221
Post by: Frazzled
A humorous take from Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/noble-smith/the-lord-of-the-rings-game-of-thrones_b_4532480.html
J.R.R. Tolkien and G.R.R. Martin have the most initials of any two fantasy authors in history. They also have millions of devoted followers who swear that one of them is better than the other. I'm a fan of both of these great storytellers, but I believe that Middle-earth will be held up as an exemplar of fantasy (and literature) long after Westeros has faded away (though don't tell that to the guy who built the entire city of King's Landing out of Minecraft blocks). In honor of Tolkien's 122nd birthday, here's a comparison of the relative merits of the fantasy creations The Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones (aka LOTR and GOT) from J.R.R. and G.R.R, IMO.
Game of Dragons: Smaug vs. Daenerys's Egg-babies
While there is no denying that just-hatched baby dragons are cute as heck, Smaug is one of the scariest monsters in the history of literature. This clever and wicked beast could crush the Khaleesi's trio of winged squirts like Cadbury Creme Eggs. And Smaug is a punk compared to the fell beast that preceded him: the magical and vicious Glaurung of Tolkien's The Silmarillion. That creature was the general of an orc army who could breathe fire and weave spells of forgetfulness. Snarks and grumpkins, but that's a badass dragon!
Edge: J.R.R. Tolkien
Short Guy Jokes: Hobbit Humor vs. the Wit of Tyrion Lannister
There's no easy way to say this: the Hobbits in Tolkien's books aren't as funny as we think they are. Sure they're likable, playful and wise, but I defy any Tolkien fan to quote a Shire bon mot that doesn't have to do with gardening or the smoking of pipe weed. Tyrion Lannister, however, is one funny dude. He's witty, ribald and provides enough gallows humor for his creator to have produced a book (albeit a very slim one) titled The Wit and Wisdom of Tyrion Lannister. I'd still rather go on an inn-crawl across the Shire and Buckland with Merry and Pippin, though. Tyrion would just get you knifed in a bar fight.
Edge: G.R.R. Martin
The Supreme Bean: Boromir vs. Ned Stark
Actor Sean Bean is the most obvious link between the film adaptations of Tolkien and Martin. His portrayal of Boromir in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings brought the necessary gravitas to a brave yet conflicted character. And his brave yet conflicted Ned Stark has become an iconic TV role, despite the fact that he looked just like Boromir only in a bigger, furrier cloak. The joke on the Internet is: How long will it take any Sean Bean character in a movie to get killed off? Always too soon, in my opinion. I can't get enough of his brave yet conflicted performances. And I can't decide if Boromir or Ned Stark is better, because they're almost exactly the same!
Edge: It's a tie
To Finis or Not To Finis: A Tale That Ends vs. a Never-ending Story
Game of Thrones is a projected seven-book-series. But after all is said and done, will Martin's story really have a sense of closure? Call me old-fashioned, but the fact that The Lord of the Rings takes place in a relatively short amount of time, and has a definitive ending (and a happy ending at that) help make it a classic. Tolkien lived long enough after the publication of LOTR to have toyed with the idea of creating a sequel set in a Minas Tirith that had degenerated from the glory days of King Elessar (aka Aragorn) and had become filled with rebellious Men and "satanic worshippers." But he found the notion too "depressing" and "sinister"--kind of like GOT.
Edge: J.R.R. Tolkien
Sex In The Citadel: Victorian Social Mores vs. Masters and Johnson
Let's face it. Tolkien was a product of the Victorian world. The closest thing that you get to sex in LOTR is Faramir kissing Éowyn's brow on the porch in the Houses of Healing (and that's not a euphemism for something dirty). And Arwen and Aragorn have the longest engagement in the history of literature (he falls in love with her at the age of twenty and marries her sixty-seven years later). Martin, on the other hand, does not shy away from the reality of human sexuality in his series: incest, unbridled lust, homosexuality, prostitution, dwarf-sutra, eunuchs and even Targaryen-on-horselord action! For pure titillation factor GOT wins hands down. But for examples of abiding love, Tolkien is the master. (And you can't read GOT out loud to your little kids.)
Edge: It's a tie
Lord of the Maps: Middle-earth vs. Westeros
Tolkien's descriptions of the landscape of Middle-earth are so detailed that the place seems like an alternate reality. If a reader were dropped into the Shire via a magic portal, you'd be able to find your way to Rivendell without a map simply by following the landmarks (and there's also a big-ass road that goes straight there). Martin's world has a detailed topography as well, but many of the features in his fantasy land seem conveniently fabricated merely to be cool or dramatic. I'm thinking of a 300-mile-long, 700-foot-tall wall constructed out of solid ice that's meant to keep ice creatures at bay. Wouldn't the White Walkers look at a wall of snow and say, "Hey! Look! Ice wall! We love ice!" and just climb right over it? And while I'm on the subject, shouldn't the men of the Night's Watch wear white instead of black? One word, Lord Commander: camouflage.
Edge: J.R.R. Tolkien
Fantasy Femmes: Tolkien's Ladies vs. Martin's Women
LOTR and GOT are chock full of ladies: Lady Galadriel, Lady Catelyn, Lady Éowyn, Lady Jeyne, Lady Arwen, etc. But Tolkien's tale is dominated by men with all but one of the women (Éowyn the shieldmaiden) playing their parts on the periphery of the story. In Martin's world, however, women get equal page time. And they're just as heroic, scheming, power-hungry, ruthless, visionary and fascinating as their male counterparts. Even little girls like Arya Stark are fully realized characters. Tolkien's The Hobbit, by the way, might be one of the only classics that does not have a single female character (humanoid or animal). But couldn't Peter Jackson & Co. have come up with a better female character for the film adaptation than Tauriel the Dwarf-pining Elf? (They should have asked Martin for help.)
Edge: G.R.R. Martin
Thank Ilúvatar: A Mythopoeia vs. a Poor Man's Mythology
The making of myths is called mythopoeia, and Tolkien was a mythmaker extraordinaire. His The Silmarillion (published posthumously) chronicles the origin of his fantasy world in glorious detail, starting in the dim recesses of time when Middle-earth was sung into creation by the god Ilúvatar and his angelic creations, and subsequently spans the thousands of years of history that unfold before the start of The Hobbit. Who was Sauron? Where did the orcs come from? What was Galadriel's lineage? When was Minas Tirith founded? There are answers to all of these questions--either in The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, LOTR or its Appendices--as well as coherent explanations for nearly every person, place and thing in Tolkien's tales. The history of Martin's world, however, is sketchy, and rather than feeling like a real place it comes across as a sort of funky alternate reality Medieval England with the addition of zombies and baby dragons. Does calling someone "Ser" instead of "Sir" really make Westeros seem otherworldly? And what's up with the White Walkers? Where did they come from? And what caused the Long Night? Methinks Ser Martin is just making this stuff up!
Edge: J.R.R. Tolkien
The Villain With a Thousand Faces: Hopefulness vs. Nihilism
In the end it all comes down to what kind of story you want to get wrapped up in. Martin has been described as one of the cruelest authors in history: a fiendish plotter who toys with his poor readers. Never have so many beloved literary characters been put on the chopping block, or subjected to such heinous tortures. There are so few surviving good guys in GOT, and yet so many villains that you actually start rooting for your favorite scoundrels (think Jaime Lannister). When Martin slays Lady Stark she doesn't even have the good fortune to stay dead. Instead she's resurrected as a disgusting walking corpse that kills without mercy. Tolkien had much more sympathy for his characters and his audience. His heroes suffer greatly in their quest to destroy the One Ring, but in the end they pass through the fire and come out the other side as better people. And when Tolkien did kill off a beloved character--like Gandalf in the Mines of Moria--he had the decency to reincarnate him in the next book.
Edge: J.R.R. Tolkien
Total Points: J.R.R. Tolkien (5) G.R.R Martin (2) Tie (2)
The lord of this game is John Ronald Reuel Tolkien!
25220
Post by: WarOne
What? No Wheel of Time love?
20774
Post by: pretre
Why would it be a lock?
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
GRR Martin got lucky with a series people ended up loving. His previous "work" that has been shown in his biography is a joke. I find Tolkein's work dry, but even I know he's superior.
38150
Post by: Dark Apostle 666
Tolkien is my preferred author, GRRM's GOT were good, until maybe the 4th book or so, when it became obvious he was just dragging it out into as many books as possible by having characters go around in circles.
