Is a Song of Ice and Fire better than Lord of the Rings? [Archive]

Legate of Amon Lanc

04-28-2013, 11:08 AM

On many points, I would basically second Galadriel55 here:
I must say that I enjoyed the first book very much, the second and third too, but the fourth was already getting a bit too spread out, and the fifth was completely dragged on and disappointing. Too many characters and too much stagnation. LOTR, on the other hand, combines in itself many plotlines from different time periods without dragging it on with unnecessary inaction.

I remember saying once that GOT has some of LOTR's maturity and HP's addictiveness, which makes it an interesting book to read. Unfortunately, A Dance With Dragons did not preserve this feeling. It brought more complications but did not move an inch forward.
I would only disagree slightly about the Dance with Dragons, I still liked it more than the fourth book and I think it *did* contribute something to the storyline, but I think it's in many ways akin to the fourth book. The plotline spreads too far to too many ends.

I think ASOIAF is much better on second re-read than on the first, though, since now I am re-reading it and there is much more to focus on.

What I think is the problem with ASOIAF from the "enjoyability" perspective is that it fulfils the dream of most book-readers: you get to learn a lot in detail about various characters in various situations. The sort of thing you have when you finish reading LotR and you pity there isn't more about what Fatty Bolger did when Frodo was in Mordor, why there isn't more about Dáin and Brand's battle in Dale against the Easterlings, why there isn't more about some more random characters who we would have found interesting and more about their personal struggles and thoughts etc...

G.R.R. Martin did exactly that. But it waters down the general plot of the book as it is and makes it full of long sequences - on first reading especially - where you are like "hey, I don't want to read a chapter about what Forlong the Fat had for breakfast and about the fight Farmer Maggot had with his neighbor before learning whether or not Frodo's Ring is The One Ring". You have a ton of "random" stuff - the writer could have just cut it, made it, say, three books and focus only on several main characters and some main plot, but instead you have an equivalent to "what Dáin, Farmer Maggot, Haldir and Ufthak were doing while Frodo was on the way to Mordor". (On top of that, you aren't even sure which of the plots is more important, whether the one about Mordor or the one about Bag End, but that does not seem to be the point of the books.) But exactly this makes the books much more enjoyable on second reading, when you can focus on the gazillion of minor characters, or even the details about the main characters which have eluded you before.

So that is one thing. And the other big thing is, in my opinion, the sort of "lasting value". I am not sure, despite its brilliance in terms of really big complex plot, detailed characters etc, whether ASOIAF has that. I think LotR is the kind of thing that many people can relate to and we can sort of identify ourselves with the characters in LotR or the "underlying conflicts" and, as Tolkien says, it has the "eucatastrophe", and I agree with him that that is one of the big things that makes stores great and lasting, that they reflect something of our lives and also give us the hope for the future. Despite liking many of the main characters of ASOIAF, having pity for the more villainous ones and so on, I would not want to spend much time together with either of them, and the story itself is not really very, well, hopeful, is it? It makes a good spectacle, it has interesting plot twists and so on, but again, the lasting value - I didn't really see it so far. It does not try to play anything, it is a story with its own value, but LotR just has something else to offer, too. Somebody could possibly write more stories akin to ASOIAF, given enough time and so on, but LotR requires more depth.

Zigûr

04-28-2013, 07:30 PM

As I've said elsewhere, I read A Game of Thrones a couple of years ago and had absolutely no desire to continue reading the series. I didn't hate it but I didn't especially enjoy it either. I found it incredibly middle-of-the-road. I also found that all the titillation (sex, violence, intrigue etc) got in the way of the more fantastic elements that I found somewhat interesting, but I guess that appeals to a broader audience more than a straight-up supernatural focus.
It was actually one of the novels which has largely contributed to my growing antipathy for non-Tolkien "high Fantasy" in general. There's so much fan hysteria around the series (and its television adaptation) that I think it was wildly oversold to me. There's so little room for moderate discourse surrounding all these modern, popular "geek franchises" that I've become rather wearied with them in general.

Elemmakil

05-01-2013, 10:31 PM

While I enjoy the whole GoT series, violent soft porn that it is, I consider it inferior to LoTR, and am somewhat dismayed by folks who consider GRRM to be "The American Tolkien" as such a comparison does JRRT a severe disservice.

I find GOT to be interesting as a sort of "retelling" of our historical Wars of the Roses in 15th C. England in a fantastical world. The characters are often quite interesting, and the writing is overall pretty good. It does drag, but not nearly to the extent of Robert Jordan's irritating "Wheel of Time" series, which I thoroughly despised. Ultimately, though, GOT lacks the "spark" (for lack of a better term) that makes Tolkien's Middle Earth so compelling and "alive" - literally like a real place that exists or at least existed at one time. Moreso: a place that I would like to live in if I could. I don't really have that vibe for GOT; even if I could go there, I don't know that I would want to (at least not without a BAR and several thousand rounds of .30-06 ball, among other things)

I will say that I like the fact that the HBO series actually follows the plot of the books fairly closely - would that PJ could have done the same for his LoTR and Hobbit movies! (not that PJ had to follow the books exactly; I just detest his ad libs where he thinks he's better than JRRT when it comes to storytelling. Turns out he's not...)

Of course, it's easier to follow the books when you can devote approximately 10 hours per season to each, as opposed to a mere 3 hours per LoTR/Hobbit movie. Also helps if one doesn't add one's own bizarre innoventions to the basic plot of the book...

Legate of Amon Lanc

05-02-2013, 05:26 AM

While I enjoy the whole GoT series, violent soft porn that it is, I consider it inferior to LoTR, and am somewhat dismayed by folks who consider GRRM to be "The American Tolkien" as such a comparison does JRRT a severe disservice.
I think it is also a sad generalization that you can read on the back of always any fantasy book, since the publishers seem to generally want to appeal on the wide public by equating fantasy with Tolkien, no matter the fact that thematically the fantasy in question can be completely different. I can see that GRRM is perhaps closer to Tolkien than many when it comes to complexity, but certainly not in the spirit.

Tolkien's Middle Earth so compelling and "alive" - literally like a real place that exists or at least existed at one time. Moreso: a place that I would like to live in if I could. I don't really have that vibe for GOT; even if I could go there, I don't know that I would want to
Yes, that basically sums up my opinion as well. There are many lovely fantasy worlds I wouldn't mind to visit, but however interesting and rich GRRM's world is, I would not want to live there, because it is terrible.

Once again that comes back to what I sort of wanted to point at in my previous post - if you take the criteria for "good stories" from Tolkien's On Fairy-stories, that is, it seems to me, what ASOIAF is not. I am not even sure if it has any great eucatastrophe coming (I actually somehow think that even if it did, I would feel it might not really fit, because the tale itself is a portrayal of quite merciless world), even though it has to be said it has its merry moments, but it is more like the Children of Húrin than the Lord of the Rings. Further speaking of criteria for good stories, even just reading GRRM's books sometimes reminded me of Frodo's famous quote "Shut the book now, dad; we don't want to read any more."

I will say that I like the fact that the HBO series actually follows the plot of the books fairly closely - would that PJ could have done the same for his LoTR and Hobbit movies! (not that PJ had to follow the books exactly; I just detest his ad libs where he thinks he's better than JRRT when it comes to storytelling. Turns out he's not...)

Of course, it's easier to follow the books when you can devote approximately 10 hours per season to each, as opposed to a mere 3 hours per LoTR/Hobbit movie. Also helps if one doesn't add one's own bizarre innoventions to the basic plot of the book...
Also absolutely agreed on this. Recently in a debate Nogrod actually said about the same... and that led me to imagine if GoT was filmed by PJ, then probably all the sense of subtlety would have been lost (without further spoilers, imagine various people who later turn out to be turncloaks dressed all the time in huge spiked armors, having really menacing look, horses with glowing red eyes and so on). But yes, having a team such as GoT had for doing LotR or the Hobbit, they could have cut a lot of unnecessary rubbish and kept more faithful to the spirit of the tale.

Rhod the Red

05-04-2013, 09:09 PM

and the practically pornographic material was off-putting.

So it's alright to describe someone being killed with a sword or axe, but not describe sex?

Mithalwen

05-05-2013, 03:52 AM

I doubt that is what she meant. Writing about sex does not automatically equal pornography though some do think that way. Most people would distinguish between a medical text and Sade for example. Similarly violence can be written or portrayed differently. I haven't read enough Martin to comment on him particularly though I have read reviews which chime with Aganzir's comments. I am more bothered by violence personally. Both are subjects where suggestion rather than depiction can be more effective in fiction.

Rhod the Red

05-05-2013, 03:56 AM

Well what would be better? Vague references like "I enjoyed our visit to my bed last night."?

Mithalwen

05-05-2013, 05:35 AM

Possibly. There is a reason why there is an award annually for bad sex in fiction. I have read Sade and it is highly explicit but utterly tedious. My dissertation was on horror stories and there too letting the imagination work is scarier than describing the monster. A lot depends on context: consenting adults or abusive, fact or fiction. Alice Sebold's Lucky and the Lovely Bones are good exampkes of the same author handling the same subject matter very differently in novel and autobiography. The several harrowing pages of fact would have been gratuitous in the novel where she uses one perfect metaphor. There is a middle ground between all and nothing. But a lot is individual taste and there may be general gender differences in how things are perceived.

Galadriel55

05-05-2013, 07:55 AM

I suppose that there's always the option of showing the bed but not explicitly showing pornography, which would avoid the awkward comments and complete inappropriateness, but Martin wrote in pretty explicitly pornographic detail.

Aiwendil

05-05-2013, 08:43 AM

So it's alright to describe someone being killed with a sword or axe, but not describe sex?

It's okay to describe whatever one wants; but both violence and sex have the potential to be gratuitious, vulgar, or immature.

Boo Radley

05-06-2013, 06:16 PM

I find GOT to be interesting as a sort of "retelling" of our historical Wars of the Roses in 15th C. England in a fantastical world.

Yes! Thank you.
A friend and I were discussing this very thing, way back when the first book came out and I've since then mentioned it to other people and usually just gotten a blank stare.

But I think it's very similar (although embellished to the Nth degree) and quite entertaining.

Nogrod

05-07-2013, 08:31 AM

I think one major difference needs to be mentioned as well... and that is the difference between a classical moral-tale and one that is more "realistic" (if not a bit cynical as well) and thusly morally more ambiguous.

I mean in the LotR you have good and bad guys, there are challenges and adventure, but you know already in the beginning that the good will prevail in the end.

In the SoIaF the people you first think are goodies have their darker sides and those you deem the baddies in the beginning become understandable and even decent when more of them is revealed - and many main characters are openly ambiguous to begin with, like we people are.

Both writers are children of their times (like we readers are as well). I may get some nostalgic vibes from Tolkien's moral universe but I must admit that I find Martin's world more interesting and fascinating.

That said I have no doubt Tolkien will be remembered as one of the greatest writers of the twentieth century and LotR will stand in time as a great piece of literature and the initiator of a whole genre of writing. Meanwhile George Martin will more probably become a footnote in the histories of literature, maybe as an example of how phantasy literature changed in the turn of the millenia or something.

That has to do with the relative merits both stories have as literature aka. storytelling, the usage of language, the relation to the time they were published etc.

I mean Martin really stalls at times and has clearly taken up a project he can't handle any more as it spreads too far and wide - so one of the things that made it special and remarkable to begin with seems to turn out to be it's undoing...

I do still love the richness of the characters, the richness of detail, the unexpected things happening ever so often, and the almost overwhelming scope of "reality" in the SoIaF - and I do think the moral ambiguity and insecurity of it is much more interesting and stimulating than the black or white morals and foreknown endings of classical stories.

But still... Tolkien is the writer, the author that will be remembered. For a reason that he is... well, the Writer of the two.

Elemmakil

05-08-2013, 09:10 PM

I think one major difference needs to be mentioned as well... and that is the difference between a classical moral-tale and one that is more "realistic" (if not a bit cynical as well) and thusly morally more ambiguous.

I mean in the LotR you have good and bad guys, there are challenges and adventure, but you know already in the beginning that the good will prevail in the end.

In the SoIaF the people you first think are goodies have their darker sides and those you deem the baddies in the beginning become understandable and even decent when more of them is revealed - and many main characters are openly ambiguous to begin with, like we people are.

Both writers are children of their times (like we readers are as well). I may get some nostalgic vibes from Tolkien's moral universe but I must admit that I find Martin's world more interesting and fascinating.
...
I do still love the richness of the characters, the richness of detail, the unexpected things happening ever so often, and the almost overwhelming scope of "reality" in the SoIaF - and I do think the moral ambiguity and insecurity of it is much more interesting and stimulating than the black or white morals and foreknown endings of classical stories.

