3 ms·

> is magnificently inspired and novel writing I like the stories, but personally, I do not see much talent in Martin's writing, and I certainly don't think his

> is magnificently inspired and novel writing I like the stories, but personally, I do not see much talent in Martin's writing, and I certainly don't think his writing style is "novel." Not at all unlike Stephen King, George R.R. Martin writes to the lowest common denominator, likely intentionally, to have a wider audience, to more efficiently make a buck. It would be laughably absurd to compare the quality Martin's work with that of, say, James Joyce, Albert Camus or Shakespeare. I don't quite understand those that appreciate the work of modern authors like J.K. Rowling and insist they are great writers. They're not great, they're just popular, and they're popular because anyone with a 4th grade education can enjoy and consume them. I hope I don't come off as snobbish. But we won't know who is a good writer today until we have the perspective of time, which we likely won't live long enough to observe. Although, when Camus was writing, contemporaries knew how good his work was, and this transcended translation from French, and it could not be ignored. The same is true of Joyce. Great writing is not easy to read, necessarily, it is has a certain density, and no matter how many times it is repeatedly returned to, it never fails to lose it's sparkle, to reveal more with the same prose. You can't say that about Martin or King or Rowling. Again, I like Martin's creation, but I am not deluded into believing his writing is novel or compares to any of the Great Works by the Great Authors.

Maursault 5y ago
I'm getting downvoted, so I wanted to give a couple examples of very very good and novel writing to prove that Martin is a hack, in regards to his technical skill at writing. > All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it. Is it unfair to compare Martin to Melville? Yes. They're quite in different worlds of ability. > The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there—there you could look at a thing monstrous and free. It was unearthly, and the men were—No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it—this suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity—like yours—the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response to the terrible frankness of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you—you so remote from the night of first ages—could comprehend. Martin can not even begin to approach Conrad. There is such notable depth here, as well as the discernible craft of a master of words, and you will find these in nearly every phrase within Heart of Darkness, and in none of, say, A Song of Fire and Ice. I'm going to double down. Martin is not a good writer, period. There is no quotation anyone is able to pull from his library and say, "wow, that is an excellent piece of writing." It can't be done, but I'd like to see someone try.

Maursault 5y ago

I'm getting downvoted, so I wanted to give a couple examples of very very good and novel writing to prove that Martin is a hack, in regards to his technical skill at writing. > All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it. Is it unfair to compare Martin to Melville? Yes. They're quite in different worlds of ability. > The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there—there you could look at a thing monstrous and free. It was unearthly, and the men were—No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it—this suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity—like yours—the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response to the terrible frankness of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you—you so remote from the night of first ages—could comprehend. Martin can not even begin to approach Conrad. There is such notable depth here, as well as the discernible craft of a master of words, and you will find these in nearly every phrase within Heart of Darkness, and in none of, say, A Song of Fire and Ice. I'm going to double down. Martin is not a good writer, period. There is no quotation anyone is able to pull from his library and say, "wow, that is an excellent piece of writing." It can't be done, but I'd like to see someone try.