I've heard from so many people saying 'A Song of Ice and Fire' is normie tier fantasy

>'normie'

Do you say this unironically? You are not on /r9k/, you know.

Mythology and history, i.e: the source material for fantasy settings and the genre itself

My diary desu

honestly asoiaf is really good people here just hate it cause its popular

I know, right? And why does Ready Player One get so much hate? I thought it was fun

Lord Dunsany

What are some other examples of messageboard-core writing?

ASOIAF can be decent but Ready Player One is unadulterated dogshit.

It is nothing but flat out shameless pandering to 80s nostalgia nerds that communicate in pop-culture references.

I was hoping the fact that that is obviously true would get across my sarcasm. GRRM is a mediocre fantasy writer, no better than Eddings.

I'm not gonna turn down a chance to shit on Ready Player One.

Pretty much this. It's amazing writing, complex characters and a level of world building that most other writers can't even get their heads around. Immediately discounting it because it's "fantasy" is beyond autistic.
You have my support. One of these days I will meme Veeky Forums into liking it.

>inb4 Daenerys shitting copypasta

Everything Jeff Grubb has ever written

So this is how plebs think

>using "world building" unironically

China Mieville and anyone who writes "new weird fiction"
Jonathan Swift
Journey to the West unabridged
Le Morte d'Arthur with original spellings
any magical realism author

A true patrician doesn't give a fuck about what Jewish critics tell him to like and just reads what he enjoys.

>using "unironically" unironically

No, that's a manchild.

I'll give you complex characters but the writing is really just functional on a technical level, and it's also poor at being fantasy due to adhering to conventions the genre has long moved passed due to them being shit. There's nothing inherently wrong with it but it doesn't do a single thing well, and he wastes a lot of time and words on the unnecessary.

World building has questionable value in any writing, but his is only impressive if you've never touched another core fantasy title that's made an effort. It's not delivered well, on account of previously mentioned issues of him spending huge chunks of text on things that aren't really useful. The world itself derives heavily from real history, but it's just inferior to actual history and does nothing very interesting with itself. It holds up by playing safe, and it does nothing beyond holding up.

>Jewish critics forced GRRM to write like shit

>huge chunks of text on things that aren't really useful.
This seems a common complaint about ASoIaF, but when I ask for an example, people usually name things that I love about the series. I guess I'm not so utilitarian about my plots...I like the tiny details and side stories that may not be absolutely crucial to a single story arc.

You can like what you like, but I think people need to draw a line between what matches their taste and what's good on a technical level. I love Sanderson's books, but I don't pretend he's a highly technical writer and the savior of the fantasy genre.

ASoIaF sits in a weird spot. See, it's not actually bad, but it's not good either. It's fantasy, with strengths and weaknesses like a lot of series. It doesn't get hate because it's particularly shit, you can find worse easy. It just gets a lot of hate as a reaction to its fanbase, not just because of their size but also because they may literally be the worst fanbase in books, including YA vampire romances.

It's the target du jour because of the show's popularity. People critique it a bit harder than they would for any other modern fantasy series.
I'm tempted myself sometimes, because there are WAY too many threads about it. I'm ready for the new Rothfuss to come out so they can start bashing something else for a few days.

Just wait for RPO to actually come out

I started reading The Name of the Wind and I couldn't get into it. It's pretty much everything why fantasy isn't taken seriously.

Kvothe is just such a cliched hero. He's a genius, funny, charismatic, a wizard, a good fighter, a sex god. It's just absurd.
I don't get it. It might be fun if it was a whole satire on the hero genre, but Rothfuss writes everything straight-faced.

I see your point, but concinnity isn't a requirement for me. Why would I like something bad? We just may disagree on "what's good on a technical level." I think you'd find a wide range of opinion among great writers on what "good writing" is...

Not that wide.

I can understand why people think Martin is good even if I think he's shit, but I can never understand why anybody treats Rothfuss as more than a guilty pleasure.

Janny Wurts ;)

It's just bullshit now that it's popular. Nerds in the 90s got bullied: "What? Thrones? Kings? Fuck off" and literally nobody cared.
Now thanks to HBO it's Rings tier famous so people shit on it to seem above it.
Same way people shit on the Harry Potter stuff.
Oh, the series of kids- into young adult books aren't amazingly well written, or particularly deep or difficult? Oh aren't you quite the intellectual to spot that one! Here I was thinking I was reading Ulysses with wands!

What about new weird is particularly normie?

this entire board is hilarious i assumed none of it would have ~~Veeky Forums culture~~ but we have book nerds over here talking about normie tier fantasy cheers to you op

>I know, right? And why does Ready Player One get so much hate? I thought it was fun

yikes, that retarded conflation

>Obvious answer but the Tolkien still holds up.
umm...

Re-read the question in the OP

yeah, all of the martin hate needs to be thrown at rothfuss, and we already do that a lot around here

>just reads what he enjoys.
this is not what being patrician means, you have to enjoy high literature

I dislike Rothfuss more than Martin, but no one asks why people dislike him.

