Do many famous Writers that view George RR Martin and Song of Ice and Fire with Contempt?

[sj4iy]

Doesn't mean the story isn't dark. Frodo and Sam's entire journey from when leaving the Fellowship all the way to healing back in Rivendell is incredibly bleak and depressing, especially when they're in Mordor.

That's not what makes a story 'dark' to me. A story can be atmospherically dark, but not dark thematically. A 'dark' story to me is a story that deals with dark themes. There's really nothing like that in LotR.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah PTSD isn't a dark theme at all.

Didn't we already have this topic twice?

[The Marquis de Leech]

Eh. The books may have had some dark things in it, and some adult themes about exploring what happens when one comes back from war, but I don't think the story was 'dark'. It was always a very black and white "good vs evil" story, with good guys and bad guys delineated very strictly with very few exceptions. There was no real exploration into what 'good and evil' really were. Evil wants to destroy the world...good wants to save it.

Um no.

Good in LOTR is the rejection of power, Evil is the desire for power, and one is not good because one is predestined to be so, one is good because of good acts. If it were straight Good and Evil, the Ring could have been used against Sauron. But it doesn't work like that.

The likes of Saruman is a walking study of the Ends Justify the Means, as is Boromir. Denethor functions as both classical tragic figure, and a comment on the limitations of purely political leadership. Thematically, the book is highly depressing: Frodo fails, and even with the defeat of Sauron and the rise of Aragorn, much that is good passes away. The Elves are finished. Arwen has doomed herself to eventual death. The Shire is ruined by Saruman. Frodo lives as a shell shocked veteran, unable to ever properly function in society again.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Didn't we already have this topic twice?

Yes. On the other hand, given that no victory is ever final in Tolkien, we'll just have to keep battling these misconceptions wherever they arise.

[sj4iy]

Yes. On the other hand, given that no victory is ever final in Tolkien, we'll just have to keep battling these misconceptions wherever they arise.

I have no misconceptions.

I saw the books differently than you. I don't see it as a dark story, even if there are dark elements.

[polishgenius]

If you didn't see the dark themes in LotR, then I'm afraid you weren't reading it properly. I know I'm being rude when you're being pretty well-mannered here, but that accusation comes up so often and it's such patent nonsense. It might not be as brutal as many modern books, but it sure ain't sunny.

Either that or you have some weirdly specific definition of what a book needs to be considered 'dark'. Having 'good' and 'evil' not be easily defined is not the measure of a dark novel.

[Jo498]

LotR may not be a dark story; the ending is more like fading grey to me (the greatest evil is gone for the time being, but the most beautiful things are also fading away and there is nothing that could be done about that), but it clearly is a deep exploration of one particular conception of good and evil as pointed out in #183.

In this respect much "deeper" than any of the newish fantasy (Martin, Abercrombie, Kay, Bakker (these may be "deep" in different ways, I am not sure yet, the only interesting character in this respect is IMO Achamian)) I have read.

ASoIaF may be getting there, e.g. Jon trying to make a fair deal with the wildlings, because he understands their predicament. But by now it seems to get bogged down by merely "practical" problems, e.g. of good and wise rulership. Tyrion as acting Hand, Dany, Jon are struggling with the practical problems they face. Has it ever occurred to Dany that taking the IT back by force justifies the suffering this will imply?

Tyrion tries to use his power in KL wisely and to constrain Joffrey, but he also clearly abuses the power he has by having that singer killed. This does not seem to weigh heavily on his consience.

[sologdin]

Seriously, can someone do something about the thread title?

i always knew that you were a syntactic snob.

[sj4iy]

If you didn't see the dark themes in LotR, then I'm afraid you weren't reading it properly. I know I'm being rude when you're being pretty well-mannered here, but that accusation comes up so often and it's such patent nonsense. It might not be as brutal as many modern books, but it sure ain't sunny.

Either that or you have some weirdly specific definition of what a book needs to be considered 'dark'. Having 'good' and 'evil' not be easily defined is not the measure of a dark novel.

