'Lick' is an old slang term for 'blow', in the a-blow-was-struck sense. That's why the title of the Rolling Stones' greatest-hits album https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_Licks is a three-way pun. 'Forty licks' is a proverbial term for a particular kind of corporal punishment: forty blows of the cane or whatever. Or see "The Return of Ulysses", the final chapter of The Wind in the Willows: http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/grol/grahame/wind12.htm
As a former satirist, I am 99% sure that is satire. Certainly a majority like that wouldn't be silent for long! This looks exactly like the kind of stuff I was putting up around my college for George W. Bush.
Also, this sign has a great rhyme scheme; I almost feel like it needs "Burma Shave" at the bottom.
Not trying to be some literature snob, but GRRM can't hold a candle to the profound impact Harper Lee has had on American culture as a whole (not to mention that she won a Pulitzer and a Presidential Freedom Medal).
It's almost insulting even bringing up a quote from ASOIAF.
You are in fact being a huge literature snob saying that it's insulting to even compare the two. To Kill a Mockingbird was culture changing because it touched on such an important issue to American culture (race relations, etc.), while also being a well written book grounded in the human spirit. It is not objectively better written than ASOIAF, which has surprising depth and a keen understanding of the human spirit in conflict with itself.
ASOIAF has flaws, but so does TKAMB. Atticus could be argued to be quite a one dimensional character (not counting the sequel, which comes out of nowhere and is widely regarded to NOT be well written).
I think it's fairly obvious that TKAMB is objectively better than ASOIAF.
What next? You'll tell me that Dante Alighieri's 'Divine Comedy' isn't objectively better than Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code'? Or that 'The Grapes of Wrath' isn't objectively better than 'Fifty Shades of Grey'?
Your arrogance of somehow equating your subjectivity with objectivity is concerning.
How do you define something being objectively better? Popular opinion? Does collective subjective opinion make something objective? Very obviously not.
Many people living probably enjoyed the Da Vinci Code more than Divine Comedy. The former likely is more relatable for a lot of people. That's the funny thing about creative subjective work -- it doesn't have a singular dimension by which to judge. Since judgment of a work is multi-dimensional, one has to determine the criteria by which to judge its total quality on some objective basis. Even if the criteria itself were 100% objective in some way, the method by which the results are compiled together is certainly not.
Yeah, so again: I don't buy this kind of bullshit relativism. There's strong empirical evidence that certain things (so called subjective things: art, food, literature) are better than other things in the same arena.
As I suggested in my other comment, as I primer, I strongly suggest reading Hume's 'Of the Standard of Taste' and bringing forward some talking points instead of pretending like you're making some kind of profound argument. In other words, what you're saying isn't new. It's also very simplistic, naïve, and (I believe) probably wrong.
You're the only one here who hasn't produced an argument. In all of your other comments you refuse to explain for reasons that your ideas are too complicated. That's the very definition of snobbery. Refute my points instead of emptily pointing out I'm wrong.
I produced David Hume's arguments, which, I think, are a pretty good starting point. If you're not willing to familiarize yourself with them, that's a shame, because he's a pretty smart guy.
Nobody is going to read a book to reply to a forum comment. You should be articulate enough to explain what you mean without pointing, "there, that, that's what I mean."
I hope you realize how absurd you're being. If you asked me to explain what it means for a set to be "Henkin" I'd probably tell you to go read a logic book because it's way too hard for me to explain (and ensure you understand) the intricacies of a completeness proof -- a proof much simpler than Godel's, for that matter.
Similarly, the study of aesthetics is very rich and difficult. It's impossible to distill 2 or 3 bullet points from Hume's paper, much how it's impossible to distill 2 or 3 bullet points from this one: http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/historical-projects/Projects/complete... -- even I know and thoroughly understand both topics.
While I agree with your assessment of the comparative merit of these works, in what sense is that assessment objective?
I believe TKAMB is worth advocating for, and even reflecting that worth in our institutions, for example by making one required reading instead of the other. But I can also imagine individual circumstances where ASOIAF is a more important and worthwhile experience for someone.
There's no easy way of answering that on this kind of medium (an Internet forum). I took two graduate seminars and wrote several papers on it :) But as a primer, I strongly suggest reading Hume's 'Of the standard of taste': http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL23.html
In that essay, he attempts to provide some clear-cut criteria for an objective judgment of art, food, and literature.
(Note that there ARE people that are relativists and they have a somewhat compelling argument. That's perfectly fine. I just don't buy it and I think they're wrong.)
I would submit that any attempt at "clear-cut criteria for an objective judgment of art, food, and literature" will be subject to the culture in which it is developed, and that when these criteria are transplanted into foreign cultures, they will or will not work to varying degrees.
You allude this this when you say "GRRM can't hold a candle to the profound impact Harper Lee has had on American culture as a whole". Obviously your own criteria includes how this work affected America. How objective can this be if it may be assessed entirely differently by a Chinese, Russian or African person, where it may have had little or no discernible influence on their culture?
Leaving that aside, the passages in comparison are actually saying different things. Regardless of who wrote them, 3minus1 should be free to prefer that slightly different definition of courage. The source is irrelevant.
Thanks for the recommendation! I will definitely read that. I've no formal education in this area, but have read Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding", and got quite a lot out of it.
It's a little absurd to compare a story with essentially 1 thesis and 1 antithesis, to a story full of theses and antitheses where the reader is constantly asking "Which thesis will prevail above which?" and ultimately, "Which thesis will prevail above all?" The authors are doing completely different things. The latter of which is objectively more difficult than the former, the latter of which is much more representative of the world in which we all live.
Well, to go further down your line of thought, reading Dante in any other language than Italian does not do it justice. Therefore anybody who has read a translation of 1984, for example, hasn't really read 1984, and thus could not possibly have really grasped it.