This is mostly true but I would disagree about the implication that Tolkien's characters were strictly good or evil. Smeagol/Gollum is one obvious exception, as is the fact that even the "good" Frodo ultimately claims the Ring. Indeed, even Gandalf says of Sauron that he was not in the beginning evil (or words to that effect), and even the creation of the Rings of Power was not entirely an act of evil on Sauron's part - on some level he did indeed want to help the elves and heal the damage to Middle Earth. But his pride and arrogance that his was the only way, and all should follow his command perverted this ultimately into evil. And even though good "wins" by defeating Sauron, much is lost and the real "magic" of Middle Earth ultimately fades away forever. Sauron losing may be a foreknown ending, but the great loss and diminishment that came with that victory is not.

Galadriel55

05-08-2013, 09:33 PM

This is mostly true but I would disagree about the implication that Tolkien's characters were strictly good or evil. Smeagol/Gollum is one obvious exception, as is the fact that even the "good" Frodo ultimately claims the Ring. Indeed, even Gandalf says of Sauron that he was not in the beginning evil (or words to that effect), and even the creation of the Rings of Power was not entirely an act of evil on Sauron's part - on some level he did indeed want to help the elves and heal the damage to Middle Earth. But his pride and arrogance that his was the only way, and all should follow his command perverted this ultimately into evil. And even though good "wins" by defeating Sauron, much is lost and the real "magic" of Middle Earth ultimately fades away forever. Sauron losing may be a foreknown ending, but the great loss and diminishment that came with that victory is not.

I'd say that the example I find the most appropriate is the First Age stuff. First you think all these Feanorians are good, then you think they're bad, then good, bad, good, etc., and you don't know who to cheer for anymore. The only thing that's still certain is that Morgoth is for sure evil, and will ever be so. It just occured to me that The Sil, while still being distinctly different in both style and plot, is a storyline that could have been written by G.R.R. Martin - except that he would have concentrated on the specifics rather than the overall epicness of the tale, described in explicit detail where each character goes and what he does there, and probably have taken up a good score of volumes. The basic storyline idea, though, resembles ASoIaF more closely that I previously thought.

Galadriel

05-31-2013, 05:22 AM

Long time no see, fellow Downers.

Many people in answer to this question were saying 'no', but I find it difficult to answer. If it is a matter of preference, I easily prefer LotR. I think the atmosphere is better, the prose is better, and the world more evolved. When it comes to characterisation, though, I think Martin wins hands down. I love Tolkien's characters more than Martin's but I don't think they're, objectively, more well-rounded.

What makes matters more complicated is that I read LotR before ASOIAF and have a natural preference for the former. It might or might not have been the other way around if I had read Martin's story first.

I think both books/series are at a very high level, to the point where you can't really say which is better save by mere opinion. At least, this is the case for me. For some reason, though, I agree with Nogrod who said that Tolkien will be remembered as one of the greats while Martin will be squashed into footnotes, one of the reasons for this being that he took on a project that is perhaps too vast even for him, to the point where things get confusing instead of interesting.

Kuruharan

05-31-2013, 09:54 AM

I can answer this question by pointing out that Tolkien never used the phrase "as useless as nipples on a breastplate." Case closed. :p

Now that is not to say that I don’t enjoy ASOIAF because I do very much and I also greatly enjoy the TV series.

The story COULD be better had Martin written the entire series before it's release. As it is, Martin does not even seem to know the END of his tale. And because the first 5 books are already out there, he cannot change anything already written so that the story as a whole fits together better.

I think there is much merit to this statement.

Martin claims to know the ending of the story in broad strokes and to have some sign posts between where he is now and the end but he doesn’t have the entire story mapped out in his head (and I think that is pretty much how he phrases it).

I think he is being honest when he says that he knows the ending he is working toward. However, I think the not knowing how he is going to get there is what is getting him into trouble.

Also he has been working on this series for decades now. Over the course of that time he has changed as a person and as a writer, and as a writer in my opinion he has gained skill in creating detail and lost greatly in plot advancement. I’ve read both of the preview chapters of The Winds of Winter that he has posted on his website and the Theon chapter I thought was pretty good. The Arianne Martell chapter he posted I thought was cringe-worthy and ghastly, to me it felt like it was summing up all the horrifying aspects of A Dance with Dragons and plopping them down into one chapter. It was very discouraging to me as to what Winds is ultimately going to be like.

There is a lot of speculation among his fandom that he needs to get a new and a more critical editor, a contention I agree with.

There is also a lot of speculation among his fandom that deep down inside he has lost interest in telling the Song of Ice and Fire and would rather spend his time telling shorter stories fleshing out the world he has created. I obviously cannot speak to what is going on in the nether reaches of his desires, but based upon the recent evidence which I can observe I can say that writing shorter stories of world building would certainly seem to suit his current skill set better.

As far as world building goes, Tolkien is vastly superior to Martin. Tolkien’s world building was superb or excellent in almost all aspects. Martin’s is pretty good in some places, mediocre in some, and horrible in others. Personally I can pretty much narrow down my greatest complaint against the world building in ASOIAF to one of scale. Martin’s sense of scale is ridiculously outsized in a number of aspects of his world…which is kind of odd in one particular aspect because I read an article that said based on what we know so far the world of ASOIAF is actually smaller than our own. However, being an incurable pedant with a firm historical grounding it sticks in my craw every time I think about how the Seven Kingdoms are supposed to be approximately the size of South America (if not a little larger) and are held together in a loose feudal structure. That structure didn’t work too well in France or the Holy Roman Empire which were much, much smaller. I’m willing to accept that with the aid of dragons one could quickly conquer the majority of a large continent in a medieval setting and level of technology (although the inability to conquer Dorne with those same dragons when you have conquered the rest of the Seven Kingdoms is just bizarre, and Martin knows that now because every time in the story that he tries to explain how in the world that happened he stumbles badly). However, once the dragons are dead there is no way a kingdom of that size could be held together under one dynasty and monarchy via the system described in the book. It’s just preposterous. And I’m not the only one who has noticed this. From a couple things in the TV show I think the show producers have noticed some of the problems as well.

Then we have Essos, which taken as a whole is cover-your-eyes awful and incoherent in so many ways that it would take too long to list them all. That being said, paradoxically I am pretty weird when cut against most ASOIAF fans in that I actually like a number of aspects of Essos much better than I like some aspects of Westeros. I think a lot of it is that I find the cultural and political diversity of Essos more plausible and appealing even with all its risible foundation and conceptualization than the great monolithic sameness of Westeros. For example, I actually enjoyed the descriptions in Dance of Braavos and I also enjoyed the Volantine Freehold (although maybe I just have a taste for the improbably exotic...let’s face it, it is probably that. I would probably just go all to pieces if we were ever taken to Asshai).

I think the reason why I enjoy that level of description and detail in the setting is because that is where Martin’s skills shine the brightest, even though it can stagnate the storyline. Martin excels at fleshing out the details of his world. However, the world as a whole collapses because much of its conceptual foundations are so absurd as to be laughable. Martin is, I think, at bottom a small scale writer and he has gotten himself out of his element with the scale of the world he is trying to write about and doesn’t have the skills (and possibly even the desire) to credibly get himself out of his mess.

Zigûr

05-31-2013, 12:01 PM

Also he has been working on this series for decades now. Over the course of that time he has changed as a person and as a writer, and as a writer in my opinion he has gained skill in creating detail and lost greatly in plot advancement.
This seems to be a condition which afflicts so many Fantasy authors, terminally in the case of Robert Jordan, with his series finished by Brandon Sanderson - and his massive The Way of Kings is meant to be the first in a ten-volume series! Why? Why do they have to be so long? I also think it has the unfortunate side effect of making Fantasy look less 'credible' because the long series' look more 'commercial', whether they are or not, but I confess to being skeptical that a lot of these series' really need to be longer than À la recherche du temps perdu or something of its ilk. At the risk of generalisation most modern genre fiction across various media seems in my mind to be concerned primarily with the two As, Action and Angst, and I'm rarely convinced that what they have to say cannot be expressed without a series of numerous thousand-page volumes.

I apologise if this comes across as curmudgeonly, but it's something that puts me off most modern Fantasy, with authors churning out book after book, usually into an enormous series or two, to little apparent purpose - apart from making a living, of course, but I find it curious that readers are content with reading more and more of the same matter as well. I think verbal diarrhea is something which many Fantasy authors struggle with, and I do believe that one of the strengths of The Lord of the Rings is that despite the nature of its publication it is fundamentally one long book written across a decade (and then some). I think the tension between Professor Tolkien's prolixity and his perfectionism is an interesting one: without the former, there might be no Unfinished Tales or History of Middle-earth and without the latter there might be a truly definitive Silmarillion - but it wouldn't really be Tolkien without both elements, would it?

Having just read Volsungasaga, which has all that juicy incest and murder which Martin and his peers love, but is much more brief, I think there's a curious disparity between this idea that a Fantasy, in the vein of its traditional literary forebears (sagas, heroics, epics and the like), must be grandiose, and the fact that this was traditionally, in some cases at least, accomplished in a much more concise form.

I am, however, reminded of Professor Tolkien's own remark in the Foreweord to the Second Edition of The Lord of the Rings: that of any deficiencies in the text, he would "pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short."
On the one hand I feel as if I agree with him; I feel as if the momentous events surrounding the Fall of Sauron, diabolus of the later Ages, are far too significant to primarily take place over the brief six months in which the major action of the story takes place, that the War of the Rings has too few battles, and that events generally move too swiftly: this may be what he meant. If he meant that it needed more detail, or characterisation or what have you I can appreciate this as well. On the other hand, however, I'm not convinced that these things were necessary, and that the relative brevity of the book works in its favour especially in terms of overall subtlety and pacing, especially in comparison to your average modern-day Fantasy colossus.

Kuruharan

05-31-2013, 02:38 PM

This seems to be a condition which afflicts so many Fantasy authors, terminally in the case of Robert Jordan, with his series finished by Brandon Sanderson

-and-

but it's something that puts me off most modern Fantasy, with authors churning out book after book, usually into an enormous series or two, to little apparent purpose

It does seem to have become more science than art in recent years.

It puts me in mind of this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1053) thread from the golden days of yore on this site.

Unfortunately, the commercialization of writing I think is something we will have to live with.

On the other hand, however, I'm not convinced that these things were necessary, and that the relative brevity of the book works in its favour especially in terms of overall subtlety and pacing, especially in comparison to your average modern-day Fantasy colossus.

I agree with you on that. There needs to be a balance between world building and advancing the story, and over all in the tale itself it is best to advance the story. I say this as somebody who loves world building. I think Tolkien did it right in putting much of his world building into the appendices.

Then of course there are volumes of his work that also do a lot of world building that were published after his death.

Aganzir

05-31-2013, 04:13 PM

ASOIAF is for people who enjoy certain kind of literature, Tolkien for those who appreciate another kind. Still, if people who have read both had a vote, I'm pretty sure Tolkien would come out on top. GRRM is enjoyable, true, but Tolkien is the one you go back to time and again.

As for me, of Martin's series I've only read A Game of Thrones, and I found it quite disappointing. The prose was rather poor, I thought, and the practically pornographic material was off-putting.
I found A Game of Thrones disappointing too, enough so to put me off the series for a year until the HBO series came out and I picked up the second part. The latter books (with the exception of the last one) are much better.

I tend to enjoy profanity, adultery and porn, but Martin doesn't write sex well. It's sometimes so detailed and naturalistic that he sounds like a teenager who has just discovered there's something between his legs, if you excuse the metaphor, and it lacks style. Mith put it quite well already, though.

When it comes to moral ambiguity, Tolkien does it in fact better. I feel Martin needs to spell everything out, and although his characters may do conflicting things, there's more poise in Tolkien's characters. What allows Martin to have such morally ambiguous characters is that they fight each other so you can see both sides, unlike Tolkien who has an ultimate villain in the story. But there's little of Tolkien's internal struggle in Martin's characters.

Also, while Tolkien has few female characters, Martin's writing is at times plain sexist. Just sayin'.

William Cloud Hicklin

06-01-2013, 04:42 PM

Martin also wastes countless pages on pointless derping around and travelling in crisscrossing circles. Tolkien does a fair bit of travel-writing, but it's always to a point.

Snowdog

06-02-2013, 01:10 AM

Being I only managed 7 chapters into Game of Thrones after several attempts in reading it, I have to say no.

SIF was written to make a decent TV mini-series. No need to read it.

that said, I think that the mini-series treatment of Lord of the Rings would have been better than those PJ abominations.

