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.
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'?
I don't buy your bullshit relativism.