ASOIAF vs LOTR

[Antares]

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

The sex scenes in ASOIAF scare me.

[The Marquis de Leech]

For goodness sake, trying to stick Tolkien and Martin together to see who is "better" is like trying to compare Homer and Shakespeare. Apples and oranges and all that.

(Though, just to answer the accusations that Tolkien was stealing from mythology, one could just as easily argue that Martin steals from history. The Wars of the Roses, anyone?).

[JarnJarna]

Well the only answer I can see is that they are both different. They have each their strengths and weaknesses and they are very different in feel and story. But some in some areas they are comparable the characterization is far deeper in aSoIaF and they are one of the primary reasons I like the books, but Tolkiens characters in many ways fit the feel of the story. But in world building I must say I like better how is is done in LOTR. This is because even if the world seam empty and with out life in to much of the world they feel like someplace real. They are not to big and not far to large for life as I frequently experience in Martins work.

I mean a high medieval world as polpulus as china and twice the size would've had no problems feeding Kings Landing, and travel from north to south would take a year. And the numbers of noble houses with armies of 10000 or more would be in the 100s.

So yea maybe the focus of the work lessens my joy of the work, but to me they both seam unrealistic and such its all down to comparing apples and oranges. And as such I still must say a enjoy LOTR best.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aryeztur,

LOTR movies were actually a major improvement on the books.

Bite your tongue! Elves magically appearing at Helm's Deep who then get slaughtered to a man? OOOOooooooo I know lets send a flimsy line line of cavalry to attack intrenched forces in a wasteful suicidal attack instead of showing what really happend, the battle of the causeway forts. Then the attack of the green misty ghosts saves the day at the battle of the Pelennor Fields? Thank God someone had a moment of sanity and decided not to go with a final dual between Aragorn and Sauron.

[EHK for Darwin]

You'll notice scott that all of those criticisms come from the less well received second and third films. The first film however was a drastic improvement over the first book.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EHK,

Fellowship was a good movie. However, I'm a purist. I hated the stair falling episode in Moria. I really hated the Galadrial freek out. I never pictured it as that over the top when I read that scene in the book. The movie, while good, lacked a certian subtlty Tolkien was able to bring to his work.

[Artas]

You'll notice scott that all of those criticisms come from the less well received second and third films.

The second and third films were less well received? By whom?

[McCracken]

by me

[salinea]

by me

me, too. :|

[Red Sun]

I liked TTT, the extended edition, best.

Re the topic, I like them both, for different reasons. I like LOTR as a classic of the genre and as the myths of a certain time. I also think that the writing is more literary, and by this I mean the narrative is a weaving of words and not simply an instrument to creat a visual scenery. GRRM writes for an audience that is highly influenced by visual storytelling, I like this, but at times, I prefer just reading book in which words themselves are important and not just a means for the scenery.

Regarding the lack of character depth, I would not tell it "character depth", but "character development". The core of the characters in LOTR is already present when they first arrive on scene, except for Merry and Pippin who go through a coming of age story. I think that Tolkien wanted to create "archetypical" characters, and I think he only half succeeded in that, because even Norse Gods have character development in the myths.

Regarding GRRM, I read him almost as a historical novel, because he creates more realistic medieval characters than many authors of so-called historical novels. I think that his ability to show conflicting traits in one person and to create ambivalence is his biggest strength.

[Werthead]

The second and third films were less well received? By whom?

Pretty much everyone I've ever spoken to. The general feeling is that TTT loses out on not having the confrontation with Saruman, with Aragorn's pointless solo adventure and all the Arwen/Elrond gumpf which is just mesmerisingly dull, whilst RotK loses out for not having the Scouring (understandable from a timekeeping POV but it is thematically vital to the story) and for having Slimer and his buddies save the day at Minas Tirith, undermining the spirit and self-sacrifice of the humans and rendering the final act nonsensical (there is absolutely no reason whatsoever given why the Army of the Dead can't just go and kick the shit out of the orcs at the Morannon as well). Both TTT and RotK suffer from turning Legolas into a skater boi punk hero and Gimli into a walking cliche.