Firefoot

06-03-2013, 08:56 AM

Agree with what everyone else is saying here with an addendum:

All of the characters I liked in the first book (and kept me reading through the parts about characters I didn't) either have since died or their plotlines have faded into unimportance or seeming irrelevance (Arya, Bran). A handful of characters have gotten more enjoyable for me to read about (Jaime) but for the most part I have just stopped caring. I finished reading all of the currently out books maybe a year and a half ago? but have no intention of reading the new ones that come out. Maybe a plot synopsis because there is a part of me that would like to know who ends up winning, if only because I invested so much time into getting to this point.

A lot of people like the series because it's gritty and realistic but I find it really dull to read hundreds of pages about characters I don't like. And after a point, the sorrow of a character I liked dying started to become something more like, "Are you kidding me? He killed off xxx too?" and none of it was ever matched by the utter devastation I felt when I thought Frodo lay dead in the Pass of Cirith Ungol.

So I guess that comes back to what other people have been saying. For me, Game of Thrones completely lacks the beauty of LotR that really made me fall in love with it.

Nogrod

06-03-2013, 11:40 AM

For me, Game of Thrones completely lacks the beauty of LotRI think that is part of the point - and part of the reason some people really love Martin's epic.

One of the reasons I'm personally still willing to also defend tSoIaF to an extent is exactly the point that the characters you like or whose stories look interesting end up dead and their stories don't continue, while some others you have barely noticed before come to the forefront by time. So you can't take the stance in the beginning that "well, this is Ned Stark, the good guy I'm going to relate to, and who will prevail through all the hardships the author will throw on his way".

One could say it is breaking the obvious traditional narrational rule that you build up those characters you are going to make the heroes (or villains) of the story and leave the statists to their places (look at any old adventure or war-movie and you can tell from the introduction who will die and who will live through the ordeals).

That said, I fully agree that Martin can be boring at times (Arya's wanderings, Brienne's mission to find Sansa!) and that he has lost the grip of the story a long time ago... it was a mission impossible from the very beginning I'd say, but a brave try.

Kuruharan

06-03-2013, 01:45 PM

but for the most part I have just stopped caring.

A stinging condemnation of a series if ever there was one.

I think that is the fundamental problem with a lot of these newer, darker series. If everything is continually dismal all the time sooner or later readers will grow apathetic about the outcome of the story, especially if you kill off the beloved characters in the story to the point where there are only characters that people hate left.

One could say it is breaking the obvious traditional narrational rule that you build up those characters you are going to make the heroes (or villains) of the story and leave the statists to their places (look at any old adventure or war-movie and you can tell from the introduction who will die and who will live through the ordeals).

When reading contemporary fantasy I have reached the point of assuming that anybody who is built up to be likable or a hero type figure that A) they will die, B) horrible things will happen to them before they die, C) there is a better than even chance they will renounce all they orginally stood for, and D) they will die horribly. So in my opinion, it’s not so much a matter of you can't tell who is going to die, it’s just that the more likable characters will.

In a slight aside, GRRM gave an interview (http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/06/02/game-of-thrones-author-george-r-r-martin-why-he-wrote-the-red-wedding/) to Entertainment Weekly that was released after the show last night.

Most of it was stuff that is widely available but the interviewer asked one very interesting question. Robb was never a POV character and Cat was as stupid as a bucket of dead fish. So then why were people so upset when they were killed? I don't think too much of GRRM's non-answer to the question. I think a lot of it has to do with the underlying brilliance of the idea as part of the story. More than the characters I think people were invested in the Stark family's quest for revenge. The typically expected mode for this revenge quest to be accomplished was gone when the Red Wedding happened and everything went pear-shaped. As far as actually wiping out the Lannisters goes, that option is still on the table. So it was really more a matter of GRRM messing with his audience from a story perspective and not a character perspective that made it all too shocking!

Firefoot

06-03-2013, 08:16 PM

So you can't take the stance in the beginning that "well, this is Ned Stark, the good guy I'm going to relate to, and who will prevail through all the hardships the author will throw on his way". And I was okay with that for a while. But I think the red wedding was sort of the turning point for me, retrospectively. I just didn't really know who to root for anymore.

I mean, I love a good interesting villain. They're some of my favorite characters to write. But a lot of the characters left disgusted me in some way and even if they started to become sympathetic they never became likeable for me.

I completely understand why some people like it. It's just not for me. And I guess it's frustrating how popular it is and how so many Top X Fantasy book lists rank it so highly because I don't really see it. I tried, but I guess that's how it goes sometimes.

Kuruharan

06-04-2013, 07:19 AM

I completely understand why some people like it. It's just not for me. And I guess it's frustrating how popular it is and how so many Top X Fantasy book lists rank it so highly because I don't really see it. I tried, but I guess that's how it goes sometimes.

Right now it is a bit of a fad and benefiting from a lot of hype from pop culture. Once the series is finished, one way or the other, time will allow some perspective. As Nogrod said, I suspect in the final analysis Martin is going to end up something of a footnote whereas right now he is viewed as a literary titan.

Dunadanman

06-04-2013, 09:10 PM

I agree with the "fad" comment. Much of what is published (book, movie or music) today is to appeal to a mass culture that also has a relatively short attention span. So arguably gratuitous inclusions in these works are present to stir quick interest rather than add to the foundational motive of the work. That's why the classics stand the test of time...they are rooted in the author's desire to tell a good story, make a point or promote a lesson. LotR is much more than a simple fantasy novel...behind the mythology, situations and characters lies a tale of redemption, of honor and the idea that good works in the hands of common folk can change history. That is what endures the test of time while all these other disposable attempts at entertainment fade from memory as the next ten come along behind. My idea of a similarly well done epic series (though a completely different genre) is Stephen King's Dark Tower novels. It's gripping in the same way as LotR because it promotes excellent storytelling and time-honored lessons behind the fantasy elements of the work. But take my opinion with a grain of salt, as I am one to favor Clint Eastwood's westerns over "Cowboys & Aliens" any day of the week!

Rhod the Red

06-05-2013, 02:13 AM

Medieval times WERE dismal. And since we're talking
about a period after peacetime, in a Medieval war,
why would you expect much happiness as opposed
to cruelty, betrayal and suffering?

MCRmyGirl4eva

06-05-2013, 11:30 AM

Personally, I started reading Game of Thrones, and the plot wasn't bad, but it was half adultery and half violence. So, no. I couldn't finish it because it was too heavy with the details, both sexually and gory. Oh, and the incest was DISGUSTING. Who the heck sleeps with his or her TWIN?

Kuruharan

06-07-2013, 10:06 AM

After a little reflection on the subject, I would like to take back (sort of) a bit of what I said before about Martin ending up as a literary footnote.

I have now come to think the possibility for Martin to become a genuinely important literary figure from the perspective of history does still exist. I think it all revolves around how he handles the ending of ASOIAF. If he does a good job then I think his place could be cemented, if he does a poor job then it is Footnote City at best.

What I mean by this is Martin has made his name as a writer who subverts the supposed tropes of what has come before. I'm not entirely a fan of this but it is a valid way to go about things. He has already successfully done this in a number of ways and I think one of the existing primary character arcs is ultimately geared toward doing this as well on a fairly grand scale. If my idea is correct and Martin does it well, Martin could well be worthy of future study and remembrance.

However, A) I might be wrong in guessing his intentions and B) given Martin's seeming decline in writing skill he has every chance of botching the whole thing no matter how he tries to end the story, and it could very well be botched already because of Martin's underlying approach.

All that being said, Tolkien will still be better no matter how ASOIAF turns out.

Kitanna

06-07-2013, 07:02 PM

I hate Game of Thrones. I mean hate. I almost threw people out of my apartment once I hate it that much (there's a very long story). I read the first book and thought it was ok until about halfway through. It just took a huge downward turn around the time Dany gets pregnant.

LOTR can be long winded and dry at times, but I at least feel a connection to some of the characters. I root for the Hobbits. I root for the men of the west.

I like LOTR because it shows the corruption of man, but also the redemption. Boromir falls to the power of the Ring, but his brother faces it and stands tall. It'd have been more boring if Faramir fell too, proving that men are wicked. Instead he shows a strength that was different from that of his brother. Gollum, though corrupted, still shows flashes of who he was. There is hope that he may yet come back from the brink.

When a character I love dies I get upset. I still tear up when I read Theoden's death. I cry when Sam and Frodo cling to each other on the steps of Mount Doom. I get none of these emotions from Martin's work.

If there's not one character I can relate to, that I want to succeed, then why would I waste my time reading the book? Ned Stark died. I didn't care. If a major player dies I should feel something. Anger, sadness, relief, anything. There is no alleviation from doom and gloom. No show of humanity. Everyone just kills everyone else.

The story of Fire and Ice is pretty interesting. I really did want to like it. I like history turned fantasy. I like darkness and shades of gray. Making main characters suffer is usually a pretty interesting read. But when the character suffering is completely detestable to me, well, I'm just not interested. The things that I liked about GoT did not outweigh the things I hated. Whereas the things I don't like about Tolkien don't overshadow the things I love. Almost everyone I know loves GoT and hates LOTR. I personally don't get it.

Rhod the Red

06-08-2013, 11:25 AM

I find it weird that people can 'hate' SoI&F.

There more I research individual characters, like on the wiki http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Main_Page, the more interested I get in each storyline.

If you do that, say when it comes to the first book, you notice how some of the conspiracies intertwine. Martin was good in making many look coincidental & pure luck for each conniving schemer. And more broadly, the detail and effort Martin has made for history, characters, etc, is quite breathtaking.

I'm almost halfway through Feast of Crows and now feel a fanatic, because I've researched ahead more than when I read Tolkein or CS Lewis. Martin does have his +s that the average sci-fi writer clearly would just skip or not think of.

Nogrod

06-08-2013, 06:39 PM

Some of the latest points made make me feel like reading them thusly: the characters in the SoIaF are not ones whose trials and tribulations one would wish to follow... (and there seems to be two main concerns here) because.

1) the interesting characters die away and there is too much all things "crude".

Well, enough of this has been speculated on the deahs of "wannabe main characters" I think. And it seems G.R.R. Martin is only too happy to "re-awaken" some of them as a literary means...

Life is not always nice and people are capable of great atrocities - as they are able to show the greatest kindness. And yes, trying to close one 's eyes on things that go against one's own moral standards is lying to oneself about reality. The attitude one has to things narrated one doesn't like is more or less the dividing line between reading for escapism and reading with interest in real life.

2) there is no redemption, no role-models or idealised goodies, or baddies (well maybe some of the latter kind, yes...)

This I'm afraid means that the SoIaF disturbs people because it doesn't give one the easy black-and-white - and that there is a yawning for that simple world-view.

But just think about it seriously... (I have not read the last book - I will do it this summer though - so forgive me for my possible shortcomings here) I'll take four examples.

Stannis, is he good or bad? He's weak on some crucial points and easily led astray from what would have been decent (known only by the half-omnipotent reader, not by Stannis as a characcter) - but he also has a high view of justice and righteousness. A most intresting - and a most human character! That's what we are...

Theon Greyjoy is a baddie? Well walk in his shoes for a moment... taken captive and raised by the enemies of his family and coming back (in high hopes for himself but also for the good of all) only to be scorned by his own - he realizes he has no one and belongs nowhere - and he tries to show he's one of his own - and just overdoes it (under some pretty strong pressure) as he is not at ease with the life of his generic family and the values they hold close. So with Nietzsche's words "human, all too human"?

The Hound? Clearly a bad man? While at the same time he's one of the only few who treated both Sansa and Arya with respect and basically helped them. Surely there is no way to defend him from the POV of the moral standards of the 21st century general Western culture, and he is a violent opportunist... but he is human as well: tryig to get along in a world that is violent and is based on power and personal toughness (see what happens to Jaime after he loses his sword-hand - he's not the "one to be honoured" any more - that turn actually is one of the greatest I think Mr. Martin made!).

Tywin Lannister? Well he must be the bad man above everyone else? And he surely is not your ideal loving and liberal father... nor is he the benevolent ruler who loves the people he rules. But even with him, you can see humanity shining through - his father's almost catastrophic errors of judgement that almost took their family down, his feelings for Tyrion after he "killed" his wife at the birth, the (true) rumours of his children's incest... he's really having tough times with the values and the world he was born into.

I'm not intending to raise anyone of the above as my "heroes". That is actually the total opposite of what I'm trying to say. I dislike them more than I like them as characters.

But I do love the fact that Mr. Martin gives us characters of such complexity to read.

