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.

**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!

**WarOne**

What? No Wheel of Time love?

**pretre**

Why would it be a lock?

**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.

**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.

**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!

**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?

**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

**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".

**-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.

**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."

**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.

**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....

**Spinner**

I like 'em both.

What? Whaaaaat?

**FirePainter**

Hulksmash wrote:
Brandon Sanderson.....That's the winner here.

Having just finished the Mistborn Trilogy I must say that Sanderson is a really good author and should be more well known.

**Chancetragedy**

Glad Sanderson is getting a little recognition. He really breathed life back into the ending of wheel of time.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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?

**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.

**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?

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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)

**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.

**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.

**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).

**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.