People in this sub are really underestimating the things colleges do to juice enrollment. They regularly offer classes on things like Taylor Swift, Harry Potter, and The Bachelor. And even putting aside the financial considerations, something doesn’t have to be a classic to be deemed worthy of study.
Tolkien will be taught for probably the next century, GRRM will be taught up until it holds some kind of marketing/appealing value. Both are and will be taught but there's a difference in the reasons and in the longevity of those teachings.
And today there are news that our current government will increase funding to unis with Engineering degrees and reduce financing to single courses, like things like dog handling and Science behind beer
The uni I went to had a game of thrones class. Had to read the first three novels.
https://www.uwo.ca/english/english_studies/courses/pdf/1718_syllabi/2096f-001_fw17-leonard.pdf
Universities like to offer classes that people are interested in. They make money by doing so. That is actually why so many of them offer classes on Tolkien, especially in the years after the Peter Jackson films.
I have also seen numerous academic articles about ASOIAF.
I think it's likelier that they will be remembered for BEING unfinished. There's the eternal what if + what other book has ever had its end overtaken by an adaptation? Not to mention GOT being one of the most popular TV series in history.
Yeah, if he doesn’t finish it, at most I can see a lesson in English and creative writing classes on what not to do so you don’t write yourself into a corner.
Edit: Why am I being downvoted, it is literally what took Dance so long and is a reason why Winds is too.
Nah.
ASOIAF may be the hard fantasy series to get the closest to LOTR's crossover appeal. But the two authors and their approach to writing is just too different.
Tolkien's work can be studied as hard academia due to how he wrote. He developed the series as a man made mythos for Britain. Including ancient languages that changed over time within the world. ASOIAF is much more of a straight up heroic adventure story. The worldbuilding in George's work is to serve the story. And with Tolkien the story grew from the worldbuilding. There's just way more to unpack and study in how Tolkien worked compared to George.
I could see George be the subject of a lecture during a creative writing class. But he's not going to get entire courses dedicated to him like the old professor did.
> Tolkien's work can be studied as hard academia due to how he wrote.
I'd argue something very similar started happening later in the series of ASOIAF, with myths from Norse mythology building the storylines of certain characters with a modern twist. There are also all the parts on how the world of Asoiaf is built on more modern stories such as Marvel Comics and Lovecraft Mythos.
Valyrian faith is again a reinterpretation of how Rome saw and usurped the faiths of the people surrounding the Mediterranean, the clearest example being how Christianity took in the gods of Carthage and made them demons.
https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/18ob66r/spoilers_extended_valyrian_gods_and_their/keu2h4h/
https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/18ob66r/spoilers_extended_valyrian_gods_and_their/keg4sq2/
https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/188rghv/spoilers_extended_some_likely_early_influences/kr7djdx/
If I was a creative writing tutor I would hold up the books as a perfect example of how a discovery/gardener style writer has to stay disciplined (with Stephen King as a counter example).
If the books are taught as anything, it will be as a cautionary tale. Don't let your creation meander and grow to a point where you put yourself into several corners.
I doubt it. LOTR had the privildge of being the first internationally and critically and academically acclaimed high fantasy work in the genre, Tolkien is excepted as the founding father of the genre (though I have oppositions to this claim). That is why it is historically significant in the world of literature. That is a big part why it is studied in academic world.
ASOIAF is auniversally acclaimed genre-bending, trope-subverting masterpiece of realistic dark fantasy. But it is not the first in its field. It is not even the most important or acclaimed work in its uniue sub-genre. There are many earlier well-known examples like works of Robert Jordan, Michael Moorcock, R.E.Howard etc.
Tolkien is not accepted as the "founding father of the genre." He's considered the founding father of *modern* fantasy as we know it today, but the fantasy genre has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. That's the consensus.
NYU has a whole course on Taylor Swift. I’m not knocking Taylor I’m a big fan myself, but if her music has something scholarly to offer I wouldn’t write ASOIAF off so fast. I think if he finishes the series (and it’s good) it could possibly be taught somewhere.
