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

[Kuruharan]

After a little reflection on the subject, I would like to take back (sort of) a bit of what I said before about Martin ending up as a literary footnote.

I have now come to think the possibility for Martin to become a genuinely important literary figure from the perspective of history does still exist. I think it all revolves around how he handles the ending of ASOIAF. If he does a good job then I think his place could be cemented, if he does a poor job then it is Footnote City at best.

What I mean by this is Martin has made his name as a writer who subverts the supposed tropes of what has come before. I'm not entirely a fan of this but it is a valid way to go about things. He has already successfully done this in a number of ways and I think one of the existing primary character arcs is ultimately geared toward doing this as well on a fairly grand scale. If my idea is correct and Martin does it well, Martin could well be worthy of future study and remembrance.

However, A) I might be wrong in guessing his intentions and B) given Martin's seeming decline in writing skill he has every chance of botching the whole thing no matter how he tries to end the story, and it could very well be botched already because of Martin's underlying approach.

All that being said, Tolkien will still be better no matter how ASOIAF turns out.

[Kitanna]

I hate Game of Thrones. I mean hate. I almost threw people out of my apartment once I hate it that much (there's a very long story). I read the first book and thought it was ok until about halfway through. It just took a huge downward turn around the time Dany gets pregnant.

LOTR can be long winded and dry at times, but I at least feel a connection to some of the characters. I root for the Hobbits. I root for the men of the west.

I like LOTR because it shows the corruption of man, but also the redemption. Boromir falls to the power of the Ring, but his brother faces it and stands tall. It'd have been more boring if Faramir fell too, proving that men are wicked. Instead he shows a strength that was different from that of his brother. Gollum, though corrupted, still shows flashes of who he was. There is hope that he may yet come back from the brink.

When a character I love dies I get upset. I still tear up when I read Theoden's death. I cry when Sam and Frodo cling to each other on the steps of Mount Doom. I get none of these emotions from Martin's work.

If there's not one character I can relate to, that I want to succeed, then why would I waste my time reading the book? Ned Stark died. I didn't care. If a major player dies I should feel something. Anger, sadness, relief, anything. There is no alleviation from doom and gloom. No show of humanity. Everyone just kills everyone else.

The story of Fire and Ice is pretty interesting. I really did want to like it. I like history turned fantasy. I like darkness and shades of gray. Making main characters suffer is usually a pretty interesting read. But when the character suffering is completely detestable to me, well, I'm just not interested. The things that I liked about GoT did not outweigh the things I hated. Whereas the things I don't like about Tolkien don't overshadow the things I love. Almost everyone I know loves GoT and hates LOTR. I personally don't get it.

[Rhod the Red]

I find it weird that people can 'hate' SoI&F.

There more I research individual characters, like on the wiki http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Main_Page, the more interested I get in each storyline.

If you do that, say when it comes to the first book, you notice how some of the conspiracies intertwine. Martin was good in making many look coincidental & pure luck for each conniving schemer. And more broadly, the detail and effort Martin has made for history, characters, etc, is quite breathtaking.

I'm almost halfway through Feast of Crows and now feel a fanatic, because I've researched ahead more than when I read Tolkein or CS Lewis. Martin does have his +s that the average sci-fi writer clearly would just skip or not think of.

[Nogrod]

Some of the latest points made make me feel like reading them thusly: the characters in the SoIaF are not ones whose trials and tribulations one would wish to follow... (and there seems to be two main concerns here) because.



1) the interesting characters die away and there is too much all things "crude".

Well, enough of this has been speculated on the deahs of "wannabe main characters" I think. And it seems G.R.R. Martin is only too happy to "re-awaken" some of them as a literary means...

Life is not always nice and people are capable of great atrocities - as they are able to show the greatest kindness. And yes, trying to close one 's eyes on things that go against one's own moral standards is lying to oneself about reality. The attitude one has to things narrated one doesn't like is more or less the dividing line between reading for escapism and reading with interest in real life.



2) there is no redemption, no role-models or idealised goodies, or baddies (well maybe some of the latter kind, yes...)

This I'm afraid means that the SoIaF disturbs people because it doesn't give one the easy black-and-white - and that there is a yawning for that simple world-view.

But just think about it seriously... (I have not read the last book - I will do it this summer though - so forgive me for my possible shortcomings here) I'll take four examples.


Stannis, is he good or bad? He's weak on some crucial points and easily led astray from what would have been decent (known only by the half-omnipotent reader, not by Stannis as a characcter) - but he also has a high view of justice and righteousness. A most intresting - and a most human character! That's what we are...

