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

[Galadriel55]

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 have many favourite characters from the first three books, and, although new characters were brought in to replace the dead ones, I only had one favourite character alive by the end of the fifth book.

So, if the question was just about LOTR vs GOT, I would have said I like them both despite their differences. However, since the question is about the entire series, well, I found ADWD a tad too disappointing, so LOTR wins.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

On many points, I would basically second Galadriel55 here:

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Elemmakil

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.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Elemmakil

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Elemmakil

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]

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*

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Thinlomien

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.