No, I like Tolkien, and C.S. Lewis for that matter, and I don't want to have a catty discussion about authors merits. The bottom line is that art is subjective. That being said, I think that Tolkien and Le Guin are more accomplished than the others I listed in one or two ways: Ideas, and Writing Technique.

Alright, art is subjective, and you can not like the content in Martin's work, but calling his writing dreck is derogatory and invalid. His writing is more sophisticated and intricate than C.S. Lewis by far, and arguably more so than Tolkien. So, you know, you don't have to like it, but don't call his writing shit just because it's not your appeal.

Sophisticated and intricate... alright let's not get carried away. He writes mass market fantasy dreck. His gimmick is that he's ruthless with his characters. But I don't watch Days of our Lives either.

Once again, you don't have to like the content, but the writing itself is, yes, sophisticated. I may not like Jane Austin's work but I can appreciate her writing. C.S. Lewis is required reading four children in the fourth grade in California, what does that say about that level of writing? It may be a fine story, but that is not what I'm arguing. And being ruthless with characters? I guess. I look at it more as realistic. People don't always win if they have a noble cause, and if they have impossible odds against them, yes they will die. Look at Tolkien, a cast of nine characters fight in a series of cataclysmic battles and march through hell. There is one casualty. That's all. Oh, right, and then there is Gandolf the Jesus allegory but he comes back so it doesn't really count. But that last paragraph was content, which isn't the point I was making about your unjust accusation.

But content is half the battle. C.S. Lewis created Narnia. Martin created a bunch of people screwing each other over. I could watch the news for that. What compounds it is that his books are written like holiday paperbacks. My eyes just slide across the page looking for a substantial sentence to chew and I find nothing. With C.S. Lewis I'll pause to consider a paragraph here and there at least. With Martin, every sentence is just a segue into the next sentence. The style can't be deep, because the content isn't deep. That's why it translated to television so well.

Lewis created Narnia, Martin created Westoros and the rest of that world. So both can create a fictional world, except Martin's is actually detailed. And the content isn't deep? Did you actually read any of this? Is your opinion coming from the show here? Or did you actually read but get too depressed halfway through the third book? Because I can understand all this unfounded hatred if that is the case. And even then, what is deep about Lewis? The "mass market fantasy" series that Lewis wrote, you know the one that is seven books long, is akin to a Series of Unfortunate Events. It is pulp fiction for kids. Yes there are a few painfully on the surface religious allegories, so then I guess you can call it bible stories for children. What it comes down to is you don't like the story Song of Ice and Fire has to offer. That's fine but that doesn't make it bad. You don't like how the series consists of people screwing each other over. Yes, there is a lot of focus on the political aspects of the rival factions, and they play against each other. But there is also the whole conflict in the north with the Wall and the Others, and the entire story that takes place on the Eastern Continent with the rise of the Queen of Dragons. And why would people "screwing each other over" be a bad thing? Hell in the most famous of the Narnia books the most substantial scene is when the Witch screws over Aslan and kills him, which she can only do because she screwed over Edmund before that.