Theon Greyjoy is a baddie? Well walk in his shoes for a moment... taken captive and raised by the enemies of his family and coming back (in high hopes for himself but also for the good of all) only to be scorned by his own - he realizes he has no one and belongs nowhere - and he tries to show he's one of his own - and just overdoes it (under some pretty strong pressure) as he is not at ease with the life of his generic family and the values they hold close. So with Nietzsche's words "human, all too human"?

The Hound? Clearly a bad man? While at the same time he's one of the only few who treated both Sansa and Arya with respect and basically helped them. Surely there is no way to defend him from the POV of the moral standards of the 21st century general Western culture, and he is a violent opportunist... but he is human as well: tryig to get along in a world that is violent and is based on power and personal toughness (see what happens to Jaime after he loses his sword-hand - he's not the "one to be honoured" any more - that turn actually is one of the greatest I think Mr. Martin made!).

Tywin Lannister? Well he must be the bad man above everyone else? And he surely is not your ideal loving and liberal father... nor is he the benevolent ruler who loves the people he rules. But even with him, you can see humanity shining through - his father's almost catastrophic errors of judgement that almost took their family down, his feelings for Tyrion after he "killed" his wife at the birth, the (true) rumours of his children's incest... he's really having tough times with the values and the world he was born into.



I'm not intending to raise anyone of the above as my "heroes". That is actually the total opposite of what I'm trying to say. I dislike them more than I like them as characters.

But I do love the fact that Mr. Martin gives us characters of such complexity to read.



The initial question was between the LotR (not Silmarillion fex.) and the SoIaF. In regards to the humanness and believability of the characters - and thusly to how real vs. "phantastical" they are I must say Martin scores the points for narrating real humans. If one doesn't like it, that is okay.

On other questions the scores would be different - like who is the greater writer, or who has created a more profound world with consistent mythologies etc? BUt those are other questions... it just seems peolple are centering on the issue of whether the charactyers are likeable or ones they'd be interested to follow - or somehow "worthy" of following...



For some reason both series are called "phantasy" literature.

Well, I think I know why that is - or why it is a good term for both.

Tolkien's view of the world is phantasy because he seems to believe in providence that is guided by some supreme power(s) - aka. phantasy.

Martin's view of the world is phantasy because he seems to be willing to only describe people at dire straits with more or less only their bad side showing up. In reality we are a much better and kinder species - and Martin I'm afraid likens cynicism to realism; where he is wrong in a grand scale.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Life is not always nice and people are capable of great atrocities - as they are able to show the greatest kindness. And yes, trying to close one 's eyes on things that go against one's own moral standards is lying to oneself about reality. The attitude one has to things narrated one doesn't like is more or less the dividing line between reading for escapism and reading with interest in real life.

...

This I'm afraid means that the SoIaF disturbs people because it doesn't give one the easy black-and-white - and that there is a yawning for that simple world-view.

Even as someone who's no fan of A Song of Ice and Fire I agree that the fact that it treats life in a harsh and brutal way doesn't somehow denigrate it; so much of the canon of "literature" deals with exactly the same things, the more unpleasant parts of life. It's hardly inappropriate content. Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms is a completely arbitrary example I might give of a well-regarded novel that puts certain horrors of human life in intense focus and is moving and profound for that very reason.

My main problem with A Game of Thrones was that the parts I found interesting, which had the supernatural elements, were brief teases, while all the political scheming I find utterly tedious and reminds me of the horrible 'church politics' diversions in David Eddings' Elenium series.

In defence of Professor Tolkien, I would argue that his allegedly less 'realistic' characterisation and more conservative presentation of violence and sexuality are indicative of the notion, in both my opinion and that of the Professor himself, that The Lord of the Rings is, in textual terms, a Romance and not a Novel: "My work is not a 'novel', but an 'heroic romance' a much older and quite different variety of literature." (Letter 329) I suppose that might seem like a defensive or apologist view to some but personally I think it is extremely significant in understanding why The Lord of the Rings is, arguably, painted in broader strokes than the conventional modern Fantasy 'novel'. That being said I would persist whole-heartedly in my belief that the characterisation and character development in The Lord of the Rings is simply abstract and subtle, not limited.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Kitanna

Almost everyone I know loves GoT and hates LOTR. I personally don't get it.

You must know very weird people. How can anyone hate LotR??? Because I can understand people hating ASoIaF, I think that's pretty normal...

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

I find it weird that people can 'hate' SoI&F.

