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

[mrunderhill]

I think I was too hasty to say that LOTR has no POV chapters, since it is in essence Frodo writing down his adventures, all be it after extensive research. The book is written from Frodo and the Hobbit's viewpoint. The actual reason may be changes Tolkien made in the story, but when you read the book there is a lot of revelation. The first time I read the book I had no idea just how important Boromir is. It is only when you get to Rohan does just how great a man he is. It is only in meeting Faramir do you REALLY want Gondor to be saved.

[yolkboy]

I don't know how you can properly evaluate an unfinished story with at least 3000 pages missing off the end.

[DraculaAD1972]

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.

.

The Shire represents middle england and rural landowners, inherently conservative. The enemy is working class revolution, Orcs representing the Masses.

[The Blue Knight]

It depends on seeing the Shire as conservative and Orcs as representing the masses, the fears of middle england and rural land.

The Shire represents middle england and rural landowners, inherently conservative. The enemy is working class revolution, Orcs representing the Masses.

?

Orcs are mindlessly fighting for a dictator like figure who will enslave all the world, so how can they be the working class masses?

I don't see socialism as having a single supreme ruler and the rest being slaves.

[Naathi Prince]

It depends on seeing the Shire as conservative and Orcs as representing the masses, the fears of middle england and rural land.

The Shire represents middle england and rural landowners, inherently conservative. The enemy is working class revolution, Orcs representing the Masses.

Sure, it represents "merry old england", but in Tolkien's version, there are no lords. This is why leftism, like every other ism, ends up being utterly ridiculous.

[Naathi Prince]

?

Orcs are mindlessly fighting for a dictator like figure who will enslave all the world, so how can they be the working class masses?

look at real life, the communist countries end up being run by Stalin and Mao and the Kim family.

[The Blue Knight]

look at real life, the communist countries end up being run by Stalin and Mao and the Kim family.

Anyway, conservatism (hobbits) is not the same thing as fascism.

[DraculaAD1972]

Sure, it represents "merry old england", but in Tolkien's version, there are no lords. This is why leftism, like every other ism, ends up being utterly ridiculous.

Moorcock would urge us to reject the left and right in favour of individual freedom (anarchy). LOTR is, from this perspective, right wing fantasy fulfillment, the conservatives defeating the communists, overseen by a royal dictatorship (the one true king).

[Naathi Prince]

Anyway, conservatism (hobbits) is not the same thing as fascism.

That as well.

Moorcock would urge us to reject the left and right in favour of individual freedom (anarchy). LOTR is, from this perspective, right wing fantasy fulfillment, the conservatives defeating the communists, overseen by a royal dictatorship (the one true king).

So its anarchism, which is just as silly. The fact is, in the world's crafted by Tolkien, the kings don't rule over the people in their daily lives. They lead armies and that's about it. Calling hobbits fascist just makes fascism look appealing.

[Timcom]

ASOIAF isn't finished yet. How a story ends and is resolved is very important.

LOTR ended well and satisfactorily. Loose ends like Saruman and the Elven rings are not forgotten. It is also not as a happy ending as one might expect for Frodo, the effect of bearing the One Ring and being stabbed on Weathertop is with him for decades afterwards and he never really finds happiness in the Shire.

Since there are many threads that need to be tied up in ASOIAF, I am curious as to how this will be done in two books in a manner that does not seem rushed or contrived.

One thing that ASOIAF and LOTR do hold in common is that the most enjoyable part I find about them is the dialogue of certain characters. The long speeches of Gandalf register fondly in my mind as does the wit of Tyrion or Littlefinger. Very different styles, but both enjoyable.

[mrunderhill]

ASOIAF isn't finished yet. How a story ends and is resolved is very important.

LOTR ended well and satisfactorily. Loose ends like Saruman and the Elven rings are not forgotten. It is also not as a happy ending as one might expect for Frodo, the effect of bearing the One Ring and being stabbed on Weathertop is with him for decades afterwards and he never really finds happiness in the Shire.

Since there are many threads that need to be tied up in ASOIAF, I am curious as to how this will be done in two books in a manner that does not seem rushed or contrived.

One thing that ASOIAF and LOTR do hold in common is that the most enjoyable part I find about them is the dialogue of certain characters. The long speeches of Gandalf register fondly in my mind as does the wit of Tyrion or Littlefinger. Very different styles, but both enjoyable.

The LOTR is a bittersweet ending. The world will never see Galadriel, Elrond or Glorfindel again, Rivendell and Lothlorien are gone forever and Aragorn claims to be the last Numenorean king.The Ents will never find their wives and eventually become extinct, Arwen's tragic last few months etc.

On the dialog front I always enjoyed Legolas' humour at inappropriate times.

