3 ms·

I think you're using the term, masterpiece, too loosely. Martin's works are novels filled with stories, but there are not many interpretations of what he is des

I think you're using the term, masterpiece, too loosely. Martin's works are novels filled with stories, but there are not many interpretations of what he is describing. There are not layers upon layers of meaning, but instead, it simply is what it is, and there is little to no argument about what his words mean. J.R.R. Tolkien is a favorite of mine, but I would not talk about his writing skill, and what is fascinating about Tolkien has nothing to do with is writing but the world he created. I think Martin has similarities in this regard. But The Lord of the Rings has many interpretations. A Song of Fire and Ice, not so much. The Renaissance frescoes by Michelangelo at the Sistine Chapel is a masterpiece, no one would rationally disagree. In comparison, A Song of Fire and Ice is merely pulp, i.e. popular writing that is generally regarded by academic experts of writing as poor quality. Tolkien influenced academics, and you can study Tolkien in certain lectures. Even Rowling is studied. I seriously doubt any university level professor would pull out A Song of Fire and Ice, or any of Martin's work, and develop a seminar around it, or spend a semester studying it to reveal the levels of complexity and novel style of prose, because it simply isn't there. Martin is very much a two dimensional thinker that writes in one linear dimension, his words have one single meaning, and scratching past the shallow surface of Martin's words doesn't reveal anything below it beyond the story it is telling. I think you should read more Melville, Hemingway, Miller, Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, Twain, Steinbeck, Salinger, Bradbury and Vonnegut, and many many others, before ever claiming anything by Martin is a "masterpiece." Just try to get out more.

tsimionescu 5y ago
Thank you for assuming my reading level. If you must know, I greatly enjoy (and have extensively read) people like Rushdie, Marquez, Kawabata, Hesse, Wolf and many others who indeed have a very specific and masterful writing style. I do agree that Martin doesn't have a way with words the way the greatest writers do - his writing is quite flat in terms of style. I disagree (tentatively) that ASOIAF is mere pulp - I think it makes some interesting social commentary, particularly on the effects of war and how it leaves everyone, winner or loser, worse off than they were (in his personal life, he was a conscientious objector and is a lifetime pacifist, so I do believe that these themes are likely to be intentional). He also seems to be making a point about how political concerns rightly or wrongly stop the world from acting against ever more clear and imminent threats, with the Long Night probably being an allegory for Global Warming. But, the jury is still out until he actually finishes his work. It may turn out that I'm reading entirely too much into this, and that the ending will be similar to the show, where righteous war wins the day (as long as you don't commit atrocities) and the long night is not a crucial problem to be fixed, but a mere zombie distraction from the important political topics of the day. If we ever got an ending like this (I do not believe we will ever get an ending of any kind), I would then agree with you that this is a work of pulp fantasy with little literary merit. But if the ending makes good on these themes, it may turn out to be a true masterpiece, even if the writing style is quite flat. There are, after all, writers like Balzac, who is still taught and studied and read, even if his writing style (at least in the translations I've read) is just as flat.
- Maursault 5y ago
  > But, the jury is still out until he actually finishes his work. I don't think it could possibly matter. Assuming he writes the most amazing ending in the history of the written word, it could not possibly change anything he wrote before to suddenly have mastery, depth and/or beauty. You wouldn't need to read the second half of Camus' The Stranger to determine whether the first half has any good writing in it. You can divide a good work into sentences, and even phrases, and randomly pull them out, without context, and still determine whether the writing is bad, ok, good, or exceptional. I certainly don't think Martin is boring, nor do I regret the time it took to read, and I liked it in pieces and overall, even if it at times is a bit indulgent. But let's not insult the masters. Just because we like something doesn't mean it must intrinsically be any good.

tsimionescu 5y ago

Thank you for assuming my reading level. If you must know, I greatly enjoy (and have extensively read) people like Rushdie, Marquez, Kawabata, Hesse, Wolf and many others who indeed have a very specific and masterful writing style. I do agree that Martin doesn't have a way with words the way the greatest writers do - his writing is quite flat in terms of style. I disagree (tentatively) that ASOIAF is mere pulp - I think it makes some interesting social commentary, particularly on the effects of war and how it leaves everyone, winner or loser, worse off than they were (in his personal life, he was a conscientious objector and is a lifetime pacifist, so I do believe that these themes are likely to be intentional). He also seems to be making a point about how political concerns rightly or wrongly stop the world from acting against ever more clear and imminent threats, with the Long Night probably being an allegory for Global Warming. But, the jury is still out until he actually finishes his work. It may turn out that I'm reading entirely too much into this, and that the ending will be similar to the show, where righteous war wins the day (as long as you don't commit atrocities) and the long night is not a crucial problem to be fixed, but a mere zombie distraction from the important political topics of the day. If we ever got an ending like this (I do not believe we will ever get an ending of any kind), I would then agree with you that this is a work of pulp fantasy with little literary merit. But if the ending makes good on these themes, it may turn out to be a true masterpiece, even if the writing style is quite flat. There are, after all, writers like Balzac, who is still taught and studied and read, even if his writing style (at least in the translations I've read) is just as flat.

Maursault 5y ago
> But, the jury is still out until he actually finishes his work. I don't think it could possibly matter. Assuming he writes the most amazing ending in the history of the written word, it could not possibly change anything he wrote before to suddenly have mastery, depth and/or beauty. You wouldn't need to read the second half of Camus' The Stranger to determine whether the first half has any good writing in it. You can divide a good work into sentences, and even phrases, and randomly pull them out, without context, and still determine whether the writing is bad, ok, good, or exceptional. I certainly don't think Martin is boring, nor do I regret the time it took to read, and I liked it in pieces and overall, even if it at times is a bit indulgent. But let's not insult the masters. Just because we like something doesn't mean it must intrinsically be any good.