What fantasy book have you read that gave you the same 'feel' LotR?

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Alcidas

I like George R.R. Martin's work very much. In many ways, I think his world is deeper than Tolkien's. But it does not quite give me the same feeling as Tolkien...

I'm curious to know what the difference in feeling was.

[Mithadan]

Martin's work is more grey and grimy. Unlike Tolkien, there is little by way of clear cut right and wrong or good and bad.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Martin's work is more grey and grimy. Unlike Tolkien, there is little by way of clear cut right and wrong or good and bad.

That's an interesting thing to say. I don't think I'd call, say, the Fëanorians good or bad. I think we sometimes over-simplify Tolkien's works, because there is a lot of emphasis on 'doing the right thing' - at least, that's my impression.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

That's an interesting thing to say. I don't think I'd call, say, the Fëanorians good or bad. I think we sometimes over-simplify Tolkien's works, because there is a lot of emphasis on 'doing the right thing' - at least, that's my impression.

In my mind, the distinction is not about whether the characters are right or wrong / good or bad, but whether there is such a thing at all. In ASOIAF, it's not clear there is.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

In my mind, the distinction is not about whether the characters are right or wrong / good or bad, but whether there is such a thing at all. In ASOIAF, it's not clear there is.

The thing about ASOIAF is that it allows contradictory "goods-and-bads", contradictory worldviews, to coexist. Most often a piece of writing takes on one worldview; while it might not be exactly what the author believes, or not all of what he believes, it is the view presented in the work. But in ASOIAF, you get the glorification of different points of view and thus different standards. Thus, no point of view is right or wrong, and each character has his own definition of good and bad, so no overall definition for the book. I don't find this a bad thing - in fact, I always struggled with the inability to put all one's contradictory fancies and beliefs into one work, and ASOIAF gives a great answer and does a great job of that - but it is quite un-Tolkien.

[Alcidas]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I'm curious to know what the difference in feeling was.

It is difficult to put into words, but I will give it a go.

Tolkien's writing has a lyrical beauty of sorts that Martin just cannot match. I think he has drawn so much from our common literary heritage that it is almost impossible to read any of his works without feeling the resonances with previous works of literature, like Tennyson's 'horns of Elfland gently blowing'. I am not saying that he would have consciously created such resonances, as some modern authors may deliberately seek to do, but that, given his background, it would have probably come naturally to him, in the same way that one cannot read the poetry of Keats without at least subconsciously being reminded of the imagery of Shakespeare.

Martin's writing is different, and his is a modern novel written for a modern, 21st century reader. I think it is a great deal more realistic with a better sense of time and distance. The lack of a clear-cut distinction between Good and Evil characters and the literary device of telling the story from different points of view really makes for a good read, but, as I said, it does not have the same 'feel' as Tolkien.

I hope this makes some sense.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Alcidas

Martin's writing is different, and his is a modern novel written for a modern, 21st century reader. I think it is a great deal more realistic with a better sense of time and distance. The lack of a clear-cut distinction between Good and Evil characters and the literary device of telling the story from different points of view really makes for a good read, but, as I said, it does not have the same 'feel' as Tolkien.

I hope this makes some sense.

It definitely made sense. Though I'm curious to know why we'd think of Martin's work as 'more realistic', simply because it is generally dark. Having said that, Martin's work entertains me, but it doesn't inspire in me the almost fanatic loyalty that Tolkien's does, especially The Silmarillion. The reason is that, for me, the message Tolkien gives is: "Yes, the world is terrible, and you probably won't get rewarded for being kind - in fact, you'll probably come to a sticky end. Be kind anyway." That might be an idealistic thing to say; but in this respect, Tolkien's the kind of person I may just follow to the ends of the earth.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Alcidas

It is difficult to put into words, but I will give it a go.

Tolkien's writing has a lyrical beauty of sorts that Martin just cannot match. I think he has drawn so much from our common literary heritage that it is almost impossible to read any of his works without feeling the resonances with previous works of literature, like Tennyson's 'horns of Elfland gently blowing'. I am not saying that he would have consciously created such resonances, as some modern authors may deliberately seek to do, but that, given his background, it would have probably come naturally to him, in the same way that one cannot read the poetry of Keats without at least subconsciously being reminded of the imagery of Shakespeare.

Martin's writing is different, and his is a modern novel written for a modern, 21st century reader. I think it is a great deal more realistic with a better sense of time and distance. The lack of a clear-cut distinction between Good and Evil characters and the literary device of telling the story from different points of view really makes for a good read, but, as I said, it does not have the same 'feel' as Tolkien.

I hope this makes some sense.

ASOIAF is terrible when it comes to realism, time and distance. Martin does not even bother to give dates or actual distances because it does not make sense.

The problem I find with Martin's work is that all the characters are so flawed they become unlikeable. With the exception of a couple of the children I don't care who lives or dies.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

ASOIAF is terrible when it comes to realism, time and distance. Martin does not even bother to give dates or actual distances because it does not make sense.

The problem I find with Martin's work is that all the characters are so flawed they become unlikeable. With the exception of a couple of the children I don't care who lives or dies.

Would you mind if I asked what you meant by 'realism'? I think you're the first person I've come across who has actually said that.