[Alty732]

ASoIaF: better characters, better plot, better writing. That's just my opinion though, I know people who like LoTR better and I can understand where they are coming from.

[Cravensbayne]

ASOIAF for sure. Too much fantasy in LOTR. LOTR is good, great even. Part of my childhood. BUT... ASOIAF is the greatest story I have ever immersed myself in. I haven't been this obsessed with a show/movie since Star Wars. And my excuse then was that I was 10. Now I am a 26 year old who loves a fantasy novels and watches a show about dragons... good going GRRM, you made me a dork.

[thecryptile]

LOTR- Tolkien is the originator, Martin is the innovator. I've read all the Tolkien books except the poetry. The Books of Lost Tales, History of Middle Earth, Smith of Wooton Major, Farmer Giles of Ham, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight- the man was a genius.

That said- wait till aSoIaF is done... only then we will know for sure. As it is, GRRM is the only name in Fantasy that I would put in the same class as JRR Tolkien.

[Raksha the Demon]

LOTR, always.

I enjoy most of ASoIaF; but LOTR has always affected me more; possibly because I like and believe in the characters; and the beauty of Tolkien's prose, and the plot, engages me more.

GRRM is a very talented writer; but I don't consider ASoIaF to be his best work; I think Fevre Dream was, at least in my opinion.

And, as other posters have noted, LOTR was conceived as an epic (influenced by sagas), not a novel; comparing it to a modern series of novels is a bit like comparing The Iliad to War and Peace, or even, since War and Peace lacks monsters/meddling gods, perhaps Stephen King's The Stand.

[Naathi Prince]

LOTR- Tolkein is the originator, Martin is the innovator. I've read all the Tolkein books except the poetry. The Books of Lost Tales, History of Middle Earth Smith of Wooton Major, Farmer Giles of Ham, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight- the man was a genius.

That said- wait till aSoIaF is done... only then we will know for sure. As it is, GRRM is the only name in Fantasy that I would put in the same class as JRR Tolkein.

Very well said. I haven't read Farmer Giles in much too long.

[The Marquis de Leech]

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.

Moorcock's motivations are twofold: he thinks he's being cool and edgy by bashing the leading figure in the genre (it reinforces his anti-Establishment credentials), and secondly, he seems to think that the purpose of fantasy and science-fiction is to indoctrinate the reader with far-left (specifically anarchist) political ideas. Anyone who doesn't toe his particular ideological line gets yelled at: hence the 'fascist' label that gets hurled around.

On Tolkien's politics: he was conservative in the proper sense of the term, and as such wouldn't really fit with any modern political movement. He was a devout pre-Vatican II Catholic, with all the distaste for modern ideas like democracy that came with that (he actually wrote a rather cringe-worthy letter about how he supported General Franco). He detested both socialism and liberal capitalism, and was very much a luddite. On the other hand, he was strongly anti-apartheid, and anti-imperialist (he had no time for the British Empire), and very pro-environment. And he wrote a vitriolic letter to a German publisher in the late 1930s castigating the Nazis in a very entertaining way: Tolkien had no time for fascism, and hated Hitler with a passion for appropriating his beloved Germanic mythology.

(One way of summing him up: he wanted an absolute monarchy, where the monarch never actually uses his power and spends his days collecting stamps. Or perhaps you could call him a sort of Tory Catholic William Morris).

[The Marquis de Leech]

Oh yes, and on the Shire: Tolkien's Shire is not painted as a utopia. Hobbits are parochial, smug, and live their lives unaware that they are only protected by the Rangers. As for the Orcs, it's made very clear that they'd all prefer to slink off somewhere, rather than actually fight. The idea that Orcs are the vast forces of revolution encroaching on pristine Merry England is utter nonsense; if anything, Orcs are what people become when subjected to the horrors of industrialised warfare (hence Tolkien recalling his service in WWI, where he says 'we were all Orcs in the Great War').

[RedDeadWedding]

ASoIaF, for sure. LOTR is a truly epic and great story, but it comes nowhere near the level of social importance as ASoIaF. LOTR says nothing of religion, sexuality, or pretty much any social theme. Also, in LOTR it's easy to point out the good and the evil, while in AsoIaF it's much more grey, which I think makes for a better series and much more relevant.

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

I guess it's all about priorities. Most people that I've talked to that prefer LOTR prefer it because of the world building. I don't care for Tolkein's world, his writing including characters and prose, and I've never had any inclination to reread the books. I couldn't care less that Tolkein was an innovator other than that he influenced GRRM so credit there.

I much prefer GRRM's writing, characters, plot, and world. Tolkein might have spent more time and energy building his world, which is cool, but I much prefer GRRM in every way.