[notahacker]

tbf, he isn't being parodied here for not being literature here, he's been parodied for the sort of poor writing editors are supposed to fix regardless of genre. Weird or mixed metaphors, the odd minor grammatical error, redundancy that isn't for dramatic effect (actually all stuff 'literary' authors are more likely to get a pass on as critics assume they were there on purpose) and an oddly journalistic approach to introducing characters.

I mean, it's also true that renowned author Dan Brown does a lot of things well in a way that literature usually fails or doesn't even try: pacing, puzzles, intrigue, ideas and references that interest the reader. The book sales aren't completely accidental. He'd never have sold the same number of books if he tried to write like Tolstoy, or Pynchon, or even a fairly mainstream-friendly Booker Prize winner. But people would have enjoyed the books just as much if they'd been better edited.

[ghaff]

In general, after becoming best-selling, a LOT of authors would probably benefit by editorial intervention that included cutting out a lot of pages.

[Tainnor]

*cries in Dance with Dragons

[unmole]

Dance with Dragons atleast had some plot progression. Feast for Crows on the other hand...

[Tainnor]

This may be subjective. I enjoyed AFfC a whole lot more than I did DwD.

I suspect the reason is that I really did like the background imagine of a war-torn Westeros being painted, while on the other hand, everything about Essos seems to be made up in such a way that it's just as "exotic" as possible without any real debt. Even the characters have stupid names that give me a kind of "I don't know what languages besides English sound like" vibe.

[unmole]

I find the normal European names but spelt weirdly gimmick in Westeros much more jarring than the foreign sounding names of Essos. FWIW, English was the third language I learnt to speak.