ASOIAF vs LOTR

[Shryke]

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.

Bah, the Silmarillion has as much masterful story telling as a book I can get out of the kids section on Greek Mythology. It's like a more boring version of LOTR, with longer time span and less character development.

[Antares]

Which is better? Warcraft III or Citizen Kane?

LOTR and ASOIAF are barely in the same genre. ASOIAF is like Medieval Fiction with some fantasy elements thrown in. LOTR is meant to be a modern version of the ancient epic poems.

[Damaen]

LOTR isnt even readable. Thats my main issue with it when comparing it with any work of literature of any genre.

[sio]

Song is better, from my point of view.

[Podrick Clegane]

LotR is a case where a philologist and an esteemed professor at Oxford invented some languages and then invented a world with beings who would speak these languages and realized that he also had to invent a history of this world where these beings would speak these languages. Then, within this larger framework, he invented an eschatological epic as the set piece.

Tolkien didn't write these books for commercial success. He didn;t think anyone would be interested in him. They were almost an academic exercise for him.

They will, for the genre, always remain supreme, IMO.

It may be blasphemous to say so but as good as the ASoIaF books are (and they are remarkable) I still reserve them some criticism, first and foremost the serial nature of the chapter settings. Tolkien wrote in larger episodes, sustaining the story over longer periods. Martin writes short chapters each of which are like little stories (fabulae) in themselves, each with a climax and turning point and so on which often (always?) take the reader into an entirely new apprehension of the overall storyline.

My criticism here is entirely subjective. I am not saying this is a defect. I am merely saying that I find it a bit frustrating. The "payoffs" are certainly worth a little frustration and the characters are so finely drawn and "alive" that it all works out for me, but it absolutely drives me nuts sometimes that these characters never seem to get a break, in each chapter they're undergoing some harrowing ordeal...and they don't always get what I think they deserve.

The body-count doesn't bother me as much as I thought it would. I was warned not to get too attached to the principals...

And then...there's the porn...but never mind.

[Guarneri]

Yes, that's extremely subjective criticism.

In itself, harrowing ordeals serve as a writing tool, as one of Martin's main focuses in reading is that people read to find out what happens which is why he uses so many cliffhangers and puts characters into situations that make them suffer, or sets up events long before they occur (Dany landing in Westeros) so that there's so many things awaiting to be seen, that people keep reading to find out what happens.

Yes, they were an academic interest for Tolkien, so what? He published them either way, so it seems fairly obvious to me that he had intended for them to have an audience.

[Podrick Clegane]

Yes, that's extremely subjective criticism.

In itself, harrowing ordeals serve as a writing tool, as one of Martin's main focuses in reading is that people read to find out what happens which is why he uses so many cliffhangers and puts characters into situations that make them suffer, or sets up events long before they occur (Dany landing in Westeros) so that there's so many things awaiting to be seen, that people keep reading to find out what happens.

Sure, but it's not a particularly refined writing tool. It fits better in the comic book or pulp genre than in the epic imaginative fiction genre, and yet, I'll admit, it works. But I am not sure that it would work if I didn't have so much invested in the characters and the milieu.

Don't misunderstand me (and I think you have) I am reading the books and enjoying them but they are to LotR as Tarantino is to Scorsese. Both enjoyable and entertaining, but you'd never confuse Tarantino for "Great Film Making"...or, maybe you would, I don't know.

Yes, they were an academic interest for Tolkien, so what? He published them either way, so it seems fairly obvious to me that he had intended for them to have an audience.

He published them, I believe, because he was asked to by colleagues who believed them worthy of publication. The intended audience, originally, was himself and his children.

[EHK for Darwin]

Most of my points are fairly well covered. I'm generally with Senshou on his Tolkien analysis, but he gets a bit too enthusiastic with it. Like there's some chip on the shoulder/axe to grind. But yeah, weak, uncomplicated characterization, too much moral certainty, bad pacing, incredibly dull stretches, and 100 pages or so in the first book that shouldn't be there.

On the basis of simple readability and enjoyment, there are many modern fantasy works that I'd read before LotR. I'm iffy on whether I'd outright call the second and third films superior to the second and third books. There were some elements of the films that I really didn't like. But the first film/book? Not the slightest bit of competition. The film was leagues better. And it was the only film that didn't have any major, glaring 'fatal flaws' in it. (and the only one that actually got substantially better with the Extended version)

[Guarneri]

Sure, but it's not a particularly refined writing tool. It fits better in the comic book or pulp genre than in the epic imaginative fiction genre, and yet, I'll admit, it works. But I am not sure that it would work if I didn't have so much invested in the characters and the milieu.

Why not? If anything literature is suffering from the lack of this tool of grip, as most of the modern population is, quite simply, dreadfully bored of most novels these days. With limited time in most people's schedule for entertainment, a book needs to take hold, and needs to do it often and quickly. GRRM does this brilliantly.

