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

[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.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

The initial question was between the LotR (not Silmarillion fex.) and the SoIaF.

Aw but that's not fair - if it's Martin's whole series, it should also be the entire Legendarium.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

You're right there. He could've left out half of Dany's chapters and it wouldn't have done the book harm, quite the contrary, and she might already be taking over the throne in Westeros. (What do you mean I'm getting ahead of myself?) Anyway, When I look back, I am lost is the only character catchphrase I don't get perpetually annoyed with.

Also, would you like me to direct you to a particular passage that might be of interest to you regarding your favourite characters?

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Strange. In fact, ASOIAF is one of the very few books I enjoy reading again.

I haven't actually reread any of the books, although I'm sure that will happen one of these days (or years, rather) - but when I eventually do, and when I occasionally leaf through the pages, it is, and will be, in search of information and little clues (because that's what I'm good at anyway). Tolkien, I reread primarily for the asthetics of it, although it's always a pleasant addition to find new interpretations for things you thought were obvious. Martin isn't the only one who leaves clues and has complex plotlines.

Originally Posted by The Mouth of Sauron

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

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a rip-off. Anyway, you might find this thread interesting.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by 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.

A rip-off of what, pray? Certainly not a rip-off of Tolkien. It has about as much in common with it as LotR has with the Ring of the Nibelungs. "Both rings were round," as the Prof himself had said. Heck, GRRM even doesn't have any ring, any Dark Lord, any hope, and any Gandalf, so what exactly is there that is a "rip-off"?

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Anyway, When I look back, I am lost is the only character catchphrase I don't get perpetually annoyed with.

You know nothing...

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by 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.

GRRM and Tolkien can't really be compared. It's like comparing Harry Potter to Twilight. Sure they're both teen fantasy, but beyond that, nothing.

I understand why he's been called "American Tolkien", but I think the title is an insult to both men.

Tolkien, because every time someone with moderate success in the fantasy genre comes along they're going to be called the new Tolkien. The man deserves his praise and publishing houses should stop trying to show us the "new Tolkien" (I know why this happens, but I don't have to agree)

Martin, because he created a world entirely independent of Middle-Earth. No elves, no dwarves (Tyrion Lannister excluded), no half-lings. Men in a man's world recreating history in a fantasy realm. I may not like Martin's characters or his writing, but I am very drawn to the idea of rewriting significant historical events in a world like Westeros. And Martin at least deserves some credit for not bringing in archtypes or themes like Tolkien's, when I've seen countless other authors do just that.

[SofieVandepitte]

As both a fan of Martin and Tolkien, I find it hard to answer this topic.

My first and biggest love will always go out to Tolkien for what he created. His imagination is by far the most impressing one I've encountered in fantasy literature. Martin has also never introduced feelings as grand in me as Tolkien did.

To me, Tolkien's works are painful to the heart, because they're so tragical and utterly sad (Dagor Dagorath always leaves me in tears!). Tolkien's legendarium is far more emotional than Martin's.

But I'm literally fascinated with Martin's world, too. I've never had much trouble with sexism in his books and I am a feminist. To me, his strongest characters are by far women (Daenerys, Melisandre, Cersei, Arya, Sansa), so I don't get the issue there.

Plus, I'm starting to think I'm the only one who profoundly enjoyed reading ADWD. His description of Tyrion's and Daeny's adventures in Essos are deadly interesting; same counts for Jon and his politics at the Wall.

But Martin's world is less emotional to me than Tolkien's is. Westeros and co. is more some sort of study to me, instead of a fantasy tale. It's more realistic; there are, of course, fantasy elements in ASOIAF (dragons, White Walkers), but the whole is less imaginative than Tolkien's world.

In short, I like them both in different ways, even though I still prefer Tolkien.

Whereas Martin's imagination speaks to the mind, Tolkien's speaks to the heart. And I think that's fine.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by SofieVandepitte

I've never had much trouble with sexism in his books and I am a feminist. To me, his strongest characters are by far women (Daenerys, Melisandre, Cersei, Arya, Sansa), so I don't get the issue there.

