Lord of the Rings vs. Game of Thrones

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**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.

**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.

**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

).

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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).

**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.

**LordofHats**

Anyone read Malazan Book of the Fallen

**Bromsy**

LordofHats wrote:
Anyone read Malazan Book of the Fallen

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.

**d-usa**

Is there a Game of Bones?

There should be a Game of Bones...

**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.

**Maelstrom808**

Let's face it, I love both Tolkien and Martin's books...but Raymond Feist makes them all his bitch.

**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!

**d-usa**

thenoobbomb wrote:
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!

I'm so proud

It's little people porn, isn't it....

**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.

**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

Spoiler:

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.

**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.

**Kilkrazy**

TLoTR done in the style of The Angry Young Men would be awesome to read.

**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....

**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.

**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).

**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

**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.

**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.

**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 *