The initial question was between the LotR (not Silmarillion fex.) and the SoIaF. In regards to the humanness and believability of the characters - and thusly to how real vs. "phantastical" they are I must say Martin scores the points for narrating real humans. If one doesn't like it, that is okay.

On other questions the scores would be different - like who is the greater writer, or who has created a more profound world with consistent mythologies etc? BUt those are other questions... it just seems peolple are centering on the issue of whether the charactyers are likeable or ones they'd be interested to follow - or somehow "worthy" of following...

For some reason both series are called "phantasy" literature.

Well, I think I know why that is - or why it is a good term for both.

Tolkien's view of the world is phantasy because he seems to believe in providence that is guided by some supreme power(s) - aka. phantasy.

Martin's view of the world is phantasy because he seems to be willing to only describe people at dire straits with more or less only their bad side showing up. In reality we are a much better and kinder species - and Martin I'm afraid likens cynicism to realism; where he is wrong in a grand scale.

Zigûr

06-08-2013, 11:54 PM

Life is not always nice and people are capable of great atrocities - as they are able to show the greatest kindness. And yes, trying to close one 's eyes on things that go against one's own moral standards is lying to oneself about reality. The attitude one has to things narrated one doesn't like is more or less the dividing line between reading for escapism and reading with interest in real life.

...

This I'm afraid means that the SoIaF disturbs people because it doesn't give one the easy black-and-white - and that there is a yawning for that simple world-view.
Even as someone who's no fan of A Song of Ice and Fire I agree that the fact that it treats life in a harsh and brutal way doesn't somehow denigrate it; so much of the canon of "literature" deals with exactly the same things, the more unpleasant parts of life. It's hardly inappropriate content. Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms is a completely arbitrary example I might give of a well-regarded novel that puts certain horrors of human life in intense focus and is moving and profound for that very reason.

My main problem with A Game of Thrones was that the parts I found interesting, which had the supernatural elements, were brief teases, while all the political scheming I find utterly tedious and reminds me of the horrible 'church politics' diversions in David Eddings' Elenium series.

In defence of Professor Tolkien, I would argue that his allegedly less 'realistic' characterisation and more conservative presentation of violence and sexuality are indicative of the notion, in both my opinion and that of the Professor himself, that The Lord of the Rings is, in textual terms, a Romance and not a Novel: "My work is not a 'novel', but an 'heroic romance' a much older and quite different variety of literature." (Letter 329) I suppose that might seem like a defensive or apologist view to some but personally I think it is extremely significant in understanding why The Lord of the Rings is, arguably, painted in broader strokes than the conventional modern Fantasy 'novel'. That being said I would persist whole-heartedly in my belief that the characterisation and character development in The Lord of the Rings is simply abstract and subtle, not limited.

Legate of Amon Lanc

06-09-2013, 12:32 PM

Almost everyone I know loves GoT and hates LOTR. I personally don't get it.
You must know very weird people. How can anyone hate LotR??? :eek: Because I can understand people hating ASoIaF, I think that's pretty normal...

I find it weird that people can 'hate' SoI&F.
...I can understand it very well. Whereas I enjoy it, personally, I can see what people can see as flaws or what they might not like about it. We have heard quite a few things here already, and I consider these objections relevant, even though I do not mind some of them:
- the prolonged and tedious narration not everyone may enjoy (see my previous posts for my thoughts about those),
- the "naturalistic" (to use a very mild word) portrayal of some things,
- the fact that too many supposedly "main good characters" die,
- the fact that there is nobody who we can identify with. Personally, that might be the one thing that I would see lacking the most, but with this kind of literature it does not bother me.

And with the last point, I get to a sort of response to Kitanna's post and further. I am fine with rooting for certain people or group of people, even though I would not really see them as "likeable" in reality.

Because it is only a fantasy.

In 99,9% fantasy books (or movies... that even less), I do not find myself "identifying myself" with the goals or attitudes of the characters I root for. But I can like people because they are "cool". Imagine, for example, Darth Vader - even discounting his redemption, most of the people found him "cool" the moment he stepped on the screen. You enjoy seeing him, even though you do not want any evil empire to rule the galaxy in reality, right? Something like that. The same way, I can, for instance, enjoy reading about some horrible people in ASOIAF.

Is it a kind of literature to find "role models" in? Certainly not, but surely that goes without saying? It has nothing to do with reality, it is, like Nog said, and I agree, very much cynical. But the big tale is still interesting for what it is: the big epic tale.

And, just a remark about the "cynism", still, there are the bittersweet tones which make the tragedy moving. I do pity characters who lose their family, their limbs, or all sorts of other things, like their sanity, for instance.

I enjoy reading about those people, I wish them success, because, fortunately, the world they live in is not our world and it is not even the reflection of our own world (unlike Tolkien's). If injustice is done, unless it's absolutely terrible, I am fine with it in the book, because without some trouble, there is no plot (remember what Tolkien says about good times when telling about Rivendell in The Hobbit).

I even enjoy reading, for instance, H.P. Lovecraft without believing in supernatural horrors eating people on U.S. East Coast in reality. Now I wanted to write that the same way I don't really "believe" in Elves dancing in the woods at night, but, truth be told, I do. But that's not the point :) Anyway, Tolkien's world is much nicer to believe in, so maybe that's what brings it closer. But, what I meant to say, is again that I can follow stories and see them for being only that, stories. Even if they end bad. (And all that said, we don't know how GRRM's story is going to end. Yet.)

Martin's view of the world is phantasy because he seems to be willing to only describe people at dire straits with more or less only their bad side showing up. In reality we are a much better and kinder species - and Martin I'm afraid likens cynicism to realism; where he is wrong in a grand scale.
That's basically what I would say. I would say GRRM is sort of "overdoing" the postmodern point of "disillusionment by/of humankind", which appears to be appearing also in literature more than before. Sure, no surprise about that. After the Enlightement's overdone belief in humankind, and exposure to reality that humans are after all only creatures like any other and their "reason" is not merely a tool to use for betterment of humankind, but also capable of making up rather disgusting stuff like gas chambers and atomic bombs, the cynism is obvious and expectable. But the "sober realism" today probably would mean exactly more stress on, for example, Tolkien's "hope". That's why I understand many people might not enjoy GRRM so much, because they may be exhausted by negative visions of reality from their surroundings. I, personally, perceive the world still as, however full of problems, a nice place to be in, and therefore I am fine with a bit of unhappy endings in my fantasy. When it is not utterly tasteless, of course. But I think GRRM has very many good qualities to counterbalance problems.

Galadriel55

06-09-2013, 03:30 PM

I do not hate or even dislike ASOIAF - I loved the irst three books, but was not very impressed with the fourth and fifth. One reason: all my favourite characters are gone. #1: Arya - reduced to obscurity. #2: Jon and Bran - reduced to obscurity and whining. #3: the Hound* - dead. Unless it's one of the typical Martinesque plot twists where he says everything to lead the reader to assume the character's dead, and then shatter that assumption. Anyways, instead of bringing in and developing more interesting characters (not that they aren't interesting, but they're much more tedius) he dissolves the story among too many POVs that are very stagnant and whiny. Second reason: the plot got too whiny and stagnant. While every plot detail does carry its significance, just about the only truly important part of ADWD was the last chapter where Dany finally understands the mysterious message of going back to go forwards. The rest was just too drawn out.

I, personally, don't mind that much the disillusionment part or the lack of rolemodels. It just got a bit boring towards the end.

*Just a note here: Sandor is such a character that he needs the realism bordering on cynicism that is not found in LOTR to develop, so while I adove his character in GOT he would not be able to exist in Tolkien's world.

Kuruharan

06-09-2013, 04:50 PM

There more I research individual characters, like on the wiki http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Main_Page, the more interested I get in each storyline.

I have to admit to something weird, but I greatly enjoy reading the Westeros wiki, can literally spend hours chasing rabbits on it (yes, I am a sad and pathetic dwarf, thanks for noticing) but I have never re-read any of the Ice and Fire books and don't really have any interest in doing so.

Compared to LOTR I enjoy reading stuff about it, talking about it, and re-reading it.

I'm not quite sure what it means, but I suspect it has something to do with Tolkien being an aesthetically more pleasant author to read.

Legate of Amon Lanc

06-09-2013, 04:58 PM

I have to admit to something weird, but I greatly enjoy reading the Westeros wiki, can literally spend hours chasing rabbits on it (yes, I am a sad and pathetic dwarf, thanks for noticing) but I have never re-read any of the Ice and Fire books and don't really have any interest in doing so.
Strange. In fact, ASOIAF is one of the very few books I enjoy reading again. Also (like I said in my first posts here), ASOIAF is, in my opinion, meant to be re-read, because otherwise you have no chance whatsoever to make anything out of the minor characters on first reading. Not even of the characters who start as minor and become major (I barely noticed e.g. that any Theon Greyjoy existed in the first book). And spot all the minor clues to other things.

(That's also the reason why I don't want to read the ASOIAF wiki, because it has too many spoilers. Even though I have finished all the books, there are still things I do not know and I do not wish to know, because I prefer to figure them out all by myself. Since that at least is one of the qualities GRRM undeniably has, all the hidden clues etc.)

Formendacil

06-10-2013, 06:15 AM

I've been following this thread with some interest, and waffling back and forth on whether I'm in a position to comment. I've never seen the show, and I've read about half the series--in about a week and a half last August, I went through the first two and a half books in a single, fell swoop and then lost all interest and stamina.

That said, thanks to the Internet and an ancient Greek mentality regarding spoilers ("spoiler, what's a spoiler? Everybody knows Oedipus is Jocasta's son--that's what makes watching the play so good"), I know where the series has gone so far, even if I haven't read up to it. Indeed, I've had a fascination/bile relationship with Martin for years, for as long as he's been the reigning King of Fantasy.

Obviously, it isn't Martin's fault that virtually everything anyone ever says about him compares him in some way to Tolkien--that's been the standard trope for the genre since about 1956--but it has been particularly persistent with Martin, and that threw me off reading him initially, because it didn't take very much research at all to realise that "hyper-realistic, fantasy-version of the War of the Roses" is not at all what I think when I think "the next Tolkien."

But I did read him eventually--and, as I said, I burned through two and a half of his voluminous tomes in a week and a half, so there was clearly enjoyment in the process. I think it helped my desire to keep reading that I knew the major spoilers and that I knew it was a work where "everybody dies." This removed the anger that might stem from being hoodwinked, replacing it with the Greek Tragedic curiosity of "well, how did it happen?" This is where Martin's pacing was a real problem, though--and I say this as someone who didn't make it to the books that are said to be the worst in this regard.

That said, I also completely ran out of steam and interest--and I haven't picked the books up since, or been more than very, very slightly inclined to do so--and this loss of interest is tied to the reason the interest held. Reading Martin fired up my own fantastical imagination in a way that nothing has done in years--if anyone remembers that I wrote a fantasy novel last fall/winter, it is worth noting that it grew, almost entirely, out of the massive creative push that reading ASOIAF gave me last September.

But, at the same time, part of the reason I was pushed to write rather than to keep reading was that Martin consistently didn't satisfy my own tastes. In essence, I felt something along the lines of "you got so many things so close to right--but then it didn't work for me." In general, if I try to recapture that fleeting sense of what worked and what didn't, I think the world-building worked almost completely for me. I don't remember a geographical or political fact that I didn't enjoy exploring--to say nothing of the tantalising "otherworldly" hints that crept around the edges: things north of the Wall and the dragons.

This ramble doesn't have a single point, I suppose, except this: as a fantasy writer I do not claim to be anywhere near the league of either Tolkien or Martin, but I do feel indebted to them both, for they both made me want to write. The difference is that I felt pulled to write by Tolkien--his prose and his stories and his mythology had me chasing after it; whereas Martin pushed me to write, which was a rather more divided experience.

All of that said, it occurs to me to add that the popularity of ASOIAF is testimony to the fact that the reading public does NOT desire things simplified or shortened, and I am grateful it does that. However, if he never manages to finish the series (or to do so to the satisfaction of a significant number of his fans), I think we might see the ugly side of a fandom that expects a long set-up to have a great payoff.

The Mouth of Sauron

06-10-2013, 10:10 AM

Is a Song of Ice and Fire better than Lord of the Rings?

NO !!!!!!

An over-complicated, contrived rip-off is NOT better that the LOTR masterpiece.

