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

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

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.