Can we all just accept GOT is on the same level as 50 shades of Grey and that George RR martin is a hack?

Can we all just accept GOT is on the same level as 50 shades of Grey and that George RR martin is a hack?

/pol/ tier infograph

He is an objectively bad writer though. I don't think anyone on Veeky Forums would disagree. Even people who like him read his books for the plot and not for the literary merit.

>Giving your shitty infograph an OC
Jesus Christ

>comparing random lines in a book to random lines in other books like that makes your point
>"real" literature

Was this your middle school english assignment?

>I supposed they were supposed to be "bad on purpose" as well?

Yes they were. They perfectly fit the scene and what the characters are going through.

>it looked as though he had a dagger up his butt
lol

>Can we all just accept GOT is on the same level as 50 shades of Grey and that George RR martin is a hack?
No, because he actually has some excellent writing here and there. All of the Theon chapters in Dance, particularly A Ghost in Winterfell, are good by any standard.

This can't be real. I don't remember a single cringe line in Lord of the Rings that was anywhere near this bad.

LotR is lullaby tier, the writing just puts you to sleep.

You're just a brainlet. How do you manage to read any classical literature if the relatively simply LOTR puts you to sleep?

>boring is a sign of high tier writing

>implying LOTR is actually boring and it's not your short attention span
Literal children read LOTR and find it exciting. I was unable to put it down at age 8.

LotR is written for children, it is simple and boring.

Of course it's not real, what do you think.

>Literal children read LOTR and find it exciting

Yes. Children.

You are incomprehensible moron. Lord of the Rings is literature. It's taught in academies, it's featured in respectable periodicals, and it's got articles written about by literary historians. At the same time A Song of Ice and Fire lost the last tinny hope of someday becoming literature by whoring itself out on television.

Not that user, but eight-year-olds also think Ninjago and the Pokemon anime are fucking great. I don't mean to suggest that LOTR is shitty, but "children like it" doesn't mean it's not boring.

This is a criticism of your argument, not an argument for the contrary, mind.

What I meant is that children have a very short attention span and are easily bored. That user criticized LOTR for being boring, and I brought up children liking it because children are easily bored and would be the first to tell you a book is boring.

Exactly, a friend of mine who's a post-grad in linguistics is currently studying LOTR.

Although his writing is shit I have to give him credit for creating such a big ass mythology.

>these other i get my values and opinions from like it so you should to
Try reading LotR past adolescence.

LotR obviously has way better prose. ASOIAF has more interesting characters, in my opinion.

Neither is my favorite fantasy, but I like them both fine.

Tolkien is to creative literary genius what Martin is to hack pulp idiocy. They both so far surpass anyone else in their field that they will be remembered 1,000 years from now as a kind of yin and yang of fantasy, a Manichaen duality of speculative letters. For every sublime, luminous beauty that Tolkien has gifted the world, Martin has cursed us with a tedious, banal ugliness. It is unfair to compare the two directly on any one point, because Martin is in every way the anti-Tolkien, patently sterile, parasitical, and inferior, but so much so that he becomes a monument in his own right, and counterbalances Tolkien. Could one exist without the other? Tolkien obviously could. But it is only by the contrast that Martin offers that we can truly appreciate the full depths and heights of Tolkien. Our understanding of Tolkien would be incomplete if Martin had never set pen to page. It is through only the abject failure and futility of Martin that we can approach an apprehension of the true scope and scale of Tolkien's hitherto inconceivable greatness. Perhaps this is what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote about the Music of the Ainur. If Tolkien is a subcreator in the image of Eru, truly Martin is like unto Melkor. It is only reflected in the awfulness of the one that we can fully see the goodness of the other.

I congratulate you on your successful bait, user.

>LotR obviously has way better prose
Nah, ASOIAF is shit but LOTR is no better with it's wispy prose.

Television is outgrowing film as a respectable medium.

Is this really how the man writes? My furry erotic role playing is way better than this!

Should I be looking to publish myself?

You obviously should do just that. Some of Tolkiens style dripping to you would do your wordcraft a lot of good.

It's quite obvious from context i meant other people, but i guess i shouldn't expect much from someone who thinks tolkien was a good writer.

MWHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAhahaha

HW at it's lowest is still decades ahead from television. Now do skiddle along back to /tv/, it's obvious you're right at home there.

>Adam Sandler's worse film is better than The Wire
Not that user, but you're an idiot.

Oh, it's perfectly obvious. Don't flatter yourself on writing skills. To even insinuate that it's showing something needing to comprehend is beyond your prowess. Just seeing that your reading comprehension is lacking so much, that you would give advices to the contrary is enough to convince everyone that you indeed need to go back to Tolkien. On the other hand, some Spot the Dog would do you no harm as well.

>HW
The person to whom you are replying is probably retarded, but surely you can acknowledge that the finest TV series of the last decade or so are more pregnant with artistry than an industry that pretty much exclusively shits out emoji movies, sequels, Oscar bait, and big-budget explosion porn. Film as a whole is still the superior form (but, then again, we don't have Sundance festivals for television yet) but Hollyshit started deserving the name sometime around when The English Patient beat Fargo for best picture.

>To even insinuate that it's showing something needing to comprehend is beyond your prowess
Then how come i did insinuate it? check mate mate.

Why do LOTRfags always write like this? Don't you hate when an obvious ignoramus is trying to make himself sound like a Le Smart Literary Man Of Literature? So annoying.

