Carmine Explains Why George R.R. Martin Should Not Be on the Mt.Rushmore of Great Fantasy Writers
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 жов 2023
- Carmine explains why Robert Jordan, Kentaro Miura and others would deserve a spot on the Mt.Rushmore of great fantasy writers and George does not...at least not yet
This Clip Was Taken From: • Does GRRM Steal While ...
▬▬ Links ▬▬
Carmine's Channel: / xiiicarmine
Preston's Channel: / @prestonjacobsthesweet...
Soundcloud: / redteamreview
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/6gHQpk2...
iTunes: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/g...
Google Play: tinyurl.com/tu4c6kh
Discord: / discord
Merchandise: teespring.com/stores/gotpodcast
▬▬ Information ▬▬
Carmine of RedTeamReview and Preston Jacobs discuss all things A Song of Ice and Fre and everything in between from the characters, to theories and even the latest episodes and news from HBO's television adaptation: Game of Thrones. New episodes debut every month on either Carmine or Preston's channels as well as SoundCloud.
#gameofthrones #houseofthedragon #podcast #hbomax - Розваги
George would be known for not finishing a story when he has every opportunity to. It would be like the tv show ending where everyone immediately turns as ending are important anyone that says "it's about the journey" will probably be bitter if the ending is bad or rushed
Yeah kentaro definitely deserves his credit as well.
Damn that Kentaro and Oda add to the list was nice.
I would put Ursula K LeGuin, Robert Jordan, Tolkien and Frank Herbert if we're allowed to include him on this list. If not then I'd put Anne McCaffrey in that place but that could also be classified as sci-fi.
No CS Lewis?
@@ismaelsilveira2316 Mind you this is MY Mt Rushmore. Maybe I'd have put CS Lewis on there as a kid, but I've always been slightly put off by his work, even as a kid. He definitely isn't there for me now.
@@fighterck6241 I know it's your Mt Rushmore, I was just surprised that you would put Frank Herbert but not CS Lewis. But I get you homie, if it's not your cup of tea, it's not your cup of tea
Edgar Rice Burroughs. Lord Dunsany. JRR Tolkein. Michael Moorcock.
ERB's Barsoom series has inspired a lot of writers. John Carter and Tarzan, two characters on a mythic stage.
Lord Dunsany for his influence on Lovecraft, Tolkein, Gaiman and others
.
Tolkein, no reason needed. It is a given.
Michael Moorcock's influence is undeniable on RPGs, the Multiverse and Prince Elric who changed the genre from brute, simple heroes (I'm looking at you, Conan) to complex and morally ambigious characters.
GRRM is a cut above average, but he wears his influences well.
I’d say Tolkein, Ursula K Le Quinn, Terry Pratchett, and then George. Sure, he didn’t finish, but a huge amount of modern fantasy is inspired by him.
Another name which I haven’t seen mentioned is Stephen King. Even though he’s known as a horror writer, he has had a huge amount of influence on supernatural horror.
The first three could be a trilogy by itself (re Dune). I like to think there is no other books after - until it's done
Even if he doesn’t finish the books, his influence has been considerable in all media
How the F Carmine gonna put slashes in there. They ain’t gonna carve half a face in the mountain
LOL
Plus Robert Jordan took contingencies and chose and prepared his successor if he could not finish his work and it was well done in the end.
I wholeheartedly believe martin submitted his manuscript to hbo and they used it. The peoples reactions to it caused him to rethink but hes stumped about how to rewrite and make it look completely different from season 8.
I remember them saying at the start of season 5 when they were getting past where the last novel left off that he had given them all his notes and told them how the story was supposed to end. I wouldn't be surprised if he did something like that and then realized that the ending he had written was terrible and is now trying to scramble to come up with a new one, and he may not have it in him. If memory serves there were supposed to be seven in the main series, and he only has five done. Fire and Blood was supposed to be three and only two are published. And the Knight stories (about Ser Duncan and Aegon V) are supposed to have four books and he only has two finished (and apparently the last book of that series is about what actually happened at Summerhall and lays the groundwork for the resolution of the ASOIAF novels). Honestly I think he struggles with endings and a lot of the problem is he kills characters that everyone likes and that depletes the driving action of the plot. I know when House of the Dragon is going to fall off a cliff, and that's when Daemon and Aemond kill each other. After that the show is going to lose its two most compelling characters.
