Talk:George R. R. Martin

Recurring removal of images


The most recent removal of images here occurred with a dismissive:
 * "Removed some of the old-hat photos of Martin and restored the more aesthetical space images - also, they work better as visual metaphors for what GRRM is saying"

I am assuming it is the same editor who continually insists on using an image of a protoplanetary disk (both here and elsewhere), removing images of the author, and of recently replacing one piece of artwork inspired by the author's works with one from an Apollo mission. Out of simple deference I had retained the protoplanetary disk (which frankly I do NOT see works all that well the caption — but I know that some of my allusions in selecting figurative images when clearly applicable ones aren't available are not always all that obvious or strong either), but I definitely believe most of the images available of the author should be used, and not just the one continually moved to the top when others are removed. Some of these are also used in the Wikipedia article, and the one I had selected to go at the top here has also long been the one selected and retained there. Previous removals of images of the author have been made with comments such as:


 * "I don't think that the gardener vs. architect view deserves it's own pic"

The quote relating to a gardner is a statement of Martin summarizing his views of his working methods and certainly deserves at least as much attention as a couple apparently added by this editor (which I had also out of deference retained):


 * Winter is coming.


 * "You know nothing, Jon Snow."

Previous comments of myself in the edits have included :


 * "Restore images of Martin—retaining the Protoplanetary disk image being insisted upon by someone—but generally images of the subject, when available, are preferable to images with construable relations"

I continue to include the captions and most of the images added by this editor, and see know reasons for these continued removals of the images of Martin, which frankly I find far more appealing than the image he or she insists on placing at the top. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 08:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The apollo mission photo that was most recently used to replace the winter scene is one that was one that I could perceive had more relevance than the protoplanetary disk image being regularly insisted upon, and which I had retained, but I can't agree that using it to replace an image relating to Martin's stories and a hero of them, for a comment of his about the heroes he creates, which thus definitely seems to be more relevant to the page than the heroes of the Apollo missions. ~ Kalki 09:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The photo of EARTH is in direct relation to the quote that follows it. Martin asserts that his heroes are the dreamers who try to make THE WORLD a better place. Yes, granted Martin is a fantasy/science-fiction author and thus his definition of "world" may contain more then just ours, but a photo of the planet is nevertheless a great way of representing the place where we all live and maybe wish to improve.

One photo at the top of the article, representing the author whose work we all admire is reasonable. However, blotting the page, which whould primaraly consist of text, with variations of the same picture, is clearly overkill. These images should highlight and serve as visual metaphors of the quotes (finding an 100% accurate illustration is impossible, therefore all pictures on wikiquote are metaphors)

The picture or the protoplanetary disc shows nicely how something that might easily be considered as strictly "scientific" may lend itself to a sense of wonder and escapist beauty commonly attributed to the fantasy genre. A point that Martin was trying to get across in the quote. ~ Supervidin (talk)


 * You state : "blotting the page, which whould primaraly consist of text, with variations of the same picture, is clearly overkill." Considering multiple images of an author on a page for the author "variations of the same picture" and something to be removed from an article in favor of simply blank text or a few other images of far less clear relevance is something which seems absurd to me. I cannot at all agree that the available images of the author at different times and ages to illustrate his verbal expressions of various points of views and assertions is in any way "overkill"— I consider the use of available images of human beings to illustrate some samplings of their thoughts quite a time honored tradition in many articles on people.


 * I can often appreciate very subtle points and relations, especially when they actually have some more profoundly important significance than might be immediately obvious to most, though not so much so when the significance or association is rather minor and somewhat strained. — but I cannot agree that images indicating such subtleties or uncertain associations should always be preferred to quite obvious and mundane relations, or that figurative images should be generally preferred and images clearly and obviously related to the subject of the page actually removed or excluded. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 23:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose we vote on this - or hear the opinions of a few other users before deciding. Deal? ~ Supervidin (talk)
 * I just happened to check in here for a moment before leaving, probably for several hours, but I certainly am willing to submit things to a vote, as I always have been when there are apparently intransigent positions being asserted and that seems to be the most appropriate way to deal with things. I might stick around for a few moments more, but must be leaving soon. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 12:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I meant more like a longer-term poll as in which version the other users find more appealing, practical and better overall. Yours or mine. I don't know how polls usually work on this page, so you set it up, okay? ~ Supervidin (talk)

Nobody is a villain in their own story.
He's widely quoted as saying:
 * Nobody is a villain in their own story. We're all the heroes of our own stories.

But I can't find a source from an initial Google search. Is this a genuine quote, or is it summarised version of other things he's said about villains and heroes? Chriswaterguy (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He said it in this interview. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)