LotR vs. ASoIaF, which novel series do you prefer?

[lojzelote]

There was a time I used LotR to get rid off insomnia during the nights. I've been cured very quickly (never got beyond the 150th page).

The fact speaks for itself.

[Caesar Augustus]

Depends what mood I'm in and the time of year etc.

However I don't think anything can beat Lotr,

[DraculaAD1972]

In his essay 'Starship Stormtroopers' , fantasy author Michael Moorcock identifies Tolkien as a fascist writer. He says LOTR is typical sword and sorcery, inherently conservative. No way can that be said of ASOIAF.

[mrunderhill]

In his essay 'Starship Stormtroopers' , fantasy author Michael Moorcock identifies Tolkien as a fascist writer. He says LOTR is typical sword and sorcery, inherently conservative. No way can that be said of ASOIAF.

I don't agree Tolkien was fascist in anyway. He held conservative and would be classed as nationalist, but what has a story being conservative got to do with it's quality?

[DraculaAD1972]

I don't agree Tolkien was fascist in anyway. He held conservative and would be classed as nationalist, but what has a story being conservative got to do with it's quality?

I think Moorcock's point is that fantasy fiction is inherently fascist - he also names and shames Star Wars - and I love the original Star Wars so that annoyed me. He sees most fantasy authors as 'failed Hitlers', this is because he's an anarchist who interprets the genre politically. I think he'd approve of ASOIAF.

[Er Rn]

I love ASoIaF, but for me it'll always be LotR. I could spend hours reading the appendices alone. And yes, the Silmarillion is awesome as well.

[mrunderhill]

I think Moorcock's point is that fantasy fiction is inherently fascist - he also names and shames Star Wars - and I love the original Star Wars so that annoyed me. He sees most fantasy authors as 'failed Hitlers', this is because he's an anarchist who interprets the genre politically. I think he'd approve of ASOIAF.

Strange since I think if anyone is fascist in Star Wars it is the empire named as evil in the opening prologue. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if he is an anarchist I can see why he would not like a book he considers as fascist, but that does not make a fascist story better than an anarchist one.

ASOIAF I suppose has chaotic style, in that it jumps to different stories, different points of view. Using several points of view in itself suggest there is no ONE truth, but I think the end of the story will reveal more about what kind of story it is.

[Browncoat]

Tolkien put more effort into describing cultures and languages and history, whereas Martin focuses more on fleshing out and motivating his characters. This isn't to say that Martin skimps on world building or that Tolkien's characters are all one-dimensional cartoons, but they are different writers and as such will place focus on different aspects of their story. (Martin's right: Gandalf should have stayed dead.) I'll always respond more to the character focus, but I know some people who prefer impeccably detailed worlds and cultures. I prefer Martin's focus on giving his characters clear, sympathetic reasons for taking actions and making the consequences for those actions important and dramatic.

[DraculaAD1972]

Strange since I think if anyone is fascist in Star Wars it is the empire named as evil in the opening prologue.

The Star Wars thing confused me for same reason, Moorcock's line is " May the Force never come knocking on you door at 3am" lol. He mentions the heroes getting their medals from the princess at the end - this provoked him as he is anti authority especially royalty. I think Moorcock's Elric novels are bigger influence on ASOIAF than LOTR.

[Bad Hound!]

The question is rather like setting up a Homer v. Shakespeare comparison: you are dealing with two very different authors, with very different backgrounds and values, trying to achieve very different results.

ASOIAF is a series of novels. It explores characters, tries to make them realistic and complex, and is founded on a very secular worldview. In some ways it is almost a medieval-flavoured soap opera, what with Martin's background writing for TV.

LOTR is not a novel. The novel is an eighteenth century invention, whereas LOTR hearks back to the more ancient form of the epic. Characterisation is not part of the epic tradition, and is not what Tolkien was aiming for. He was trying to explore mythic and cosmic themes of the nature of evil, the transience of existence, the nature of courage, and so on, and do it in a setting that was, by necessity, 'larger than life'.

<snip>

I agree. You could almost compare LOTR to the Icelandic sagas. It is not meant to be realistic or describe day-to-day life and interactions.

I love LOTR and have re-read it many times, but it is in a different category from ASOIAF.

[eggs]

you can't really compare them tbh, totally different. the only thing they have in common is dragons.

and silly mortal men doomed to die.

[thenedstark]

As for the political leanings of Tolkien that some of the earlier posters have mentioned, it seems he was in no way a fascist or even a traditional conservative, but a "distributist". His imagining of the Shire appears to follow the distributist principles which were inspired by Catholic social teaching. Also, he did condemn any attempts by Nazis at assimilating his work. Remember he lived through both the World Wars and was deeply affected by them.