Aganzir

06-10-2013, 10:48 AM

The initial question was between the LotR (not Silmarillion fex.) and the SoIaF.
Aw but that's not fair - if it's Martin's whole series, it should also be the entire Legendarium. :p

While every plot detail does carry its significance, just about the only truly important part of ADWD was the last chapter where Dany finally understands the mysterious message of going back to go forwards. The rest was just too drawn out.
You're right there. He could've left out half of Dany's chapters and it wouldn't have done the book harm, quite the contrary, and she might already be taking over the throne in Westeros. (What do you mean I'm getting ahead of myself?) Anyway, When I look back, I am lost is the only character catchphrase I don't get perpetually annoyed with.

Also, would you like me to direct you to a particular passage that might be of interest to you regarding your favourite characters? :p

Strange. In fact, ASOIAF is one of the very few books I enjoy reading again.
I haven't actually reread any of the books, although I'm sure that will happen one of these days (or years, rather) - but when I eventually do, and when I occasionally leaf through the pages, it is, and will be, in search of information and little clues (because that's what I'm good at anyway). Tolkien, I reread primarily for the asthetics of it, although it's always a pleasant addition to find new interpretations for things you thought were obvious. Martin isn't the only one who leaves clues and has complex plotlines.

An over-complicated, contrived rip-off is NOT better that the LOTR masterpiece.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a rip-off. Anyway, you might find this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18337) thread interesting.

Legate of Amon Lanc

06-10-2013, 11:48 AM

Is a Song of Ice and Fire better than Lord of the Rings?

NO !!!!!!

An over-complicated, contrived rip-off is NOT better that the LOTR masterpiece.
A rip-off of what, pray? Certainly not a rip-off of Tolkien. It has about as much in common with it as LotR has with the Ring of the Nibelungs. "Both rings were round," as the Prof himself had said. Heck, GRRM even doesn't have any ring, any Dark Lord, any hope, and any Gandalf, so what exactly is there that is a "rip-off"?

Anyway, When I look back, I am lost is the only character catchphrase I don't get perpetually annoyed with.
You know nothing...

Kitanna

06-10-2013, 05:28 PM

Is a Song of Ice and Fire better than Lord of the Rings?

NO !!!!!!

An over-complicated, contrived rip-off is NOT better that the LOTR masterpiece.

GRRM and Tolkien can't really be compared. It's like comparing Harry Potter to Twilight. Sure they're both teen fantasy, but beyond that, nothing.

I understand why he's been called "American Tolkien", but I think the title is an insult to both men.

Tolkien, because every time someone with moderate success in the fantasy genre comes along they're going to be called the new Tolkien. The man deserves his praise and publishing houses should stop trying to show us the "new Tolkien" (I know why this happens, but I don't have to agree)

Martin, because he created a world entirely independent of Middle-Earth. No elves, no dwarves (Tyrion Lannister excluded), no half-lings. Men in a man's world recreating history in a fantasy realm. I may not like Martin's characters or his writing, but I am very drawn to the idea of rewriting significant historical events in a world like Westeros. And Martin at least deserves some credit for not bringing in archtypes or themes like Tolkien's, when I've seen countless other authors do just that.

SofieVandepitte

08-26-2013, 03:58 AM

As both a fan of Martin and Tolkien, I find it hard to answer this topic.

My first and biggest love will always go out to Tolkien for what he created. His imagination is by far the most impressing one I've encountered in fantasy literature. Martin has also never introduced feelings as grand in me as Tolkien did.

To me, Tolkien's works are painful to the heart, because they're so tragical and utterly sad (Dagor Dagorath always leaves me in tears!). Tolkien's legendarium is far more emotional than Martin's.

But I'm literally fascinated with Martin's world, too. I've never had much trouble with sexism in his books and I am a feminist. To me, his strongest characters are by far women (Daenerys, Melisandre, Cersei, Arya, Sansa), so I don't get the issue there.

Plus, I'm starting to think I'm the only one who profoundly enjoyed reading ADWD. His description of Tyrion's and Daeny's adventures in Essos are deadly interesting; same counts for Jon and his politics at the Wall.

But Martin's world is less emotional to me than Tolkien's is. Westeros and co. is more some sort of study to me, instead of a fantasy tale. It's more realistic; there are, of course, fantasy elements in ASOIAF (dragons, White Walkers), but the whole is less imaginative than Tolkien's world.

In short, I like them both in different ways, even though I still prefer Tolkien.

Whereas Martin's imagination speaks to the mind, Tolkien's speaks to the heart. And I think that's fine.

Eönwë

08-26-2013, 05:06 AM

For me, I think the main difference is that LOTR is story-driven, and the characters are expressed through that, while ASOIAF is the other way around. They can both be very good approaches, but the problem with ASOIAF is that it gets too big and starts to fall apart/spiral out of control in AFFC. Yes, it's fun to see each character's personal journey, but it gets too much by that book.

That said, sometimes his dialogue is quite entertaining, but comparing his general writing style to Tolkien's can only end in sadness, though it does get better as the books go on (it's almost inversely proportional to plot strength).

Aganzir

08-26-2013, 05:14 AM

I've never had much trouble with sexism in his books and I am a feminist. To me, his strongest characters are by far women (Daenerys, Melisandre, Cersei, Arya, Sansa), so I don't get the issue there.
I'm not overly fond of his offhand treatment of rape, and I find his child brides kind of icky (while far be it from me to deny teenage sexuality, I'm not okay with forced marriages of 14-yeard-olds). Also I often feel that his women characters aren't active agents to the extent that the men are - with the exception of the likes of Arya, who is as tomboyish as it gets.
Still, many of the women are among my favourites, and while I personally don't like the things I mentioned here, they are not nearly enough to put me off the series. I think pretty much the only author whose misogyny has ever made me actually quit his books is Gene Wolfe, and GRRM has a long way to go to reach such depths.

I enjoyed reading ADWD too - but it took me a month (okay partly due to an intense two-week social gathering in the middle), whereas I finished the second and the third book in a matter of days.

Anyway welcome to the Downs! :)

SofieVandepitte

08-26-2013, 05:29 AM

I'm not overly fond of his offhand treatment of rape, and I find his child brides kind of icky (while far be it from me to deny teenage sexuality, I'm not okay with forced marriages of 14-yeard-olds). Also I often feel that his women characters aren't active agents to the extent that the men are - with the exception of the likes of Arya, who is as tomboyish as it gets.
Still, many of the women are among my favourites, and while I personally don't like the things I mentioned here, they are not nearly enough to put me off the series. I think pretty much the only author whose misogyny has ever made me actually quit his books is Gene Wolfe, and GRRM has a long way to go to reach such depths.

I enjoyed reading ADWD too - but it took me a month (okay partly due to an intense two-week social gathering in the middle), whereas I finished the second and the third book in a matter of days.

Anyway welcome to the Downs! :)

Yes, the Daenerys/Drogo relationship quite bothered me as well, I must admit. (Is that one of the 'rape' issues you're aiming at?) Rape is, indeed, quite common in his world and I'm certainly not OK with that, but in those grimy war times, it is, alas, not that surprising, sadly. :(

Yes, that's what I experienced, too! There's so much happening in ADWD, a hell lot of new characters are introduced, it's quite difficult to follow sometimes. I'm a rather quick reader, but ADWD was a long, long read. Nevertheless, it was interesting.

Thank you! :D I love discussing Tolkien's legendarium and I'm so happy I found this place!

A Little Green

08-26-2013, 05:36 AM

Life is not always nice and people are capable of great atrocities - as they are able to show the greatest kindness. And yes, trying to close one 's eyes on things that go against one's own moral standards is lying to oneself about reality. The attitude one has to things narrated one doesn't like is more or less the dividing line between reading for escapism and reading with interest in real life.Of course. But there is a limit to what extent it makes good literature to describe violence in explicit detail. For my part, I think we should definitely not close our eyes from the violence and atrocity in the real world, but there is a fundamental difference between fact and fiction literature. I'd be ready to advocate Jonathan Glover's Humanity as compulsory reading in high schools, but I do not think it is entertainment to read about rape, torture and abuse. Moreover, I do not think it should be. And while Martin may have had lofty goals about criticizing violence and war by showing atrocities in detail (I don't know if he did), most of the time his descriptions of violence come off as if he wrote them that way chiefly for shock value or out of a desire to do something radical and different. As if he wrote that way because he thought it was somehow cool.

There is also the sexism issue Aganzir spoke about - I doubt a female author would get it in her head to write a 14-year-old forced into marriage and raped and then developing an uncomplicated loving relationship with the man soon after. :rolleyes:

Violence and sexism aside, I enjoy parts of Martin's books, I don't enjoy others, but I like the HBO series and probably will finish reading the books sometime. But in terms of whether it is better than Tolkien - Martin has great scope and I like the ambiguity, but to me his prose lacks Tolkien's beauty, poise and literary skill. A Song of Ice and Fire makes a good read in its way, but it has none of Tolkien's depth; it doesn't carry meaning that can be applied outside the story itself. It doesn't have Tolkien's deeper themes, or else I haven't found them.

Kuruharan

08-28-2013, 04:17 PM

Also I often feel that his women characters aren't active agents to the extent that the men are - with the exception of the likes of Arya, who is as tomboyish as it gets.

Partially playing devil's advocate here, but I am not entirely sure I agree in the case of Catelyn and Daenerys. Yes, Catelyn was as stupid as a bucket of dead fish but her actions and decisions were the driving force of quite a lot of the things that ended up happening in the story (mostly the bad stuff because, again, she's dumb).

And almost all of Dany's arc is the result of the choices she has made and the direction that she has taken her followers. However, again she is not the sharpest tool in the shed and makes a number of bad choices and her character has not improved over the course of the series. I think a lot of that lack of development reflects Martin's own flaws as a writer.

So, while both these ladies are open to charges of not having enough functioning brain cells, I don't think an accusation of their having a lack of agency is entirely warranted.

blantyr

08-29-2013, 01:19 PM

Discuss? What are your opinion about this cause I've heard many people say 'Game of Thrones' is much better than Lord of the Rings :confused:. In my honest opinion I don't consider it so because the book contains too much profanity and adultery and other stuff that just churns my stomach :(

Entirely outside of the realm of literature, in role playing games, in my youth I always played heroic characters. These days, trying to join a game at the local game store, an awful lot of players go beyond 'shades of gray' into a values system where might makes right. A few nights ago, I first had to remind another character that the Sergeant was encouraging us to take prisoners, not to slay them all. After that first success, I then had to persuade him to let her walk back rather than dragging her back by the hair.

Your statement above reflects subjectivity. A lot of younger readers are going to like Game of Thrones better. Many of them might perceive the values and themes of Game of Thrones as being more relevant and meaningful than LoTR. The Truths behind the magic and the conflict might speak stronger to one generation than another.

I'm an LoTR guy still, but I'm not going to try to persuade another who feels strongly otherwise.

skip spence

08-30-2013, 05:01 AM

I've read the first book of SoIaF series and started on the second, but soon gave up on it, maybe for good. The series has many qualities that I enjoy, like the intrigues and the unpredictable plot. My main problem with it, and what made me finally put the book back in the shelf, is that it drags. There are just too many characters, with too many descriptions of every minute detail of their life, or rather, there are too many characters that I don't really care much about. It gets boring getting through those passages. Also, much of it strikes me as rather juvenile, like it was written by a teenage boy, such as the numerous graphic descriptions of sex and violence. I don't mind graphic descriptions of sex and violence per se, it's just that they're usually not very well written or conceived. Maybe my opinion has been influenced by the HBO series too. I mean, I enjoy looking at naked pretty girls as much as any other guy, but it gets a bit sad when there's no narrative purpose at all in showing at least a few pair of tits in every episode; when it's obviously just a marketing ploy.

LOTR certainly is a better book-series in my humbe opinion, but HBO wins the adaptation accolade.

Rhod the Red

08-31-2013, 11:55 PM

lev

09-03-2013, 11:08 PM

I think the deeper question here is: What are the important factors for a great artful story/novel/epic fantasy? To me, what's most important is to have a carefully crafted story that the reader can relate to (i.e. a message about the human condition or something, a unique universe can provide a backdrop to tell unique messages, as Ursula Le Guin has emphasized before). I think the fact that Martin first said there were going to be 5 books, and now there will be 7+, is testament to the fact that ASOIAF simply is not as well crafted a story, it's not tight with precise moments of tension and resolve and that sort of thing.

However, on a different aspect, I don't think great fantasy has to necessarily copy Tolkien's PG/PG-13 tone. Tolkien's tone lends itself very nicely to metaphor and archetypal characters (like Bombadil), but I don't think that's essential to great epic fantasy. People enjoy tightly crafted non-fantasy novels at all "ratings" so to speak, and the same goes for fantasy I think. So it's cool that Martin's universe is rated R. It's convincing as a universe that way. Also, I think there are characters and situations in Martin's universe that people can relate to, so that's cool. However, ASOIAF is not tightly crafted, it "drags" as others have said. And because of that, the story gets reduced to simply a series of events rather than a great story/epic fantasy, in my opinion.

