Home

Martin fanboys, again

Submitted by Abalieno on February 12, 2010 - 04:28.

Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion, but it doesn't mean that one doesn't have to keep contact with reality.

So today I read this review of Best Served Cold and came to this part:

Where most authors dealing with multiple Point of View characters use a standard voice (grammar, structure and vocabulary) across all viewpoints, Abercrombie joins the ranks of authors like George R.R. Martin in his ability to reveal pieces of their personality through the way they tell their story.

Eh?

Ok, I understand that some readers really love Martin's series and have adopted it as a canon to judge all other fantasy, but the process of idolatry that is going on has trespassed all boundaries of plausibility of honest and earnest opinion.

George Martin has indeed a huge skill with characters, he makes them alive and sympathetic for the reader. That's his greatest skill. Along with making dialogues relevant and effective. But there's an aspect that was obvious to my eyes when I was reading the first book in the series and that has been praised by many readers: the prose is very good and even.

Martin writes very good prose, a pleasure to read. The book is accessible and engaging. But there's no experimentation with language. Grammar, structure, vocabulary? If true that would be the antithesis of an even, flowing prose. It would mean switching styles for every POV and it's definitely not something I saw happen in A Game of Thrones (especially with seven years old kids that would make any kind of adjusted use of vocabulary and structure extremely obvious).

So say that Martin is great at portraying multi-dimensional characters whose themes ring true and powerful. Say that he indulges in their minds, render wonderfully they thoughts on the page (plausible, faithful, consistent. Ok). But he does this through an even prose and style that represent constants through the book.

Doing true POVs that play with grammar, structure and vocabulary is extremely hard. It is rarely found in fantasy as it is rarely found in all genres of literature (Ulysses? Infinite Jest? House of Leaves? All examples of very simple and accessible books), and when you find it it's almost always about gimmicky aspects that are easily isolated. When it happens it also often leads to extremely polarized reactions by the readers because you can really come to HATE certain habits of certain characters and certain parts of the book really hard to wade through. It leads to an uneven prose, text hard to follow and definitely not an accessible book that is aiming for the broadest audience possible.

If that claim was true Martin's series would be nowhere as successful as it is. If it's successful is instead because the book has the kind of competent and beautiful prose that represent a constant throughout the book and that makes it a pleasure to read.

I also think that Abercrombie's style is completely different from Martin's and that you're really don't do Abercrombie justice if you look at his work through Martin's looking glass. It's hard for me to think even something vague that they may have in common.

» login to post comments

Re: Martin fanboys, again

Hic (not verified) on February 12, 2010 - 14:12.

1- You are an Erikson fanboy. I don't mean this as an insult, far from it, but you take way too much pleasure in things I consider quite dry. But you like it, and that makes it special for you. And it's ok, that's what fans are.

2- Did you skip Bran's o Arya's parts? Sure the writing was still good when describing, but the way of portraying decisions and ideas is clearly adapted to the characters mindset. This becomes even more evident in the later books. Jaime describes things directly, Bran in an innocent way, Arya clearly like someone naive but still old beyond their years, Catelyn with a motherly sense to it.

I don't think the quoted lines are wrong. You just interpreted it as something extreme, as if he'd said different characters were written in very different ways. That is not the case, but by using a close third person narrative he is able to portray each character's mindset by the way the story is told.

» login to post comments

Re: Martin fanboys, again

Innsmouth on February 12, 2010 - 21:26.

1- Fanboy has a negative connotation when it works like a filter that distorts reality. Erikson has become one of my favorite writers and I greatly enjoy reading him. But I think that I still appreciate things that exist. I would never criticize anyone who has "too much pleasure" reading Martin.

2- I'm sure that Martin conveys perfectly Bran and Arya's ideas. But where is the variation in structure, grammar and vocabulary? It's just not there, and it is not there because it was never in the intent of the writer (so not even an argument to use as criticism). The prose Martin uses is the same for all characters. It's obvious that when he goes to portray the way a character thinks he is faithful to the character (it's what I said above, and it's something that ALL fantasy writers try to do), but the prose, again, doesn't change. The way the book is done through chapters/POVs is a constant. There's no play with structure or grammar or vocabulary. Outside of dialogues, obviously, and certain thoughts that are rendered in first person.

I surely have interpreted those lines at their extreme. But Martin was being taken as the staple of a writer who plays with grammar, structure and vocabulary. EVERY fantasy writer tries to be faithful to their characters, Martin does it BETTER. But he doesn't do it differently.

» login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.