He shouldn’t rethink it and I don’t think he is. The people didn’t react poorly to the actual plot points but the fact that they were rushed, unearned, and slapped together with the grace of an elephant. There were also so many missing characters and plot points from the books that it literally cannot be an exact match with the shows ending. If D&D had taken their time with what they had and laid the foundations slowly and methodically like early seasons, I don’t think anyone would have issues with the plot itself.
I think George’s biggest problem is distractions rather than trying to rework his plot. I think he’s shown he enjoys the tv show atmosphere more than the quiet novelist atmosphere and he allows himself to get caught up in lots of side projects instead of focusing on finishing the novels.
@@ThePainOfSilenc I think you're right that he loves the TV atmosphere and it does distract from finishing his books.
I'd say that the first name should not be Tolkien but Homer with the Iliad and the Odyssey as it's the first sort of Fantasy adventure book and probably the most influential book ever outside of religious texts.
0:57 Yup it’s called conquering. Those “holy lands” were once the “holy lands” of another tribe that were conquered in the same warlike fashion. Not to mention the fact that American Indians didn’t have the same concept of land ownership that we do so projecting that concept onto them from a modern lens is itself an error.
It’s amazing that we’ve reverted back to the “noble savage” racist stereotype that existed way back in the time he’s referring to. He thinks by perpetuating this stereotype he’s being a good little progressive yet, in fact, he’s viewing history with rose colored glasses for one set of people, namely anyone not white, and vilifying another set of people, namely whites. It completely disregards the worldwide achievements of the United States of America, disregards the warrior culture that existed among American Indians at the time, and, worst of all, ignores the blatant anti-white racism that oozes off each word spoken. I notice he’s not shy about immersing himself in the modern western culture that is the end result of the actions he’s so appalled by. He’s more than willing to stand on a soap box and snidely chastise all the things he participates in and takes for granted the moment he steps down off that soap box. Anyone who so ignorantly speaks about history and the world it created today really doesn’t merit much of a high opinion from me and shouldn’t from you either.
I'm not sure what type of point you are trying to make with your first paragraph. Because for one I don't think he would disagree it was conquering. But second of all, and more importantly, conquering is not really a righteous and noble goal. I don't think anyone would see conquest as moral. So if you're trying to paint it in a better light than he did, you're really not doing it. And that's without even touching on the fact that it wasn't just conquest but genocide.
"...didn’t have the same concept of land ownership that we do so projecting that concept onto them from a modern lens is itself an error. "
I absolutely hate the "Don't use modern morals to judge the past" argument with a burning passion. Because for one that means that nothing can be judged so long as enough time passes. Like if there's a baby eating civilization suddenly we can't judge them if it's in the past.
But more importantly, because it completely ignores the opinions of the victims while overemphasizing that of those committing the violence. Because I'm sure that not having a concept of land ownership is not the same as being ok with being forced out the land and then being victims of a genocide. It's like if someone goes to the home of a couple that has an open marriage. And then the visitor commits SA on the husband and they're like. Why is it wrong? I thought you didn't believe in monogamy?
"It’s amazing that we’ve reverted back to the “noble savage” racist stereotype that existed way back in the time he’s referring to."
This is a straw man imho. Because no one claimed that they were noble savages, just that they had a sacred place. Besides, if someone goes to your church and desecrates it, and then runs you out of town until a bunch of people die, women and children included. If someone calls that out I'm sure that the argument is not about whether you're a noble savage or not, but about all the fucked up things that just happened to you.
"...disregards the warrior culture that existed among American Indians at the time"
This is whataboutism which is a logical fallacy and not really an argument.
"I notice he’s not shy about immersing himself in the modern western culture that is the end result of the actions he’s so appalled by."
I also have an issue with this type of argument for two reasons. The first one is that it's very close to circular reasoning. Like what are you trying to claim with that? That nobody would have invented modern fantasy without the genocide of the native americans? Like yes, time is linear. If we are against dinosaurs dying should we not participate in the culture around us because it's the end result of a meteor killing all of them? What if culture would have been 100x better without all those dinosaurs dying? See? It's pointless.
