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
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
), 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, 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*