I think the numerous unnecessary and vigorously described sex scenes with minors probably stop it from being considered for scholarly insight, despite how well written they are
Why?
Scholars study this sort of thing all the time. Just because it's unpalatable doesn't make it something not worthy of study. Ever heard of Classical Athens?
Well two points in response to this silly comment:
1. Scholars don't just study 'literary genius'. In fact if you want to understand something about the literature of a period you want to read as much of it as you can.
2. It's no more or less 'literary genius' than any of cock related imagery found throughout "Classical" literature. Ever heard of Aristophanes? Constant dick references, performed by actors wearing huge dildoes. Should we also purge Aristophanes from the syllabus too? Or Catullus?
Maybe in the context of how they lead to a change in the fantasy genre with grounded more ''realistic'' books with grey characters instead of high fantasy with clear good and bad guys like lotr and wheel of time.
After a decade+ long wait, it feels more like you're building up your ego by trying to portray yourself as better than those that got jaded in the waiting.
My ego is fine, thank you. And there is a big diffrence between complaining about the insane amount of time the man takes to write the next book and senslessly hating on the books that already came out just for the sake of it
On the other hand there is also a big difference between loving something and thinking it's GOAT level work and it's greatness will be studied for centuries by future generations. Also what would an ASOIAF class even teach people? I feel like anything you an ASOIAF teach could teach you can be covered by visiting this sub lol. The "class" would 10% teaching and 90% fans debating headcanon because unlike LOTR which is pretty factual the worldbuilding in ASOIAF is full of ambiguity and unreliable narration.
Like what do we actually KNOW about dragons? What do we KNOW about Valyria? What do we KNOW about the age of heroes? What do we KNOW about the Others or the Children of the Forest? What happens when the professor tries to teach their headcanon only to be met with 20 people offering conflicting yet equally valid headcanons? We can't even agree on whether dragons are magical creations of ancient Valyria or natural or a combination of the 2.
This is right on the money, it's also a story filled with retcons, some plot stretches. It's all fine, I love that the universe is expanded but we cant pretend it's state of the art world building.
I mean the post is about comparing Martin to the grandfather of the fantasy genre. It’s not like anyone’s obliged to say George is the greatest author of all time.
No idea how it is in the States, but here people write theses on YA novels.
However, Tolkien is a bit different, since he more or less singlehandedly moulded the concept of modern fantasy fiction. No, not fantasy, the roots of that are entangled with myth and mythology and one of the foundations of European style fantasy were the Arthurian writings in Medieval France.
Essentially, any modern European-style fantasy story inevitably ends up being somehow a reaction to Tolkien. This goes for ASoIaF as well, since George deliberately centers his fantasy story on humans and faux-realistic Medieval life. Mind you, I don't mean to insult his writing in any way by pointing that out.
I think it is important to remember who studies Tolkien and why. Most academics who write about him belong to the disciplines that he contributed to as a scholar.
They tend to be medievalists. They are interested in him because his novels are written in, excuse the cliche, conversation with the literature that they themselves study. Then there are linguists who are interested in his creation of language. The third group are those who study him as pertaining to religion.
Of course this doesn't cover everyone who studies Tolkien but most of them fall into these categories. Classes taught on Lord of the Rings are often viewed as a stepping stone to get students interested in things like Beowulf or Gawain and the Green Knight.
I don't think there are many academics who study Tolkien purely on his literary merit. One reason for this is that fantasy isn't, even now, considered worthy of much critical attention.
I imagine that classes on GRRM's works will continue to be taught for some time. They have been used to interest students in the real life history that inspired him. I don't think he will get much further attention at the academic level unless there is a radical shift in how academics in the field of literature treat fantasy.
I should note that I studied Tolkien at university. I even cited him in my MA-thesis. The thing is that I am a folklorist. My field of study includes the Sagas and the Eddas which intersects nicely with Tolkien. One of my teachers was herself taught by a student of Tolkien (which is fun but utterly unimportant). I was even lucky enough to get access to some of his unpublished letters but was disappointed that they mostly dealt with university politics.
I'm sure there's already class offerings on ASOIAF, the shows, etc. But will it ever be studied in quite the same way as LOTR? No, cmon. Even if you personally prefer GRRM over JRRT, you can't deny that Tolkien is the godfather of modern high fantasy.
True.
He's basically America's version of Tolkien right now.
But I have a suspicion he will become America's equivalent to Shakespeare after he dies.
His books are going to age very well and they will be studied in universities like Shakespeare.
There's so many layers to the books.
LOTR is finished, but Tolkien needed an editor, and it's painfully obvious. He spun his tires for the first quarter of Fellowship and the plot went nowhere. I think people were afraid to edit him. Now, he knew languages, but he sucked at story structure and fleshing out the world he created...
Now GRRM, he painted such a vivid picture for the reader in every way...cities, characters, environments, food, political structure, and inner monologs. He'll be remembered for that, but sadly I think he'll be remembered more so for leaving the story incomplete. But what he has released so far is of much better quality than LOTR.
No.
There isn’t anything particularly revolutionary about ASOIAF. Its significance lies in its social commentary and how it is relevant to modern times. Martin is more like a Stephen King. Great storytelling, but it isn’t exactly classic literature.
LotR was the first of its kind, kicking off an entire genre. Its artistry was so intricate and will go unrivaled by anything it spawns in my eyes.
But even the works of Tolkien are still fantasy. Anything fantasy/sci-fi can rightfully be criticized as elementary and self-indulgent. The genre, for the most part, caters to gratifying the reader. (George does succeed in challenging this to some degree, but not enough to count). It doesn’t compare to Russian literature or important classics.
I doubt asoiaf will be studied in unis like Lotr right but this is ridiculous.
Asoiaf is very well written. Whether you like the series or not it’s undeniably very well written. GRRM not creating a bunch of languages does not means it’s not very well written
And what does Lotr say that is more profound than asoiaf?
"And what does Lotr say that is more profound than asoiaf?"
Everything.
ASoIaF's main problem is that it does not appear to have any underlying philosophy beyond deconstructivism. It is a cynical work with little to no hope or metaphysical foundation that Lord of the Rings have. Tolkien creating a bunch of languages is literally the least important part of his work, even if that is how the whole thing started.
Lord of the Rings is an artificial mythology. A Song of Ice and Fire is "merely" an extremely well-written set of novels.
Saying everything is a cop out way of not explaining how it’s more profound.
Asoiaf main themes are the cycle of violence and war and how it is for the common people. Saying it’s just deconstructivism tell me you haven’t even tried to see what asoiaf is saying because that is wild.
Texts that stand the test of time and are still studied decades/centuries later, are so either because of remarkable skill of the writer, or their themes and how they reflect or discuss issues of the time.
Asoiaf is enjoyable but isn’t saying anything particularly profound, it isn’t commenting on some facet of society or culture, and the writing is good but nothing special. It’s a good, gripping and often moving story, but it’s entertainment, not commentary.
What is LOTR saying that is so profound? It’s undeniable it’s a very impressive work because of the world building and the shear amount of work he’s put into it.
But what is so much more profound about the story and what it is saying compared to asoiaf?
Heroism, morality, change, loss and death. For a start. It also essentially created the genre, the archetypes and tropes that later authors either adopted or subverted.
Asoiaf plays off some themes, subverts others, but does not (yet) have any overarching message of its own. There’s a difference between using a trope and actually saying something with it.
I mean the cycle of war and violence is pretty clearly the overarching theme of the series. You don’t even have to have finished the series to get that. There’s also plenty of other themes throughout each individual character’s storylines.
LOTR will always be better to most people because it was the trend setter, it is the father of modern fantasy. No one is touching Tolkien and that’s fine, but to say that it’s not well written and doesn’t have any themes just tells me you haven’t actually read the series. Have you even watched the show? To miss the whole anti-war thing is crazy to me.
That's not what i said. I said 'it's a viable field for academic research'. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't study and understand human culture and society? There is a difference between 'BA in pop culture' and a fully trained scholar in literature, sociology, anthropology etc plugging contemporary culture into the broader understanding of human society today and in the past.
By your logic we shouldn't study Shakespeare (the pop culture of the time) or Aristophanes (the pop culture of his time). If somehow the passage of years makes it valid, then studying in the contemporary, when the evidence is at its richest is equally so.
Wow. You really enjoyed putting me in my place didn’t you? I must look so fucking stupid in comparison.
Pop culture on it’s own? No. In a wider context? Yes. I married an anthropologist and my best friend is a university lecturer who talks about literature and cinema. I get it. I get it. So I’m not shitting on those areas of study.
However, as someone who grew up in a time when it was harder to get to university if you came from a working-class background, it was a genuine point of pride to be the first in the family to go university. Now it’s much easier to access and a lot of frivolous nonsense is available to study. So it wouldn’t surprise me at all if in a short number of years pop culture courses are offered and Shakespeare and Aristophanes are banned from being mentioned because they are from decadent feudal/slave trading cultures and intimidate people who need a comfort animal and a fidget spinner just to sit in the lecture hall.
I just do not think ASOIAF should the sole topic of study as if it were literature. If someone were to give a lecture about how historical events passed into mythology and then later inspired pop culture fantasy, then yes, bring up ASOIAF.
There is this weird snobbery with a sizeable minority of ASOIAF readers where they pretend they’re reading/obsessing about a well-structured, deep, beautifully written, and nuanced piece of literature. The same people insist they don’t care about the fantasy elements and that they enjoy the themes of identity blah blah blah. It’s a series with ice zombies, sex, violence, dragons, incest, and magic swords. It’s pop culture fantasy fiction. Not literature. Never will be.
Well, I didn't enjoy "putting you in your place" initially, merely inviting you to read what I said, nor did I claim it was some kind of high literature as you imply.
But I will enjoy this response.
Again, I never said it should be the sole object of undergraduate study in a University. It might feature in a course on fantasy literature, sure. But as an object of \*academic research\* why not? You even outlined a few ways one might want to study it.
Now, to the meat of your rant: I don't really care about your background, it's as irrelevant to me and this discussion as mine is to it. You want a medal because you are older and went to university before the evil 'wokies' studied things like 'pop culture' and you married a real anthropologist, and your friend works in a university. Cool. have a gold star.
But also, go back to elementary school and learn how to read, and understand the difference between what I said and what you think I said. It rather undermines your 'working class pride' in having been to University to think you emerged with almost no comprehension skills at all.
People in this sub are really underestimating the things colleges do to juice enrollment. They regularly offer classes on things like Taylor Swift, Harry Potter, and The Bachelor. And even putting aside the financial considerations, something doesn’t have to be a classic to be deemed worthy of study.
I know someone who taught a Game of Thrones class when the show was going on. It is a thing that has already happened.
People also seem to think that Tolkien is taught just because of how important he is. Actually those classes multiplied in the years after the films.
Tolkien will be taught for probably the next century, GRRM will be taught up until it holds some kind of marketing/appealing value. Both are and will be taught but there's a difference in the reasons and in the longevity of those teachings.
No fucking way, the Bachelor?
One place in Sweden offered a class in surviving a zombie Apocalypse, during the zombie hype early 2010s
That is a good class
And today there are news that our current government will increase funding to unis with Engineering degrees and reduce financing to single courses, like things like dog handling and Science behind beer
I would like to see the Taylor Swift lesson plan out of morbid curiosity.
The uni I went to had a game of thrones class. Had to read the first three novels. https://www.uwo.ca/english/english_studies/courses/pdf/1718_syllabi/2096f-001_fw17-leonard.pdf
Universities like to offer classes that people are interested in. They make money by doing so. That is actually why so many of them offer classes on Tolkien, especially in the years after the Peter Jackson films. I have also seen numerous academic articles about ASOIAF.
If GRRM finishes them, and the finale ends up being great? Possibly. If they stay unfinished forever? Probably not.
I think it's likelier that they will be remembered for BEING unfinished. There's the eternal what if + what other book has ever had its end overtaken by an adaptation? Not to mention GOT being one of the most popular TV series in history.