I think he's right. Harper Lee was supremely significant and impactful. GRRM is just entertaining. If they wrote exactly the same, it would still read better coming from her.
Atticus is one dimensional because he is described through the eyes of his adoring daughter. That's why I like the sequel, because it shows the daughter growing to understand that her father isn't perfect after all.
Creating "meaning" from words is a joint effort between the words on the page and the reader. It's not a joint effort between the words on the page, the reader, and the Pulitzer committee.
It is snobbish to attempt to subvert the impact that a piece of writing has had on someone because it's not good enough or important enough by some "objective" standard. People should be free to find "meaning" wherever they wish.
Storytelling uses any avenue possible to express the story.
Shamans dance around a fire, play-actors get on stage, Film
directors use CGI , actors, puppets, sets, and so on.
A writer writes. A good writer uses all of the tricks available to them that their language provides and is capable of doing so in a consistent manner to create their own written voice.
'To Kill a Mockingbird' was both well-written and a good story; the social impact it created reflects that.
I've read plenty of works that are either exclusively well-written, or exclusively a good story. It's not rare.
It may be a great story, but lack good characterization or dialog, overcoming those weaknesses through some other factors of the writing and storytelling. Hackneyed dialog, two-dimensional characters, but an intriguing setting and plot, for instance. A lot of pulpy novels are great, fun stories, but few are great pieces of writing as well.
I think such people are talking about different things. One is more coarse-grain, talking about the story, pacing and themes. The other is more fine-grain, talking about the individual word choices and language play.
The concepts are completely different. Here are several examples:
- Imagine yourself writing down the story of The Shawshank Redemption (hey, this approach worked for Terry Brooks!). How much do you think people would like it? More or less than the version Stephen King wrote?
- Imagine yourself writing the same story -- in Mongolian. It's the same story, written down.
- Tolkien's The Silmarillion has several excellent stories in it, which people will be happy to hear you tell them about after you go through the laborious effort of reading it. It's not a coincidence that the material of The Silmarillion wasn't written for publication.
- Imagine two people giving a lecture on the same topic. One of them is entertaining, one isn't. The first one had better writing for the same content.
- Imagine yourself playing Beethoven's fifth symphony as a one-man band. The music is widely acknowledged to be a great work. It turns out that the delivery matters. In the analogy, the music is the story, and the manner in which you actually produce it is the writing.
Yeah, this is a common problem in genre fiction unfortunately. The best one I've read is "The Magicians" series by Lev Grossman. The writing is clean, concise, everything is shown and nothing told. The series is a great deconstruction of a lot of classic YA fantasy tropes and has a solid magic system. Can't recommend this series highly enough, both my literary and scifi/fantasy fan friends have all really enjoyed it.
I'd also recommend Ishiguro's The Buried Giant, very close to literary fiction.
It steps a little outside of the bounds of what we think of as "fantasy", but the magical realism genre has a lot of amazing pieces, and the genre is based around fantastical elements. My favorite example of this is "One Hundred Years of Solitude" by Gabriel García Márquez. "Invisible Cities" by Italo Calvino is another good one.
I loved "Remains of the Day" and "Never Let Me Go", but didn't finish "The Buried Giant." The first two aren't fantasy, but IMHO they're much better Ishiguro.
As for "literature-y" fantasy, I'd agree with others here to look at magical realism, e.g. "One Hundred Years of Solitude." But my opinion is probably crap -- some of my fantasy favorites are Tolkien's "Silmarillion" and "Lost Tales," which probably don't qualify as "great literature," but show some amazingly thorough and vivid world-building.
Pratchett was a genius when it came to knowing just the right phrase to conjure up an image, although reading all the Discworld novels in one go as I am at the moment reveals he's not quite so good at the storytelling side, often dragging on a few chapters too long.
You are not necessarily wrong, but I think it is important to try to understand what the comment meant. Perhaps some specific event in her life justifies her position.
In literally terms, certain authors are simply better than others. But this does not invalidate the idea that some people might find more popular authors to have a bigger impact to them.
>but GRRM can't hold a candle to the profound impact Harper Lee has had on American culture
Yes, but it has what, a 35 year head start? I don't think that your assertion being true is relevant to the literary merit of GRRM.
I've read Harper Lee (and a lot of literature in general), GRRM is fantastic. A more apt comparison might be to Dostoevsky, as the concepts Martin wants to explore are less related to our culture and more to do with fundamental issues mankind has wrestled with for much longer.
Case in point, Shakespeare. Some people like to forget that he was a huge fan of sprinkling in dick jokes and clowns smacking each other over the head with inflated bladders to play to the groundlings.
philosophical insight, subversion of macho values, a picture of childish insecurity/fatherly guidance, and dramatic irony for those who know the ideals of the speaker will lead to his death.
all that in 2 lines and you don't think it's great writing.
A truly powerful statement is powerful regardless of the background of the person who wrote it.
Sometimes statements can be powerful because of who said it... but dismissing a quote just because someone has a certain background? I don't like an idea being discredited because of a person's impact of society.
I really appreciated reading both of these quotes. I'm glad they were contributed.
Taken out of context, it would be. In context though it's a very important part of the novel. Atticus is telling his son that the next door neighbor who he loathed actually had real courage, not the kind you have with a gun in your hand but courage to stick to your principles all the way to death. Jem and Scout had been hero-worshipping their father a bit since the incident with the rabid dog and he's telling them that here's a different kind of couragee and one he admires more. It also foreshadows Atticus's own upcoming battle to stick to his principles in an impossible situation where he's licked already - and can't use a gun either.
That is one of my favorite quotes of all times, specifically taking into account the setting of the book.