The second one is because it's also a very childish way to avoid criticism. It's on the same level as "If you don't like the country leave." or "If you don't like capitalism don't participate in the economy." As if people have a choice in the society they are born in. Like what should he do then? Immerse himself in the alternate reality culture in which Europeans didn't conquer the continent? And where does it stop? Is the Marvel Cinematic Universe the end result of the Holocaust? We wouldn't have it without it? Where does this logic stop? Should we thank the Holocaust for the MCU?
Besides. Why is it racist to criticize what the colonizers did but you can bring up the warlike culture of some native Americans as a negative. Cause one can either criticize both or neither. But it just seems intellectually dishonest in the way that you bring it.
So rather than a good grasp on history I think you just have a victim complex.
@@DanJuega The point of the first paragraph is to point out that the only smoke we have for conquest is when it was done by white people. I'm sure he would agree that both the American Indians and the White Europeans engaged in conquest but he'd almost certainly disagree that each were morally equivalent because the same side that routinely points out things like "America stole Native American holy land and desecrated it with monuments to their leaders" also believes that those labeled "oppressed" get moral leeway in practically every situation. He would begrudgingly admit that American Indians engaged in conquest. Also, calling something that including much death and killing "genocide" cheapens the word, genocide, thankfully, is fairly rare in our world considering the intention behind it must be complete eradication for the sake of eradication and conquest of territory does not fall into that definition. The point isn't to judge it morally good or bad like a child would but rather understand it's acceptance in a historical context, which leads to your next objection.
It makes no sense to judge things like conquest or slavery with our modern moral compass because they were so widely accepted and practiced at the time that the very idea that they could be changed was unthought of to almost every human living at the time. We take our moral repugnance we feel towards the practices for granted because we live in a world where they largely don't exist in the same overt fashion that they did back then. So it's misguided to judge cultures and civilizations as bad or morally inferior to us for engaging in these practices, at least when we're on the same level, because it's almost certain that if either of us had lived at that time, we'd have accepted conquest and slavery as normal aspects of life as well and would have had to been extraordinary men to stand up against it, as the ones who did were. Also your example makes no sense because civilizations, for the most part, have been against eating babies for a long time, so even European settlers in the 15th century would have found that appalling. Some of the Central and Southern American Indian cultures that they found would not have found it so appalling however, but again, we don't talk about that because they're the so called "victims" you speak of.
And you fall into the same logical pitfall that the man I commented on does. You too recognize that conquest occurred on both sides of the struggle but the non-white side are "victims" and the white side are committing "genocide" for doing the same things the "victims" did to the tribe that "claimed these lands" previously, as that tribe did to the tribe before them. Do you not see the point? Claiming the white man is so bad for simply being the final one to do what has been done on those lands time and time again, including violence and bloodshed, is ridiculous. And the point of Indians not claiming land is that we project that modern slight onto them. They don't claim we stole the land from them because they never claimed to own it, modern, perpetually offended, internet aficionados make all these claims on their behalf. If anything, the men who paved the way for modern day America, the most racial accepting, opportunity laden, and free-thinking country that has ever existed, should be praised like they always had been until about 10 years ago when some decided attempt to forcefully flip the world upside down, start calling men women and women men and spitting on our ancestors.
Also, I know you may have taken a course on philosophical argumentation, but the point of arguments isn't to "win" and you can always tell who's trying to win when they start quoting pieces of your argument and attaching "logical fallacies" to them like they're biohazard stickers. It's not a straw man to claim the noble savage stereotype is being revived because you didn't explicitly call them noble savages, you're treating them that way by only thinking of them as peaceful, spiritual, and morally exempt of their own sins while their conquerors are literally the worst people in the world committing genocide, it's a ridiculous, Hollywood interpretation of history. You're disregarding the warrior culture that existed among the American Indians at the time, I repeat.