I'm not overly fond of his offhand treatment of rape, and I find his child brides kind of icky (while far be it from me to deny teenage sexuality, I'm not okay with forced marriages of 14-yeard-olds). Also I often feel that his women characters aren't active agents to the extent that the men are - with the exception of the likes of Arya, who is as tomboyish as it gets.
Still, many of the women are among my favourites, and while I personally don't like the things I mentioned here, they are not nearly enough to put me off the series. I think pretty much the only author whose misogyny has ever made me actually quit his books is Gene Wolfe, and GRRM has a long way to go to reach such depths.

I enjoyed reading ADWD too - but it took me a month (okay partly due to an intense two-week social gathering in the middle), whereas I finished the second and the third book in a matter of days.

Anyway welcome to the Downs!

[SofieVandepitte]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

I'm not overly fond of his offhand treatment of rape, and I find his child brides kind of icky (while far be it from me to deny teenage sexuality, I'm not okay with forced marriages of 14-yeard-olds). Also I often feel that his women characters aren't active agents to the extent that the men are - with the exception of the likes of Arya, who is as tomboyish as it gets.
Still, many of the women are among my favourites, and while I personally don't like the things I mentioned here, they are not nearly enough to put me off the series. I think pretty much the only author whose misogyny has ever made me actually quit his books is Gene Wolfe, and GRRM has a long way to go to reach such depths.

I enjoyed reading ADWD too - but it took me a month (okay partly due to an intense two-week social gathering in the middle), whereas I finished the second and the third book in a matter of days.

Anyway welcome to the Downs!

Yes, the Daenerys/Drogo relationship quite bothered me as well, I must admit. (Is that one of the 'rape' issues you're aiming at?) Rape is, indeed, quite common in his world and I'm certainly not OK with that, but in those grimy war times, it is, alas, not that surprising, sadly.

Yes, that's what I experienced, too! There's so much happening in ADWD, a hell lot of new characters are introduced, it's quite difficult to follow sometimes. I'm a rather quick reader, but ADWD was a long, long read. Nevertheless, it was interesting.

Thank you! I love discussing Tolkien's legendarium and I'm so happy I found this place!

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Also I often feel that his women characters aren't active agents to the extent that the men are - with the exception of the likes of Arya, who is as tomboyish as it gets.

Partially playing devil's advocate here, but I am not entirely sure I agree in the case of Catelyn and Daenerys. Yes, Catelyn was as stupid as a bucket of dead fish but her actions and decisions were the driving force of quite a lot of the things that ended up happening in the story (mostly the bad stuff because, again, she's dumb).

And almost all of Dany's arc is the result of the choices she has made and the direction that she has taken her followers. However, again she is not the sharpest tool in the shed and makes a number of bad choices and her character has not improved over the course of the series. I think a lot of that lack of development reflects Martin's own flaws as a writer.

So, while both these ladies are open to charges of not having enough functioning brain cells, I don't think an accusation of their having a lack of agency is entirely warranted.

[A Little Green]

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.

Of course. But there is a limit to what extent it makes good literature to describe violence in explicit detail. For my part, I think we should definitely not close our eyes from the violence and atrocity in the real world, but there is a fundamental difference between fact and fiction literature. I'd be ready to advocate Jonathan Glover's Humanity as compulsory reading in high schools, but I do not think it is entertainment to read about rape, torture and abuse. Moreover, I do not think it should be. And while Martin may have had lofty goals about criticizing violence and war by showing atrocities in detail (I don't know if he did), most of the time his descriptions of violence come off as if he wrote them that way chiefly for shock value or out of a desire to do something radical and different. As if he wrote that way because he thought it was somehow cool.

There is also the sexism issue Aganzir spoke about - I doubt a female author would get it in her head to write a 14-year-old forced into marriage and raped and then developing an uncomplicated loving relationship with the man soon after.

Violence and sexism aside, I enjoy parts of Martin's books, I don't enjoy others, but I like the HBO series and probably will finish reading the books sometime. But in terms of whether it is better than Tolkien - Martin has great scope and I like the ambiguity, but to me his prose lacks Tolkien's beauty, poise and literary skill. A Song of Ice and Fire makes a good read in its way, but it has none of Tolkien's depth; it doesn't carry meaning that can be applied outside the story itself. It doesn't have Tolkien's deeper themes, or else I haven't found them.