Interesting that WarOne mentioned the Wheel of Time series, because I liked that, and bought the books up to ~8, at which point I had the same feeling of fatigue and dropped them - I can't blame the authors for trying to milk the cash cow, but I'm not wading through 14 books or however many, just to find out what happens in an ending that might never come.
68355
Post by: easysauce
as far as WRITERS and books go, toilken wins 110%...
as far as tv-shows go, thrones is top notch, and I attribute that more to the actors (god I love tywin... sooooo good, he MAKES the series for me) and how they film it more then his writing skills.
that LOTR doest have a series might not help them much, but even If I take the sheer enjoyment I got out of one authors work VS the other, its hard to choose, because I like them both for very different reasons.
LOTR is more typical fantasy, with a happy ending that I saw coming a mile away... but its one of the most fun rides ever, and considering how many times I have read/watched the story, that it still entertains speaks volumes.
GOT... is more adult, more "mental", and suprises me more often, I have no idea how it will end.
that being said, both are top notch... that grr had some previous flops is irrelevent, no one remembers 1,2,3,4,5,6 UP soda... that doesnt mean 7up wasnt a success... same with apollo landings ect.
luckily I dont have to choose! I can watch both!
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
I've never watched Game of Thrones the TV series, or read the books, but it always struck me that there isn't enough Fantasy in it.
Is there anything other than Humans in the series? Ogres, goblins, undead, dwarves, elves? Anything?
Also if the Lord of the Rings is "A Quest to destroy the one ring" what is the over-arching plot of GoT?
68355
Post by: easysauce
there are dragons, zombies and some magic, but yeah...
its not forgotten realms or tolkein so its lacking in the fantasy department... which is kind of nice to be honest, its different.
story arc is basically "there are 5 or so houses competing for the kingdom, lets see who wins" kind of thing
37231
Post by: d-usa
Well, there is a sense of "there used to be magic here, and monsters, but they are long gone" together with "I don't know what's going on, but it seems like monsters are coming back and magic is happening again".
34242
Post by: -Loki-
The main force of evil are undead, one of the main characters has 3 dragons, and there's plenty of low fantasy in it.
It's fairly obvious you haven't seen or read it if you think it lacks fantasy elements. It's definitely low fantasy compared to Tolkeins high fantasy though.
181
Post by: gorgon
This should really be titled Lord of the Rings vs. A Song of Fire and Ice. Anyhoo...
Tolkien is the inferior novel writer. It's not even close, really. The Lord of the Rings is oddly structured, poorly paced, filled with stilted dialogue, etc. However, Tolkien obviously deserves to be lauded for everything else he did in constructing Middle-Earth. At times -- like with the seemingly endless asides about the name of this or that place in this or that language -- it's both a strength and a weakness. Still, the world is the thing and that's why it's a classic.
Martin is the professional novelist in comparison, and is less interested in creating languages and mythology than interesting characters, strong dialogue, etc. The world of ASOFAI is certainly far murkier...we have no idea what the blazes happened to it to put it in its current state, and may never know. But for Martin, the world is just the setting for his characters and their interactions, which are terrific IMO.
The two works are *very* different and hard to compare in some ways even though they're both "fantasy literature."
77922
Post by: Overread
Tolkien shouldn't be judged for his story writing with Lord of the Rings but with The Hobbit. The Lord of the Rings is a story, but its core intent was to be a Mythology. Indeed with the near exception of the Hobbit (which was written specifically to be an adventure story) the main thrust of Middle Earth was to provide a Mythology for the English after the Norman invasion re-wrote/destroy much of the original (which is why a lot of what you read in Lord of the Rings can be found in Norse mythology).
That said Tolkien is a more dry writer and his characters are not the best; good but not outstanding. His world building though is pretty much at the top - a testament to this is the vast amount of modern fantasy that is based directly or indirectly off it.
GRRM is a much better character writer plus his writing style is specifically geared more toward making a story than a mythology. He's also more modern which makes his work a little easier to read and digest for some (although I would say that Lord of the Rings despite its age is still very readable without much difficulty).
GRRM also has a lot more real world medieval age historical structure and influence in his work; which helps it a lot in shifting from just an adventure story with quest and into a larger scale story with bigger battles.
GRRM is also one of the few authors willing to kill of characters without pause - something that makes his books hold more gravity to situations is that its not a case of going "ok so how do they get out of this" and instead presents the mindset of "ok will they even make it out alive at all" Which I personally find adds a lot to the scenes because you really can't predict.
I'd also say that Steven Erikson should be worth adding here with his saga of Malazan Book of the Fallen. If you prefer high fantasy with LOTS of magic gods dragons undead spells and more magic then his series is fantastic in its magical richness.
GRRM's story is very much an "old world" feel with regard to magic although as the story progresses magic shows that its not quite as dead as people think.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Brandon Sanderson.....That's the winner here.
I'll also second that the first 3 books of ASOFAI are pretty amazing. However book 4 made me nervous and book 5 made me not care when the next book comes out since I won't be buying it.
David Weber can produce two excellent books per year. Jim Butcher wrote an entire 6 book series that was quite fun in less time than it took Martin to write the 4th book. I dislike Martin's work ethic....
76278
Post by: Spinner
I like 'em both.
What? Whaaaaat?
58145
Post by: FirePainter
Having just finished the Mistborn Trilogy I must say that Sanderson is a really good author and should be more well known.
55803
Post by: Chancetragedy
Glad Sanderson is getting a little recognition. He really breathed life back into the ending of wheel of time.
25220
Post by: WarOne
Chancetragedy wrote:Glad Sanderson is getting a little recognition. He really breathed life back into the ending of wheel of time.
The problem was he was given a monumental work to finish (and we're talking about arguable one of the longest continual reads you'll ever go through. At one point, Robert Jordan spent an entire book catching the plot up with all the other characters he populated his world with (so two books basically were devoted to the same time period).
He made a good attempt for the first one but it felt stilted and flawed in how he attempted to adapt his style to Jordan's. However, the remaining books were all much better as he found a groove to write within and completed the epic tale.
55803
Post by: Chancetragedy
Yah I completely agree. Having read the wheel of time series 3 times over now and books 1-6 and 10-12 more than that. I have to say the only gripe I had with Sanderson was In his first WoT book where he used words like "alloy" that were just totally out of place.
Personally I'll take WoT as a whole over SoIaF but not folkie a hobbit or LoTR books. Books 1-3 of a SoIaF are in my top 3 favorite books of all time though, after that Martin fell off HARD.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Medium of Death wrote:I've never watched Game of Thrones the TV series, or read the books, but it always struck me that there isn't enough Fantasy in it.
Is there anything other than Humans in the series? Ogres, goblins, undead, dwarves, elves? Anything?
It sort of starts of as a "Low Fantasy" setting... meaning knights in armor, kings, ladies and all the trappings of fantasy, just without the "required" elements of fantasy active in the setting (we have dragons, but they are all dead... until they are not. The White Walkers are mere legend, until they are not, etc) There's no active magic, though he sets the stage early on for magic to come into play again. (the red priests, greenseers, etc) Much of the typical High Fantasy elements that we see in DnD, Forgotten Realms, LOTR, etc. is absent at the start of GOT, but develops many high fantasy traits throughout.
Yes, it does start off with only humans of all stripe, but we do end up with "undead" at the least.
I personally think that GoT is a much better fantasy series than most anything I have read... This includes WoT... My biggest gripe with the Wheel series, is that Jordan goes into Tom Clancy lengths of detail, which bogs down much of the series. GRRM doesnt waste an entire chapter on the thread count of the Stark's battle banner, as it's ultimately irrelevant. I have recently just started reading "Wizards First Rule" which I am immensely enjoying right now, we'll see how the series shapes up.
75903
Post by: KommissarKiln
I haven't seen much GOT so that probably leaves me taking one side by default, but I find Tolkein's thoroughness with the extra material like appendices, timelines, and especially The Silmarillion just brilliant, how everything falls together.
Side note: The magnitude of the previous conflicts make the main LOTR trilogy look like petty affairs, I'll also add. War of Jewels/Wrath, anyone?
25220
Post by: WarOne
 Ensis Ferrae wrote: I personally think that GoT is a much better fantasy series than most anything I have read... This includes WoT... My biggest gripe with the Wheel series, is that Jordan goes into Tom Clancy lengths of detail, which bogs down much of the series.
Jordan's flair for the....descriptive ultimately bogged the series down. Brian Sanderson came in and streamlined everything after his first attempt at reconstructing a style to fit WoT.
32828
Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim?
 WarOne wrote:What? No Wheel of Time love? Also...in before the lock.
Eh, I couldn't get myself to read beyond the first book of that series. I cannot quite place my finger on why I couldn't, though. I guess it all felt way too formulaic, like I'd read it all before. Also, is it really necessary to painstakingly describe everything? ~Tim?
25220
Post by: WarOne
 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: WarOne wrote:What? No Wheel of Time love?
Also...in before the lock.
Eh, I couldn't get myself to read beyond the first book of that series. I cannot quite place my finger on why I couldn't, though. I guess it all felt way too formulaic, like I'd read it all before.
~Tim?
Hmm...some series get like that. I read the first book Game of Thrones and wasn't able to go for another one.
Other books like Lord of the Flies, I had to know what happened in the sequel, Kingdom of the Flies.
7637
Post by: Sasori
 Hulksmash wrote:Brandon Sanderson.....That's the winner here.
I'll also second that the first 3 books of ASOFAI are pretty amazing. However book 4 made me nervous and book 5 made me not care when the next book comes out since I won't be buying it.
David Weber can produce two excellent books per year. Jim Butcher wrote an entire 6 book series that was quite fun in less time than it took Martin to write the 4th book. I dislike Martin's work ethic....
Yes, Brandon Sanderson is awesome incarnate. He is about the only writer that can do plottwists that I can't (completely) see coming.
Mistborn trilogy was great, and I've enjoyed all of his 1 of Novels. Steelheart was also very enjoyable.
I'm hoping the squeal to Way of Kings is a bit better. The first one, just didn't tickle my fancy as much as his other books have.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I stopped reading fantasy literature a long time ago, during the series about the guy who has leprosy and falls into a coma and wakes up in a fantasy world. I can't remember the name of the book or the author. I gave up after about book 5. I don't know how many it got dragged out to in the end.
A lot of modern fantasy fiction seems to be historical stories with a quick slap of fantasy paintwork.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
The winner is David Eddings, who is the Michael Bay of high fantasy. (And then he drew his sword, and everyone was, like, 'whoa'! and then the magic went KERBLAM and something exploded)
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
I'm just not a Tolkien fan.
Prior to the HBO series, whenever I was trying to explain Game of Thrones to people, I would often laugh and tell them "it's what Lord of the Rings wanted to be."
Objectively, I recognize that Tolkien's work was the foundation for almost all modern fantasy that followed it, (yes, including Game of Thrones) and that without LotR we likely wouldn't have many of the rallying points of geek culture, including D&D, WoW, or possibly even Warhammer. Nevertheless, the books are dry, the characters are wooden, the story is ponderous and ultimately unsatisfying, and contains enough technical flaws to serve as a manual for how not to write.
Game of Thrones relies on strong characters with compelling story arcs. While I'll be the first to admit that Martin still has the potential to drop the ball in a huge way, and could ultimately craft a work which is even less satisfying than LotR, since it started with such promise.
In any event, that's just my own personal opinion.
47598
Post by: motyak
 Kilkrazy wrote:I stopped reading fantasy literature a long time ago, during the series about the guy who has leprosy and falls into a coma and wakes up in a fantasy world. I can't remember the name of the book or the author. I gave up after about book 5. I don't know how many it got dragged out to in the end.
Lord Foul's Bane was book one, but I forget the name of the actual series. It's up there with my all time favourites, because the main character is called Thomas 
 azazel the cat wrote:The winner is David Eddings, who is the Michael Bay of high fantasy. ( And then he drew his sword, and everyone was, like, 'whoa'! and then the magic went KERBLAM and something exploded)
You be careful mocking fantasy authors neighbour...kidding, his books weren't technically great but I still reckon they were enjoyable, and most of all quite funny.
25220
Post by: WarOne
I remember a series from Chrisopher Stasheff with his novels emphasizing wizards but with a twist (the series I read was a wizard in space going to medieval words, almost like Inquisitors from 40k going to primitive Imperial worlds).
10356
Post by: Bran Dawri
 motyak wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:I stopped reading fantasy literature a long time ago, during the series about the guy who has leprosy and falls into a coma and wakes up in a fantasy world. I can't remember the name of the book or the author. I gave up after about book 5. I don't know how many it got dragged out to in the end.
Lord Foul's Bane was book one, but I forget the name of the actual series. It's up there with my all time favourites, because the main character is called Thomas
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, by Stephen Donaldson. There's three trilogies now, I think.
Quite a bleak series as well, but I enjoyed it more than I'm enjoying GoT so far. I was OK with Martin killing off several of the main characters at first, but now it's just getting stupid. He's just killing people off for the sake of shock value, and it gets old, fast.
I'm kind of burned out on traditional fantasy, though. I'm a much bigger fan of stuff like The Sandman (yes, I know it's a comic. Read it anyway.), American Gods and Neverwhere (all by Neil Gaiman), Amber or Lord of Light (Zelazny) and Planescape - not technically a series but a setting.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
As I understand it, GoT is based on the historical Wars of the Roses, in which a lot of "main characters" got killed off.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, GoT is based on the historical Wars of the Roses, in which a lot of "main characters" got killed off.
GRRM has said in some interview that quite a large inspiration to him writing GoT was the "Accursed Kings" series by Maurice Druon. Which is "merely" a novelization of France/England starting in 1314, with King Philip of France disbanding the Templars.
77922
Post by: Overread
A Game of Thrones is feeling sluggish because the story is in the middle area. People feel the same things about the middle area of a lot of long series or books.
Its very hard to maintain a constant fast pace of action and events in a long running series, Steven Erikson gets away with maintaining it by splitting his books over multiple continents and time periods; GRRM is following a single time line start to finish so as a result there are going to be slower periods where the action dulls down.
The book series will likely pick up the pace a lot once its past that period and starts to approach the finish line.
Indeed most of the anger GRRM gets directed at him is more of the "I can't wait - write faster" type. It's a shame so many feel this way and vent it - yes we all want the books but its not like shouting at the writer will make him write any faster.
23
Post by: djones520
Yeah, the war of 5 Kings is done, so things are going to slow down. Power struggles are still occuring on the periphery, and the powder keg is primed to blow (especially at the end of the last book), but yeah you had to expect that things were going to be a bit "slower" then they were in the first couple of books.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
I call BS on the middle of a series has to slow down significantly. Weber's Safehold series is headed to book 7 in February. And the first 6 likely have a combined word count similar to the first 4 GoT series, he's managed to produce 1-2 a year, and the pacing has only slightly slowed as the political aspects have taken a higher priority.
The problem with Martin is the last two books feel like they are just circling with some character regression. They don't meaningfully advance the plot anymore than a chapter or two of explanation in a book that skipped a few years timewise might. And it took him nearly a decade and a half to write those two.
IF he'd wrote and produced these books swiftly he would have been ok. Or IF he'd just did a time jump with explanation chapters he'd have been ok. But he didn't do either and the series stagnated.
I've said it before, the first 3 books are some of the best low fantasy ever written. The next two made me not even want to finish the series and if it weren't for the TV show I wouldn't be interested in the slightest at this point.
55659
Post by: pities2004
I think the only similarities is they both are set in fantasy times and that they both had sean bean die
Game of thrones is way different mainly due to.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Martin is not a 'better' writer than Tolkien he is a more modern writer. There is a big difference. The English language has changed considerably since the 1950's.
Tolkiens prose was flawless, being a professor of english et al, if people find it difficult to read its because they lack the vocabulary to process Tolkien's work. Tolkien could however write in simpler English, and proved such with the Hobbit, even that is more difficult for many to read now than in the 30's.
The other point that needs to be mentioned is that Tolkien generated most of the modern fantasy cliches, the work is not cliched as and of itself. Priot to Tolkien Elves and dwarves meant different things to what they have since meant, and halflings and orcs didnt exist
While parts of the mythology could be considered thin, Middle Earth itself is largely unpopulated and hioglly artificial, but Tolkien was writing mythic saga and inventing his universe wholecloth, Martin is working with hindsight of generations of modern fantasy and RPG background style to base his universe on.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
I love J.R.R. Tolkien, but personally Terry Pratchett is my favorite.
23
Post by: djones520
I'm tired of the "You're just too dumb to get Tolkein's writing" argument.
Tolkein is just boring. His contributions to the genre will never be overstated, but that doesn't make him a good novelist.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
I know a number of folk who won't start A Song of Ice anf Fire because they don't believe it will be finished before the author dies.
Myself, having read all that is written now - each book makes me care less about reading the next.
Tolkien's myth building and focus on linguistics is part of what I find fascinating about his works.
Martin. . .I am not sure if it is apathy or antipathy that stands out more. And I mean for his own characters and stories.
"Unreliable narrator" does not even begin to cover it.
514
Post by: Orlanth
 djones520 wrote:I'm tired of the "You're just too dumb to get Tolkein's writing" argument.
Tolkien is just boring. His contributions to the genre will never be overstated, but that doesn't make him a good novelist.
How does the writer who effectively started the modern fantasy subculture and thus its gaming offshoots around which this website and it's membership is born of 'boring'?
I could accept that opinion from a random person on a non gaming site, but there is little here that would be around (at least in this form) without Tolkien's input.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
djones520 wrote:I'm tired of the "You're just too dumb to get Tolkein's writing" argument. Tolkein is just boring. His contributions to the genre will never be overstated, but that doesn't make him a good novelist.
Umm, who used that argument? As far as I know, no one has said anything like that in this thread. Edit: Also, where did that come from? I don't see the reason for the post anywhere.
20774
Post by: pretre
 Jimsolo wrote:whenever I was trying to explain Game of Thrones to people, I would often laugh and tell them "it's what Lord of the Rings wanted to be." ...snip... In any event, that's just my own personal opinion.
In the past, I was under the mistaken impression that personal opinions couldn't be wrong. Man, you just set me straight. edit:  Just so no one gets upset.
25220
Post by: WarOne
 pretre wrote: Jimsolo wrote:whenever I was trying to explain Game of Thrones to people, I would often laugh and tell them "it's what Lord of the Rings wanted to be." ...snip... In any event, that's just my own personal opinion.
In the past, I was under the mistaken impression that personal opinions couldn't be wrong. Man, you just set me straight. edit: Just so no one gets upset.
That wink is horribly exaggerated and therefore upsets me. I demand recompense!
20774
Post by: pretre
WarOne wrote:That wink is horribly exaggerated and therefore upsets me.
I demand recompense!
But I haven't even compensed you yet!
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 pities2004 wrote:I think the only similarities is they both are set in fantasy times and that they both had sean bean die
And we all know Sean Bean dying doesn't really count as a similarity because if a character is played by him he's mandated to die. its in all of Sean's contracts actually in the really fine print
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Co'tor Shas wrote: djones520 wrote:I'm tired of the "You're just too dumb to get Tolkein's writing" argument.
Tolkein is just boring. His contributions to the genre will never be overstated, but that doesn't make him a good novelist.
Umm, who used that argument? As far as I know, no one has said anything like that in this thread.
Edit: Also, where did that come from? I don't see the reason for the post anywhere.
Look above a little ways... Orlanth calls the prose in LOTR "flawless" and talks about people not understanding the vocabulary required to understand it, etc. Which is, in essence saying "you're too dumb to get it"
I also find the LOTR books themselves to be boring as well. Just never could get into them. I do enjoy the visuals in much of the movies, etc. but still find many parts to be incredibly boring. I do recognize what Tolkein did for our genre, and by extension for gaming, etc. but it doesnt change my opinion that his works were a boring read.
Perhaps in another 60-70 years (or however long its been since LOTR was first published) people will be having similar arguments about GRRM and Game of Thrones, when compared to whatever their newest contemporary fantasy writer is working on.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote: djones520 wrote:I'm tired of the "You're just too dumb to get Tolkein's writing" argument.
Tolkein is just boring. His contributions to the genre will never be overstated, but that doesn't make him a good novelist.
Umm, who used that argument? As far as I know, no one has said anything like that in this thread.
Edit: Also, where did that come from? I don't see the reason for the post anywhere.
Look above a little ways... Orlanth calls the prose in LOTR "flawless" and talks about people not understanding the vocabulary required to understand it, etc. Which is, in essence saying "you're too dumb to get it"
Actually what he said was that Tolkiens prose was flawless in 1950's English (and probably British English) but in the last 60 years the way people speak has changed quite a bit and the writing has suffered for it since it is harder to understand and read now. Martin writes in "current English" so he's easier to read.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I actually prefer the older style of writing.
I find it easier to understand because I'm a slower reader and they aren't trying to do too much at once. A lot of more modern books I find sometimes get confusing if they don't flesh out characters enough for me to keep them straight.
On the other hand, books written a couple decades before Tolkien I find almost illegible. Its kind of like he's in a sweet spot for me.
33125
Post by: Seaward
I can't bear Martin's writing style. Made it about ten pages through the first book and haven't been back since.
Tolkien is one of two authors who I'll go back and re-read every few years just for the writing.
I find Martin's storytelling (as I've seen it through the show) more interesting than Tolkien's.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
On another note, I'm finally getting around to reading Ender's Game. And frankly, I'm getting creeped out by all the seriously fethed up characters. Good stuff.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
djones520 wrote:I'm tired of the "You're just too dumb to get Tolkein's writing" argument.
Tolkein is just boring. His contributions to the genre will never be overstated, but that doesn't make him a good novelist.
Many millions of people have enjoyed his novels. The fact you did not is just your personal style preferences.
However there is something in the argument. When I came to read Charles Dickens, I found it very hard going to start with, because he uses a dense, Victorian prose style with very long, multiple clause sentences, which requires the mind to retain and process a much greater amount of information than the shorter sentences of modern writers. Far from being dry and dull, though, Dickens was in his time a hugely popular writer of serialised potboiler stories, and is still regarded as a great writer.
Personally I found Thomas Hardy boring I never finished one of his books, but he is also considered a giant of literature.
39768
Post by: Captain Fantastic
Neither, they're both awful. Fantasy is awful. I cannot enjoy anything that even remotely involves western mysticism or fantasy elements.
1464
Post by: Breotan
 Orlanth wrote:Martin is not a 'better' writer than Tolkien he is a more modern writer. There is a big difference.
Actually, I believe he is the better writer, at least on a technical level. If you start from the Hobbit and read through Return of the King, you can actually watch Tolkien's writing change and literally improve as the series goes along. GRRM's writing is much more consistent and starts off like a seasoned writer. While Tolkien made an amazing world, complete with languages and made up names that sounded appropriate for the story, GRRM's GoT novels have names, places, and cultures designed to feel familiar and logical for what they were based off of without sounding like they were dreamed up from bad fanfic or during a late night role playing session. GRRM might not have made up his names and cultures from scratch but he did make the best use of them. Best of all, GRRM hasn't stuffed tons of bad poetry into his books.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Random discussion led to the odd remark that I think funny but true, LotR is overly dry, but Ice and Fire is needlessly juicy.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
I'm not really sure how anyone can hold anything against Tolkien's writing or setting. The style was a product of the time, rather than a conscious decision, and while some may not enjoy it (perfectly understandable) it is hard to actually criticise it in a literary sense. Also, I defy anyone to find a universe created and developed by one single mind that can rival Middle Earth. The language, the history and the immense attention to detail are all but unrivalled. Anything that even comes close tends to either be created through collaborations (Warhammer/ 40k) or largely taking inspiration from LOTR directly (eg Inheritance). The only rival I can really think of is Pratchett's Diskworld, which is, again, a simply spectacular creation.
 Grey Templar wrote:On another note, I'm finally getting around to reading Ender's Game. And frankly, I'm getting creeped out by all the seriously fethed up characters. Good stuff.
I recently read it, and I agree, when you consider the whole thing is 6-11 year olds kicking each other to death and practising how to fight a war, it's pretty screwed up. Great, though. If you want something similar (as in, normal people that get totally messed up) try Michael Grant's Gone saga. Everyone in those books is completely FUBAR by the end, and most are at the start.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Orlanth wrote:
if people find it difficult to read its because they lack the vocabulary to process Tolkien's work.
This is the part I was talking about... So, basically, if I find Tolkein difficult to read, I must be stupid, because I don't have a proper grasp of the English Language.
Yes, in other statements, he does point out that the English Language has changed quite a bit since the 20s, 30s, etc. on to now and how we speak/read/write, but that doesn't mean that just because I do not enjoy his works that I am somehow less intelligent for it. I've already stated that I cannot read Tolkein due to the boring factor that I personally find in his works. Obviously, other people disagree and love reading the books. To each his own and all that.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I will second positive comments about Tolkien's Style. I'm going to quote the opening section from the Essay above;
But lo! suddenly in the midst of the glory of the king his golden shield was dimmed. The new morning was blotted from the sky. Dark fell about him. Horses reared and screamed. Men cast from the saddle lay grovelling on the ground....
The great shadow descended like a falling cloud. And behold! it was a winged creature: if bird, then greater than all other birds, and it was naked, and neither quill nor feather did it bear, and its vast pinions were as webs of hide between horned fingers; and it stank. . . .
Upon it sat a shape, black-mantled, huge and threatening. A crown of steel he bore, but between rim and robe naught was there to see, save only a deadly gleam of eyes: the Lord of the Nazgûl. To the air he had returned, summoning his steed ere the darkness failed, and now he was come again, bringing ruin, turning hope to despair, and victory to death. A great black mace he wielded.
But Théoden was not utterly forsaken . . . one stood there still: Dernhelm the young, faithful beyond fear; and he wept, for he had loved his lord as a father. Right through the charge Merry had been borne unharmed behind him, until the Shadow came; and then Windfola had thrown them in his terror, and now ran wild upon the plain. Merry crawled on all fours like a dazed beast. . . . Then out of the blackness in his mind he thought that he heard Dernhelm speaking. . . .
"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!"
A cold voice answered: "Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."
A sword rang as it was drawn. "Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may."
"Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"
Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund's daughter. You [End Page 138] stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.
Read that. It's kind of a burden yes. No one talks like this anymore and frankly in Tolkien's own time not many people talked like this anymore either. It isn't that Tolkien was a bad prose writer, he's actualy amazingly good. Problem is that he was writing a story in a way that harkened back to older norms (and he did this on purpose) and that this helped in building LotR to its reputation.
Not only is it the archetypal fantasy novel not just because of its content but the way its content was written. He wrote it to be old fashioned on purpose because he wanted the prose to match the setting. If you read older Epics and Sagas, you'll find that Tolkien emulated these works in his writing conceptually and practically. EDIT: And people should read that essay and, namely the paragraph after the quoted section. Yes, many of us are in fact to dumb to really get all of what Tolkien was doing. In his time Shakespear was more widely read than today, especially in Britain, so his audience probably picked up on tricks like the reference to King Lear more readily than we do today. And I include myself when I say this. I don't know jack about King Lear so I never ever got that section until this essay pointed it out. Tolkien was a very educated man and a linguist to boot. Those of us with other interests likely never studied literature/language like he did and thus we are rendered unable to pick up everything he did.
I don't hold it against anyone for finding Tolkien hard to read or even boring (I do) but that doesn't mean he was a bad writer. He was a fantastic writer. All the effort he put into his prose is part of what made LotR such an achievement for him. In many ways the story of LotR was just a vessel for him to build a mythology and play with prose in a way he enjoyed.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Nice choice of passage, that is one of the most awesome scenes in the history of ever.
Really, the fact Tolkien writes in the style of the Epics and Sagas with which he was familiar is what cements it as a timeless piece of literature. It's almost similar to the likes of The Oddesy and the Illiad, and no one would accuse Homer of being a poor writer.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I'd also add that Tolkien could be called the writer's writer. As a man very familiar with literature, it may well take people equally well versed in literature to fully appreciate him.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
I'm sure non-literary types are able to appreciate Tolkien, but where I agree is that when you do look at the books from a literary perspective, there's not really anywhere you can fault it in technique or style. Everything is well-written, the imagery and immersion is very strong, and like I've mentioned before, the attention to detail is where Tolkien really shines.
I can fully understand there are many who won't like or enjoy some or all of Tolkien's work, but to say he is flawed in his ability to write is simply untrue. It's also worth noting that he himself was not overly happy with the more simplified style of the Hobbit in hindsight, and had he written it after LOTR, it would have been far more in the style of the latter. The Hobbit was the first step into an unknown world and an unknown genre, after all.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Oh I think anyone can appreciate Tolkien as well, but there's appreciating and fully appreciating (then again, decades of debate may mean no one can fully appreciate him because no one can agree on what he was doing  ).
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
While Martin writes enjoyable books and his characters and intrigues are absolutely amazing, his world is unable to captivate and interest me to the same degree that Tolkien's Middle Earth was.
I think the fact that the Lord of the Rings is one of the best selling books of all time (somewhere behind the Bible, Qur'an and Quotations from Chaiman Mao) says enough.
Tolkien basically invented the entire modern form of the fantasy genre.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote: djones520 wrote:I'm tired of the "You're just too dumb to get Tolkein's writing" argument.
Tolkein is just boring. His contributions to the genre will never be overstated, but that doesn't make him a good novelist.
Umm, who used that argument? As far as I know, no one has said anything like that in this thread.
Edit: Also, where did that come from? I don't see the reason for the post anywhere.
Look above a little ways... Orlanth calls the prose in LOTR "flawless" and talks about people not understanding the vocabulary required to understand it, etc. Which is, in essence saying "you're too dumb to get it"
I also find the LOTR books themselves to be boring as well. Just never could get into them. I do enjoy the visuals in much of the movies, etc. but still find many parts to be incredibly boring. I do recognize what Tolkein did for our genre, and by extension for gaming, etc. but it doesnt change my opinion that his works were a boring read.
Perhaps in another 60-70 years (or however long its been since LOTR was first published) people will be having similar arguments about GRRM and Game of Thrones, when compared to whatever their newest contemporary fantasy writer is working on.
Actually I was saying that it isn't the 1950's anymore, people spoke differently then, diction was different and society has changed. If one doesn't know how to read say, medieval English, it doesn't necessarily make one 'dumb'. Perhaps you should be a little less sensitive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Orlanth wrote:
if people find it difficult to read its because they lack the vocabulary to process Tolkien's work.
This is the part I was talking about... So, basically, if I find Tolkein difficult to read, I must be stupid, because I don't have a proper grasp of the English Language.
No, no, but perhaps you may be stupid if you insist the lack of understanding of diction no longer in common usage is to be read as an accusation of stupidity.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Yes, in other statements, he does point out that the English Language has changed quite a bit since the 20s, 30s, etc. on to now and how we speak/read/write, but that doesn't mean that just because I do not enjoy his works that I am somehow less intelligent for it.
In the same statement, so my actual point was well covered and clear. It's not the 1950s anymore.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Paradigm wrote: It's almost similar to the likes of The Oddesy and the Illiad, and no one would accuse Homer of being a poor writer.
Hate to break it to you... Homer wasn't a writer... the Odyssey and Illiad were oral legeds/epics for much of their life, but attributed to the great story teller, Homer.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Hate to break it to you... Homer wasn't a writer... the Odyssey and Illiad were oral legeds/epics for much of their life, but attributed to the great story teller, Homer.
While true, most oral traditions produce different variations of a story. In this sense, Homer can still be credited as the author of the tales we know today as they are effectively his version of the stories and of course he himself had to take spoken words and put them into written words. Hell for all we know there were other written versions at some point in time (it's probable there were) but the popularity of Homer's kept them around through thousands of years.
Norse saga's probably show this more effectively as the various Saga's often have variations in events. There aren't to my knowledge any other surviving variations of the Trojan War story other than Homer's.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 LordofHats wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Hate to break it to you... Homer wasn't a writer... the Odyssey and Illiad were oral legeds/epics for much of their life, but attributed to the great story teller, Homer.
While true, most oral traditions produce different variations of a story. In this sense, Homer can still be credited as the author of the tales we know today as they are effectively his version of the stories and of course he himself had to take spoken words and put them into written words. Hell for all we know there were other written versions at some point in time (it's probable there were) but the popularity of Homer's kept them around through thousands of years.
This is something of a problem for academic situations. I've done a few research papers on the Vikings and Viking age. As a result, one of our best "primary sources" are the Eddas "by" Snorri Sturluson. One book I've read on his writings in particular, is that most of the Vikings held an oral tradition as well, and he was a Christian in the 12th or 13th century, which has apparently greatly affected the manner in which the pantheon is presented. This also shows up in some of his historical accounts.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
You are indeed correct. As far as I know, all our knowledge of Norse myth primarily comes to us from Christian monks who recorded their oral traditions.
75903
Post by: KommissarKiln
PLOT TWIST: Regarding Homer... Some (I forget of whom my English teacher spoke) speculate Homer was not an individual, but a group of storytellers, playwrights, etc.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 KommissarKiln wrote:PLOT TWIST: Regarding Homer... Some (I forget of whom my English teacher spoke) speculate Homer was not an individual, but a group of storytellers, playwrights, etc.
The evidence often used to make that claim is complete supposition. It's more easily explained by alterations made to his text by others after the original writing (and that theory completely ignores Homer's contemporaries who are few but are referenced by later authors speaking about him).
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Both Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones are good.
I prefer The Black Company, The First Law trilogy, and The Monarchies of God.
Much less flowery.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Anyone read Malazan Book of the Fallen 
30287
Post by: Bromsy
I've read the first few, and couldn't really get into them as a series. I guess because the first few are supposed to be self contained. Maybe I'll read em all again later.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Is there a Game of Bones?
There should be a Game of Bones...
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I'm getting ready to start it myself but I hear good things (unfortunately it includes advice that I read the entire series for it to actually make total sense XD). Apparently the series is over 3,000,000 words total. Gonna take awhile.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
Let's face it, I love both Tolkien and Martin's books...but Raymond Feist makes them all his bitch.
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
 d-usa wrote:Is there a Game of Bones?
There should be a Game of Bones...
Yes. It's a really bad porn, go and youtube it!
37231
Post by: d-usa
I'm so proud 
It's little people porn, isn't it....
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
 Maelstrom808 wrote:Let's face it, I love both Tolkien and Martin's books...but Raymond Feist makes them all his bitch.
I can agree with this. He's written more than both of them, he's had plenty on the best sellers list, he just hasn't had them brought to cinema life. He's had more successes, they've had bigger ones. Who is the real winner? Fantasy lovers.
58145
Post by: FirePainter
 timetowaste85 wrote: Maelstrom808 wrote:Let's face it, I love both Tolkien and Martin's books...but Raymond Feist makes them all his bitch.
I can agree with this. He's written more than both of them, he's had plenty on the best sellers list, he just hasn't had them brought to cinema life. He's had more successes, they've had bigger ones. Who is the real winner? Fantasy lovers.
While I like Feist, some of his characters and stories get a little to "goody". I mean In the Riftwar set he
I will say my favorite books are the Empire trilogy (Daughter, Servant, and Mistress) I think the combination with Janny Wurts made Feist even better. Also Farie Tale was very good.
181
Post by: gorgon
Orlanth wrote:In the same statement, so my actual point was well covered and clear. It's not the 1950s anymore.
Right...it was the 1950s, not the 1850s or 1750s. People didn't speak significantly differently and popular novels didn't read significantly differently.
I'm completely willing to accept that Tolkien intentionally adopted a flowery, archaic style as part of his mythbuilding exercise. But that still means that much of the prose isn't well-written if the work is evaluated as a modern, popular novel.
Besides, there are flaws beyond the prose style. It's also oddly structured, has some pacing issues, and suffers from too many flat characters. The last problem is what drove Jackson and company to make some of the changes they made, such as Aragorn accepting Anduril (and his birthright) later in the story to create some dramatic tension and character growth.
Again, LotR is without question a gigantic work within the genre. But that doesn't mean it's flawless or above criticism. Its flaws are very real.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
TLoTR done in the style of The Angry Young Men would be awesome to read.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:TLoTR done in the style of The Angry Young Men would be awesome to read.
Yea but an LOTR done in "Planet of the Apes The Musical" style would be epic.... 
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
WarOne wrote:I remember a series from Chrisopher Stasheff with his novels emphasizing wizards but with a twist (the series I read was a wizard in space going to medieval words, almost like Inquisitors from 40k going to primitive Imperial worlds).
A wizard in mind, yes. I have his second series, the one about Magnus (son of the guy in the first series). It's a fun read.
77922
Post by: Overread
timetowaste85 wrote: Maelstrom808 wrote:Let's face it, I love both Tolkien and Martin's books...but Raymond Feist makes them all his bitch.
I can agree with this. He's written more than both of them, he's had plenty on the best sellers list, he just hasn't had them brought to cinema life. He's had more successes, they've had bigger ones. Who is the real winner? Fantasy lovers.
I find I can't much get into Fiest's works after Magician. I find that his first work is an epic scale and style novel - whilst his latter works feel more like DnD advantures with parties of characters adventuring around. I've heard his collaborated work that he wrote (title escapes me now but set in the same world as Magician) with another author did very well and restored some of the original grandur.
As for the TV/Film world I personally find a lot of books don't translate well to film or at least they often require more than one film and the right director to make it work. I also generally dislike the mass re-writing of the story that goes on (esp in the Hollywood film industry where title and character name are about all that seems to be kept from book to film).
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Overread wrote:
As for the TV/Film world I personally find a lot of books don't translate well to film or at least they often require more than one film and the right director to make it work. I also generally dislike the mass re-writing of the story that goes on (esp in the Hollywood film industry where title and character name are about all that seems to be kept from book to film).
Correct, even with the GoT series, they cut out many of the elements that made some of the jokes funny... The scene where Tyrion is arriving and completes the Hill Tribe warriors line is quite funny, but really its only funny because I read the book, and know the entire reason he's saying that in the first place. Of course, this will be an almost universal gripe that any reader will have when they see their beloved book on the screen, and just kinda goes with the territory
68081
Post by: rossp8
 gorgon wrote:This should really be titled Lord of the Rings vs. A Song of Fire and Ice. Anyhoo...
Tolkien is the inferior novel writer. It's not even close, really. The Lord of the Rings is oddly structured, poorly paced, filled with stilted dialogue, etc. However, Tolkien obviously deserves to be lauded for everything else he did in constructing Middle-Earth. At times -- like with the seemingly endless asides about the name of this or that place in this or that language -- it's both a strength and a weakness. Still, the world is the thing and that's why it's a classic.
Martin is the professional novelist in comparison, and is less interested in creating languages and mythology than interesting characters, strong dialogue, etc. The world of ASOFAI is certainly far murkier...we have no idea what the blazes happened to it to put it in its current state, and may never know. But for Martin, the world is just the setting for his characters and their interactions, which are terrific IMO.
The two works are *very* different and hard to compare in some ways even though they're both "fantasy literature."
*slow clap*
The author really didn't get Game of Thrones. It's not about who made a "bigger" story. It's about who made a more engaging story.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
As far as the originating article I do find it kind of silly that they compare Smaug against Daenerys's newborn dragons, and even bring up Glaurung, progenitor of all Tolkien dragons; and yet ignore stuff like Balerion the Black Dread who is easily a match for Smaug. It's kind of stupid.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
GRRM for me every time over Tolkien , I've read lord of the rings once and never again, completely boring. I however, enjoyed the hobbit.
About Tolkien being a "product of the time" i think that's complete rubbish. He had an archaic writing style very similar to Lovecraft. Writers like Gustav Flaurbert had a much more accessable style ( I have only read Madame Bovary - but thoroughly enjoyed it) decades before Tolkien and Lovecraft dished up their archaic long winded styles.
Less "product of the times" more product of the past.
Someone mentioned Dickens , yes I'd agree I can see similarities to Dickens in Tolkiens' work, and Dickens' work was 100 years previous. I must admit that I'm not to big on Tolkien or most older writers but he simply was not writing in a style of his generation, he was writing in the style of the previous generation. "Product of the times" indeed.
*takes of the literary snob hat *
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
A product of his time was the product of the past, because he was in the past.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Completely ignoring that being a product of the past isn't really a criticism of his work since he intended it to be such.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
That too.
181
Post by: gorgon
LordofHats wrote:Completely ignoring that being a product of the past isn't really a criticism of his work since he intended it to be such.
Playing devil's advocate, if I wrote a new novel *intended* to have wooden characters, a predictable story, uninteresting prose, and artificial-sounding dialogue, would that insulate it from criticism of those flaws?
If you're going to evaluate LotR as a popular novel series -- which it was -- and compare it to another popular novel series, some of these criticisms of the writing, characters and structure are valid no matter the author's intent.
I'm really trying not to come across as a hater here. Again, LotR is a monumental work in the genre. But I can't get behind people treating it as flawless.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
A better analogy would be people criticizing my choice of syllables when I wrote a story in haiku.
75903
Post by: KommissarKiln
It seems like more people are giving Tolkein more flak than I anticipated. Abort mission! Abort mission! Eject, eject, eject!
I will admit that the book of LOTR was not the most fun I've ever had, but The Hobbit was definitely enjoyable. I think LOTR and the Hobbit both stepped it up as films.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Now. I would like to offer something interesting. WHat if with combined both the SOng of ice and fire with Lord of the Rings. There are great things in both. LOTR has a great setting and very strong mythology. A song of ice and fire has better characters, but not a better story.