Next, not what circular reasoning means, a good example of that is "A women is someone who identifies as A women is someone who identifies as A women is..." Can't wait for you to call me a transphobe for that one even though it's simply a logical point UA-cam moderators. But the point of identifying that we all graciously live in a time of unparalleled comfort in large part due to the actions of the same people we are now condemning to hell is to 1) Show that we should try a little damn respect and 2) Show that we could make changes to our lives to not reap these benefits we claim to be so outraged by. In other words, put your money where your mouth is, if you're so upset and concerned about how America became America, don't live in America or the West. You don't have a choice in where you're born but if you're born in the West, you have more opportunity to easily accumulate the wealth and freedom needed to leave than anywhere else in the world. But you won't do that because you know that it is the best place in the world to live and you know that these men who you condemn did build something incredible but it's much easier to sit in an armchair and complain and condemn all the same, making you not a very good person. And the reason this is different than the dinosaurs is because no one morally condemns the comet that destroyed the dinosaurs like they do our founding father and European explorers. If we weren't taking every opportunity to spit on them and tear down their statues while living in the unprecedented comfort that they helped create then we wouldn't need to be having this conversation at all.
But some of us like to act like Europeans conquering the continent was a bad thing for them today. They not only look back at the Indians as victims and therefore absolve them of wrongdoing in the intellectually dishonest way you accuse me of, but also themselves. They are victims for being born in America, victims for not being 100% affirmed by each and every stranger, victims for living under "systematic racism", and victims for each and every other injustice they must create for themselves with one villain responsible for it all. That villain is the white man, Whiteness, and/or European colonizers. So you see where the racist all comes back to? You see who have the victimhood complex?
@@ThePainOfSilenc But that is just a straw man that you're creating in your head. Who said he is pro conquest when other cultures do it? Whatabautism is not an argument.
And how does it cheapen the word? Genocide is the extermination of lives and culture. And if it wasn't a genocide, why did tribes disappear? Why did the native population plummeted? Why there's no natives in most of the country? These are not aspects of conquest. Conquest can involve the assimilation of native populations. But that was not the case with this one, so what was different? The G word.
And I've also never been convinced by the can't judge the past argument. Because one, as you said there were abolitionists movements even back then. So the logic that everyone thought it was ok falls apart. And two, that attitude just dismisses the opinions of the millions of slaves, which I'm sure weren't pro-slavery. It also dismisses cultures at the time that didn't practice slavery. It's just hyper-focusing on what the slavers thought, setting it as the norm and dismissing everyone else's opinion on the matter.
And if we use that logic, does that mean we can't judge cultures in the present? What do you do if something is widely accepted by culture today but you disagree? Because with that logic you can't criticize it or judge it as immoral no matter what it is.
And you are the one that seems to have a hate boner for particular cultures, because you didn't give examples for baby eating cultures, you just broadly waved your hand and claimed it to be the case. And that it's particularly funny because it is a well known fact that the cycles of famine in Europe made it so sometimes babies and children were abandoned or even eaten, which is why it's such a prevalent theme in folk tales. Plus it's known as an analogy. I didn't expected for you to take it at face value. Why didn't you take the other analogy at face value too?
Also I think that most of your arguments are "Because I say so." Because it is a well known fact that there's been lawsuits by native tribes against the US to get land back. One of them is that of the black hills which the Lakotah claim it was stolen from them since the US broke two treaties with them for it... and the black hills is where mt Rushmore is.
Dude, I'm convinced even the Roman Empire was more racially accepting and free thinking than the US. Not that race was a concept back then, mind you. But I don't think you can claim those things for the US when it started as a literal slave country, and it was segregated for most of its history, cause it's been desegregated for like 60 years. And then on top of that it got rid of the native population.
And I'm actually sure that the point of arguing is not to hold hands. And whether you like it or not, fallacies do make weak arguments.
And you bringing light to the crimes committed against a culture is not the same as white washing its history. If someone drove US children out of their homes and brought the population close to extinction. That is not morally justifiable just because their ancestors did the same to the natives. Would you also claim that I can't criticize that if it happened?
I think that a good example is the Genocide of Americans is integral to modern culture because it occurred before it. Why? Because it occurred before it.