I can read and properly understand LotR, thank you. I hate when people act like others lack reading comprehension just because they have a different opinion on something so subjective as "is this a dark story?". I don't have "weird" standards for what a dark story consists of. The story doesn't have a dark feel to it. It has a sad feel to it, because everything is passing on...but there aren't questions about morality, no struggle with what is right and what is wrong. There may be a struggle to DO the right thing, but the right thing is easy to see, and do is the wrong thing. For such a deadly evil taking over Middle Earth, we only lose Boromir. Sad things happening does not equal dark story.

[UVA]

[snip] Sad things happening does not equal dark story.

I'm genuinely curious about what constitutes a dark story for you. Do you think that LOTR needs more moral ambiguity, more nihilism? I have to agree with others that LOTR has profoundly bleak themes, with a melancholy resolution. Yes, evil is vanquished but at what cost? Tolkien imbues the story with his experience in WWI trenches, an inherently dark and anxious place. The themes of loss of innocence (Frodo as a war veteran with PTSD) and the imagery conjures up dead comrades in No Man's Land (the Dead Marshes) and the hope of them rising from the battlefield (Army of the Dead). I think what saves LOTR from total despair is the sense that the God(s) of that universe, are not malevolent. There is an absolute good that intervenes in the world.

[snip

The likes of Saruman is a walking study of the Ends Justify the Means, as is Boromir.

Yea, and I always associate this with Tywin too.

[sj4iy]

I'm genuinely curious about what constitutes a dark story for you. Do you think that LOTR needs more moral ambiguity, more nihilism? I have to agree with others that LOTR has profoundly bleak themes, with a melancholy resolution. Yes, evil is vanquished but at what cost? Tolkien imbues the story with his experience in WWI trenches, an inherently dark and anxious place. The themes of loss of innocence (Frodo as a war veteran with PTSD) and the imagery conjures up dead comrades in No Man's Land (the Dead Marshes) and the hope of them rising from the battlefield (Army of the Dead). I think what saves LOTR from total despair is the sense that the God(s) of that universe, are not malevolent. There is an absolute good that intervenes in the world.

Yea, and I always associate this with Tywin too.

Dark books to me:

"Alas, Babylon"

"Frankenstein"

"The Handmaid's Tale"

"Cry, The Beloved Country"

"Wuthering Heights"

"1984"

"Animal Farm"

...need I go on? All of those books are very dark in their themes about what evil humanity is capable of. Morality is subjective, and people do terrible things in the name of love, survival or power. LotR has none of that. There's nothing subjective about it. Evil is evil. Good is good. Very, very few characters cross that line. Evil is vanquished, good wins out in the end. There are some costs, but it's a price people are willing to pay.

I enjoyed reading LotR, but I see it as I see it. The story doesn't scratch the surface of 'dark' compared to those that I listed above.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Dark books to me:

"Alas, Babylon"

"Frankenstein"

"The Handmaid's Tale"

"Cry, The Beloved Country"

"Wuthering Heights"

"1984"

"Animal Farm"

...need I go on? All of those books are very dark in their themes about what evil humanity is capable of. Morality is subjective, and people do terrible things in the name of love, survival or power. LotR has none of that. There's nothing subjective about it. Evil is evil. Good is good. Very, very few characters cross that line. Evil is vanquished, good wins out in the end. There are some costs, but it's a price people are willing to pay.

How, exactly, is the morality in 1984 subjective? It's a straight Good vs Evil, with Evil winning.

[sj4iy]

How, exactly, is the morality in 1984 subjective? It's a straight Good vs Evil, with Evil winning.

It's not evil vs good. It's about giving up freedom for safety. That's the subjective morality at play. It's presented in a hyperbolic way, of course, but that doesn't make it less subjective. It's to emphasize the danger inherent in giving government too much power over our daily lives. It's also about questioning what true freedom is, and whether or not we can ever truly be free or if we are programmed to recreate chains for ourselves.

