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

[Rhod the Red]

Medieval times WERE dismal. And since we're talking
about a period after peacetime, in a Medieval war,
why would you expect much happiness as opposed
to cruelty, betrayal and suffering?

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

Personally, I started reading Game of Thrones, and the plot wasn't bad, but it was half adultery and half violence. So, no. I couldn't finish it because it was too heavy with the details, both sexually and gory. Oh, and the incest was DISGUSTING. Who the heck sleeps with his or her TWIN?

[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.

[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.)

[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.