As you said. Its Event tv/books. theres a build up of news and it builds up season to season, each season more spectacular and bloody than the last. I think the tv show has brought the characters to life, great acting etc, but I personally think Peter Dinklage is the single most important element.

I hadn't read the books the first time I had posted here. Now I know little more of SOIF book, and I don't get a feeling of it being "better" than LOTR. LOTR books are the best books of our time, and one of the best of all time. Probably I feel so because it (SOIAF) contradicts my ideals in real life while LOTR doesn't.

I just set my ASoIaF reread aside to start the Lord of the Rings for the ~13th time.

The former is enjoyable for its myriad characters, hints and secret plotlines. Still, it's not the same. It's just not the same.

It doesn't evoke an almost physical pleasure in the words.

(Anyhow, after this Tolkien spell passes and I finish the series, I will have more contributions for this thread - particularly picking up where I left about sexism.)

I read the first Song of Ice and Fire book, and I did really enjoy it, but it just wasn't the same as Tolkien's work. You couldn't become part of the world as much as you could in Arda.

Killing off the interesting characters, whether good or bad, is never a good idea, and the shock value ends after the 3rd or 4th is killed. The investment in the story is lessened, then it merely becomes a banal bit of bloodsport to see who gets it next.

The two are very different beasts. I don't see any need to hate one because you enjoy the other, though there are many who do, and I've put up a defence for both sides. I could go on for ever about the comparisons and differences, but I'll just bore you with a few for now.

The primary difference of course is the language. Martin is remarkably skilled at plot and character, as was Tolkien, but he does not possess the skill with language that JRRT did. Not quite - as he isn't by any means a linguistic slouch - but Tolkien's entire work stems from a love of language and an understanding of the years of history that can be found in one small word. When Tolkien invented a name for a character or a stream or a sword, he also invented a history, and one we can likely spend many years unravelling. That's not something you can get from Martin.

What I do find satisfying is the politics, and some of my favourite characters are those that play the 'game' the most: Tywin, Cersei, Varys, Littlefinger, etc. Tolkien presented us with sketched histories of Gondor, and I always wonder what tales there were to tell of the politics there. I feel sure he could have told them had he the time/inclination, as he showed glimpses of this with the Grima/Theoden relationship, and the way Gandalf advised Aragorn. And of course at The Council of Elrond. It's tgerefore unfair to criticise Tolkien for not writing extensively of 'the game', as we can see he could do it, but there was not the space to do so extensively.

And about those characters - Tolkien and Martin both get accused of being sexist and neither one is. Tolkien is accused of leaving out women, when we have female characters as diverse as Eowyn, Galadriel, Ungoliant, and Goldberry. Martin likewise has diversity; his women aren't just all 'fighters', he shows us women driven by devotion to their children, women driven by faith, teenagers, agi g women, ordinary women, etc. Speaking as a mother, he really understands that 'lioness' instinct. Bith Tolkien and Martin aren't afraid to give us a range of female characters - I see no problem with either.

And one more thing - magic. One of the aspects people sneer about with Tolkien is 'all the magic'. But there's very little of that! One day I'll sit there and actually count up and compare the instances of dragons/wights/spells etc in LotR and ASoIaF, and really see who comes out on top here! ;)

That is an excellent idea! You should do that.

Do all fantasy races count, i.e. would you count every reference to an orc or dwarf?

If I can get both texts into Word then I will! Otherwise, it might drive me slowly insane... I wouldn't count dwarves as that might be confusing, given that one has the 'fantasy race' type and the other the actual 'dwarfism' type - that could be a tad contentious :eek:

I think wights/white walkers would be a valid match, and wizards would match up to sorcerors from Asshai. And for every mention of an Ent, there's the Weirwoods and Godswoods.

I would suggest that "corporeal" races should not count, although I'm sure a point of contention could be made of it.

My reasoning is encountering a dwarf, or even a hobbit, in Middle earth is not a particularly magical experience. Elves might be a different category. However, if races are counted then obviously Tolkien created a more magical world.

I'm thinking of something more along the lines of "magical" phenomena like Galadriel's Mirror or the shadow babies.

As far as dragons go, Martin has more of them appear by name in his stories (if you count things like The Princess and the Queen. Of course, Martin's don't speak but they are clearly connected with magic in his world.

It's got me wondering now if Targaryens are in some way equivalent to Elves. They have peculiar, exotic histories, come from an almost mythic realm (Valyria), seem to have particular power over dragons (debatable) and have those strange looks. They're clearly drawn as somewhat superior and 'other' to the peoples of Westeros and Essos.

Even without looking, I can think of more 'magic' in ASoIaF - Bran's 'third eye'; wargs; Beric Dondarrion's lives; wildfyre; the Undying of Qarth; and Maggy the Frog all spring to mind. Whereas 'magic' in Tolkien's work is more about crafted items, or powers that the Ainur have.

I think you are right to some extent, but I think dragon relations was a skill that had to be cultivated and didn't necessarily come naturally to all of them.

I think you have hit on an important distinction here. Tolkien's world has distinct orders of creation whereas Martin's world, at least to me, seems less so. What is commonly called magic was a trait possessed by nature of the higher orders of Tolkien's world whereas in Martin's the potential for magic is spread more widely among the world's human (and otherwise) population.

I like the both series of books. Which do I think it better? I'm not sure. But John Snow must live!