ASOIAF vs LOTR

[Aryeztur]

Almost everyone here agrees that ASOIAF is the supreme fantasy, as do I. No other fantasy has ever challenged this view of mine, except LOTR because it started everything. So in terms of legacy, storyline, everything, which is the more important and better, LOTR or ASOIAF?

[AverageGuy]

More important: Probably LOTR. Better: Subjective, but I prefer ASOIAF.

[Lies And Perfidy]

LOTR is infinitely more important to the genre of speculative fiction than any modern work before or since.

As for "better," I can't compare them because ASOIAF is a series of novels and LOTR is a history of a place that never was. The goals and styles are completely different.

[salinea]

LotR is more important, in terms of history and legacy.

ASOIAF is better, in term of storyline and characterization.

In terms of depth, I'd wait for ASOIAF to be over, but I'd also probably give it to ASOIAF.

In terms of originality and worldbuilding, I'd give it to LoTR, but narrowly.

[Guarneri]

LoTR is perhaps famous for inspiration, but in itself I have always considered it rather pathetic.

None of the ideas I have seen are original, as the personalities and natures he gives to Elves, and Dwarves, are nearly directly ripped from Norse mythology. Hell, even orcs were present as monsters centuries before Tolkein wrote LoTR.

Basically, what it seems to me he's famous for is that many people borrowed the ideas of elves, orcs, dwarves, etc, from him, yet he also stole them from mythology and fairy tale, so I can't contribute him with any originality whatsoever in those fields. His characters are pitiful 2-d cardboard cutouts, which seem to be used merely to display settings or ideas, and the plotting is ridiculously dull for most people, as the book reads like a travelogue.

His history and languages are very rich, however, yet I question whether or not that is enough to make up with awful characterization, plotting, and a lack of depth in regards to intrigue, politics, or philosophy. It truly seems a matter of perspective, as many people read LoTR before fantasy took off as a genre, so without much fantasy to compare it to, it perhaps got a glowing review in their mind.

[Larry.]

Thanks for speaking for me despite A) Not thinking that SOIAF is the "supreme" in fantasy and making me feel left out with that "almost"

I have no real desire to debate the merits of either, since they are different. I prefer reading LotR, however. My persistent headache, however, is going to lead me away from here now, though. Ciao.

[Crates of Thebes]

Read Tom Shippey's J.R.R.: Author of the Century. After reading it, I think you'll be convinced that LotR is not only one of the most important fantasy novels ever written, but also one of the greatest pieces of literature ever written. No lie, I think it deserves to be up there with The Iliad and the like.

[G'Kar]

It almost seems blasphemous to the fantasy genre but after reading ASOFAI, I find LOTR boring. The characters seem flat and not complicated. And I used to love LOTR.

[Guarneri]

In terms of originality and worldbuilding, I'd give it to LoTR, but narrowly.

In terms of history LoTR definitely goes beyond SoIF, but I've never understood when people say LoTR has mesmerizing worldbuilding or originality. What originality? If I wrote a novel that took the creatures from Egyptian myths, and didn't even bother to change their personalities and cultural types from the original myths, I'd scarce dare to call it originality. And LoTR to me, has always seemed to lack worldbuilding in many respects. Yes, the history and languages are extremely detailed, yet history is merely a part of worldbuilding and the things that define a society or culture. One of the things I've particularly found LoTR to be under-developed, is when it comes to religion.

Edit: my fingers like to mess with the tenses of words

[salinea]

In terms of history LoTR definitely goes beyond SoIF, but I've never understood when people say LoTR has mesmerizing worldbuilding or originality. What originality? If I wrote a novel that took the creatures from Egyptian myths, and didn't even bother to change their personalities and cultural types from the original myths, I'd scarce dare to call it originality. And LoTR to me, has always seemed to lack worldbuilding in many respects. Yes, the history and languages are extremely detailed, yet history is merely a part of worldbuilding and the things that define a society or culture. One of the things I've particularly found LoTR to be under-developed, is when it comes to religion.