To me, great epic fantasy creates a unique universe FOR THE PURPOSE of telling a story with a message. The universe isn't an end to itself. I have read ASOIAF books, and WoT books, and have enjoyed most of them very much. But I now see that my enjoyment wasn't because the stories were enriching my life with messages to take to heart. Instead, they were simply a means to relax. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, but I read ASOIAF and WoT books excessively, because the universes were more exciting with less at stake than it was to fully engage in the real world with all its disappointments and failures, etc.. It was more predictable in it's excitement and lack of dread to follow the characters than it was to fully live my "character", my life. I used to play Diablo2 for the same reason. Most TV shows I have watched in recent years have been for the same reason, although granted not as excessively as I played Diablo 2. I see most people that live on my urban street come home every day after work, and watch more episodes from a TV show, then go to bed and start all over again. Those tv shows, like ASOIAF, are not art, not a means to enrich their lives, but a means to escape it. Again, I don' think it's necessarily a terrible thing to being excited to come home and simply follow the next series of events in Don Draper's story, or Tyrion's, or whoever. I just don't want to kid myself, I don't engage those stories in order to glean messages from them. They don't enrich my life as art. I engage them to escape.

When I see people reading ASOIAF on the train commuting to work in my city, I doubt if any are reading it to enjoy a great work of high fantasy, a great story that enriches their lives with a message about the human condition or whatever. I think they are reading instead it simply relax. Not a bad thing to relax, just not a great story like LotR.

Perhaps a great and tight story cannot exceed 1,000 pages ish. Lord of the Rings is just short enough I think that the story stays very tight. But with these newer epic fantasy's like Martin's, the total story is going to be many thousands of pages long, and there's no way that can be tight. Don't get me wrong, I agree with that other person that it would be cool to learn more about the extra details, like about Fatty in the Fellowship, for example. But I also agree with that person that more on Fatty in the Fellowship story would have made it drag.

I think story premises like ASOIAF's could actually make "great" stories, if they are done in certain ways. Some of my ideas are next.

If the ideas are written as multiple 1,000ish page stories, instead of one mother story. That way, each story could be tight (a standalone story of Lord of the Rings scale), and the presence of all the stories would make up one fascinating universe (the stories could even overlap!) There could even be novellas and short stories within the universe too! And perhaps even some stories written in a "nonfiction" style, like some of the bland (I think) but cool historical stories that Tolkien tells in some of his other books. How cool would that be?!

Sadly, I don't think this exists. So back to the Lord of the Rings I go. There's just so much that rings true to me in that story about what it means to be human in this world, I can just read it over and over, a great story...

Mithalwen

09-04-2013, 04:42 AM

I am not sure that the fact that the Martin series will be longer than projected is a stick to beat him with on its own. Tolkien himself said that his tale grew in the telling and if you look at the material briefly referred to in the appendices or worked up post publication in Unfinished tales to see that had Tolkien been a follower rather than a fore runner writing professionally for an established market with secretarial support he might have produced many many volumes of third age histoey alone. Of course you would lose the richness of the unexplored vistas though maybe new ones would have been revealed. But Tolkien was writing one novel not a series so you do get that concentration or perhaps distillation of a long process the difference perhaps between a michelin starred meal with premier cru vintage wines to a good homecooked meal.

However sometimes a writer becomes so successful that perhaps the editing process gets less robust and the work suffers. I always feel that Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix could have lost a couple of hundred pages but by that stage nopne dared tell JK R that it was baggy ...maybe that is what happened with the Hobbit films too. :smokin:

However I cant say which is the case here until I have read Martin.... i have been tempted but I am waiting for it to be completed ... if I like it I know the waiting will drive me nuts..

Legate of Amon Lanc

09-04-2013, 06:20 AM

And because of that, the story gets reduced to simply a series of events rather than a great story/epic fantasy, in my opinion.
(...)
To me, great epic fantasy creates a unique universe FOR THE PURPOSE of telling a story with a message. The universe isn't an end to itself. I have read ASOIAF books, and WoT books, and have enjoyed most of them very much. But I now see that my enjoyment wasn't because the stories were enriching my life with messages to take to heart. Instead, they were simply a means to relax. (...) I don't engage those stories in order to glean messages from them. They don't enrich my life as art. I engage them to escape.
Agreed, very much agreed. That's very much my impression as well. And welcome to the 'Downs, by the way!

If the ideas are written as multiple 1,000ish page stories, instead of one mother story. That way, each story could be tight (a standalone story of Lord of the Rings scale), and the presence of all the stories would make up one fascinating universe (the stories could even overlap!) There could even be novellas and short stories within the universe too! And perhaps even some stories written in a "nonfiction" style, like some of the bland (I think) but cool historical stories that Tolkien tells in some of his other books. How cool would that be?!
In fact, I think that's actually what happens all the time. Many, and I would even dare say most, "big" fantasy authors are suffering from something which e.g. the Polish writer Andrzej Sapkowski called "falling too much in love with one's world" syndrom. He said that was the reason he never wanted to draw a map for his own books, because he would then feel tempted to set more stories into the same world, and just draining it of all the originality of the stories set in it. The premise being - authors can easily fall in love with their created universes or characters and then they can't leave them, so they publish more and more novels about the world, about the main characters, about their children and grandchildren, and while it enrichens the world (and many fans would be exactly happy to learn what Aragorn's son did, what lay beyond Lake Rhun to the east, or what did the daily life of the Lossoth look like), it also mostly "imprisons" the author and shuffles the priorities: the story is not (often) based on an original plot idea, but on the idea to exactly explore a culture which was interesting but played only a minor role in the original big story arc etc.

I said many fantasy authors do that - and I am sure you can find which ones if you look at some bookshelf in a fantasy bookshop. When you see a row of books from the same author, some of which are titled "The Sixth Volume of the Epic Wizardwar Octalogy" and "The Fourth Volume of the Adventures of the Survivors of the Wizardwar Saga", you know that it is the case. I don't usually read that stuff, exactly because I don't think it's often very good. One example I am familiar with being R.E. Feist. I have read his Riftwar Saga, but then there was exactly like thousand other books about the main characters' descendants, about some Serpent Priests who are normally playing quite minor role in the story, and so on. You can learn a lot of details about the world, but often (even if the world is interesting in the first place) it loses its charm, or ridicules things you knew from before. (If the author does not want to just write first an epic story with a great plot, and then lots of subsequent stories without much plot, but referring to different cultures in the same world, but instead wants to e.g. have some new equally epic plot featuring this time not a Hobbit, but a Wood Elf as the main hero, he might easily end up devising New World War which totally diminishes the point of the original story, since now we learn that the Dark Lord defeated in the original book was in fact only one of the twenty Dark Lords who serve the Darkest Lord who has to be defeated by the new main hero. And so forth.)

Martin, I believe, avoided some of this by stuffing the "extra info" already in his original series of ASOIAF. So, instead of having three volumes of Adventures of the Stark Family in the South, and later three volumes of The Return of the Dragon Rulers, and even later the Adventures of Jon Snow, we have everything in one place, and I think that's fine. But it is still only another manifestation of the same "problem".

...

Let me also remark, in conclusion, that I am actually glad we have only Tolkien's notes and drafts regarding all the other cultures in Middle-Earth, all the minor or major historical figures like Isildur or Glorfindel, because that may very well be the optimal course. We still have something to satisfy our curiosity about the "large world", but it does not conflict with the main story, it does not try to present itself as a story on the equal level with LotR, and it leaves still a lot to our imagination within the world itself.

However sometimes a writer becomes so successful that perhaps the editing process gets less robust and the work suffers. I always feel that Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix could have lost a couple of hundred pages but by that stage nopne dared tell JK R that it was baggy
Interesting remark. In fact, my brother stopped reading Harry Potter exactly because of the Order of the Phoenix dragging too much, he said. I haven't met anyone else who would have complained in the same way, but now there's at least you (and therefore I assume more people thinking that), so I start seeing that there might be something to that idea.

However I cant say which is the case here until I have read Martin.... i have been tempted but I am waiting for it to be completed ... if I like it I know the waiting will drive me nuts..
I can totally understand that approach. It may be very "safe". Then again, given GRRM's progress, it could mean you're going to read it in, like, ten years... But it isn't as if there weren't other books to read meanwhile.

Mithalwen

09-04-2013, 09:26 AM

I suppose I should reread it...since I was under pressure and pass my copy on towhichever of my cousins hadn't got first dibs on their family copy. But I felt that she introduced characters and didn't really use them and then the denouement despite the many pages was rushed and unclear. I think her main concern was getting pieces in place for the culmination of the series and so it was relatively weak and least able to stand on its own merits independent of the main story arc. But with millions of people having waited years and Rowling richer than the Queen who would actually tell her to rework it? I did start rereading the series and rattled through the first four quickly but the bulk of phoenix and the negative memory put me off. Anyway more than somewhatboff topic.

Zigûr

09-04-2013, 11:22 AM

I'm fairly sure I read somewhere that JK Rowling herself considers The Order of the Phoenix to be too long.

Last time I re-read it (2010 I think) I thought so too.

I think I might have observed in another thread that, in contrast to modern series' like A Song of Ice and Fire, Professor Tolkien's work tends to leave the back-story to supplementary material, which is certainly where Sauron, for instance, gets much of his characterisation.

I don't think one approach is necessarily better than the other. Professor Tolkien's makes for a more focused narrative, I might argue.

I read an article recently that was compared science-fiction and fantasy to what the article-writer called "geekery", ie spec-fic writing that's more concerned about constant world-building, exploring how characters might behave in different situations within that world and generally self-indulgence of content at the expense of form and function, I suppose. It's sort of like the difference between asking "What does The Lord of the Rings argue about the human desire for permanence?" and asking "Would an Elf turn invisible if it wore one of the Nine or Seven?" "Who would win if Aragorn fought Eorl the Young?" etc.

Professor Tolkien didn't mind a bit of the latter himself I think, his letters and other writings are full of speculation on how things might have gone in Middle-earth as if it was a real, living place (as it more or less was to him) "What if Gandalf with the Ring fought Sauron without it?" "What would have happened if the War of the Ring was more like World War Two?" But he wisely kept those things speculative and didn't make them part of the plot. When they do appear, they serve to embellish the sense of realism without dominating the narrative.

I'm not saying that George RR Martin does these things, mind you, what I read of his work was certainly above that. I do believe, however, that it's one of the ways in which the logorrhea of authors can manifest.

The films are rife with this sort of thing incidentally, in deleted scenes and elsewhere. "What if Aragorn fought Sauron at the Black Gate?" "What if Thorin fought Azog?" "What if Radagast fought the Lord of the Nazgûl?"

Mithalwen

09-04-2013, 11:35 AM

If Radagast fought the Lord of the Nazgul it would be with that lethal rabbit from Monty Python and the holy grail...

Boromir88

09-06-2013, 09:54 PM

I'll start by saying I haven't yet read Dance with Dragons, but do intend to at some point...as I'm in the process of re-reading ASOIAF. Much like Legate, I find myself enjoying it more on the re-read. Not that I actually didn't like it when I first read it, but just being able to focus more and seeing the bigger picture helps immensely with all the characters and winding crisscrossing stories. (more on this in a bit)

Yes, Catelyn was as stupid as a bucket of dead fish...

This makes me wonder if Rickon's chapters (assuming he's still alive...somewhere?) will solely consist of "My mother is a fish" statements?

But seriously, I agree about Cat (and I put Lysa here as well). All the petty squabbles that plague the houses of Westeros I can tie back to the Tully sisters. Either with Cat's stupendously wrong assumptions or Lysa just being flat out crazy :rolleyes:

Heck, GRRM even doesn't have any ring, any Dark Lord, any hope, and any Gandalf, so what exactly is there that is a "rip-off"?

Well some might argue Melisandre is Martin's Gandalf. Some supernatural figure who serves a "Lord of Light."...prone to uncloaking and creating followers to place their hopes in her supernatural Authority entity. :p More to the point of the thread though...

I happen to like both stories (and their authors), and much like the Star Wars vs. Star Trek fandoms, I don't understand why someone can't reasonably enjoy both of them? It gets annoying. I mean the Tolkien fandom seems to want to say Martin is a wannabe hack, who only seeks to write gratuitous sex and violence and pass it off as a "darker/realistic" fantasy. And the Martin fandom thinks Tolkien is old and irrelevant. That somehow you need to be "gritty" and "darker" to have a good story with compelling characters. Both assumptions, I think are quite false.