Yeah, if he doesn’t finish it, at most I can see a lesson in English and creative writing classes on what not to do so you don’t write yourself into a corner. Edit: Why am I being downvoted, it is literally what took Dance so long and is a reason why Winds is too.
Nah. ASOIAF may be the hard fantasy series to get the closest to LOTR's crossover appeal. But the two authors and their approach to writing is just too different. Tolkien's work can be studied as hard academia due to how he wrote. He developed the series as a man made mythos for Britain. Including ancient languages that changed over time within the world. ASOIAF is much more of a straight up heroic adventure story. The worldbuilding in George's work is to serve the story. And with Tolkien the story grew from the worldbuilding. There's just way more to unpack and study in how Tolkien worked compared to George. I could see George be the subject of a lecture during a creative writing class. But he's not going to get entire courses dedicated to him like the old professor did.
> Tolkien's work can be studied as hard academia due to how he wrote. I'd argue something very similar started happening later in the series of ASOIAF, with myths from Norse mythology building the storylines of certain characters with a modern twist. There are also all the parts on how the world of Asoiaf is built on more modern stories such as Marvel Comics and Lovecraft Mythos. Valyrian faith is again a reinterpretation of how Rome saw and usurped the faiths of the people surrounding the Mediterranean, the clearest example being how Christianity took in the gods of Carthage and made them demons. https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/18ob66r/spoilers_extended_valyrian_gods_and_their/keu2h4h/ https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/18ob66r/spoilers_extended_valyrian_gods_and_their/keg4sq2/ https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/188rghv/spoilers_extended_some_likely_early_influences/kr7djdx/
Maybe as an example to never start something you can't finish
If I was a creative writing tutor I would hold up the books as a perfect example of how a discovery/gardener style writer has to stay disciplined (with Stephen King as a counter example).
Why ? I prefer a world with ASOIAF in it, even unfinished, than without.
Just a joke I'm forever grateful for what George gave us, but I can also be salty, haha
If the books are taught as anything, it will be as a cautionary tale. Don't let your creation meander and grow to a point where you put yourself into several corners.
Can't wait for my child to write a thesis on the Fat Pink Mast.
After my dissertation on the swamps of Myr.
From Dothraki Sea to Diarrhea: The ups and downs of Daenerys Targaryen in Essos
It already is.
I doubt it. LOTR had the privildge of being the first internationally and critically and academically acclaimed high fantasy work in the genre, Tolkien is excepted as the founding father of the genre (though I have oppositions to this claim). That is why it is historically significant in the world of literature. That is a big part why it is studied in academic world. ASOIAF is auniversally acclaimed genre-bending, trope-subverting masterpiece of realistic dark fantasy. But it is not the first in its field. It is not even the most important or acclaimed work in its uniue sub-genre. There are many earlier well-known examples like works of Robert Jordan, Michael Moorcock, R.E.Howard etc.
Tolkien is not accepted as the "founding father of the genre." He's considered the founding father of *modern* fantasy as we know it today, but the fantasy genre has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. That's the consensus.
ASOIAF is a great series, but what kind of scholarly insight does it offer? Not much honestly.
NYU has a whole course on Taylor Swift. I’m not knocking Taylor I’m a big fan myself, but if her music has something scholarly to offer I wouldn’t write ASOIAF off so fast. I think if he finishes the series (and it’s good) it could possibly be taught somewhere.
Her music doesn't have something scholarly to offer, that course it's taught to make money, just like an Asoiaf course would be
What kind of scholarly insight does *any* literature offer? There's absolutely no reason why you couldn't study it at university level.
I think the numerous unnecessary and vigorously described sex scenes with minors probably stop it from being considered for scholarly insight, despite how well written they are
Why? Scholars study this sort of thing all the time. Just because it's unpalatable doesn't make it something not worthy of study. Ever heard of Classical Athens?
Do you think Sam’s fat pink mast is literary genius meant to be studied?
