OFFICIAL Game of Thrones Thread

Originally Posted by Reynard369

Click to expand...

As for your first point.. that's opinion. I don't enjoy reading Shakespeare. As for your second point.. so is Moby Dick, which is a godawful book.

Shakespeare is "overrated" because you don't enjoy reading him? You're making an objective statement and supporting it with a subjective one. You'd have a good career in CE ahead of you if you ever decided to visit that forum.

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

Shakespeare is "overrated" because you don't enjoy reading him? You're making an objective statement and supporting it with a subjective one. You'd have a good career in CE ahead of you if you ever decided to visit that forum.

For one thing, that post was in response to someone who said Shakespeare is "awesome to read." I did not say that he was overrated because I didn't enjoy reading him, but that the poster's statement was opinion because, while some people may enjoy reading Shakespeare, I do not. Also, I didn't realize I had to put IMO in front of everything

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

Shakespeare is "overrated" because you don't enjoy reading him? You're making an objective statement and supporting it with a subjective one. You'd have a good career in CE ahead of you if you ever decided to visit that forum.

I'd say the subjective statement is in support of a subjective one.

Now back to GoT.

Originally Posted by Reynard369

Click to expand...

I didn't realize I had to put IMO in front of everything

You're missing the point entirely. It's not about specifying that something is your opinion. It's about not using your personal opinion / taste to justify sweeping and categorical statements of "fact. We know objectively that W.S. is perhaps most influential writer in the history of the English language. And you're basically saying that all of his influence is meaningless because you, personally, don't enjoy reading him.

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

You're missing the point entirely. It's not about specifying that something is your opinion. It's about not using your personal opinion / taste to justify sweeping and categorical statements of "fact. We know objectively that W.S. is perhaps most influential writer in the history of the English language. And you're basically saying that all of his influence is meaningless because you, personally, don't enjoy reading him.
Facepalm If he's the most influental writer in (....) language then that is part of his rating. Stating he is overrated is stating he shouldn't be (...) and that statement is thus subjective.

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

You're missing the point entirely. It's not about specifying that something is your opinion. It's about not using your personal opinion / taste to justify sweeping and categorical statements of "fact. We know objectively that W.S. is perhaps most influential writer in the history of the English language. And you're basically saying that all of his influence is meaningless because you, personally, don't enjoy reading him.
I agree that Shakespeare is one of the most influential writers in the English language. That is about as close to a categorical fact as you can get when analyzing literature. However, saying something is overrated is obviously subjective. It means that someone (me) thinks the value or quality of the person's work is actually less than what other people (you) think. To rate something is to give an opinion. Can it be more clear that my statement was subjective?

I'm emailing HBO this thread as proof that they should never take a week off in-season.

Seriously.

Between this and the people complaining about the nudity/sex, I really have to wonder....

VS.



What's the wheat, what's the chaff?

Originally Posted by CDFS

Click to expand...

Facepalm If he's the most influental writer in (....) language then that is part of his rating. Stating he is overrated is stating he shouldn't be (...) and that statement is thus subjective.
His influence is an objective measure, not a subjective one. Therefore, to make the statement that he is "overrated," one would need to argue that his influence exceeded his actual literary merit. While that is, ultimately, a subjective argument, it is a subjective argument that requires objectivity (influence) to be met with equally strong counterargument (influence was undue because of X, Y, and Z). That counterargument can't hinge on a single, subjective opinion about how much you do or do not enjoy the process of reading him. In order to make the argument that Shakespeare was "overrated," you need to choose a stronger and more measurable approach, and then substantiate it. Something like: 1) Shakespeare's influence exceeded his literary merit because other authors of his era were better and more accomplished. (This then requires substantiation). 2) Shakespeare's influence exceeded his literary merit because the degree of his influence was actually quite superficial. In essence, he was a good storyteller but not a good writer. (This then requires substantiation). 3) Shakespeare's influence exceeded his literary merit because he didn't influence anyone of merit. (Again, substantiation required) 4) Shakespeare's influence exceeded his literary merit because everyone he influenced gave him too much credit relative to his actual talent. (Substantiation required; textual analysis required) 5) Shakespeare's influence exceeded his literary merit because he was one of the only surviving authors of his time, and he lived in an influential age. (Need data or evidence on this). 6) Shakespeare's influence exceeded his literary merit because he was extremely popular, and thus more widely published than his contemporaries; popularity does not necessarily equate with merit; see: Twilight for example. (This is actually a fairly strong argument, but still needs evidence) Etc. The point is, there are probably an infinite number of ways to structure the argument using measures that, while not totally objective, at least contain some logical and analytical basis. The argument that he is overrated because Joe Schmo in Boise, Idaho doesn't care for him is a fairly weak argument. Even within the realm of subjective arguments, there are such things as strong subjective arguments and weak subjective arguments. Given the strength of the objective measure in this debate -- his influence -- we would need a very strong and well-reasoned subjective counterargument. This has not been forthcoming.

Originally Posted by Rambo

Click to expand...

I'm emailing HBO this thread as proof that they should never take a week off in-season.
Technically, they didn't take a week off. They just gave out a sneak preview of one of the episodes a week early, and 99% of the viewers ended up taking advantage of that sneak peak. /

99%? I didn't torture myself with that ****. I waited like a good boy until my show came on Sunday night.

ch131 is down. I still havent seen episode 7

Are we keeping this thread book-spoiler-free at this point? I read the first couple of pages and closed it down pretty fast, but would like to join in the discussions. Obviously never read the books myself.

Ep. 7 was incredible. Except for the drawn-out Appreciation scene with Littlefinger. It wouldn't have bothered me if it didn't just follow a scene with a nearly identical structure (Tywen and Jaime's convo). I've never seen a lesbian scene before that I just thought "oh ***** sake end it already."

I'm about 200 pages into the first book now. I started it earlier this evening and read until my wife told me to either go to sleep or GTFO so she could get some sleep. I'm not sleepy yet so here I am, reading about the book I'm reading.

I'm enjoying it so far. I don't have HBO, so I figure I'll just wait until the first season is out on DVD and watch the whole thing in one long marathon weekend.