George R.R. Martin novel news

[Berandor]

FMy sensitivities are no lower. They are different. And I didn't lose interest in the books because of the sexual scene's gratuitously planted in every chapter, even those of the 10 year old. It was however one of the things that contributed to my feeling "done" with the books once I finished the trilogy. I'd say you need a refresher on public discussion if the only way to defend the novel is to call people's sensitivities "lower".
Heck, especially given that if I WAS more senstitive, it'd be higher, or something!

SPOILERS TO FOLLOW

Now, if we're talking about a good discussion, then I would suggest you abstain from using hyperbole as well. You may have felt as if every chapter was full of gratitious sex scenes, but even with generous counting, that is not nearly true.
Almost all the chapters of the Nightwatch that are not set beyond the wall have no sex in them. I say almost even though I can't remember a specific instant, because maybe there was one.
Almost all of Arya's chapters have no sex in them, even when you have a very low threshold to calling a situation sexual.
A lot of Catelyn's chapters don't have sex. Davos, as well. Sansa's early chapters have no reference to it, and later it's more her fear of being raped - she doesn't even sleep with her husband on their wedding night.

The fact that you attribute every chapter with sexual scenes is simply a personal feeling that is not substantiated by facts.

I grant you that some scenes were very explicit, but every sexual scene I can remember furthered the plot or my understanding of the characters and the world. It is a harsh world, and therefore the sex scenes are equally harsh at times. I realize that such a world and tone is not for everyone. You don't like it, alright. But you go around stating facts and exaggerations and then attack people for not leading a reasonable discussion.

If you were interested, we could talk about specific scenes and why I felt they were not gratitious and you felt they were. But since you express no further interest in the books, I don't know whether it would be helpful. The Song of Ice and Fire didn't meet your expectations and preferences, that's fine as is.

I do wonder, though, why nobody feels there's too much violence in the books, especially since a lot more people are killed than get laid, and there are some gruesome descirptions there, as well.

 

[Endur]

I'm willing to bet that the original DragonLance trilogy by Weis and Hickman will be read 100 years from now.

Don't forget -- the original trilogy was hugely popular, so popular it spawned a whole shelf in most bookstores.

D&D novels before the Dragonlance chronicles were few and far between.

It's the total garbage (imo) of most D&D fiction that is the result of it all coming down to whether choices add more sales than they subtract. I know which series will still be read 100 years from now, and it sure isn't Hickman.

 

[Rhialto]

Man, if there were any way to collect on that bet, I'd take it...

 

[takyris]

Ditto. I read it and liked it as a kid, but even then, I wasn't confusing it with a great work of art or a life-changing piece of entertainment.

If it resonated very deeply with you on a personal level, that's great, but it doesn't have the literary merit to be preserved by the critical-studies folks, and it doesn't have wide enough appeal to still be read and loved 100 years from now.

(My assumption, for those wishing to attack it, is that a book could still be widely read after 100 years for two reasons: either it has such literary merit or fills a particular niche in such a way that a bunch of schools start assigning it as a classic (either a simple "this is really good" classic or a "this is an excellent way of seeing how people felt about sin/women/monarchies/the nature of text in this time period"... or it is such a massive popular success that it still maintains some popularity in the later time. There aren't many of the latter. I loved reading Pride & Prejudice and several of the Shakespeare plays, and I did so on my own, but I doubt I'd have done so without having a school tell me to read 'em in the first place. The works of Poe might still be considered popular enough that people who read one Poe story in school might hunt for others on their own.

Beyond those, I can't think offhand of anything being widely read as popular fiction and not a school assignment today that was written 100 years ago. That leaves only the "works assigned in lots of colleges or universities because of the literary merit of the story", and as I said, I liked the original Chronicles, but I don't think many people in a position to judge seriously are going to argue that the Dragonlance Chronicles should be stuck next to Gawain and the Green Knight or La Morte D'Arthur or Beowulf or The Tempest as a literary powerhouse in the annals of fantasy. I can see the occasional university picking up the Chronicles and assigning it near the end of the semester, after the students have read the old literary classics and then Tolkien, as kind of a "And here's an iconic example of what it looks like today" thing -- but only as an afterthought in a class already devoted to reading fantasy, and probably not when there are works with stronger literary prowess that could be put in the same place.

While my enjoyment for these books was about equal to my enjoyment of the Chronicles, I'd expect to see Mieville or Bujold or Gaiman taught in a fantasy-lit class before Weiss & Hickman. That says more about lit classes than it does about the books in question, but that's been my experience. When I took a course on Science Fiction literature, we read Neuromancer and Blade Runner (and some Stanislaw Lem and Cordwainer Smith and other people I'd never have known about beforehand); we didn't read Star Trek novelizations.

And as I said, without the college-lit angle, that only leaves sheer popularity and possible book-club "You and all your friends should get together and read this book and discuss it!" stuff, and I don't see that happening, either. It just isn't that widely read beyond the gamer field.)

 

[Starman]

C.S. Lewis got there first and his books are often in the same section of the bookstore.

It's not as if it has never happened before. Do you think that anyone would really confuse the two?

Starman

 

[Vocenoctum]

I all comes down to what the author wants to depict, not what affects sales.

Sales are a good indication of what the fan's like though, nay? It's pointless as there's no way to say how they would have sold any other way.

It's the total garbage (imo) of most D&D fiction that is the result of it all coming down to whether choices add more sales than they subtract. I know which series will still be read 100 years from now, and it sure isn't Hickman.