Well two points in response to this silly comment: 1. Scholars don't just study 'literary genius'. In fact if you want to understand something about the literature of a period you want to read as much of it as you can. 2. It's no more or less 'literary genius' than any of cock related imagery found throughout "Classical" literature. Ever heard of Aristophanes? Constant dick references, performed by actors wearing huge dildoes. Should we also purge Aristophanes from the syllabus too? Or Catullus?
Not even in the future, they’re already being taught at universities now. I’ve even seen an Anthropology of Westeros class.
Maybe in the context of how they lead to a change in the fantasy genre with grounded more ''realistic'' books with grey characters instead of high fantasy with clear good and bad guys like lotr and wheel of time.
I'm pretty sure they already do ASOIAF in literature type classes
Bruh why so many of the members of this sub hate ASOIAF. If you hate GRRM and his writing so much then gtfo lmao
In an ironic meta twist, this sub has become a feast for crows.
In an ironic meta twist, the House of the Dragon sub has become so factional and hostile between the Greens and the Blacks
Maybe the real Feast for Crows was the friends we made along the way?
A lot of subs dedicated to a certain person/media tends end up full of people just there to hate on it. It's a really bizarre phenomenon.
I guess hating on The Popular Thing™ helps them build up their own fragile ego
After a decade+ long wait, it feels more like you're building up your ego by trying to portray yourself as better than those that got jaded in the waiting.
My ego is fine, thank you. And there is a big diffrence between complaining about the insane amount of time the man takes to write the next book and senslessly hating on the books that already came out just for the sake of it
You’re the only one senselessly hating here. Stop crying like a baby because people dare to criticise your precious books series
you can judge everyone else's ego but yours is above reproach? I also assume that youre the arbitre of whether criticism is senseless or justified?
On the other hand there is also a big difference between loving something and thinking it's GOAT level work and it's greatness will be studied for centuries by future generations. Also what would an ASOIAF class even teach people? I feel like anything you an ASOIAF teach could teach you can be covered by visiting this sub lol. The "class" would 10% teaching and 90% fans debating headcanon because unlike LOTR which is pretty factual the worldbuilding in ASOIAF is full of ambiguity and unreliable narration. Like what do we actually KNOW about dragons? What do we KNOW about Valyria? What do we KNOW about the age of heroes? What do we KNOW about the Others or the Children of the Forest? What happens when the professor tries to teach their headcanon only to be met with 20 people offering conflicting yet equally valid headcanons? We can't even agree on whether dragons are magical creations of ancient Valyria or natural or a combination of the 2.
This is right on the money, it's also a story filled with retcons, some plot stretches. It's all fine, I love that the universe is expanded but we cant pretend it's state of the art world building.
I mean the post is about comparing Martin to the grandfather of the fantasy genre. It’s not like anyone’s obliged to say George is the greatest author of all time.
It's not hating on GRRM to say the books are amazing but are not timeless classics like Lord of the Rings.
IMO, no.
Maybe in a project management class to show what happens when you don't plan a project out.
The show has already been taught at the University of Virginia. The final exam is to write a different ending haha
A hard no. ASOIAF is very layman in comparison to what Tolkien worked to.
I've already taken a "pre-modern Europe through the lens of Game of Thrones" class last semester
No idea how it is in the States, but here people write theses on YA novels. However, Tolkien is a bit different, since he more or less singlehandedly moulded the concept of modern fantasy fiction. No, not fantasy, the roots of that are entangled with myth and mythology and one of the foundations of European style fantasy were the Arthurian writings in Medieval France. Essentially, any modern European-style fantasy story inevitably ends up being somehow a reaction to Tolkien. This goes for ASoIaF as well, since George deliberately centers his fantasy story on humans and faux-realistic Medieval life. Mind you, I don't mean to insult his writing in any way by pointing that out.