My reasons for being captivated in Tolkien's world are probably the same reasons for others on the forum. The world he created, with it's histories, landscapes, races, languages and cultures are so rich and deep it's just remarkable. It is plot-driven, and even if a lot of the criticism with Tolkien "slow, descriptive parts are boring." I actually think the pacing is great for a book (trying to turn it into a movie, creates pacing problems but that's for a different discussion in a different forum).

ASOIAF is almost completely character driven. And so it's how I understand when Kit, Firefoot, or others say they don't like it because they don't care about any of the characters. It's not that Tolkien doesn't create multi-faceted characters, but on a hero/villain scale (at least when talking about LOTR) it's pretty clear. There are grayish characters, but you basically know where each one stands in the struggle of the "Free Middle-earth" against Sauron. There is no moral ambiguity. What is right is right (Gandalf - Free Will) and what is evil is evil (Sauron - seeking to dominate free will).

Good intentioned characters may stumble and make some ultimately evil decisions that lead to their falling. But in the end, you know where Boromir's morals stands...duty, honor, pride, for Gondor and his people (as well as his own pride which allowed the ring to weasel its way into his head). Much the same can be said to Denethor, only his own obsession with holding onto his seat of power led him to distrust all his friends and allies. He hated no one more than Sauron, but his own pride and despair led him to also not trust the aid of those who were needed to defeat Sauron. Gollum, the greatest thing happens, the destruction of the Ring due to Gollum's treachery. But Gollum's evil intentions in the matter doesn't suddenly make him a morally good characters because a good action resulted from bad intentions. He's a sympathetic character, no doubt. I've thought of Gollum the same was as Gandalf telling Frodo back in Bag End "It's a sad story." But again, there's nothing ambigious about Gollum's morals.

I won't beat on about all the various complex, fascinatingly ambigious ASOIAF characters. My feelings are the same as what Jaime Lannister said to Catelyn Stark about oaths. It's a simple speech about oaths, but it did marvels in developing Jaime's character, as well as serving the "wow. So completely true!" realization for me. I can only paraphrase, because unlike LOTR, I haven't read ASOIAF that many times to basically know where to find whatever quote I'm looking for...but the basic point Jaime makes is he's had to make so many oaths to his father, family, to one king, to other kings, to duty, honor...etc...what does one do when those oaths conflict? Even the great honorable Ned couldn't possibly keep all the oaths he made to this person or that person. Jaime and Cat's talk was absolutely one of my favorite parts in ASOIAF.

I enjoy all the petty politics in the series, and the constant personal struggles the characters go through to establish their power or cement it. Because I think, the Houses are so consumed in their own petty power struggles, they aren't realizing how useless and fruitless their victories of (if they've achieved anything at all). They're unable to see the largest threat isn't this king or that king, but a horde of cold zombies and zombie-bears to the North and Dany with her dragons freeing everyone across the sea.

I was watching the HBO series in conjunction with reading the books and I think that was a big reason that led to my appreciation of Martin's books. Because the TV series plays well to the strengths of the book (nearly flawless casting that captures all the complex and fascinating characters..which definitely drive the books) while also downplaying the flaws of the books. (Many of which I think have rightfully been talked about here. I'll just add if it wasn't for the TV-series and the actresses playing Sansa and Dany delivering much better and more likeable performances for their characters, I probably would not have gotten through Game of Thrones...and thus wouldn't have gotten through the entire series. The constant "stallion who mounts the word/moon of my life" was mind numbingly annoying. The TV series went away from much of that and the actresses playing Sansa and Dany did well. Once getting through Thrones both Sansa and Dany endure some pretty serious stuff that ultimately changes their characters, I think for the better...or at least for making them better characters in the story).

So, watching the series and the near perfect casting choices, while also reading the books and finding out more about all these "power" players, I think led me to appreciate ASOIAF more because I was captivated by all the characters, and their petty power struggles now. I'll sort of go with what Nog was saying when pointing out some of the characters like Stannis or Tywin.

I think Tolkien often got criticized for all of his characters being "black and white" "good or evil." In some ways I see where those characters were coming from...I mean if you're an orc, you're evil and you're stuck as being evil. There's no getting around they were created as cannon fodder to fill the armies of dark lords. Now I would argue that this isn't an entirely fair criticism because there are countless examples where Tolkien's "heroes" aren't being very good heroes at all...and his villains can strike up sympathy with a reader.

In a similar way, I think Martin gets criticized for "oh the only reason his characters seem more realistic is because they're all so vile, disgusting, and have no qualms about slaughtering 100 babies if it cements more power for them. I can see the truth to the argument with Martin, but it's also not an entirely fair criticism. I need to stop at some point, but I'll just use Tywin as an example...He is the despicable patriarch of probably the most sordid family imaginable, but his dominating presense straight up demands respect from everyone else in the room. He's a pragmatist and the most successful (and arguably the best) Hand to the King of Westeros for decades. (Alright...I also sort of found a new bro-love for Charles Dance...Tywin's scenes with Arya in Season 3 were cinematic gold. And that's stuff that didn't even happen in the books. :p...)

Lotrelf

03-08-2014, 11:12 PM

As someone said on Tolkien's forum you're not going to get "yes," and I agree with him/her. I haven't read the books, but I myself Cannot see GOT books better than LotR. Tolkien was a perfectionist and his experience in life also affected his work greatly. I can't say much right now, but I do not think Song of Ice and Fire is better than our LotR. :)

Luinëaglariel

03-14-2014, 06:18 PM

They (LotR and ASOFAI) are good stories. They are invented histories. They have fascinating characters, plots, and places that you get caught up in and have strong reactions to. They are epic in scope. They are both well written, and . . . this is where it just starts to diverge. ALL of LotR is well written--even brilliantly and "geniusly" (gosh, he might really take me to task for making up that word, or, he may like it--?? ;o)). ASOIAF is well written in parts, but you can easily detect a formula--especially if you burn through the books as I did last summer. Introduce a character, set a situation, sex/degradation, butchery/bloodshed, introduce/revisit a character, set a situation, sex/degradation, etc. Martin piques the prurient; Tolkien piques the soul. Martin gets carried away and overwrites ("overwroughts"?) certain scenes--especially the sex scenes; Tolkien--well he just doesn't do those things.

ASOIAF is a bodice-ripper, epic and captivating, yes. But compared to LotR, Silmarillion, Hobbit, etc., they are romance novels. I would never go to Martin with life & death questions or for inspiration. I would not re-read them every 2-3 years.

;o) Dininziliel (I think my username is different, but my "real" Barrowdowns name is Dininziliel!

cellurdur

03-20-2014, 09:41 AM

No it is significantly inferior in terms of character development, realism, world building and even pacing.

ASOIAF is good entertainment, but lacks the realism, the depth and philosophy behind Tolkien's world. The characters in Tolkien's world are very real. In ASOIAF you constantly have suspend you sense of belief and ignore the cheap tactics the author uses to make you like a character.

Kuruharan

06-25-2014, 09:12 AM

Professor Tolkien didn't mind a bit of the latter himself I think, his letters and other writings are full of speculation on how things might have gone in Middle-earth as if it was a real, living place (as it more or less was to him) "What if Gandalf with the Ring fought Sauron without it?" "What would have happened if the War of the Ring was more like World War Two?" But he wisely kept those things speculative and didn't make them part of the plot. When they do appear, they serve to embellish the sense of realism without dominating the narrative.

I'm not saying that George RR Martin does these things, mind you, what I read of his work was certainly above that. I do believe, however, that it's one of the ways in which the logorrhea of authors can manifest.

The films are rife with this sort of thing incidentally, in deleted scenes and elsewhere. "What if Aragorn fought Sauron at the Black Gate?" "What if Thorin fought Azog?" "What if Radagast fought the Lord of the Nazgûl?"

This is now apt in hindsight because the TV show has now delved into the territory of "What if Brienne fought the Hound" although that is not necessarily Martin's fault.

I was re-reading this thread and I wish to re-state (or maybe elaborate on) something I said in post 41 regarding my enjoyment of Westeros but lack of desire to re-read the books themselves. Martin is good at coming up with interesting plots and events, but while he is good at creating intriguing plots to write about, to my tastes his prose is inelegant and vaguely unpleasant to read. I just find it more enjoyable to read about the stories than to read the stories themselves.

Earlier in the thread, Legate made a reference to Andrzej Sapkowski. I have over the past year started reading The Witcher series after playing the video games and enjoying them immensely. Even though I thought the games were some of the best I have ever played, I was reluctant to start reading the books because I had a fear that they wouldn't be good. I was happily mistaken about this and The Witcher stories have become some of my all time favorites.

This is relevant to this particular discussion because Martin is often praised for the gritty realism of his works. I think Sapkowski does a far better job at gritty realism than Martin even though The Witcher world is steeped in fantastical elements to a far greater extent than even Middle earth. In my opinion, Sapkowski possesses an ability to put texture in his writing that Martin lacks.

This is not to say I don't have some issues with Sapkowski's writing. He writes some very odd things sometimes, some things ring hollow to me, and I think overall sometimes Martin is better at conceiving intriguing plotlines. That being said, I still believe Sapkowski is superior at realism and world building...and the world building aspect is interesting since he made a point not to get too drawn up in his world and torched the franchise and ran. It may also explain why he has a bit of a rocky relationship with the video game series.

IxnaY AintsaY

06-25-2014, 06:38 PM

While I enjoy the whole GoT series, violent soft porn that it is, I consider it inferior to LoTR, and am somewhat dismayed by folks who consider GRRM to be "The American Tolkien" as such a comparison does JRRT a severe disservice.

It's a disservice not to Tolkien, but to Americans*. It's a disservice not to Americans, but to fantasy. It's a disservice not to fantasy, but to metaphors.

/snark

But it's got enough truth to it, I can't call it a severe disservice.

*Not to mention Le Guin specifically.

Thinlómien

06-26-2014, 08:21 AM

I don't know how deep I want to get muddled in this discussion. A Song of Ice and Fire is not better than The Lord of the Rings, it is probably worse if you need an honest answer. George R.R. Martin doesn't have Tolkien's gift of language or pacing. (Even though to be honest Tolkien's pacing isn't the best I've read either!) Still, George R.R. Martin is arguably the best and most notable writer of the fantasy genre today. (Who else can even be nominated? There are lots of good authors out there, but none that are similar milestones and game changers for the genre.) The scope of Martin's creation is probably the only one I can think of that comes even close to Tolkien. (And I don't want to start bickering about details. Martin's languages have no history. Tolkien's people have no religion. Now don't tell me that one of them is a shallow world builder because they are not concentrating on all the possible aspects of their worlds.)

I probably don't need to tell anyone on this site that I'm a huge Tolkien fan :D and I've actually started to admire George R.R. Martin's work more and more in the recent years. The amount of emotional, moral and plot layers in his work is just amazing. I have my criticism against him too (as I probably would have against Tolkien too if I hadn't been indoctrinated into tolkienism since I was a toddler :p), but I'm annoyed whenever people bash either of the authors, especially people who haven't read their books. You can't say A Song of Ice and Fire lacks depth if you only read the first book or if you only watch the series. I can also warmly recommend this (spoilery) interview (http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140423), both to fans who want to know more about the man behind the books and to people who think George R.R. Martin is superficial or stupid or that his books are centered around mindless splatter and sex.

*refuses to start an essay about how Martin's books are anti-war and anti-revenge and how they thematically mirror Tolkien's work more than most people realize*

Aiwendil

06-26-2014, 08:41 AM

Martin's languages have no history. Tolkien's people have no religion.

Languages must, by logical necessity, have a history; people need not have a religion. Moreover, one might wonder about what role religion, as we know it, would play in a world in which godly or angelic beings are manifest. However, there are at least suggestions of quasi-religious attitudes toward Eru and the Valar in many places (the most notable probably being the worship of Eru in Numenor), and there is also the suggestion of cults and Melkor-worship.

Still, George R.R. Martin is arguably the best and most notable writer of the fantasy genre today. (Who else can even be nominated?)

In terms of popularity, I would say that Robert Jordan comes close, though I suppose his death disqualifies him from the 'today' part. Philip Pullman could also be nominated. Terry Pratchett has a pretty large and devoted fan-base. And though it's her only major work, Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is fairly monumental. But, ignoring the 'best' part, I suppose I'd have to concede that Martin is the most notable fantasy writer today. A large part of his notability, it should be noted, is due to the TV series, though.

