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

[Elf_NFB]

This is an easy one. No.

I have enjoyed reading GRR Martin's series, but it is in no way better. 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 have eminent respect for GRR Martin and his story, I look forward to see how it resolves, and I LOVE the HBO series. BUT, it is NOT better than The Lord of the Rings.

[Aiwendil]

I'm going to go way out on a limb and predict that the answer you'll get on this, a Tolkien discussion forum, will be a unanimous 'no'.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Rhod the Red]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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]

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]

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

[Mithalwen]

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]

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.