And it's also really weird to treat America as monolith rather than a set of choices taken by individuals. Like should the American slavers get credit for America having civil rights today then? And those people had no control over what was gonna happen in the future. If we lose our democracy and the US becomes a dictatorship that doesn't mean that actions in the past are more or less moral.
Plus I think you're stuck in the 50s because US actually ranks very low on social mobility. Never mind how it's also their country so it's their freedom to criticize and/or change it to what thinks it's best. Being free does not mean being free to suck America's dick.
And I do see it. It's the person crying because people are racist towards white people. It really reads as "pls no criticism, only compliments." Which sounds pretty fragile.
JRR Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, Jules Verne, Frank Herbert.
Jules Verne and Frank Herbert are science fiction
Tolkien, CS Lewis, Robert E Howard, Robert Jordan (Brandon Sanderson will by the end of his life, likely be on the Mt Rushmore)
I’d have to give Steven Erickson an Honorable Mention : he churned out a QUALITY series in “Book of Malazan The Fallen”, with a deep, rich lore, in RECORD time. Except for book 9 - “Dust of Dreams” - I wouldn’t rate any book below an 8/10, and there’s a LOT of 9s, and couple of 10s in there. Couple that with he and Ian Esselmont’s addendum books - well over 20! - to the main series, and it’s just incredible! The ONLY lag has been the delay to the release of the third book in the Tiste series…my favourite modern series by far.
Robert Jordan and Robert Howard is the same person
Thats your list? Wb ursula leguin, robert jordan, terry pratchett...
Yeah…Pratchett for “Absurdist” or “Contrarian” Fantasy for sure…, though I wouldn’t have a “Mount Rushmore”…more of a Pantheon….I don’t know about Lewis…while “Narnia” is revered, I would kind of think that he is a standalone anomaly….I can’t think of anyone who writes similarly to, or was inspired by him…his Christian metaphors aren’t really subtle either, unlike most of Tolkien…
I agree. Compared to King he's not even a squire.
No Terry Pratchett??!
Tolkien, Sanderson, Gaiman, King.
Tolkien for basically creating the genre.
Sanderson for being the most influential of his generation and canonising "hard fantasy".
Gaiman for his influence. I have read hundreds of stories using his "gods are created by us" trope.
King is perhaps the most influential living fantasy writer. Most of his books are fantasy and he is incredibly prolific. I, personally, don't like his writing style. I read a few of his books, not my thing, but what he did for horror is incredible.
Martin's influence is limited. Yeah, GoT is the biggest TV show ever...but it fizzled. It's over. The only reason we still talk is that HotD had a fantastic season 1.
I feel mixed. On the one hand, one can easily cut entire characters out of his story. It's been a decade since I read ASOIAF, but that one Dornish prince who got eaten by a dragon...what a fucking waste of my time. Must've been a hundred pages just with him.
On the other, he did write some of the best characters out there. Tyrion is a master piece. Makes Glokta look like a goof almost.
At this point Martin feels like a glorified Rothfuss and that is one annoying mofo too.
I think the biggest practical problem with Martin is he likes pulling the rug out from his readers. My biggest problem personally is that too many of his characters are very blatantly drawn from real people in history and it makes a lot of his writing seem passe. Robert Baratheon is Richard the Lionhearted, Renly is Philip V of France, Rhaenyra is Elanor of Aquitane, Viserys is Henry IV, Tywin is Edward the Longshanks, Mance Rayder is Genghis Khan, Tyrion is Richard III, Jon Snow is Henry VII, the list goes on.
To get back to what I mean by the rug is Martin loves to write these great characters that we love as people, Robert Baratheon, Ned Stark, Robb Stark, etc., and then kill them. The problem with it is that eventually you lose the people that are driving the narrative thrust of the story. This is why the story runs into problems as they have to try and hand off the POV and which characters are telling the story because the people who were driving the action (Robb, Renly, Tywin) are all dead and it makes it hard to keep the plot moving forward. It seem to me that he spends too much time with a lot of subplots that he enjoys but aren't critical to the main story.
I also think that Martin was a victim of his own success. Originally the series was supposed to only be three books, and the Red Wedding was the climax, and after it started being successful it grew to five and eventually seven. The problem is that it's extremely difficult to take a story that was only meant to be told over three books and stretch that out over seven novels and still have the story flow and work correctly.
