Re: _Feast for Crows_ - a review
- From: "JavaJosh" <javajosh@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Oct 2005 14:18:03 -0700
Stanislaus B. wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2005 23:01:49 -0700, "JavaJosh" <javajosh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >David Bilek wrote:
> >> Is _AFfC_ in and of itself a bad book? No, GRRM is too good a writer.
> >> But in the context of the series it was a misstep.
> >Almost a good summary, but it really is a bad book. It is possible for
> >a book to be written well and still be bad. Take for exmaple ...
> >_Brothers Karamazov_ . Or for a more SFnal example, Gene Wolfe's
> >unfortunate Latros books. Or even Mervyn Peake's book. Tactical
> >successes, strategic failures all.
> How do you call the opposite of damning with faint praise? If the
> comparison is right, it would be one of the immortal masterpieces of
The comparison I was trying to make, which may not have been obvious so
I'll make it explicit here, is very high quality prose combined with a
some glaring global problem, like a lack of a plot (Peake), or poor
pacing (Dostoevsky), or missing a theme (Wolfe).
Obviously YMMV a great deal here, and I made these comparisons to show
how much I regard Martin as an author, and how little I regard this
particular work. Comparing _Feast_ to the (IMHO) mistakes of other
great authors isn't "damning with faint praise" it's "acknowledging an
anamoly from a master" or somesuch.
- Prev by Date: Re: science project
- Next by Date: Re: Heinlein's rather unpopular views on rape
- Previous by thread: Re: _Feast for Crows_ - a review
- Next by thread: Re: _Feast for Crows_ - a review