*refuses to start an essay about how Martin's books are anti-war and anti-revenge and how they thematically mirror Tolkien's work more than most people realize*

Now there I agree with you. The fact that something is portrayed doesn't mean it's being praised. But I feel like even some of Martin's fans fail to realize that, much like those who completely missed the point of A Clockwork Orange or Fight Club.

cellurdur

06-26-2014, 04:12 PM

Will post what I have said before. ASOIAF is a fun read, but far too unrealistic and focused far too much on the soap opera life than the key things of the story.

Since it is fantasy the magic is not the problem. Rather the super human childen, the super human small person, the unrealistic distances, all characters being too flawed, the incredible plot devices guys like Littlefinger need to succeed.

It's a good book and enjoyable, but you have to constantly suspend your sense of belief chapter after chapter.

Flawed characters are okay, but when Ned and Davos look like saints compared to the rest then there is a problem. The show has actually had to whitewash so many characters to make people care about them.

Kuruharan

06-26-2014, 07:16 PM

The show has actually had to whitewash so many characters to make people care about them.

Which has caused great outcry among the book purists. The hand wringing and gnashing of teeth about the whitewashing of Tyrion and Daenerys has to be seen to be believed.

It is almost as if some lout had invented a silly battle in Erebor between Smaug and the dwarves and then put that in a movie version of The Hobbit.

FerniesApple

08-21-2014, 01:39 PM

I love both, but for different reasons, Tolkien has a lot of leaving things to the imagination stuff which is intriguing and mysterious, such as who is Bombadil, what exactly are Pukul men, what kind of flowers are growing round Minas Morgul, what are the Watchers, where are the Entwives. I have a million questions in my mind when I read Tolkien because some things remain unexplained, some things dwell in your mind forever, wheras I find Martins world more 'knowable' theres less mystery and ambiguity between the cracks. Martins world although fantasy is based on human greeds and lusts, its full of mud and blood, whereas Tolkien is more cerebral and spiritual and Faerie. If i went to Westeros I could end up dead on a stick, but if I went to middle Earth I could end up losing my mind with the sheer joy of being there, its far more perilous to wander into Lothlorien than Kings landing.

Galadriel55

08-21-2014, 03:24 PM

...its full of mud and blood, ...

This is possibly the best and most concice description of ASOIAF I have ever seen. :D

Andsigil

08-22-2014, 04:33 AM

Is a Song of Ice and Fire better than Lord of the Rings?

Only if you like envisioning dystopia.

After both reading all of the books and watching the show up-to-date, I think I'm done with ASoIaF.

Everyone you like gets slaughtered or broken
Everyone you don't like gets slaughtered or broken
Everyone in Westeros is miserable. Without exception. There isn't one happy person in the entire world.
Westeros is as depressing as Oceania in 1984. It's even worse than Ohio.

I'm going to go read Cormac McCarthy's The Road to cheer up now.

Zigûr

08-22-2014, 06:08 AM

Westeros is as depressing as Oceania in 1984. It's even worse than Ohio.

I'm going to go read Cormac McCarthy's The Road to cheer up now.
My problem with A Song of Ice and Fire or something like The Wheel of Time is that any message they have is drowned in words. Using human misery as a theme is entirely valid, in my view, but compare A Song of Ice and Fire to something like Nineteen Eighty-Four or The Road. One volume, maybe one hundred thousand words or less? And they each make a devastatingly effective point. You don't need six-to-ten one-thousand-page paperbacks to do that. Even The Lord of the Rings, in three volumes as it is, can be considered one work of about a thousand pages, not unlike say Ulysses in terms of size.

Credible literature doesn't need multi-volume epics. I think one of the reasons Fantasy struggles to break into the space of such credibility is for the very reason of its enormity. People praise Martin for being 'the new Tolkien' or something to that effect but in my opinion he's substantially complicit in the culture which is holding that kind of Fantasy back.

FerniesApple

08-22-2014, 07:34 AM

Only if you like envisioning dystopia.

After both reading all of the books and watching the show up-to-date, I think I'm done with ASoIaF.

Everyone you like gets slaughtered or broken
Everyone you don't like gets slaughtered or broken
Everyone in Westeros is miserable. Without exception. There isn't one happy person in the entire world.
Westeros is as depressing as Oceania in 1984. It's even worse than Ohio.

I'm going to go read Cormac McCarthy's The Road to cheer up now.

Seen like that it could be depressing, but I find the tv series strangely uplifting and some scenes soar. (Dany as Mhyssa springs to mind) I think its a realistic depiction of medieval shenannigans, (apart from Dragons obviously :D ) it was a brutal age and I look at it as I would the history of the Borgias or the Medici families etc. Its rich and ripe and not to everyones taste.

I also appreciate the way he writes female characters, he gives them agency whether they are little girls or old ladies, not just cliche feisty kick *** babes as in many tv shows. (I am looking at you Moffat).

Nerwen

08-22-2014, 10:49 AM

Couldn’t get into the series, myself. Not exactly that it’s bad– I can tell you there’s much worse out there– it just seems like such typical, and to my way of thinking, tedious, “doorstop” fantasy that I really can’t see what all the fuss is about.

So for me the question is, not why would people like ASOIAF/GOT, or even why might some of them– gasp!– like it better “The Lord of the Rings”. People like things for all kinds of reasons. What puzzles me is why, out of dozens of extremely similar works to come out in the last two or three decades, *this* one has caught fire to the extent of being seen as profound, wildly original etc. (And no, that’s not just due to the TV series.) In fact I may as well come out with it now that I think it basically shows how low the bar has been set for popular fantasy. And again, I grant this is one of the better things of its kind, but in my opinion its kind just isn’t all that good.

Yep. Hateful elitist highbrow intellectual meanie snob-type, at your service. Sue me.:p

However, as for whether calling Martin, “The American Tolkien” is a compliment, a belittlement, or an act of sacrilege– that’s beside the point. Look at the cover of just about anything that remotely qualifies as epic fantasy, and guess who the author gets compared to? It’s just a standard thing.

FerniesApple

08-22-2014, 02:32 PM

I wouldnt compare Martin to Tolkien, Tolkien is above and beyond anyone no matter how brilliant. Martin always says he is inspired by Tolkien, but he doesnt pretend to be better, thats impossible imho. He is good at what he does, good solid world building with some very fresh and interesting characters, in particular female characters. he has a knack of making them attractive even if wildly flawed. People have tuned in to this nuanced character led storytelling and its popularity has grown as a result. Its a very long time since I felt so excited by a tv show, maybe it was the XFiles, or Lost, but GOT stands head and shoulders above most dreary tv these days. Its got all the ingredients people like, its good old fashioned entertainment.

Kuruharan

08-22-2014, 03:33 PM

What puzzles me is why, out of dozens of extremely similar works to come out in the last two or three decades, *this* one has caught fire to the extent of being seen as profound, wildly original etc.

I think this is a point that is worthy of discussion. I have wondered this myself and haven't found a wholly satisfactory answer.

First, I think part of it is that Martin began ASOIAF at the right time. When A Game of Thrones was published in 1996 what else was going on in fantasy? The Wheel of Time was in full swing at that point, but I can't recall much else of note that was coming out at the time.

Second, Martin certainly is a skilled writer. He is a compelling character writer, an adequate world builder, and is gifted when it comes to getting drama out of his prose (well, at least he used to be). I think Martin became a big deal because he hooked people on his characters and then upped the ante because he killed a number of primary characters. In a way this not only adds to the danger but to the intrigue of the story because the reader wants to know who lives to see the end of the story. While he has many imitators in this regard now, he was one of the first to do this on such a scale. Martin, in fact, credits Tolkien to some extend for pioneering this trail with the death of Boromir.

Digression:
Has Martin been too often to the well with this technique for it to continue to be effective? There is no doubt that the case could be made that he has. There is definitely a progressive diminishing return the more often an author does this. There are two reasons why this is so. The first is, once the reader figures out the style, they know that bad things will happen and there is little point in getting invested in a character because they will die or have other awful things happen. The second reason is, once you kill off all the first generation of characters in the story the author has to rely on second generation characters to carry things on and the reader is almost certain to lose interest to some degree. I think you can see both processes at play in ASOIAF.

However, I should also point out that in spite of appearances and adulation to the contrary, a significant amount of time has passed since Martin has killed off a character of significant reader interest for good. He doesn't really do it as often as people think he does. But he has been making noises lately (this past week in fact) that the killings will resume in the next book and I have no reason to doubt him...which just goes to show that I've figured out the trick and it will not surprise me again going forward (although in my personal case it didn't surprise me the first time because I already knew it would happen).

Aside point of digression:
For the main portion of Martin's fanbase the diminishing returns of character killing doesn't matter because they are already invested enough to see things through to the end.

Back to the main point:
Third, the long gaps in between books I think have, in a way, helped make them into a bigger deal. The gaps have become so long and so publicized that for the outside world the publication of the next book in the series is so rare as to be a noteworthy event. For the fandom obsessing over when the next book will come out is a handy way to keep the fires burning and whip oneself into a frenzy whenever one feels like it.

Fourth, related to the third point, Martin is still alive and producing. Jordan passed away and now The Wheel of Time was finished by Sanderson. Martin is still making ASOIAF which by default adds a level of interest.

Fifth, the TV show. There is no way around the fact that the TV show helped.

I'm curious to see if anyone else has opinions on this issue.

FerniesApple

08-22-2014, 04:30 PM

As you said. Its Event tv/books. theres a build up of news and it builds up season to season, each season more spectacular and bloody than the last. I think the tv show has brought the characters to life, great acting etc, but I personally think Peter Dinklage is the single most important element.

Lotrelf

08-22-2014, 07:20 PM

I hadn't read the books the first time I had posted here. Now I know little more of SOIF book, and I don't get a feeling of it being "better" than LOTR. LOTR books are the best books of our time, and one of the best of all time. Probably I feel so because it (SOIAF) contradicts my ideals in real life while LOTR doesn't.

Aganzir

09-25-2014, 05:25 PM

I just set my ASoIaF reread aside to start the Lord of the Rings for the ~13th time.

The former is enjoyable for its myriad characters, hints and secret plotlines. Still, it's not the same. It's just not the same.

It doesn't evoke an almost physical pleasure in the words.

(Anyhow, after this Tolkien spell passes and I finish the series, I will have more contributions for this thread - particularly picking up where I left about sexism.)

Tar-Jêx

09-26-2014, 08:56 AM

I read the first Song of Ice and Fire book, and I did really enjoy it, but it just wasn't the same as Tolkien's work. You couldn't become part of the world as much as you could in Arda.

Morthoron

09-26-2014, 10:25 AM

Killing off the interesting characters, whether good or bad, is never a good idea, and the shock value ends after the 3rd or 4th is killed. The investment in the story is lessened, then it merely becomes a banal bit of bloodsport to see who gets it next.

Lalwendë

05-04-2015, 04:32 PM

The two are very different beasts. I don't see any need to hate one because you enjoy the other, though there are many who do, and I've put up a defence for both sides. I could go on for ever about the comparisons and differences, but I'll just bore you with a few for now.

The primary difference of course is the language. Martin is remarkably skilled at plot and character, as was Tolkien, but he does not possess the skill with language that JRRT did. Not quite - as he isn't by any means a linguistic slouch - but Tolkien's entire work stems from a love of language and an understanding of the years of history that can be found in one small word. When Tolkien invented a name for a character or a stream or a sword, he also invented a history, and one we can likely spend many years unravelling. That's not something you can get from Martin.

What I do find satisfying is the politics, and some of my favourite characters are those that play the 'game' the most: Tywin, Cersei, Varys, Littlefinger, etc. Tolkien presented us with sketched histories of Gondor, and I always wonder what tales there were to tell of the politics there. I feel sure he could have told them had he the time/inclination, as he showed glimpses of this with the Grima/Theoden relationship, and the way Gandalf advised Aragorn. And of course at The Council of Elrond. It's tgerefore unfair to criticise Tolkien for not writing extensively of 'the game', as we can see he could do it, but there was not the space to do so extensively.

And about those characters - Tolkien and Martin both get accused of being sexist and neither one is. Tolkien is accused of leaving out women, when we have female characters as diverse as Eowyn, Galadriel, Ungoliant, and Goldberry. Martin likewise has diversity; his women aren't just all 'fighters', he shows us women driven by devotion to their children, women driven by faith, teenagers, agi g women, ordinary women, etc. Speaking as a mother, he really understands that 'lioness' instinct. Bith Tolkien and Martin aren't afraid to give us a range of female characters - I see no problem with either.

And one more thing - magic. One of the aspects people sneer about with Tolkien is 'all the magic'. But there's very little of that! One day I'll sit there and actually count up and compare the instances of dragons/wights/spells etc in LotR and ASoIaF, and really see who comes out on top here! ;)