Edit: my fingers like to mess with the tenses of words

ASOIAF is realistic when it comes to its History. LotR goes with a mythological approach. I don't think you can disclaim that LotR has a truly deep History and worldbuilding elements. Yes, it borrowed a lot, but the way it mixed those borrowed mythological elements is truely unique. Nothing existed like LotR when it went out, that's why it so deeply impressed on the genre. Then there's the whole linguistic aspect, which nobody can really compete with.

ASOIAF on the other hand has a very decent worldbuilding in term of how evocative it is and how consistent it is, but isn't original at all. The one big idea is the seasons lasting years. That's it. Otherwise it's your cookie cutter medieval setting with some exotic lands around. It's an extremely well made cookie cutter medieval setting, but that doesn't make it a breakthrough in the genre.

[Guarneri]

ASOIAF is realistic when it comes to its History. LotR goes with a mythological approach. I don't think you can disclaim that LotR has a truly deep History and worldbuilding elements. Yes, it borrowed a lot, but the way it mixed those borrowed mythological elements is truely unique. Nothing existed like LotR when it went out, that's why it so deeply impressed on the genre. Then there's the whole linguistic aspect, which nobody can really compete with.

Nothing existing at that time somehow improves the quality? When I see cave-drawings I think, "well, that's interesting for the time" yet I'd never dare say that it was more well done than masterpieces produced during the Romantic Movement, for example.

At the time it was perhaps revolutionary for what it was, yet looking back and comparing it to what the genre can now offer...meh, piece of crap, in my blunt opinion.

Either way I don't see how he mixed mythological elements in unique fashion? Me grabbing the sirens and sphinxes from a mythology, and then throwing it into a world with a different name, does not, in my opinion, warrant originalization. Minor alteration at best.

ASOIAF on the other hand has a very decent worldbuilding in term of how evocative it is and how consistent it is, but isn't original at all. The one big idea is the seasons lasting years. That's it. Otherwise it's your cookie cutter medieval setting with some exotic lands around. It's an extremely well made cookie cutter medieval setting, but that doesn't make it a breakthrough in the genre.

SoIF isn't by any means a break-through for the genre, I agree, I am just saying Tolkein didn't have any ground-breaking ideas either, as he took most things straight from mythology. The idea of creating languages and histories for fiction had been done before him. And regardless of ground-breaking-ness, I believe SoIF has more elements of worldbuilding. One would have to, of course, go through both though and do an extensive list of each individual piece of worldbuilding, to have an accurate judge of which has more.

[Guest]

It almost seems blasphemous to the fantasy genre but after reading ASOFAI, I find LOTR boring. The characters seem flat and not complicated. And I used to love LOTR.

I totally agree. Maybe boring isn't the right word, but I just see it in a different light. The bad guys are bad because they are bad, and nothing more. There is just so much less complexity. That's what I love about ASOIAF. I still think LOTR is very impressive for reasons already stated. It just doesn't hold nearly as much personal intrigue for me any more. By the way, someone should do a study to see if having the middle initials "R.R." makes you more likely to become a succesful fantasy writer.

[salinea]

Nothing existing at that time somehow improves the quality?

It improves the originality. And originality is important to judge the ideas that go into worldbuilding.

When I see cave-drawings I think, "well, that's interesting for the time" yet I'd never dare say that it was more well done than masterpieces produced during the Romantic Movement, for example.

When you see the first paitings that made up perspective, do you think it doesn't have values because now it's something very common to see?

At the time it was perhaps revolutionary for what it was, yet looking back and comparing it to what the genre can now offer...meh, piece of crap, in my blunt opinion.

Either way I don't see how he mixed mythological elements in unique fashion? Me grabbing the sirens and sphinxes from a mythology, and then throwing it into a world with a different name, does not, in my opinion, warrant originalization. Minor alteration at best.

To me it looks unique. Nobody had the idea to use Norse mythology and others like he did before.