FotR doesn't have any of these problems, drops what needs dropping and its new inclusions make sense. Not to say that TTT and RotK aren't great films, merely that they are undermined by irritating flaws to a far greater extent than FotR.

[Shryke]

The Scouring of the Shire is close behind Tom Bombadil in being "best thing to cut for the translation". I was prepared to be very bored the first time I saw ROTK and was pleasently surprised.

Agree about that ghosts at the Pelenorr fields though. You gotta know the Rohan guys are thinking "WTF? Why are we even here? I could be wenching right now!"

[Aryeztur]

Perhaps you all should then see the extended versions so as to get the full story.

One thing the movies improved on were female characters that barely showed up in books.

[Tears of Lys]

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.

For goodness sake, trying to stick Tolkien and Martin together to see who is "better" is like trying to compare Homer and Shakespeare. Apples and oranges and all that.

(Though, just to answer the accusations that Tolkien was stealing from mythology, one could just as easily argue that Martin steals from history. The Wars of the Roses, anyone?).

'nuff said.

[add-on]

Perhaps you all should then see the extended versions so as to get the full story.

One thing the movies improved on were female characters that barely showed up in books.

lol. Dude, this is a site full of geeks. We've all seen the extended versions.

[EHK for Darwin]

Perhaps you all should then see the extended versions so as to get the full story.

One thing the movies improved on were female characters that barely showed up in books.

Everyone here has most likely seen the extended versions. The extra 'female' play, particularly Eowyn's came off as little more than awkward in tTT. It was properly cut. Any extended Aerosmith's daughter dream sequences (can't recall if there were more in the EE or not) likewise would not be missed.

The theatrical release of Fellowship was awesome. The EE was even better. Not a single one of the clips was a negative to the film. (can't say the same for some of the additions in the last two EE's. Not all, but some.) As for the films themselves, I generally agree with Wert. Both tTT and RotK just had some glaring fatal flaws that detracted from what were otherwise very good films.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RotK EE skull avalanche. What the hell was up with that? It added nothing to the story and looked incredibly cheesy.

[Multaniette]

I'd agree with Roose but all this tolkien bashing is pissing me off so aSoIaF isn't fit to lace LOTR's boots...

[Brude]

Tolkein is generally more literary than GRRM, though GRRM has his moments, in my opinion. GRRM does one thing, at least, far, far better than does Tolkein, and that is characterization. This is perhaps Tolkein's one great deficiency as a writer, though Gollum/Smeagol almost makes up for that failing all on his own. But beyond that, his characters are mostly just types - or at best archetypes. In that sense, perhaps the story runs closer to myth than does ASoIaF, and Tolkein was consciously trying to write a new mythic history for England. Even so, I don't know that Tolkein's characters would have been any better even if he was free of this conceit. With GRRM we have a very clear feeling of the psychology underlying characters' motives. And when we have a character that seems like a mere type (i.e. Jamie as the cruel villain), we usually find out that there are many more layers to them than just that.

In terms of descriptive power and scene setting, Tolkein edges GRRM, but GRRM is very, very strong in this regard, as well. Tolkein does a better job of creating a deep feeling of great age to his world than does Martin. It's something he does very subtly in his language, especially with descriptions of places. The sense of this in GRRM's world isn't quite so strong - a bit more described and a little less felt. To be fair to GRRM, though, I think that Tolkein does this better than any other writer I've ever read.

[Crates of Thebes]

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

I hope this doesn't sound too snarky, but do you also find The Illiad and The Odyssey or The Aeneid unreadable? C'mon man - it's the greatest modern Romance. It's epic. It's not supposed to be "easy" to read.

I love ASoIaF, but Martin can't hold a candle to Tolkien when it comes to getting to the heart of the human experience.