@@pittland44 I hadn't known that it was supposed to be only a trilogy and not a heptology. That explains so much. Thank you for your comment.
"They took holy land and desecrated it" Yeah, its not 2016 anymore, dude. You're not impressing anyone.
The Natives called everything holy as an excuse to be victims and or take it back from someone else.
Thank you lol…also it’s American land and been that way for awhile. Preston needs to stop bitching
That's certainly one way to white wash a literal genocide that happened to them.
One piece and Berzerk both haven’t finished. Why not hold them to the same standard as George?
I’d say because at least they’re both regularly churning out main content…if I see/hear another “Wild Cards” release I’ll scream 😡
yes
Do you people not know that Robert Jordan and Robert E. Howard is the same person? He used a psydonym. His real name is James Oliver Rigney Jr.
Imma say something hate me if you care, anyway:
I dont think GRRM should be on the "greatest fantasy authors" mount cuz Song of Ice and Fire isnt really a fantasy story. Its a story with fantasy, but not that much.
Just like star wars isnt a sci fi or a fantasy show, its a story with sci fi and fantasy elements.
Im so tired of political dramas with some magic, at least narnia and hobbit/lotr/etc and witcher are FILLED with magical creatures, magic, fantasy elements.
When do we get a fantasy author that goes bat shit insane with the fantasy element? This is severly lacking in todays age
I think you have to put Tolkien as number 1, Robert Jordan 2, Robert Howard 3, I'd probably put George on there 4 but CS Lewis is a worthy contender. I tend to think Herbert is Sci fi not fantasy and Lovecraft is horror.
Robert Jordan and Robert Howard is the same person
@@rt-mc8ipI think they may mean Robert E Howard, the creator of Conan the Barbarian
While Robert Jordan didn't finish it himself (Sanderson), he wrote the notes and outline from my understanding of it - so he still had a very heavy hand in the story plot points I'd imagine.
1 Tolkien, 2 Terry Pratchett for sure, 3 Steven Erikson, 4 Brandon Sanderson. George RR Martin is average at best.
Mine would be Tolkien, Robert Jordan, Brandon sanderson and then i dont know
George MacDonald wrote the fantasies that inspired Tolkien and Lewis. William Hope Hodgson also wrote cosmic horror that both Lewis and Lovecraft complemented. I would argue both of those guys should have some consideration.
This people spend so much time listening their own voice in youtube, they really let their butt hurts replace real arguments. Martin has not finished, Miura didn't either. You think one is better because he worked himself to death? sure, but having incomplete stuff doesn't reduce the quality of your work. Authors do not owe you a damn thing. This kind of talking is the same pretentious dumb kind of wording i imagine happens when a jury is selecting movies for the Oscars. And to put the author of One piece there is just the cherry on top. Good manga, not really important in the general fantasy anything. Sorry but this is tiring.
waaah waaaah waaaah
Completely agree. They love the sound of their own voices lol.
And one piece.....really? Im a huge fan of it yet after the timeskipp the writing , plot , the powerscaling and fights started to suck more and more. Gear 5 luffy is lazy writing at best. At worst it's insulting to readers.
Martin absolutely deserves a place in top writers in my opinion but its an opinion I guess 😅
I think it does reduce the quality by definition. Is having no ending that much better than having a bad ending? Would you pay to see a really good movie but it's actually just half of it?
And yeah, authors are not slaves. But I never understood the "authors don't owe anything to their public." Because, yeah, you can't take them to court cause legally they don't owe you anything. But at the same time they're clearly not creating art just for themselves, and they wouldn't enjoy the life they live without a public. So whether they ethically or morally owe their public is an actual conversation to be had.
Plus it's just weird to dismiss OP when it clearly made massive waves in its respective realm. So it reads as, oh it's not western? Fuck it.
@@christiandouyon9739 Damn, how can I agree with a comment and disagree at the same time?
100% Gear 5 Luffy is lazy and dumb but Martin still doesn't get a spot
@@OfficialRedTeamReviewthis is how dumb you sound whenever you have nothing to rebuttal with lol