Martin:
>excellent writer of plots as plots
>decent writer of prose. depends on the section. sometimes it's garbage, sometimes it's even good.
>great creator of characters (created some truly original and memorable ones but also some that are meh)
>great worldbuilding (if quite vanilla and with some historical/timeline head-scratchers)
>first three books have good pacing. sometimes it's quite quick, and other times it can be slower. the "cool-plot-development-at-the-end-of-every-chapter" bit is always fun
>his destruction of many fantasy cliches was and is mostly still original, no matter how much you scream it isn't and reference some book no one's ever heard of that gets it all wrong

Rothfuss:
>technically "good" prose, but horrendously cloying. his prose is constantly doing backflips to impress you and endlessly impressed with itself. there are some proficient parts, but they are VERY few and far between. see the opening of chapter 2 for the best section in the first 100 pages.
>mired in cliche
>garbage, made-it-up-as-he-went-along worldbuilding, some effective bits put aside (and they're put aside because they're never relevant to the story)
>fucking terrible plotter
>books are massively bloated
>elitist, asshole gary stu MC
>paper-thin big bad and rival
>his dialogue can be fine sometimes and a cringe-fest other times

prove me wrong you fucking cant

I agree with you on every point except the world building. I don't understand why the hell people think ASoIaF has good world building.

It runs all the blandest cliches for its fantasy countries, and it works but that's it.

Martin does a good job of considering the logical ramifications of war and economy on a national level, but he doesn't do anything interesting in portraying the relationship between countries, or even just the adjacent kingdoms of Westeros. It's like every city on Essos and Westeros exists in a vacuum until a major event happens, and there's nothing to explain why there aren't more traces of culture exchanging between places so close in proximity.

The exception being when places just have the same culture which ultimately happens a lot when you look passed the cover. I don't know if it's choice to avoid mentioning these things that might not be relevant, or if Martin is just weak in writing it, but there're very few touches to indicate how growing up in one place or the other would affect a person's mentality. I will say that he is a great creator of characters like you said, and the affect of family or friends or each other shows clearly, but I don't think the justification that lords are raised separately from the population is enough to merit avoiding more sayings or tokens of a culture. The Greyjoys are the only ones that really do a good job of showing why they're different at all, and that's largely to do with the narrative focus on Theon's character conflict.

I understand that Martin prefers magic as a mystery, but the lack of explanation leaves it shallow. It doesn't ask for thought from the reader as to how it can be used, or what it can't do. We're just left to sit and see whether or not it works out whenever it comes up. I don't believe structured magic is a necessity, but the magic employed here isn't colourful either. It comes down to bland plot devices.

He's not bad, but he's really not good at world building.

i don't disagree with your points, i just don't feel it drops him as much. elements of his world are indeed contrived.

also
Tolkien:
>decent prose, but VERY dry with VERY slow pacing.
>PHENOMENAL worldbuilding. created languages and rigorous mythologies you could fill books with. established the reigning tropes for all of modern fantasy. his world may be considered "vanilla" today for this reason, but it has unparalleled depth.
>the first 100 pages of Fellowship are a weed-out.
>Tom Bombadil was entirely unnecessary and what Tolkein wanted to imply about his opinions on war he could've done in a much more concise way in a half a chapter or a single one -- not having this retarded fuck save the group three times in filler sequences across multiple chapters that have zero plot relevance.
>several of his characters are one-dimensional (legolas comes to mind)
>a great story t.b.h. f.a.m.p.a.i.

>genre worth reading is science fiction
>my genre is totally not bad like this other genre

Malazan

i reckon tolkien fans are just as bad.

>excellent writer of plots as plots
If this was true, then he wouldn't resolve so many of his plots with a neat death.
>sometimes it's garbage
it works, and then it doesn't, its never great.
>great worldbuilding
irrelevant, this is a story not a cia world fact book.
>destruction of many fantasy cliches
they're all there.

I read once and future king in elementary school. That shit is "normie" as fuck

>If this was true, then he wouldn't resolve so many of his plots with a neat death.

never happens. personal plots are resolved, but almost never overarching ones. major deaths always have major repercussions on other PoVs

Underrated book.

Sword and sorcery genre

Isn't the point of the Tom Bombadil section to help explain what the ring actually does as well as apply a bigger metaphor?

Gene Wolfe

> claims it's amazing writing
> actively knows the daenerys shitting passage is shit

Gormenghast series
Luds in the Mist
The Aegypt quartet
Little Big

he didnt say it was shit. it's a good description of diarrhea and is the climax of her arc for that book so you cant off-screen it. it's a meme

yes, but that could be done in 1/6th the space

But ASOIAF isn't normie tier fantasy, it is pleb tier space opera set in a post-apocalyptic fantasy world.

The Book of New Sun

But seriously, we used to have pretty civil threads here all the time before the TV show happened it was just after Dance came out which got like a 400 or so reply thread if I remember correctly because some German user got it early and leaked like the first two hundred or so pages.

You have to go back

Go on .....

Explain how the Daenerys shitting passage is objectively bad writing. No one can ever explain this so if you can, you'll be the first.

Martin or Rothfuss? Rothfuss is pretty self-explanatory once you have read his book about the autist

>Whats not normie tier fantasy then?
The black company its basically the badguys, who normie root for the badguys?

What's so bad about world building? If you're building a franchise it's a good way to suck readers in.

Milenial that watched movies before reading the books.

I've never encountered a person that didn't like Tom that read the books first.

You're shitting people. Grrm was bad meme since the start.

goodreads.com/review/show/1459299
This review will redpill you on GRRM

Dunsany you stupid bitch

Yesteryear's normie tier fantasy is today's upper tier fantasy

I know this is lit but c'mon these shoulda been checked

>This review will redpill you on GRRM

Some faggot male feminist isn't gonna sway anyone's opinion. The amount of projection is far too noticeable.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballantine_Adult_Fantasy_series