I as a writer like both of them. GRRM is an interesting writer, and has his own strengths. Tolkien wrote extremely beautifully, and has his own strength.
If there was a writer who combined these two strengths into their own work, it would be the greatest writer ever.
But eh. I am only a dreamer of a writer. Reading other peoples settings is kind of a hobby.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
gorgon wrote:
Playing devil's advocate, if I wrote a new novel *intended* to have wooden characters, a predictable story, uninteresting prose, and artificial-sounding dialogue, would that insulate it from criticism of those flaws?
I any of those things were wholely true about Lord of the Rings it wouldn't personify the fantasy genre as it commonly does. Even then, a story with any of those things isn't even inherently a bad story. Much of Tolkien's work in LotR was about world building something which I think even today LotR is the unrivaled king of fantasy with that respect, conveying more information in 5 books than Gameswork Shop has in dozens over nearly 30 years. Few works have managed to build a world like LotR did.
Frankly I'm not sure how anyone could even make the accusation that his dialogue sounded artificial. Go read a Saga or two. It's really quite authentic and the story is only predictable because we all know what happens by now even if we've never read the book or seen the movies. Sword of Shannara for example was considered an unbriddled rip off o LotR as were numerous other stories throughout the 60's and 70's. LotR has defined is genre so much that those of us reading it later are somewhat immune to it because its effect is already engrained into us. The plot, while far from revolutionary by any means, as so engrained itself into the culture of its own genre, that anyone reading it now doesn't quite get the full impact. D&D was one of the biggest spreaders of this because the creators purposely drew allusion to LotR to build their game's popular appeal.
It's like calling the plot twist at the end of The Empire Strikes Back predictable while completely ignoring that it's only predictable because references and allusions to it permeate our culture to the point its nearly impossible to not know before hand. EDIT: For a video game reference I site anyone who calls Halo 'generic' completely ignoring that Halo is the LotR of FPS and anyone playing later games misses how sweeping an effect it had on its genre and might find it bland and boring compared to games that followed.
If you're going to evaluate LotR as a popular novel series -- which it was -- and compare it to another popular novel series, some of these criticisms of the writing, characters and structure are valid no matter the author's intent.
True but people take it to far. I do find Tolkein's prose a burden to read, and very long winded at times, but that doesn't make them bad per se. Some people love them some people hate them. Liking something is a subjective standard. Objectively, Tolkien's prose are quite masterful from a literary perspective granting that what makes them masterful is also what makes them a burden for those of us who just want an epic story to read.
But I can't get behind people treating it as flawless.
I never claimed it was. My claim is primarily that a lot of the criticism directed in this thread is based in personal tastes and ignores the merits of the work itself. Saying I don't like something is fine by me (I might argue it with you but in the end I don't care that much). Saying something is bad simply because you don't like it is ignorant.
18698
Post by: kronk
Both book series are enjoyable.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Voices of reason unite!
I do not hate either.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Anybody that says LotR is predictable is really just confusing old with new.
LotR is predictable because you, the reader, are already familiar with fantasy in general. Which takes its inspiration almost wholly from Tolkien's work.
So of course its going to be predictable because its the original that all the stuff you are comparing it to was actually based on it. When you should actually be scrutinizing all other Fantasy against the LotR, which is the gold standard, not the other way around.
It would be like saying Shakespeare is predictable and boring, but that's only because his work permeates our society in literature and movies so you instantly recognize it.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Grey Templar wrote:Anybody that says LotR is predictable is really just confusing old with new.
LotR is predictable because you, the reader, are already familiar with fantasy in general. Which takes its inspiration almost wholly from Tolkien's work.
So of course its going to be predictable because its the original that all the stuff you are comparing it to was actually based on it. When you should actually be scrutinizing all other Fantasy against the LotR, which is the gold standard, not the other way around.
It would be like saying Shakespeare is predictable and boring, but that's only because his work permeates our society in literature and movies so you instantly recognize it.
Stop stealing my thunder
75903
Post by: KommissarKiln
Grey Templar wrote:Anybody that says LotR is predictable is really just confusing old with new.
LotR is predictable because you, the reader, are already familiar with fantasy in general. Which takes its inspiration almost wholly from Tolkien's work.
So of course its going to be predictable because its the original that all the stuff you are comparing it to was actually based on it. When you should actually be scrutinizing all other Fantasy against the LotR, which is the gold standard, not the other way around.
It would be like saying Shakespeare is predictable and boring, but that's only because his work permeates our society in literature and movies so you instantly recognize it.
'Nuff said. I can heartily agree with this.
181
Post by: gorgon
Guys, perhaps this wasn't clear, but the example in my first paragraph was a hypothetical *new novel*...not LotR itself. I assumed it'd be more obvious since a couple of those qualities don't easily apply to LotR IMO.
57811
Post by: Jehan-reznor
I like LOTR as well as GOT but lotr is more written in older style of writing as done in myth's and saga's. got's style is more contemporary.
68081
Post by: rossp8
Lord of the Rings is about the only time that as an avid reader I thought the movies were better than the books. That's saying something.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Eh. People whose sole complaint about a movie is that 'the book was better' aren't much worth listening to. Like the Harry Potter films. Those are some all around good movies, in nearly all respects but people call them terrible because they skipped some scene or another from the books. It's silly. LotR has a solid series of movies. At the very least you can watch them in the theater and not feel like you've wasted your money (though you might feel like your time has been dragged )
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I would postulate that those people are correct when it comes to some movies.
Namely Eragon...
34390
Post by: whembly
He's actually a linguistic first, then writer.
It's still amazing that the following are actual written/spoken languages in the LoTR universe:
Black Speech
Three Elvish language
Dwarvish
Dundain
Western
... and a few others I think.
Just reading his appendix, notes, other compilations is a trip.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
 whembly wrote:He's actually a linguistic first, then writer. It's still amazing that the following are actual written/spoken languages in the LoTR universe: Black Speech Three Elvish language Dwarvish Dundain Western ... and a few others I think. Just reading his appendix, notes, other compilations is a trip.
Yeah I actually can speak dundain... That is the only language I have ever learned. Thanks Dad, for reading me the Lord of the rings when I was 5 years old!
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Grey Templar wrote:I would postulate that those people are correct when it comes to some movies.
Namely Eragon...
Well yeah but Eragon on its face is just a bad movie. There's not even a need to compare it to the book to call it bad XD
My intention is merely that 'the book was better' is not an argument that a movie is bad. EDIT: Really it says nothing meaningful about the movie at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Asherian Command wrote:
Yeah I actually can speak dundain... That is the only language I have ever learned. Thanks Dad, for reading me the Lord of the rings when I was 5 years old!
I hear you haven't read Shakespear until you've read it in the original Dundain
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Grey Templar wrote:I would postulate that those people are correct when it comes to some movies.
Namely Eragon...
I think it's best we just pretend that (I can't call it a film) monstrosity never happened and wait 10 years for the LOTR-budget 3.5 hour reboot it deserves... Ah, I can dream...
whembly wrote:He's actually a linguistic first, then writer.
It's still amazing that the following are actual written/spoken languages in the LoTR universe:
Black Speech
Three Elvish language
Dwarvish
Dundain
Western
... and a few others I think.
Just reading his appendix, notes, other compilations is a trip.
Agreed, and this is what puts Tolkien's work so far above and beyond of the rest of fantasy literature. Any competent writer can create a country or a race, but it takes pure genius to create an entire world with several fully developed languages and cultures so in depth it's almost possible to speak them fluently.
rossp8 wrote:Lord of the Rings is about the only time that as an avid reader I thought the movies were better than the books. That's saying something.
I wouldn't say they were better, but they are certainly the best book-to-film adaptation made. Hence why they place as number one in my all-time favourites.No other book adaptation places in that list, so it's a testament to both the book and film. Tolkien created the world and Jackson did a stunning job of bringing it to life.
Most films of books I have come to dread after fiascos like Eragon, Percy Jackson and The Golden Compass, but LOTR stands with the greatest of films and the best of books, largely because of the amazing material it was based on and how that was realised on the big screen.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Paradigm wrote:
I wouldn't say they were better, but they are certainly the best book-to-film adaptation made. Hence why they place as number one in my all-time favourites.No other book adaptation places in that list, so it's a testament to both the book and film. Tolkien created the world and Jackson did a stunning job of bringing it to life.
For the fantasy genre, sure. But I'd still contend that Fight Club is, hands down, the greatest film-book adaptation.