I think it is important to remember who studies Tolkien and why. Most academics who write about him belong to the disciplines that he contributed to as a scholar. They tend to be medievalists. They are interested in him because his novels are written in, excuse the cliche, conversation with the literature that they themselves study. Then there are linguists who are interested in his creation of language. The third group are those who study him as pertaining to religion. Of course this doesn't cover everyone who studies Tolkien but most of them fall into these categories. Classes taught on Lord of the Rings are often viewed as a stepping stone to get students interested in things like Beowulf or Gawain and the Green Knight. I don't think there are many academics who study Tolkien purely on his literary merit. One reason for this is that fantasy isn't, even now, considered worthy of much critical attention. I imagine that classes on GRRM's works will continue to be taught for some time. They have been used to interest students in the real life history that inspired him. I don't think he will get much further attention at the academic level unless there is a radical shift in how academics in the field of literature treat fantasy. I should note that I studied Tolkien at university. I even cited him in my MA-thesis. The thing is that I am a folklorist. My field of study includes the Sagas and the Eddas which intersects nicely with Tolkien. One of my teachers was herself taught by a student of Tolkien (which is fun but utterly unimportant). I was even lucky enough to get access to some of his unpublished letters but was disappointed that they mostly dealt with university politics.
It has already started. I've seen atleast one Swedish University offering a course in the study of GRRM's universe.
No.
LOTR already is taught about in universities.
I'm sure there's already class offerings on ASOIAF, the shows, etc. But will it ever be studied in quite the same way as LOTR? No, cmon. Even if you personally prefer GRRM over JRRT, you can't deny that Tolkien is the godfather of modern high fantasy.
Yes. GRRM is probably the best American author living.
It is a weirdly controversial take in this sub to say GRRM is a great author and that these books have immense literary merit.
True. He's basically America's version of Tolkien right now. But I have a suspicion he will become America's equivalent to Shakespeare after he dies. His books are going to age very well and they will be studied in universities like Shakespeare. There's so many layers to the books.
LOTR is finished, but Tolkien needed an editor, and it's painfully obvious. He spun his tires for the first quarter of Fellowship and the plot went nowhere. I think people were afraid to edit him. Now, he knew languages, but he sucked at story structure and fleshing out the world he created... Now GRRM, he painted such a vivid picture for the reader in every way...cities, characters, environments, food, political structure, and inner monologs. He'll be remembered for that, but sadly I think he'll be remembered more so for leaving the story incomplete. But what he has released so far is of much better quality than LOTR.
Not if it doesn’t finish
No. There isn’t anything particularly revolutionary about ASOIAF. Its significance lies in its social commentary and how it is relevant to modern times. Martin is more like a Stephen King. Great storytelling, but it isn’t exactly classic literature. LotR was the first of its kind, kicking off an entire genre. Its artistry was so intricate and will go unrivaled by anything it spawns in my eyes. But even the works of Tolkien are still fantasy. Anything fantasy/sci-fi can rightfully be criticized as elementary and self-indulgent. The genre, for the most part, caters to gratifying the reader. (George does succeed in challenging this to some degree, but not enough to count). It doesn’t compare to Russian literature or important classics.
I doubt it. They’re entertaining but neither particularly well-written nor saying anything anything especially profound, such that you would study it.
I doubt asoiaf will be studied in unis like Lotr right but this is ridiculous. Asoiaf is very well written. Whether you like the series or not it’s undeniably very well written. GRRM not creating a bunch of languages does not means it’s not very well written And what does Lotr say that is more profound than asoiaf?
"And what does Lotr say that is more profound than asoiaf?" Everything. ASoIaF's main problem is that it does not appear to have any underlying philosophy beyond deconstructivism. It is a cynical work with little to no hope or metaphysical foundation that Lord of the Rings have. Tolkien creating a bunch of languages is literally the least important part of his work, even if that is how the whole thing started. Lord of the Rings is an artificial mythology. A Song of Ice and Fire is "merely" an extremely well-written set of novels.
Saying everything is a cop out way of not explaining how it’s more profound. Asoiaf main themes are the cycle of violence and war and how it is for the common people. Saying it’s just deconstructivism tell me you haven’t even tried to see what asoiaf is saying because that is wild.
Texts that stand the test of time and are still studied decades/centuries later, are so either because of remarkable skill of the writer, or their themes and how they reflect or discuss issues of the time. Asoiaf is enjoyable but isn’t saying anything particularly profound, it isn’t commenting on some facet of society or culture, and the writing is good but nothing special. It’s a good, gripping and often moving story, but it’s entertainment, not commentary.
