(Hint: This ↑ is not me.)
... one tells people to read more interesting writers than oneself.
To wit, these three provocative and/or informative articles from the last few months:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/what-does-a-realistic-fantasy-look-like
http://www.forbes.com/sites/philjohnson/2012/05/10/the-man-who-took-on-amazon-and-saved-a-bookstore/
http://online.wsj.com/article/
I shall return!
2 comments:
Ugh, ugh, ugh. Game of Thrones is better because it's more realistic? Even were the claim true (which I deny--there are great men, and there are small ones), displaying reality just as it is is not the purpose of literature!!!
Oh brother of mine! I understand the angst. But the point of the author of the piece was precisely that, verily, GoT cannot be called "more realistic".
Quote: "There can be no doubt that Martin and Tolkien provide different experiences. ... To claim, however, that one imaginary world is more realistic than the other is to beg a standard that simply cannot assert itself." Moreover, "In deciding matters of realism, then, we must ask ourselves how deeply our experience goes with the criteria we invoke, and from there decide whether our decision is valid. Some may realize, for example, that they have attended more birthday parties than beheadings in their lifetime."
Post a Comment