...I can understand it very well. Whereas I enjoy it, personally, I can see what people can see as flaws or what they might not like about it. We have heard quite a few things here already, and I consider these objections relevant, even though I do not mind some of them:
- the prolonged and tedious narration not everyone may enjoy (see my previous posts for my thoughts about those),
- the "naturalistic" (to use a very mild word) portrayal of some things,
- the fact that too many supposedly "main good characters" die,
- the fact that there is nobody who we can identify with. Personally, that might be the one thing that I would see lacking the most, but with this kind of literature it does not bother me.

And with the last point, I get to a sort of response to Kitanna's post and further. I am fine with rooting for certain people or group of people, even though I would not really see them as "likeable" in reality.

Because it is only a fantasy.

In 99,9% fantasy books (or movies... that even less), I do not find myself "identifying myself" with the goals or attitudes of the characters I root for. But I can like people because they are "cool". Imagine, for example, Darth Vader - even discounting his redemption, most of the people found him "cool" the moment he stepped on the screen. You enjoy seeing him, even though you do not want any evil empire to rule the galaxy in reality, right? Something like that. The same way, I can, for instance, enjoy reading about some horrible people in ASOIAF.

Is it a kind of literature to find "role models" in? Certainly not, but surely that goes without saying? It has nothing to do with reality, it is, like Nog said, and I agree, very much cynical. But the big tale is still interesting for what it is: the big epic tale.

And, just a remark about the "cynism", still, there are the bittersweet tones which make the tragedy moving. I do pity characters who lose their family, their limbs, or all sorts of other things, like their sanity, for instance.

I enjoy reading about those people, I wish them success, because, fortunately, the world they live in is not our world and it is not even the reflection of our own world (unlike Tolkien's). If injustice is done, unless it's absolutely terrible, I am fine with it in the book, because without some trouble, there is no plot (remember what Tolkien says about good times when telling about Rivendell in The Hobbit).

I even enjoy reading, for instance, H.P. Lovecraft without believing in supernatural horrors eating people on U.S. East Coast in reality. Now I wanted to write that the same way I don't really "believe" in Elves dancing in the woods at night, but, truth be told, I do. But that's not the point Anyway, Tolkien's world is much nicer to believe in, so maybe that's what brings it closer. But, what I meant to say, is again that I can follow stories and see them for being only that, stories. Even if they end bad. (And all that said, we don't know how GRRM's story is going to end. Yet.)

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Martin's view of the world is phantasy because he seems to be willing to only describe people at dire straits with more or less only their bad side showing up. In reality we are a much better and kinder species - and Martin I'm afraid likens cynicism to realism; where he is wrong in a grand scale.

That's basically what I would say. I would say GRRM is sort of "overdoing" the postmodern point of "disillusionment by/of humankind", which appears to be appearing also in literature more than before. Sure, no surprise about that. After the Enlightement's overdone belief in humankind, and exposure to reality that humans are after all only creatures like any other and their "reason" is not merely a tool to use for betterment of humankind, but also capable of making up rather disgusting stuff like gas chambers and atomic bombs, the cynism is obvious and expectable. But the "sober realism" today probably would mean exactly more stress on, for example, Tolkien's "hope". That's why I understand many people might not enjoy GRRM so much, because they may be exhausted by negative visions of reality from their surroundings. I, personally, perceive the world still as, however full of problems, a nice place to be in, and therefore I am fine with a bit of unhappy endings in my fantasy. When it is not utterly tasteless, of course. But I think GRRM has very many good qualities to counterbalance problems.

[Galadriel55]

I do not hate or even dislike ASOIAF - I loved the irst three books, but was not very impressed with the fourth and fifth. One reason: all my favourite characters are gone. #1: Arya - reduced to obscurity. #2: Jon and Bran - reduced to obscurity and whining. #3: the Hound* - dead. Unless it's one of the typical Martinesque plot twists where he says everything to lead the reader to assume the character's dead, and then shatter that assumption. Anyways, instead of bringing in and developing more interesting characters (not that they aren't interesting, but they're much more tedius) he dissolves the story among too many POVs that are very stagnant and whiny. Second reason: the plot got too whiny and stagnant. While every plot detail does carry its significance, just about the only truly important part of ADWD was the last chapter where Dany finally understands the mysterious message of going back to go forwards. The rest was just too drawn out.

I, personally, don't mind that much the disillusionment part or the lack of rolemodels. It just got a bit boring towards the end.

*Just a note here: Sandor is such a character that he needs the realism bordering on cynicism that is not found in LOTR to develop, so while I adove his character in GOT he would not be able to exist in Tolkien's world.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

There more I research individual characters, like on the wiki http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Main_Page, the more interested I get in each storyline.

