a man who was completely disinterested in her.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I think brienne would have been a better character if she had been depowered a bit. In the show it’s crazy how they make her unstoppable. She’s so annoying. In the books it’s not nearly as bad. But still I find myself is disbelief at how she can perform such feats of martial prowess like winning the grand melee. If she were less capable in a believable way instead of being essentially one tier below the greats like Jaime, Sandor, Gregor, and barriston, I think her character would be better. But I just have a real hard time believing that she could actually be such a great fighter. I know it’s fantasy but it’s just hard to believe as she is supposed to be a normal human woman and not like a half giant or something. Same thing with that one northern woman whose family I can’t remember. She is also supposed to be one of the greatest warriors of the north. Is it really believable for a woman to be at that level when they are on average much less strong than men? I don’t know. It just seems like a stretch unless someone can give me a reason to believe otherwise. But I do agree that the way Martin made his female warriors is certainly not in a sjw feminist way.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Is it really believable for a woman to be at that level when they are on average much less strong than men?
            You homosexuals never question Tolkien making legendary heroes put out of little pixies but a secondary character who’s a tall woman triggers your suspension of disbelief all of a sudden.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What are you talking about?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's odd she can beat the Hound in the show but they also humiliate her several times like when Arya blocked Brienne swinging her Valyrian steel sword at full force with a rapier. The show is wildly inconsistent. In the books Brienne could barely fight Jaime to a draw after he had been starved and bound in a dungeon for months and had his hands tied. Also, she later got her shit kicked in by Biter.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Arya is canonically the best fighter in Westeros at the end of the show. That wasn’t to humiliate brienne but to show that Arya is that good

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >What is not moral in these stories are clearly condemned in unambiguous morality
        Sir Tristan and Iseult etc

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, you are trying to argue with immature people that can't stand a work isn't pushing their specific view on how the world should be, and that are desperate to be seen as intellectuals
      don't waste your time

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    GRRM ripped of Frank Herbert anyway, so he has no right to be uppity about his books.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > it's actually the white me... I mean northerners, who were wrong all along!
    why do /misc/tards even read books and then make up their own /misc/tard takes and theories?

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is the supposedly the “smartest board” yet people use basic b***h terms like “girlboss” (misused btw). Why do you homosexuals even read?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *