60 pages in

>oh were you tending to your desires my lady? Here let me help you, it is my duty as your maid servant

Let GRRM be GRRM

Did you somehow miss Keely's review?

I really enjoyed those books when I read them two years ago. Now the TV series and the ridiculous hype around it and every normie that won't shut it and chatter about the last episode like a retard and all the memes made me quite indifferent or hateful towards ASOIAF.

>I can't form my own opinion on things and I rely on the judgements of others to decide what I can or cannot enjoy in life

Anything popular is invariably bad.

This is the rule.

fucking hell
yes

This is mostly true though

I love how le fat Reddit man likes to explain the prevalence of sexual violence in his novels as some kind of unflinching realism like he's not afraid to show the "gritty truth" when it's obvious he includes it because sensationalism sells and it probably just turns him on.

>Implying 13yos don't have sex
>Implying teen girls don't affect have sex with older men

>often

Yes, because we all know 13 year olds don't engage in sexual acts.
All the pregnant 13 year olds are modern day virgin Marys.
It's only at the stroke of midnight on the eve of their 18th birthday that girls become interested in sex.
Please kys.

>Saying that about Ulysses makes them plebs, saying it about this makes them consumers with a complaint about a product.

urgay

Y so buttfrustrated?

Nice ad hominem

How is that image in any way related to the post you're responding to?

>What is this pedo shit?
its pedo shit
its not really substantial, just sex and blood why do you think its such a hit with normies?

>implying the fact that something happens makes it okay
>capitalizing the first letter of greentext

>guy writes about how Fedual europe actually was
HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG TRIGGERED PEDO PEDO AAAAAAA

citation for feudal women enjoying rape?

I mean, some women have rape fetishes nowaday, why wouldnt they in the past?

>having a rape fetish means you'd enjoy actual rape

Maybe years are longer in the books than in our world. Ned and Robert are supposed to be in their teens during Robert's Rebellion yet Robert is described as being a hulking dude wielding a war hammer with one hand who is one of the best fighters the realm has ever seen and then takes the crown for himself at the end of the war.

was it actually rape?
I mean they just married and she was reluctantly performing her wifely duties

Holy shit, dude, this guy pretty much rips GRRM apart.

>I can't think for myself, I must be spoonfed information.

Who?

It was an arranged marriage, her brother sold her cunny. He asked her "no?, no?, no?" and she didn't disagree with his advances, can't rape the willing and it was his wife. You can't rape your wife when she is willing, the girl was just scared because she was a virgin.

Just as you were sweaty palms when that girl spread her thighs for you years ago.

Isn't the goodreads crowd generally old too?
My grandma won't read books that are too graphic.

I use goodreads and I'm 27
I see a lot of teens turning the place into a blog.. using tumblgay gifs instead of actual words. For a site who's medium of influence is text... why would you use images? Your imagination of something doesn't match everyone else.

Literally the first review I see on GoT. This fellow Keely who really picks it apart.
I wish they wouldn't allow images in reviews. Animated gifs in the review section are usually a sign the book is meh.

>implying georgie boy was implying it was ok

I like GoT, but I sometimes feel like the whole universe of aSoIaF is a stage for some pedos sexual fantasy around Daenerys.

I mean I agree with your general sentiment about colonel sanders but there's only so many ways to depict sexual violence that doesn't just devolve into a rehash of angsty Scandinavian drama crap.

Asian literature is quite good at well written depiction of rape and the like, from what I've read. Read

This guy is kind of a dope. The "breasts" quote is tempting if you're looking to confirm your biases, but the intention in context is obvious: Daenerys is uncomfortable in her new Dothraki skin, adjusting to their (more physically and sexually uninhibited) norms. GRRM's writing is skeevy and indulgent, but acting like it's some bizarre, unrealistic thought that would never occur to a woman in that situation is myopic.

His other criticism are predictable mischaracterizations: the story is unnecessarily or pointlessly brutal, or, in its attempt to comment on epic fantasy it has removed all the "wonder" and "ideals". It's easy to mistake Ned's code of honor for a folly by the story's terms, in light of its punishment - but when you overlook the heroism of his final decision to forego honor, you're falling for the traps which the story cautions against (there's your "social message") - that a poor outcome should sway you from doing the right thing, and that the right thing is beholden or limited to constructs of justice rather than basic and supreme morals like the sanctity of life.

And he's not very insightful: "A staple of Creative Writing 101 is to 'listen to how people really talk', which is terrible advice. A transcript of any conversation will be so full of repetition, half-thoughts, and non-specific words ('stuff', 'thing') as to be incomprehensible--especially without the cues of tone and body language." This is idiocy. Obviously you don't imitate the dramatically uninteresting artifacts of real conversation (unless you do, and make them interesting), but observe it for the authentic methods people use to communicate, color and obscure their feelings. Equally obvious is that not every transcription of a conversation suffers from the flaws he mentions, and that many benefit from them in their representation of human thought. It's a doubly remarkable comment since earlier he has a bit about truth being stranger than fiction and mining real life for unexpected details - a basic purpose of listening to how people speak is to research real vernacular and spot strange turns of phrase, accidental and intended.

This digression, by the way, is a shoddy analogy to GRRM's killing characters: "Written communication has its own rules, so making dialogue feel like speech is a trick writers play. It's the same with sudden character deaths: treat them like a history, and your plot will become choppy and hard to follow." GRRM understand what this guy doesn't: he adapts history to form a narrative. Why adaptation should be an issue as a rule, I don't think even this reviewer knows. He says earlier: "The real world is full of unbelievable events, coincidences, and odd characters. When authors remove these elements in an attempt to make their world seem real, they make their fiction duller than reality; after all, unexpected details are the heart of verisimilitude." He just doesn't know how to discern the dramatic functions of the story.

>being this beardhurt

Hi keely