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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**Co'tor Shas**

I love J.R.R. Tolkien, but personally Terry Pratchett is my favorite.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**WarOne**

An article pertaining to Tolkein's writing style:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tolkien_studies/v001/1.1drout.html

**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.

**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!

**pretre**

WarOne wrote:
That wink is horribly exaggerated and therefore upsets me.

I demand recompense!

But I haven't even compensed you yet!

**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

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**Captain Fantastic**

Neither, they're both awful. Fantasy is awful. I cannot enjoy anything that even remotely involves western mysticism or fantasy elements.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.