That's funny! I like his characters because they're flawed. They make for interesting reading.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Would you mind if I asked what you meant by 'realism'? I think you're the first person I've come across who has actually said that.

That's funny! I like his characters because they're flawed. They make for interesting reading.

Since it is fantasy the magic is not the problem. Rather the super human childen, the super human small person, the unrealistic distances, all characters being too flawed, the incredible plot devices guys like Littlefinger need to succeed.

It's a good book and enjoyable, but you have to constantly suspend your sense of belief chapter after chapter.

Flawed characters are okay, but when Ned and Davos look like saints compared to the rest then there is a problem. The show has actually had to whitewash so many characters to make people care about them.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Flawed characters are okay, but when Ned and Davos look like saints compared to the rest then there is a problem. The show has actually had to whitewash so many characters to make people care about them.

I don't know. I cared about Ned because I really did like him at the beginning of the series, and I care about Davos because he's a character who has his own narration, but I can't say I like Davos very much, and part of that is because he's trying to be the virtuous saint. I like many characters better than that twain. I don't think that Martin purposefully painted others black so that these two can look white. I doubt that these two are meant to be pointed out as the "good people" (as discussed in previous posts, there are no "good" and "bad" standarts). Also, you have others who have some claim to virtue or innocence. Take Daenerys. Take Brienne. I stopped liking Daenerys after a while, but I like Briene very much despite her naive trust in the world. Moreover, the whole point of splitting the story into perspectives is to make each one believable/likable/existent. If Martin's goal was to make the "good" ones shine, his whole book structure loses its point.

So I think that this criticism is invalid, considering how many flawed or odd/unfitting-into-typical-standarts characters are likable and not all of the virtuous ones are. It depends of you whether you like them or not, but your own point of view isn't everybody's, so how can you make this objective claim?

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I don't know. I cared about Ned because I really did like him at the beginning of the series, and I care about Davos because he's a character who has his own narration, but I can't say I like Davos very much, and part of that is because he's trying to be the virtuous saint. I like many characters better than that twain. I don't think that Martin purposefully painted others black so that these two can look white. I doubt that these two are meant to be pointed out as the "good people" (as discussed in previous posts, there are no "good" and "bad" standarts). Also, you have others who have some claim to virtue or innocence. Take Daenerys. Take Brienne. I stopped liking Daenerys after a while, but I like Briene very much despite her naive trust in the world. Moreover, the whole point of splitting the story into perspectives is to make each one believable/likable/existent. If Martin's goal was to make the "good" ones shine, his whole book structure loses its point.

So I think that this criticism is invalid, considering how many flawed or odd/unfitting-into-typical-standarts characters are likable and not all of the virtuous ones are. It depends of you whether you like them or not, but your own point of view isn't everybody's, so how can you make this objective claim?

No viewpoints are objective when judging a story. To claim there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" is not true. Characters like Roose, Ramsey, Gregor and Cersei are without bad.

I never said that he made the other characters so black as to make Ned and Davos look good. Nor do I think Davos is trying too hard to be good. He is just doing what the average person does. Loyal to his family and king.

Martin tries to write "realistic" characters, but they are all so bad they become cartoon villains.

Anyway it's a matter of personal choice.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Since it is fantasy the magic is not the problem. Rather the super human childen, the super human small person, the unrealistic distances, all characters being too flawed, the incredible plot devices guys like Littlefinger need to succeed.

It's a good book and enjoyable, but you have to constantly suspend your sense of belief chapter after chapter.

Flawed characters are okay, but when Ned and Davos look like saints compared to the rest then there is a problem. The show has actually had to whitewash so many characters to make people care about them.

Interesting that you should say the characters are 'too flawed'. Would you call, for instance, Jon Snow or Danaerys Targaryen 'too flawed'? I think they merely act their age, and for that Danaerys actually shows some incredible backbone. Then again, I do agree that, at some level, the amount of 'nice' or at least 'vaguely kind' people are surprisingly lacking.

'you have to constantly suspend your sense of belief'. I didn't, actually, though I found the last two books somewhat contrived and thinly spread.

'then there is a problem'. Is it necessarily so, though?

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Interesting that you should say the characters are 'too flawed'. Would you call, for instance, Jon Snow or Danaerys Targaryen 'too flawed'? I think they merely act their age, and for that Danaerys actually shows some incredible backbone. Then again, I do agree that, at some level, the amount of 'nice' or at least 'vaguely kind' people are surprisingly lacking.

'you have to constantly suspend your sense of belief'. I didn't, actually, though I found the last two books somewhat contrived and thinly spread.

'then there is a problem'. Is it necessarily so, though?

I meant 'too flawed' in terms of moral character not ability. Jon Snow is a fairly good sort, but Dany is slipping.

As for their ability, this is what I mean by super children. Dany is 14, Jon is 15 and they are already leading armies, conquering cities etc. It's just not very plausible. Usually children's stories have younger characters to appeal to children. Even then they usually create some kind of excuse like a magical climate increasing the maturity of kids. Arya, Bran, Dany, Robb, Jon and others just are not believable as children.

Things like the speed characters travel great distances, the climate in the North supporting farming are small things you can ignore. It's the big plot points I struggle with. For instance why does Tyrion not kill Littlefinger? Often in the books intelligent characters have to make stupid and decisions against their established character for the plot to advance.