I have to admit to something weird, but I greatly enjoy reading the Westeros wiki, can literally spend hours chasing rabbits on it (yes, I am a sad and pathetic dwarf, thanks for noticing) but I have never re-read any of the Ice and Fire books and don't really have any interest in doing so.

Compared to LOTR I enjoy reading stuff about it, talking about it, and re-reading it.

I'm not quite sure what it means, but I suspect it has something to do with Tolkien being an aesthetically more pleasant author to read.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I have to admit to something weird, but I greatly enjoy reading the Westeros wiki, can literally spend hours chasing rabbits on it (yes, I am a sad and pathetic dwarf, thanks for noticing) but I have never re-read any of the Ice and Fire books and don't really have any interest in doing so.

Strange. In fact, ASOIAF is one of the very few books I enjoy reading again. Also (like I said in my first posts here), ASOIAF is, in my opinion, meant to be re-read, because otherwise you have no chance whatsoever to make anything out of the minor characters on first reading. Not even of the characters who start as minor and become major (I barely noticed e.g. that any Theon Greyjoy existed in the first book). And spot all the minor clues to other things.

(That's also the reason why I don't want to read the ASOIAF wiki, because it has too many spoilers. Even though I have finished all the books, there are still things I do not know and I do not wish to know, because I prefer to figure them out all by myself. Since that at least is one of the qualities GRRM undeniably has, all the hidden clues etc.)

[Formendacil]

I've been following this thread with some interest, and waffling back and forth on whether I'm in a position to comment. I've never seen the show, and I've read about half the series--in about a week and a half last August, I went through the first two and a half books in a single, fell swoop and then lost all interest and stamina.

That said, thanks to the Internet and an ancient Greek mentality regarding spoilers ("spoiler, what's a spoiler? Everybody knows Oedipus is Jocasta's son--that's what makes watching the play so good"), I know where the series has gone so far, even if I haven't read up to it. Indeed, I've had a fascination/bile relationship with Martin for years, for as long as he's been the reigning King of Fantasy.

Obviously, it isn't Martin's fault that virtually everything anyone ever says about him compares him in some way to Tolkien--that's been the standard trope for the genre since about 1956--but it has been particularly persistent with Martin, and that threw me off reading him initially, because it didn't take very much research at all to realise that "hyper-realistic, fantasy-version of the War of the Roses" is not at all what I think when I think "the next Tolkien."

But I did read him eventually--and, as I said, I burned through two and a half of his voluminous tomes in a week and a half, so there was clearly enjoyment in the process. I think it helped my desire to keep reading that I knew the major spoilers and that I knew it was a work where "everybody dies." This removed the anger that might stem from being hoodwinked, replacing it with the Greek Tragedic curiosity of "well, how did it happen?" This is where Martin's pacing was a real problem, though--and I say this as someone who didn't make it to the books that are said to be the worst in this regard.

That said, I also completely ran out of steam and interest--and I haven't picked the books up since, or been more than very, very slightly inclined to do so--and this loss of interest is tied to the reason the interest held. Reading Martin fired up my own fantastical imagination in a way that nothing has done in years--if anyone remembers that I wrote a fantasy novel last fall/winter, it is worth noting that it grew, almost entirely, out of the massive creative push that reading ASOIAF gave me last September.

But, at the same time, part of the reason I was pushed to write rather than to keep reading was that Martin consistently didn't satisfy my own tastes. In essence, I felt something along the lines of "you got so many things so close to right--but then it didn't work for me." In general, if I try to recapture that fleeting sense of what worked and what didn't, I think the world-building worked almost completely for me. I don't remember a geographical or political fact that I didn't enjoy exploring--to say nothing of the tantalising "otherworldly" hints that crept around the edges: things north of the Wall and the dragons.

This ramble doesn't have a single point, I suppose, except this: as a fantasy writer I do not claim to be anywhere near the league of either Tolkien or Martin, but I do feel indebted to them both, for they both made me want to write. The difference is that I felt pulled to write by Tolkien--his prose and his stories and his mythology had me chasing after it; whereas Martin pushed me to write, which was a rather more divided experience.



All of that said, it occurs to me to add that the popularity of ASOIAF is testimony to the fact that the reading public does NOT desire things simplified or shortened, and I am grateful it does that. However, if he never manages to finish the series (or to do so to the satisfaction of a significant number of his fans), I think we might see the ugly side of a fandom that expects a long set-up to have a great payoff.

[The Mouth of Sauron]

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


NO !!!!!!

An over-complicated, contrived rip-off is NOT better that the LOTR masterpiece.

[Lotrelf]

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.

[Aganzir]

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.)

[Tar-Jêx]

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.