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

[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.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Elemmakil

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.