Don't misunderstand me (and I think you have) I am reading the books and enjoying them but they are to LotR as Tarantino is to Scorsese. Both enjoyable and entertaining, but you'd never confuse Tarantino for "Great Film Making"...or, maybe you would, I don't know.

Oh, yes, I can only hope that authors aspire to the heights of writing that Tolkien achieved. Nothing like horrible streamlining and ridiculously dull pacing to get the day started. And I just absolutely adore having tons of build up for a battle and then scarcely having the battle even described. Oh yes, if only every writer could be like Tolkien.

No, wait, my bad, the fantasy genre would be taking a journey into hell and back.

He published them, I believe, because he was asked to by colleagues who believed them worthy of publication. The intended audience, originally, was himself and his children.

And he agreed to, which then turns his audience from himself, to the public, as the writing is then no longer private.

[Guest]

EnlightenmentHK - I totally agree that the first film was incredible. I loved Fellowship, and then respected, but didn't love the next two. Are you referring to Tom Bomabadill when you say there is about 100 pages that shouldn't be there?

On a separate note, is your Reagan picture out of awe and reverence or mistrust and hatred?

[Podrick Clegane]

Why not? If anything literature is suffering from the lack of this tool of grip, as most of the modern population is, quite simply, dreadfully bored of most novels these days. With limited time in most people's schedule for entertainment, a book needs to take hold, and needs to do it often and quickly. GRRM does this brilliantly.

I guess that makes me a snob because I think the truncating of information and entertainment has been A Bad Thing, not A Good Thing for culture in general.

This may be the core of our disagreement here.

Oh, yes, I can only hope that authors aspire to the heights of writing that Tolkien achieved. Nothing like horrible streamlining and ridiculously dull pacing to get the day started. And I just absolutely adore having tons of build up for a battle and then scarcely having the battle even described. Oh yes, if only every writer could be like Tolkien.

Okay, so, you do prefer Tarantino to Scorsese. Lot's of flickering lights and loud explosions set against a rockin' soundtrack and all resolved in 22 minutes to keep your interest? Otherwise you'd fall asleep?

I'm sorry, to me that's just kinda, well, sad really.

And he agreed to, which then turns his audience from himself, to the public, as the writing is then no longer private.

Hang on, let me check to see if I said or implied that the books were published without his knowledge or against his will.

Nope.

I didn't. Here's my point since you seem to have missed it (I probably was too long winded and your ADD kicked in), LotR was written for different reasons than ASoIaF, not necessarily better reasons, different reasons, but reasons which nonetheless had a radical effect on the outcome of the work given the intention of the author.

[Guarneri]

I guess that makes me a snob because I think the truncating of information and entertainment has been A Bad Thing, not A Good Thing for culture in general.

It's not necessarily truncating, it's stream-lining so that the same information and plotting, characterization, whatnot, is there just with everything else unessential removed.

Are you familiar with poetry, at all? It's a wonderful example of providing just enough to evoke the clear, vivid image that you want to conjure, without the use of extra words, that while may serve to add details to the images, often bog it down and cause more negatives than the details are worth.

Okay, so, you do prefer Tarantino to Scorsese. Lot's of flickering lights and loud explosions set against a rockin' soundtrack and all resolved in 22 minutes to keep your interest? Otherwise you'd fall asleep?

I'm sorry, to me that's just kinda, well, sad really.

Only movie of his I've seen was Gangs of New York, and while it wasn't a poor movie I don't remember it being anything spectacular by any means. And actually none of my movies have 'flickering lights' or 'explosions' so thanks, but try again.

Hang on, let me check to see if I said or implied that the books were published without his knowledge or against his will.

Nope.

Hang on, let me check to see if I had said the books were published without his knowledge or against his will.

Ding. Nope.

Reading comprehension is marvelous. I said that once he agreed to publish his books, his audience then became public. Unfortunately I can't pass this misunderstanding off to ADD, though there are other mental disorders that may fit the bill. Regardless, we're discussing the books, please refrain from unsubstantiated insults.

I understand that the two novels were written with different motivations, I just fail to see what your purpose is. Are you suggesting that the quality of a work must be solely based upon who the author writes it for, and thus elevated out of the level of criticism? If an author writes SOLELY for himself, in that it's only written for HIS enjoyment, then perhaps the book should be judged on whether or not it fills that need. However, once the audience becomes someone other than the author, that no longer matters.

[Podrick Clegane]

Senshou,

I need to beg your pardon.

I was the first one to make this discussion "personal" using ad hominem to do so. I shouldn't have.

Can we just call it a disagreement over subjective assessment and preference and part amicably?

[Guarneri]

No worries.

But you have touched upon a trickier subject that applies to literature in general: when we judge a book, do we judge it in regards to if it fills the author's intent, or do we judge it based upon if it fills OUR needs?

Do we judge it based upon universal principles, or based upon how many people feel similar about it?

Etc, etc. Would make for an interesting topic in itself.