5212
Post by: Gitzbitah
It is a bit off topic, but I'd hold up the Stardust adaptation as a fine example of a fun movie tied to an excellent novel.
34390
Post by: whembly
Gitzbitah wrote:It is a bit off topic, but I'd hold up the Stardust adaptation as a fine example of a fun movie tied to an excellent novel.
I haven't read the novel, but I enjoyed the heck out of Stardust.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Gitzbitah wrote:It is a bit off topic, but I'd hold up the Stardust adaptation as a fine example of a fun movie tied to an excellent novel.
I agree with that. It was a great film. And a great adapation. But barely anyone watched it because it came out right after the film failures of Eragon, Golden Compass. So people avoided it. I am glad someone actually said that. Stardust was a fantastic movie.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The Shining.
37790
Post by: Hlaine Larkin mk2
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Paradigm wrote:
I wouldn't say they were better, but they are certainly the best book-to-film adaptation made. Hence why they place as number one in my all-time favourites.No other book adaptation places in that list, so it's a testament to both the book and film. Tolkien created the world and Jackson did a stunning job of bringing it to life.
For the fantasy genre, sure. But I'd still contend that Fight Club is, hands down, the greatest film-book adaptation.
I would say 2001 is;
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote: Paradigm wrote:
I wouldn't say they were better, but they are certainly the best book-to-film adaptation made. Hence why they place as number one in my all-time favourites.No other book adaptation places in that list, so it's a testament to both the book and film. Tolkien created the world and Jackson did a stunning job of bringing it to life.
For the fantasy genre, sure. But I'd still contend that Fight Club is, hands down, the greatest film-book adaptation.
I would say 2001 is;
Did 2001 ever pick up the pace though?? I think I've made it as far as the initial space station walkthrough scene before being utterly bored to tears
37790
Post by: Hlaine Larkin mk2
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote: Paradigm wrote:
I wouldn't say they were better, but they are certainly the best book-to-film adaptation made. Hence why they place as number one in my all-time favourites.No other book adaptation places in that list, so it's a testament to both the book and film. Tolkien created the world and Jackson did a stunning job of bringing it to life.
For the fantasy genre, sure. But I'd still contend that Fight Club is, hands down, the greatest film-book adaptation.
I would say 2001 is;
Did 2001 ever pick up the pace though?? I think I've made it as far as the initial space station walkthrough scene before being utterly bored to tears
The film is pretty slow but asa book-to-film adaptation it's one of the best, only a few details are different and Arthur C Clarke incorporated one into the sequels
1464
Post by: Breotan
The TV mini-series of Dune was extremely faithful to the book and that is the main reason I like it better than that aweful Lynch movie.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
 Breotan wrote:The TV mini-series of Dune was extremely faithful to the book and that is the main reason I like it better than that aweful Lynch movie.
I love the Lynch movie. It may not be accurate, but it has spirit. And chutzpah.
As far as the movie LotR versions - a lot of them were fine, but as a whole I just can't watch 'em any more. There were so many parts that were just... nonsensical. The Entmoot, the downsy-hyena wargs, hundred foot tall oliphaunts, the whole battle of Pelennor fields being completely irrelevant, the Eye turning into an evil lighthouse in the second and especially third movies. I mean, the Eye was bad f'ing ass in the Fellowship.
5470
Post by: sebster
Lord of the Rings, or more specificall Middle Earth, is an incredible creation that is viewed through a fairly flawed novel. The universe he created is complex, multi-layered and full of great stories that build together in to a remarkable whole. It's quite something to realise that unlike other authors who might give a throwaway reference to some ruin or famous battle of the past, when Tolkien mentions such things he's referencing a piece of the history of his world with its own complete story, and often knowing that story enhances the events going on at that very time. Unfortunately to access this you have to read through material that frequently doesn't work too well as novels, for the simple reason that Tolkien was not a writer, nor was his primary interest in writing engaging fiction. He was a world builder. That doesn't mean there isn't great stuff in there, but there's a lot of plodding stuff and a structure that's poor at best.
A Song of Ice and Fire is a much more accessible work. It also complex, multi-layered and full of great stories that look like they're building towards a really incredible whole, but it's written first and foremost as enjoyable read. I'm not sure it has the power of the message that underlines LotR, but that will be hard to know until it ends... and that's really the big thing at this point, A Song of Ice and Fire hasn't ended yet. If it ends very well it will likely be remembered and loved for a very long time, but if it ends poorly, then there is a chance that so much of the stuff that we thought was so cool because it was leading to something might seem far less interesting in the context of a poor ending. So perhaps this conversation should wait until A Song of Ice and Fire is a complete work.
Breotan wrote:The TV mini-series of Dune was extremely faithful to the book and that is the main reason I like it better than that aweful Lynch movie.
Heh, that's actually the example I give of why faithfulness to the original medium isn't necessarily a good idea
I mean, Lynch's Dune is a mess, but at least it's a mess with some evocative images and music. For all its faults, it was attempting to evoke the feel of Herbert's novel in film. Whereas the TV mini-series was very faithful to the literal descriptions given in the book, and had everyone say all the right bits at all the right times, but was crafted with all the art and style of a highschool play, and so felt utterly flat.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
 sebster wrote:
Heh, that's actually the example I give of why faithfulness to the original medium isn't necessarily a good idea
I mean, Lynch's Dune is a mess, but at least it's a mess with some evocative images and music. For all its faults, it was attempting to evoke the feel of Herbert's novel in film. Whereas the TV mini-series was very faithful to the literal descriptions given in the book, and had everyone say all the right bits at all the right times, but was crafted with all the art and style of a highschool play, and so felt utterly flat.
That's what I was sayin'. Think of all the quotable lines in a movie - generally speaking the more there are the better or at least more memorable (which I think arbitrarily means better) it is. There are a dozen at least in the Lynch movie. I watched the TV one and forgot it immediately.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Breotan wrote:The TV mini-series of Dune was extremely faithful to the book and that is the main reason I like it better than that aweful Lynch movie.
AGREED! It was so much better than "sonic gun big hair movie"
77922
Post by: Overread
The Lynch movie I felt evoked the feeling of Dune - it felt like Dune; it had that feeling of reading the book in a visual nature.
That said I fully admit that its the kind of film where you've had to have read the book to understand half of what is going on because there are many fastward points and scenes with little or no explanation as to what the heck is going on (although the book is a little like that too which is some of its mystery).
Book to film is a hard thing to do because typically you can't just do a straight translation unless you involve a narrator through the whole film in order to present information and viewpoints that occur in the background to action and conversation. Books are often loaded with expanded descriptions; thoughts, ideas and motivations behind characters actions that can otherwise appear to be very odd choices if viewed without that mental backup*
*anyone who has read a book by Robin Hobb has likely felt, more than once, like shouting at the lead character for making the wrong choice; a thing that would make them seem a poor character in a visual movie; but when backed by the thought process of the character - ergo their reasoning, you still want to shout at them but have at least half an understanding of the why.
18698
Post by: kronk
2001 is an incredibly slow film, but I enjoyed it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Overread wrote:The Lynch movie I felt evoked the feeling of Dune - it felt like Dune; it had that feeling of reading the book in a visual nature.
The only thing that movie evoked was the smell of way too much hairspray being used...
77922
Post by: Overread
 Frazzled wrote: Overread wrote:The Lynch movie I felt evoked the feeling of Dune - it felt like Dune; it had that feeling of reading the book in a visual nature.
The only thing that movie evoked was the smell of way too much hairspray being used...
Yes but its got Patrick Stward in it too which balances out the outrageous hair
221
Post by: Frazzled
Stewart was good. I'll give you that. But even The Picard could not save that film.
9407
Post by: Lint
I love Tolkien. I love his writing style, and I love the fact that LotR gets better as it progresses.
ASOFAI is an incredible series for the first 3 books and then Martin seems to get lost. That might have something to do with the fact that 4 and 5 were supposed to be one book, but he split it in two because it would've been massive. I have some faith that he will begin moving everything forward in the next book.
Somebody earlier mention Goodkind's "Wizard's First Rule." I will just say that those were probably the best first 3 books in a fantasy series ever and then Goodkind began crapping out preachie turds and utter disappointment.
I love, love, love, "The Chronicles of the Black Company." Definitely more on the low fantasy end of things. Glen Cook starts off great, gets lost towards the end, never quite finds his way back, and nobody cares because his prose is incredible.
|
|
