Why are these books so popular? Everyone knows the prose is awful, but the narrative is boring and padded out as well...

It was still fairly semi-popular before the TV show, not it's just known for that. Normies act like GOT is an entirely new thing when the books have been around since the 90s.

Recommend something better than this series then?

>so who exactly does it appeal to?
It's full of rape, death, misery, just as the cast is full of power-hungry cunts, is it any wonder the news have such a large following?

>you could remove *major character and/or event* and it wouldn't affect the rest of characters and events at all meaning that the book has no plot and it sucks
>YASSSSSSSSSSSSS!!1111

>well written as the Harry Potter books

No better written than ASOIAF, Harry Potter is one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

i've read all the books and even thought it gets shitty after about book 3, till then, the story is very capturing. he really has a good sense on how to keep readers engaged and wanting to know what happens next. atleast in the beginning.

Except for all the Starks, dany and tyrion whom all have plot armor to the max.

LORD

Read a history book, these sorts of things happened in real life

The point is that you don't even know who the "main characters" are until few are left.

>all the starks

>the news

Nice pasta.
Idiot.

Because even if the prose is mediocre and the narrative is a bit padded the work itself is innovative. It boldly lets us know that no one is safe. We learn at the beginning that this is mostly about politics rather than about heroism. The themes are different from the vast majority of everything else in the genre.

The characters also work. They are worth watching and well constructed. Even if I object to its pacing and perhaps to the prose and repeated Redwall-esque food descriptions, there is no denying that it brought more acceptance of death to the masses.

I wouldn't say the prose is that bad. Yeah, the sex is pure cringe, and Martin repeats certain phrases a bit too much (this is forgivable in a 800+ page book though imho) but 95% of the time, it's fine.
Too many fantasy writters try way too hard to impress and as a result get real flowery and obnoxious, thankfully Martin avoids this.

I really enjoy food descriptions in books. A book that can remind me to put it down and have a meal is a plus for me.

Overall I really like this series. I'm on the third book and caught up in the show. He keeps a good running visual and I never feel like I'm actually reading while I go through them.

Pretty fun to listen to, if you don't mind audio books. I think it's on par with SOIF.

I thought the first books was good, second wasn't and then it was smooth sailing after that.

Would read again

He'll also describe things the same way, back to back (tower coming up like a fist). He'll throw in a new phrase out of nowhere and then use it repeatedly across multiple characters.

It can all be forgiven though. The books are good imo.

I find the prose to be more than adequate. The characters are interesting, the dialog is great, and the different POVs keep things fresh.
I really enjoy how the separate narratives interweave. There's a kind of butterfly effect where events that seem to have no immediate or direct impact end up having huge ramifications for the overall story. It's gritty without being grimdark. Is that enough?

>This is somehow the leftists fauly
/pol/ please go.

>Why are these books so popular?

Marketing, and a TV series. That's all.

Your thread is part of the problem, OP. Some lurker out there is going to buy a 5 book set and GRRM will be able to eat Doritos and play Battlefield for another day.

The series has excellent world-building. There's no denying though that AFFC and ADWD are a big drop-off from the first three

>Humans get bored of doting, comfort, niceness.
Ah, that explains why Veeky Forums has a "friendship is magic" /mlp/ board but not a /GoT/ board... or not.

I've never read the books, but the way the show's narrative is delivered is legitimately very impressive. The sheer number of characters, families, cities, allegiances, etc could have been so cumbersome but they told the story in such a way that people can understand and remember everything thats going on. Also, of course, the unpredictability of the characters and the way the show trashes tv narrative conventions is really cool, even if Jon Snow is a massive Mary Sue

also, the delivery of the information rarely feels expository, which is even more impressive. I disagree with the user above that it's easygoing turnyourbrainoff-core. It's no fucking Gravity's Rainbow but you do have to pay attention and actively watch/listen to it. Again, not saying that its superduper complex but i think its pretty impressive, especially when considering how massively popular it is.

Not Leftists per se, just hipsters. That's why I used quote marks.

Give me a better fiction that is also quite easy to read.

>James Bond as the standard of wonder, beauty, and excitement
>talking about the movies because you haven't even read the books

So did Homer
>wine-dark sea
>dawn with her rosy fingers/on her golden throne
>Peleus' son Achilles

Fucking nerd

Those are mnemonic devices, though. Homer's works weren't written down (originally); they were passed on orally, and so had to be memorised.

Soon in 300 years humans look back and want to read old classics like we do today.
We read plato homer and goethe, soon theyll read this and harry potter

I don't think we'll make it 300 years, bud.

Because they're entertaining and have great world building.

I had the best time on vacation a couple years ago reading the first three books of the series in an adirondack chair sipping beers and enjoying the sun, the grass on my feet, and the river breeze.

Shakespeare's plays come to mind. They have a similar type of "half fantasy, half history" setting, but are far better in presentation and content. ASoIaF attempts to be edgy, unpredictable and brutal in its tragedy that features families, kings, lords and soldiers, while Shakespeare already perfected the art hundreds of years before.

not him, but Shakespeare isn't exactly easy to read. The language is too archaic for me to just read without having to think over it a sec.

Not the user you're responding to, but genuinely try this: read a Shakespeare play, one that's quite short. Take a while if you need to and maybe read one that includes notes as to what the language means.

By the time you're on your second and third Shakespeare, you'll be able to follow it with a lot of ease (as long as your first language is English of course).

Hamlet, Titus Andronicus, King Lear, The Tempest, Macbeth, etc all have that dark semi-fantasy, semi-historical tragedy aspect to it that I think the other user was suggesting (imo Shakespeare did perfect this mixture).

Game of thrones fans are much more common than bronies, maybe you should leave Veeky Forums every once in a while

That sounds nice.

Yeah but the plot armour makes them more likely targets, Tyrion is a dead man walking because of how many fans like him.

Genre fiction vs literary fiction blah, blah, blah.

>There's no denying though that AFFC and ADWD are a big drop-off
I would deny that, at least in the case of AFFC. It's definitely off-putting that the two books run in tandem, each telling half the story, but A Feast for Crows is one of my favorite books of the series.

You realise that the majority of what we consider classic fiction was largely ignored in its time, right?

Isn't it the other way around?

We all agree the prose is awful, and the books seem to lose direction after a while. Some plot lines were seemingly forgotten (the Alchemist) or will probably lead to absolutely nowhere (Aegon's, mostly thanks to the show letting us know it doesn't matter in the big picture), but nevertheless I enjoy them for some of the characters, the world building and the political side of it. I couldn't care less about the dragons (and about Daenerys in general) but I love the parts that are more grounded in reality and that deal with morally grey characters.

I'm not claiming it's a masterpiece, I guess it's just something that caters to my interests well enough to keep me hooked despite its obvious flaws. And by the way, Jaime Lannister is my favorite character in the series bar none and I hope he doesn't fuck him up in WoW... Assuming it ever comes out.