It's inspired by those myths, but it doesn't give the same feeling.

It's a new unique whole.

And regardless of ground-breaking-ness, I believe SoIF has more elements of worldbuilding. One would have to, of course, go through both though and do an extensive list of each individual piece of worldbuilding, to have an accurate judge of which has more.

In quantity? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure that matters

[Guarneri]

It improves the originality. And originality is important to judge the ideas that go into worldbuilding.

Originality in the sense that there wasn't much of a genre of fantasy at the time, yes.

The ideas in the book itself were not, however, original.

Even so, there were works of fantasy before Tolkein, and it existed as a genre. Movies like Thief of Bagdad, Wizard of Oz, Die Nibelungen.

Oz was the first constucted world, as far as I know.

When you see the first paitings that made up perspective, do you think it doesn't have values because now it's something very common to see?

I think it doesn't hold much value not because things like Elves, Dwarves, etc, are common to see, but because in many elements of the writing Tolkein is out-done.

To me it looks unique. Nobody had the idea to use Norse mythology and others like he did before

It's inspired by those myths, but it doesn't give the same feeling.

It's a new unique whole.

It isn't a new unique whole, as it's just ripping other ideas and transplanting them into a new world. What's so amazing about

In quantity? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure that matters

Ah, and what matters, the originality of it? I don't see SoIF having direct, blatant rip-offs from mythologies, to the point where he doesn't even change the names or personalitis of the beings. Even SoIF's government structures have more variation from their real life influences than Tolkein's did.

[Shryke]

It almost seems blasphemous to the fantasy genre but after reading ASOFAI, I find LOTR boring. The characters seem flat and not complicated. And I used to love LOTR.

Same for me, minus the part where I ever thought it was good. I thought LOTR was boring and dry and dull and plodding and so on from the first time I read it back when I was 15.

[salinea]

Look, if you want to say that LotR is overhyped, I'll willingly agree. The writing can be quite dull, and while I wouldn't call the characterization bad as such, some of them are weak. The pacing is just terrible and my favourite part is the retourn to the Shire because it's such a dreadful mess of it. Let's not get into the morality.

If we're talking about significance in the genre, however, you have to recognize it's got some unique qualities.

You keep on harping on the thief of mythological elements. Big deal. All stories steal from dizens of influences. Most of them more than Tolkien did, really. Get over it.

[Shryke]

I'd agree that it's important because it basically kick-started the genre. I think WOT though gets a place up near there for paving the way for Modern Epic Fantasy.

But honestly, I don't think the books themselves are that good.

[Guarneri]

It is a big deal to directly steal ideas if we're talking about LoTR's originality. If he had perhaps, you know, actually changed them it would be one thing. It's impossible to not 'steal' from influences, when the human mind creates through alteration, and can only create it's own tools of sculpting through the inspirations that other things present to it.

I don't think it's terrible that he ripped off myths, but if you're going to claim the book was original it presents a big problem.

If you're going to say it was original in that it was among the first created worlds, yes, it was original at the time because besides Oz there weren't too many invented worlds before it (written ones, at least, imagination and fancy have always been involved in human psychology, naturally). So I agree on that front.

Did it inspire many people to go, "Hey, I can write my own world and write something in that setting!"? To be sure it did, but to me that doesn't really affect its quality.

[Nex]

ASOIAF > *

LOTR aka Epic Pooh is more important, but that still doesn't save it from being mediocre book.

I prefer reading LotR, however.

That's surprising considering your support for M.J.H.'s essays.

[Aryeztur]

It almost seems blasphemous to the fantasy genre but after reading ASOFAI, I find LOTR boring. The characters seem flat and not complicated. And I used to love LOTR.

Exactly my problem. I don't want to seem a heretic. LOTR is mostly good for inspiration, that's all. LOTR movies were actually a major improvement on the books. However, the Silmarillion by Tolkien is a masterful book, excellent storyline there.