[EHK for Darwin]

Senshou, I was on your side. But if the only Scorcese film you've seen is Gangs of New York, you should never comment about films. And I'm not sure if you made the Scorcese/Tarrantino comparison or if someone else made it for you, but its not even a competition. One is a film-making genius responsible for a number of the greatest works of all time and the other put out an innovative title or two than got an attack of ego/never-edit-itis.

Are you referring to Tom Bomabadill when you say there is about 100 pages that shouldn't be there?

The one the only. I don't care that it potentially started as a kids novel compliment to The Hobbit. It was unforgivable for that character not to be on the cutting room floor.

On a separate note, is your Reagan picture out of awe and reverence or mistrust and hatred?

I came to this board 8 years ago or so as a foaming at the mouth, hardcore conservative/Young republican. Reagan was a god back than. I still have a soft spot for the guy (it helps that I was 8 when he left office I'm sure) and keep the icon up for nostalgia/tradition's sake.

[Shryke]

I agree about the first film too. I was CRAZY excited about the trilogy afte the first film, and that kinda died after the next 2.

Everytime I rewatch them, after the first film, I'm like "Yeah, this series is awesome!" and then my enjoyment dims as it goes on and by the end I just think "It's pretty good, but man I couldn't watch that again for like a year".

[Guarneri]

Senshou, I was on your side. But if the only Scorcese film you've seen is Gangs of New York, you should never comment about films. And I'm not sure if you made the Scorcese/Tarrantino comparison or if someone else made it for you, but its not even a competition. One is a film-making genius responsible for a number of the greatest works of all time and the other put out an innovative title or two than got an attack of ego/never-edit-itis.

I didn't make the comparison, and I wouldn't dare comment on his skill since I haven't seen more than one movie. Not enough to base an opinion on. Name what you think his best are and I'll try and watch them next time I am feeling too lazy to do much more than watch movies, though.

[Fanatic-Templar]

As far as I'm concerned, The Lord of the Rings is far better. A Song of Ice and Fire feels like it hinges on breaking stereotypes and shock value. That is, it is a reaction to a far better work, namely The Lord of the Rings. Once the novelty of it wears off, ASoIaF remains good, but it's not a pleasure in the way that Tolkien's work is. I can honestly say that I can open The Lord of the Rings at any page and enjoy the read. It's simply good writing quality.

Not that I expect this view to be very popular on this board. I remember a similar situation on Wotmania where people were convinced The Wheel of Time was better than The Lord of the Rings.

[Werthead]

Tolkien didn't write these books for commercial success. He didn;t think anyone would be interested in him. They were almost an academic exercise for him.

Incorrect. The Hobbit was written for his children and published by chance after one of Tolkien's students saw the MS at his house and told a friend who worked for Unwin-Allen. The Lord of the Rings was written as a sequel to The Hobbit and Unwin agreed to publish it before Tolkien had written a single word of it.

The film was leagues better. And it was the only film that didn't have any major, glaring 'fatal flaws' in it. (and the only one that actually got substantially better with the Extended version)

I think the cinematic version of The Two Towers is intrinsically flawed and has a leaden pace. Bizarrely, the Extended Edition (40 mins longer) feels shorter and a lot more watchable, so I'd rank that as the film most improved by its extended cut. The Return of the King is actually weakened by the Extended Edition (bizarrely Jackson says on the commentary that he put some scenes back in just because they were 'cool' even when he'd removed them from the cinematic cut for disrupting the pace of the movie or, in the case of the Corsairs scene, being self-indulgent BS of the highest order).

Agreed that Fellowship is the best movie in the trilogy by miles though.

As for the comparison:

Lord of the Rings has a much more interesting mythology. A Song of Ice and Fire has a much more convincing history.

ASoIaF has deeper, conflicted and more complex characters. Lord of the Rings uses archetypes, but uses them well.

There is a fascinating psychological angle to Rings, with the Ring exposing character flaws or showing strengths. ASoIaF is obviously much more nuanced in its characterisation throughout, but lacks this device. A draw?

The geography of Middle-earth is much more interestingly described, but the lands feel empty and devoid of life until you get to Minas Tirith or Edoras. Westeros feels much more alive and vital throughout.

Both do very good battles, but Tolkien tends to skip the details. GRRM nudges him on this score.

GRRM obviously wins out massively on his depiction of religion and in particular in his use of faith. Tolkien has the gods as totally real, everyone accepts them (Galadriel chatted to them regularly in her youth, Elrond saw them in the War of Wrath) and religion hence doesn't need to exist.

Both handle women reasonably well (considering their alleged lesser role in the medieval period) but Tolkien doesn't have very many of them in key roles. GRRM is ahead of the game again here.

The Lord of the Rings is more concise and you can read it in a few days. Obviously ASoIaF is bigger and more sprawling, which is a weakness as well as a strength.

[Astra]

Didn't like LotR movies. Well, they are nice movies and The Fellowship of the Ring is the best of them but overall...just movies. The book is so much better that I would not even beging to compare them.