True, however, I was challenging the statement all large stories were unfocused, when only some are.
Again, no one here ever claimed that. I was merely echoing complaints I've heard before in an attempt to summarize the original post. I never claimed that ALL long story are unfocused, in fact, I was arguing against my own stories, so don't start attacking me for stating positions which aren't my own. Instead, wait until someone agrees with my summary of the objection to cast lists, and then they can either defend it or not.
They all say that they've been told how awful Martin's writing is. That he's achieved any level of success is a triumph of story weaving over technical skill.
His books could be so much better if he used a decent editor.
If he did, he'd likely never have gotten his story published. You've quoting a bunch of unnamed sources--probably all unpublished from the sounds of it--to question the 'literary claims' of someone who's sold millions of copies.
And so what if his books sell because he's a better story weaver (i.e. story teller) than a grammarcist? Does anyone really care what kind of grades he got in applying commas? Few of us here are heavily trained in the literary arts. We're all fumbling in the dark, trying to pick up in our later years everything we didn't pay attention to while we were in school. So to start attacking someone for not being a great 'technical writer' is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Note: I'm not saying you can't criticize him for his poor use of English, just that it's unjust to claim that he's a better story weaver than a technically skilled writer. Who the frig cares? There are millions of technically correct writers who'd I'd never read, but finding a great story that engages me is an agonizingly difficult task.