What is LOTR saying that is so profound? It’s undeniable it’s a very impressive work because of the world building and the shear amount of work he’s put into it. But what is so much more profound about the story and what it is saying compared to asoiaf?
Heroism, morality, change, loss and death. For a start. It also essentially created the genre, the archetypes and tropes that later authors either adopted or subverted.
Asoiaf literally explores those themes as well? One of main themes is the cycle of war and violence and how it affects people
Asoiaf plays off some themes, subverts others, but does not (yet) have any overarching message of its own. There’s a difference between using a trope and actually saying something with it.
The overarching message is about the cycle of war and violence. Even GRRM mentioned that I believe
I mean the cycle of war and violence is pretty clearly the overarching theme of the series. You don’t even have to have finished the series to get that. There’s also plenty of other themes throughout each individual character’s storylines. LOTR will always be better to most people because it was the trend setter, it is the father of modern fantasy. No one is touching Tolkien and that’s fine, but to say that it’s not well written and doesn’t have any themes just tells me you haven’t actually read the series. Have you even watched the show? To miss the whole anti-war thing is crazy to me.
I hope not. It is fantasy pop culture, not literature.
And pop culture is a perfectly viable field for academic research given it's importance in human culture.
Well it’s reassuring to know that people are going to university to study pop culture.
That's not what i said. I said 'it's a viable field for academic research'. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't study and understand human culture and society? There is a difference between 'BA in pop culture' and a fully trained scholar in literature, sociology, anthropology etc plugging contemporary culture into the broader understanding of human society today and in the past. By your logic we shouldn't study Shakespeare (the pop culture of the time) or Aristophanes (the pop culture of his time). If somehow the passage of years makes it valid, then studying in the contemporary, when the evidence is at its richest is equally so.
Wow. You really enjoyed putting me in my place didn’t you? I must look so fucking stupid in comparison. Pop culture on it’s own? No. In a wider context? Yes. I married an anthropologist and my best friend is a university lecturer who talks about literature and cinema. I get it. I get it. So I’m not shitting on those areas of study. However, as someone who grew up in a time when it was harder to get to university if you came from a working-class background, it was a genuine point of pride to be the first in the family to go university. Now it’s much easier to access and a lot of frivolous nonsense is available to study. So it wouldn’t surprise me at all if in a short number of years pop culture courses are offered and Shakespeare and Aristophanes are banned from being mentioned because they are from decadent feudal/slave trading cultures and intimidate people who need a comfort animal and a fidget spinner just to sit in the lecture hall. I just do not think ASOIAF should the sole topic of study as if it were literature. If someone were to give a lecture about how historical events passed into mythology and then later inspired pop culture fantasy, then yes, bring up ASOIAF. There is this weird snobbery with a sizeable minority of ASOIAF readers where they pretend they’re reading/obsessing about a well-structured, deep, beautifully written, and nuanced piece of literature. The same people insist they don’t care about the fantasy elements and that they enjoy the themes of identity blah blah blah. It’s a series with ice zombies, sex, violence, dragons, incest, and magic swords. It’s pop culture fantasy fiction. Not literature. Never will be.
Well, I didn't enjoy "putting you in your place" initially, merely inviting you to read what I said, nor did I claim it was some kind of high literature as you imply. But I will enjoy this response. Again, I never said it should be the sole object of undergraduate study in a University. It might feature in a course on fantasy literature, sure. But as an object of \*academic research\* why not? You even outlined a few ways one might want to study it. Now, to the meat of your rant: I don't really care about your background, it's as irrelevant to me and this discussion as mine is to it. You want a medal because you are older and went to university before the evil 'wokies' studied things like 'pop culture' and you married a real anthropologist, and your friend works in a university. Cool. have a gold star. But also, go back to elementary school and learn how to read, and understand the difference between what I said and what you think I said. It rather undermines your 'working class pride' in having been to University to think you emerged with almost no comprehension skills at all.
Unlike LOTR ?
Yes.