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

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Also he has been working on this series for decades now. Over the course of that time he has changed as a person and as a writer, and as a writer in my opinion he has gained skill in creating detail and lost greatly in plot advancement.

This seems to be a condition which afflicts so many Fantasy authors, terminally in the case of Robert Jordan, with his series finished by Brandon Sanderson - and his massive The Way of Kings is meant to be the first in a ten-volume series! Why? Why do they have to be so long? I also think it has the unfortunate side effect of making Fantasy look less 'credible' because the long series' look more 'commercial', whether they are or not, but I confess to being skeptical that a lot of these series' really need to be longer than À la recherche du temps perdu or something of its ilk. At the risk of generalisation most modern genre fiction across various media seems in my mind to be concerned primarily with the two As, Action and Angst, and I'm rarely convinced that what they have to say cannot be expressed without a series of numerous thousand-page volumes.

I apologise if this comes across as curmudgeonly, but it's something that puts me off most modern Fantasy, with authors churning out book after book, usually into an enormous series or two, to little apparent purpose - apart from making a living, of course, but I find it curious that readers are content with reading more and more of the same matter as well. I think verbal diarrhea is something which many Fantasy authors struggle with, and I do believe that one of the strengths of The Lord of the Rings is that despite the nature of its publication it is fundamentally one long book written across a decade (and then some). I think the tension between Professor Tolkien's prolixity and his perfectionism is an interesting one: without the former, there might be no Unfinished Tales or History of Middle-earth and without the latter there might be a truly definitive Silmarillion - but it wouldn't really be Tolkien without both elements, would it?

Having just read Volsungasaga, which has all that juicy incest and murder which Martin and his peers love, but is much more brief, I think there's a curious disparity between this idea that a Fantasy, in the vein of its traditional literary forebears (sagas, heroics, epics and the like), must be grandiose, and the fact that this was traditionally, in some cases at least, accomplished in a much more concise form.

I am, however, reminded of Professor Tolkien's own remark in the Foreweord to the Second Edition of The Lord of the Rings: that of any deficiencies in the text, he would "pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short."
On the one hand I feel as if I agree with him; I feel as if the momentous events surrounding the Fall of Sauron, diabolus of the later Ages, are far too significant to primarily take place over the brief six months in which the major action of the story takes place, that the War of the Rings has too few battles, and that events generally move too swiftly: this may be what he meant. If he meant that it needed more detail, or characterisation or what have you I can appreciate this as well. On the other hand, however, I'm not convinced that these things were necessary, and that the relative brevity of the book works in its favour especially in terms of overall subtlety and pacing, especially in comparison to your average modern-day Fantasy colossus.