[The Marquis de Leech]

It's not evil vs good. It's about giving up freedom for safety. That's the subjective morality at play. It's presented in a hyperbolic way, of course, but that doesn't make it less subjective. It's to emphasize the danger inherent in giving government too much power over our daily lives. It's also about questioning what true freedom is, and whether or not we can ever truly be free.

Um no.

The Party (and Oceanian Society in general) is portrayed as Very Much Evil. Nothing subjective about it. We're supposed to cheer for Winston, and hope he succeeds, only to see him get mercilessly crushed. The End.

Are there important themes of freedom, safety, etc, at play? Of course there are. Just as there are important themes in LOTR (which you seem to have missed entirely). But the presence of themes is a completely different question from subjective or objective morality.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Let's take Saruman's line:

"As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow, and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.

No important themes or (when placed aside Saruman's later activities) warnings there, is there? Oh wait...

[sj4iy]

Um no.

The Party (and Oceanian Society in general) is portrayed as Very Much Evil. Nothing subjective about it. We're supposed to cheer for Winston, and hope he succeeds, only to see him get mercilessly crushed. The End.

Are there important themes of freedom, safety, etc, at play? Of course there are. Just as there are important themes in LOTR (which you seem to have missed entirely). But the presence of themes is a completely different question from subjective or objective morality.

I never said they weren't evil. I said that wasn't the point of it. The story was never "good vs evil". The story was an exaggerated reality of our own to point out the danger in giving our government too much power to control our lives in exchange for the safety it brings.

I didn't miss shit in LotR, quit acting like I have. I've read and studied enough literature to be able to distinguish a 'dark' story from one that isn't, and LotR isn't. It's a straight-forward fairytale about good vs evil. The story isn't dark, despite your protestations. Even my husband, who has read the LotR books every year since he was a teenager said he had no idea how the books could be seen as 'dark'.

[The Marquis de Leech]

... and the Government is explicitly Evil, whereas the opposition to the Government is explicitly Good. It's Good vs. Evil. And it is not subjective.

And you have clearly "missed shit" in LOTR if you think "there is no exploration of what Good and Evil are." It's a major point of the book, which serves as a critique of power.

[sj4iy]

... and the Government is explicitly Evil, whereas the opposition to the Government is explicitly Good. It's Good vs. Evil. And it is not subjective.

And you have clearly "missed shit" in LOTR if you think "there is no exploration of what Good and Evil are." It's a major point of the book, which serves as a critique of power.

Yeah, that's completely wrong in regards to 1984. There's a reason it's considered one of the best science fiction novels of all time, and it's not because of 'good vs evil'.

In LotR, there's no exploration. It's explicitly stated "POWER IS BAD". There's not exploration to that, it's straight up written there. Anyone corrupted by the ring or seeing stones starts to turn bad. There's no question as to whether power is TRULY bad, or how power could be used in a way that is good. There's no ambiguity at all.

Anyway, I'm done arguing this. I've made my point.

[aceluby]

I'm in the LOTR is not dark camp. It really isn't. Sure, there are some bleak parts and a few dark themes, but there are bleak parts in the original Star Wars trilogy, but that doesn't make a story 'dark'. In the end it's a clear good vs evil story with sacrifices that people make in order for good to win. If there were no sacrifices at all it wouldn't be less dark, it would be a bad story.

[Arakan]

Um no.

Good in LOTR is the rejection of power, Evil is the desire for power, and one is not good because one is predestined to be so, one is good because of good acts. If it were straight Good and Evil, the Ring could have been used against Sauron. But it doesn't work like that.

The likes of Saruman is a walking study of the Ends Justify the Means, as is Boromir. Denethor functions as both classical tragic figure, and a comment on the limitations of purely political leadership. Thematically, the book is highly depressing: Frodo fails, and even with the defeat of Sauron and the rise of Aragorn, much that is good passes away. The Elves are finished. Arwen has doomed herself to eventual death. The Shire is ruined by Saruman. Frodo lives as a shell shocked veteran, unable to ever properly function in society again.

This. Very well put