You realize it would have been much stronger and far less cherry-picking to criticize his fickle integrity towards the political drama that he sidelines, beginning at the end of the first novel, for derivative swords and sorcery plotwank, right? This is not even mentioning the pathetic attempts at symbolism

You alright buddy?

>needing 50 minutes to come up with this trash
lmfaoing @ your life senpai

The Wire is good for three seasons, then you can stop watching. Eternal problem of television. It is episodical. There isn't a show that can equal emotional aspect of a good movie. It's not possible, therefore it's inferior medium.

then how come dumas is considered good, he was an episodical writer.
episodical doesn't have to be a problem though it usually is.

this is one of the stupidest things I've read today.

Are you a frog? you write like an enraged frog.

>finest TV series of the last decade

Seriously [quote needed]. What is better than The Artist, Black Swan, Tree of Life, Django, Wolf of Wallstreet, Grand Budapest Hotel, Whiplash, and even Hacksaw bloody Ridge? And I'm going straight Hollywood here. No foreign films that have since surpassed it. La grande bellezza is mountains ahead of all mentioned.

TV can be done in miniseries. You can write a show of eight episodes and be done with it. Sometimes shows are dragged out longer than they should be for monetary reasons, but that's a problem the business and not inherent to the medium.

Additionally, a second ago it was "at its lowest" and now we're comparing to a good movie.

>La grande bellezza
my nigga, most of those others you mentioned are trash though

Lord of the Rings is respectable in its context and as a continuation in the tradition of the classical epic, but I'd hardly say it's an artistic landmark outside of those qualities. Adequate but very safe prose, simplistic characters, setting, and literary techniques that speak to nothing outside of themselves, lack of focus and insistence on drawing in irrelevant details of song and language; they were interesting and influential novels for the time they were released, but I could never in good faith call them timeless

La grande bellezza FA CAGARE

Dumas was one person. He still had complete artistic freedom. On tv, you have writters, and they have little control over what is going to happen to main characters. It's all based on contracts, ratings and finances. Only thing that's good and worth watching are miniseries and some foreign stuff. Broadchurch's first season was great. It can't be comparable to Witness for the Prosecution, but still good work in genre.

HW is at it's lowest today in general.

Oh, I get you now. I thought you meant the worst instances of Hollywood, not it overall at its worst.

I think the era of online TV will bring about a lot of good miniseries and shows with one or two fantastic seasons. Indie TV will catch on like indie movies have. The medium itself isn't inferior; it's just currently more dependent on large amounts of ongoing funding.

Django and Wolf of Wallstreet are garbage mate. Haven't seen Grand Budapest Hotel but I assume the same given the meme-tier director.
I don't think I'll be able to come up with a television series that surpasses Black Swan, but that's not exactly what the original contention was. Haven't seen the Wire and have only seen part of the Sopranos but I imagine those would be standard-issue responses here.
I think that television as an artistic medium is still in its infancy. It was, what, only 20 years ago when TV producers realized you could stretch an arc out over an entire season rather than compressing every arc into singular episodes? Pretty important breakthrough, and maybe hasn't been fully explored. Television has to its potential advantage that you consume it incrementally, over a long period of time. I don't think there's been a single show which has fully exploited this advantage it has when it comes to thematic development and character arcs. Perhaps Breaking Bad with respect to the latter? I don't think Netshit is doing it right by giving you everything at once.

>but that's not exactly what the original contention was
never mind this, I just read your clarifying post above

Oh, completely agreed on everything, it's not a gem in any way, but it is classic. It simply is, worse work is, and better isn't. I hate Hemingway with gusto, consider him talentless hack, but I can't deny his status.

Yeah, Django really is. No idea why I even mentioned it. I had to have one Scorsese film there, and since The Departed is better in Cantonese(?), I put it there...

It's just that people always scream how good tv is, and nobody mentions a thing. What is good? Breaking Bad, better than anything on that list? Hardly, but ok. What else?

I don't think tv and lit go together. They both take too much time to enjoy at same time. Some flick ocasionally and book, is enough for me, i don't have enough time for twenty episodes per season.

>like a constipated fat man straining to shit

literal tears of laughter

>It's just that people always scream how good tv is
Just because they're literally plebs, user Television has historically had to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It has its genesis in I Love Lucy, whereas the film industry for whatever reason produced smart directors pretty much from the very beginning. But I think television audiences are getting smarter. They prefer Breaking Bad to Law and Order. There's still a long way to go; the most acclaimed tv shows of the past 20 years basically amount to good genre fiction. Right now I think the medium is stuck in some kind of "dark, gritty" phase that was pretty fresh and original 10 years ago but going into the fifth season of House of Cards is getting stale. Hopefully audiences get smarter again.

Both film and television are for subhuman retards, so I don't see the point of arguing about their relative merits. You're both on about the same level as livestock.

>whereas the film industry for whatever reason produced smart directors pretty much from the very beginning
wrong

Hm, yeah I had Fritz Lang and a few others in mind but I just realized that motion pictures actually date back to the 1880s.

Brofist

This is you

weren't you banned by law from posting here?

Oral tradition predates writing lel

...

W.e.w. l.a.d.
people here think they're advanced, but then they go and criticize /pol/. Bith wuht? This pic owns you all gud.

You shut your fuckin prick mouth

All these lines were pretty funny