There's no way to know, but I'm still not sure why folks think Martin's works are so lauded. Aside from this message board I hadn't heard of him. They don't get special placing in the bookstores or anything. If the measure of success is that they are lauded by college lit professors, then I use a different measure.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...I'm still not sure why folks think Martin's works are so lauded. Aside from this message board I hadn't heard of him. They don't get special placing in the bookstores or anything. If the measure of success is that they are lauded by college lit professors, then I use a different measure.

I'm almost certain you do. I place almost no value on what the lowest common denominator finds value in. MacDonalds, Celine Dion, and Danielle Steele novels hold no cachet with me despite the overwhelming support of the masses.

And the hell of it is...I don't think of my tastes as being particularly refined.

I just don't think saying "It sells very well" should be the silver bullet when discussing quality. Ussually if somehting sells well it's because it's the most simply executed and because it requires the least effort from the consumer.

 

[Vocenoctum]

SPOILERS TO FOLLOW

Now, if we're talking about a good discussion, then I would suggest you abstain from using hyperbole as well. You may have felt as if every chapter was full of gratitious sex scenes, but even with generous counting, that is not nearly true.

It's not totally true, you got me there. But "gratuitous sex scene" is different than what I'm talking about. The content of the scene's may not be gratuitous in and of themselves, but their overuse was gratuitous.

Almost all of Arya's chapters have no sex in them, even when you have a very low threshold to calling a situation sexual.

It's been a while, but while she was captured, I remember a rape scene here and there.

The fact that you attribute every chapter with sexual scenes is simply a personal feeling that is not substantiated by facts.

No, it's simply a misstatement by myself. I know not every chapter has sex in it, but at the same time, you're neglecting quite a few scene's that contained sexual content that were not central to that scene.

I grant you that some scenes were very explicit, but every sexual scene I can remember furthered the plot or my understanding of the characters and the world. It is a harsh world, and therefore the sex scenes are equally harsh at times. I realize that such a world and tone is not for everyone. You don't like it, alright. But you go around stating facts and exaggerations and then attack people for not leading a reasonable discussion.

Perhaps you missed it, but my comment was directed towards being told I have lower sensitivities. You seem to attribute the comments from that post to every other post I've made in the thread.

If you were interested, we could talk about specific scenes and why I felt they were not gratitious and you felt they were. But since you express no further interest in the books, I don't know whether it would be helpful. The Song of Ice and Fire didn't meet your expectations and preferences, that's fine as is.

We couldn't, simply because I don't have the books anymore, and it's been a while since I read them. In many ways, it's window dressing I think, most people probably glossed over the little details that bugged me, so unless one or both of us did a careful rereading, it's pretty pointless as a discussion, nay?

A word about expectations though. I had none, I pretty much picked up the first novel at random, because it was big. I enjoyed it enough to buy the next two novels. All the little details just culminated in a feeling I didn't care to read the rest. Besides, like I said, given the timeframe involved, I doubt I'd have remained loyal even had a liked them.

I do wonder, though, why nobody feels there's too much violence in the books, especially since a lot more people are killed than get laid, and there are some gruesome descirptions there, as well.

Because I live in America, and sell guns! I'm totally desensitized to violence!
Actually, the violence is to be expected a book such as this, and a lot of the gory details were fairly glossed over. Catelyn's throat cutting may have been excessive perhaps, but by then I truely hated Catelyn's chapters and nearly cheered when I thought they were over.

Really, the sex stuff was maybe 5-10% of why I disliked the books at the end. More had to do with the lack of achievements/landmarks for a lot of the characters, who it seemed wandered back and forth at times. There were other things too, but I've been in these discussions before, and it never goes anywhere.

 

[Endur]

Well, that's kind of what folks said about Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. They even wanted to take his professorship away from him because they felt they were below his position.

If it resonated very deeply with you on a personal level, that's great, but it doesn't have the literary merit to be preserved by the critical-studies folks, and it doesn't have wide enough appeal to still be read and loved 100 years from now.

Its really hard to say whats going to have appeal 100 years later.

If you were to roll the clock back to the first decade after they were written, would you expect Sherlock Holmes, Conan, Doc Savage, Lord of the Rings, or the Chronicles of Narnia to still be popular even 50 years later, let alone 100 years?

 

[Vocenoctum]

I'm almost certain you do. I place almost no value on what the lowest common denominator finds value in. MacDonalds, Celine Dion, and Danielle Steele novels hold no cachet with me despite the overwhelming support of the masses.

And the hell of it is...I don't think of my tastes as being particularly refined.

I just don't think saying "It sells very well" should be the silver bullet when discussing quality. Ussually if somehting sells well it's because it's the most simply executed and because it requires the least effort from the consumer.

I tend to find that most college lit material is more geared towards making things match their preconceptions of what good literature is. When something that is nearly unreadable is lauded for being a great piece of literature, because it's written by someone taught on that method, it doesn't really make it a good piece IMO.

I don't think dismissing the catagory out of hand is right either, though. I just mean it's only one method of figuring the worth of a book. Sales alone aren't really the best method, given that you need to BUY the book before you can read it.

(Like the NY Times Bestseller Lists. They have quite a few catagories, and I'm sure the book companies stagger releases to get Top Ten by virtue of not much else to choose from that week.

So, if in 100 years, Song of Ice & Fire is held in high regard in college circles, it doesn't make it a good book, any more than it makes it a bad book. If Dragonlance Chronicles is only popular by virtue of being a great selling book in 100 years, that doesn't mean it's garbage.

And, no one tell the DM I'm here typing this while I'm supposed to be paying attention!