To me, GRRM's world seems far more historical and I can believe that, his world resembles some form of authentic feudalism (though it is not clear if it resembles the feudalism of the ancient or early/high/late medieval eras exactly). Needless to say, Tolkien's world is also basically feudal. However, Tolkien was more interested in basing his tales on the pre-existing European mythologies (Norse/Anglosaxon/Celtic), while GRRM seems more historically inclined.

Finally, to take another stab at literary comparison, LotR/Silmarillion lacks any POV characters like ASoiaF and so we rely too much on the "voice of the omniscient author" all the way, which can get boring sometimes. This is why to me, ASoiaF has the potential to hold the interest and curiosity of the reader more because of the innumerable POVs.

[Not a kneeler]

I read LotR when I was young and loved it and still do, but I was a different person then and tended to view the world in black and white. Now that I am older and learned that things are very rarely so simple I prefer SoIaF because of the complexity of its charactres. For both of them I give strong points on geographical settings. I love the maps in both and tracking the journeys and change of local. Loved the backstory in Rings and mean to read the Egg and Dunk stories when George gets around to publishing the collected volume.

Both series can take us beyond our selves, challenge our imagination and stretch our characters. They both do what great literature should.

Once again, apologies for the limitations caused by eye surgery.

[BeWareOfMyHouse]

I'm a firm believer that the best book series are the ones that appeal to just about everyone. I read LoTR when I was a freshman in high school, and later The Hobbit when I was a freshman in college. They're wonderful books for sure, but in my opinion, ASoIAF is the greatest fantasy series ever. Period.

I grew up with Harry Potter. For most of my childhood, I thought THAT was the best book series ever. I still maintain that it's rightful spot is probably in the No. 3 slot, behind LoTR and ASOIAF. In 20 years, something ELSE will probably come along and unseat GRRM's work. Who the Hell knows?

[thenedstark]

Harry Potter is a different dish altogether! :leer:

[gash]

harry potter? oh dear.

[The Blue Knight]

In his essay 'Starship Stormtroopers' , fantasy author Michael Moorcock identifies Tolkien as a fascist writer. He says LOTR is typical sword and sorcery, inherently conservative. No way can that be said of ASOIAF.

In my opinion Tolkein was one of the first writers in the "Sword and Sorcery" genre, so I don't believe it is fair for Michael Moorcock to judge him this way. Tolkein is in no way a fascist writer, even in a stretched metaphorical sense of the word.

Tolkein invented modern fantasy, but as stated before in this thread, he was greatly influenced by old Icelandic epics, and created a world that George RR Martin's can't even compare to. Neither are his books boring to read for me, evoking a more romantic sense then ASOIAF.

However, I don't believe GRRM was aiming for this sort of world. With LOTR, Hobbit, Silmarillion, etc. you feel a great pompous spirit of insight in your heart. In ASOIAF, the darkness and harshness stirs up a different sort of insight altogether. GRRM in my opinion clearly trumps Tolkein in writing novels that are simply easier to captivate with and obsess on. Also, GRRM creates simply great and beautiful imagery.

The bottom line is, they cannot be compared...at all.

[Leothwyn]

I love LOTR... mainly for what it meant to me as a teen. Now that I'm older there's still a lot that I appreciate about it, but I'm much more drawn to books with more depth (especially in the characters) like ASOIAF. I think I'm done re-reading LOTR... except maybe to my son at some point.

[kane120]

LOTR was my first intro to epic fantasy, my dad used to read it to me when I was young, so I will always love that series. But ASOIAF is so much more complex - the world, the characters, the story etc. The symbolism is so much deeper than LOTR, but both universes are incredible in their scope and magnitude. I feel like ASOIAF is more 'adult' than LOTR.

Basically this (read as I was composing my reply):

I love LOTR... mainly for what it meant to me as a teen. Now that I'm older there's still a lot that I appreciate about it, but I'm much more drawn to books with more depth (especially in the characters) like ASOIAF. I think I'm done re-reading LOTR... except maybe to my son at some point.

[Naathi Prince]

I think Moorcock's point is that fantasy fiction is inherently fascist - he also names and shames Star Wars - and I love the original Star Wars so that annoyed me. He sees most fantasy authors as 'failed Hitlers', this is because he's an anarchist who interprets the genre politically. I think he'd approve of ASOIAF.

Then he'd be wrong. Calling Tolkien a fascist is silly. Does Moorcock even understand what fascism is? Tolkien's idyllic society, the Shire, barely even has a formalized government. They have a thain, and he gets mild prestige from the title, but no one really cares. They have a mayor, but his job seems mostly relegated to presiding over fairs and the like. If anything, the Shire is an anarchist dream world. There is no government, yet everyone is kind and decent to each other and no hobbit has killed another hobbit for centuries.