Will ASOIAF/GOT be remembered as a classic series?

[DeathYon]

There's no denying that people of all sorts consider LOTR to be the originator of modern fantasy, and not just that, but a classic novel which has sold over 150 million copies.

ASOIAF/GOT seems to currently be the 'next big thing' in modern fantasy, just like LOTR was at one point. One of the main differences between the two is that LOTR has left behind a huge legacy (the films obviously helped) whereas ASOIAF is still 'hot'.

I remember watching an interview with GRRM where he was asked about how he handles his recent success. The jist of his response was "right now I'm a big celebrity which makes it difficult to walk down the street without getting recognized. Sometimes it bothers me, but I just remind myself that in a few years time something else will take ASOIAF's/GOT's place".

Is this necessarily true? I know that he's being modest, that doesn't mean that he's wrong though. GRRM could be right, and in a few decades time people will say "remember that show/book ASOIAF/GOT? that was pretty great"

Also, I understand that the series is not complete yet. This thought just recently crossed my mind and I'd rather not wait five-ten years to start this thread.

[Robb_Warged]

I think so

[Mammoth Slayer]

Lord of the Rings is a fairly simplistic conflict between good vs. evil and you know from the outset who will win. Martin has created a complex world peopled by many fascinating, larger than life characters where anything can happen. He has taken the fantasy genre a huge leap forward by injecting many of the complexities found in the real world. So yes, I think that it will become a modern classic. The only criticism that I would make is that while some of the stories are fairly plausible, such as the journey of Brienne through the devastated Riverlands, some do stretch plausibility to the limits, such as the Death of Renly by sorcery whilst in the midst of his armed camp and the peculiar mix-up which resulted in Ed Stark being beheaded when it was intended that he should confess and be exiled to the Night's Watch. Overall though, I think that this is the best fantasy work written so far.

[Queen.Sansa.Lannister]

In short, yes.

[Brynden Blackfish Jr.]

Yes, it definitely will be. There are very few other series I can think of where the characters are portrayed in such a complex, yet realistic manner. It is one of the few series I can think of where there's no true good or evil. Most authors will write about stereotypical good or evil characters, with the hero almost always winning the day. Martin has created a universe in which the characters we grow fond of often die; we get our hopes up only to have them crushed; justice is elusive; and whenever you think you have a notion about what's going on, there's a major plot twist to prove you completely wrong.

There are authors who have better styles of writing in the sense that they don't use modern slang for a story set in a medieval-like time period like Martin does, and use better grammar, but they can't get inside their characters' heads like Martin can.

[sj4iy]

I think it will be remembered much like LotR and WoT are...one of the best fantasy series of all time. I don't know if I would rank it amongst classic literature, though, because I don't think LotR or WoT belong there, either. And it has nothing to do with genre, it's just how I feel about the series. Martin is a great writer, but I don't think he's great at telling a story. For me, ASoIaF still ranks as popular literature.

[kimim]

Lord of the Rings is a fairly simplistic conflict between good vs. evil and you know from the outset who will win. Martin has created a complex world peopled by many fascinating, larger than life characters where anything can happen. He has taken the fantasy genre a huge leap forward by injecting many of the complexities found in the real world. So yes, I think that it will become a modern classic. The only criticism that I would make is that while some of the stories are fairly plausible, such as the journey of Brienne through the devastated Riverlands, some do stretch plausibility to the limits, such as the Death of Renly by sorcery whilst in the midst of his armed camp and the peculiar mix-up which resulted in Ed Stark being beheaded when it was intended that he should confess and be exiled to the Night's Watch. Overall though, I think that this is the best fantasy work written so far.

I disagree that LotR is a simplistic conflict. You do know who will win from the beginning, but the ending is anything but happy. Tokien described it as a novel about mortality, and that's how it reads to me.

Re this series: I love it. I hope it is a classic but no way of telling right now.

Re plausibility: Magic is everywhere The dead rise, shadowbabies kill, magic fucks up the seasons, etc. So nothing is really beyond the pale.

[Good Guy Garlan]

Only if Martin finishes the series. If not it will be remembered as a supreme embarrasment

[German]

I Think it'll take it's place among the greats of fantasy. I don't think he'll displace Tolkien simply because

1. Tolkien was the first author to gather old myths and legends and create a contemporary work of fantasy. Many of the creatures he dug up out of myths i.e. Elves, Dwarves, Trolls or invented such as the orc have become the building blocks of fantasy and are still much the same as the way he invisioned them 90 years ago.

2. Tolkiens novels have so much depth I mean his universe has a fully devised history as well as two almost fully developed languages that he created.

However while Martin's may not displace LOTR as the king of fantasy it is definitely far more complex and realistic.

[Lady Flandrensis]

I think so.

[Yukle]

Lord of the Rings is a fairly simplistic conflict between good vs. evil and you know from the outset who will win...

Lords of the Rings gained its popularity and reputation from being a very complete fantasy. Tolkien was a linguist, first and foremost, and also a fairly able historian. Frodo, Sam and Smeagol have character development but the rest of the characters don't have it in any significant manner and because character development is a driving force in today's stories, it seems that Lord of the Rings is lacking something.

Except, it isn't. :P It just takes some historical perspective to remember what it represents... and the lessons it informs us. Stories were written differently then, and the preference for character-driven plot will be replaced by something else and our books will seem archaic, too. But some will be so great they remain intriguing throughout the future.

Lord of the Rings was written by a World War I veteran who became disillusioned with the apparent progression of humanity. The fact that a war could escalate to such a scale, undo four great empires (the Ottoman, German, Russian and Austro-Hungarian) leave the vast plains ravaged and yet leave the world almost no different, no more equal, no more "great" was a turning point of history, and in how it is treated. World War I changed the idea that war was inherently "good" for people and that a lot of what humanity regarded as "progress" was actually regression.

Tolkien's stories reflect this attitude, and it's no coincidence that many of the horrific factors that shaped the world throughout World War II also influenced his books (given they were written during that period). Sauruman's rise in Isengard is at the expense of the natural beauty he once protected and admired. Over time, he grew indifferent to nature and soon sought to exploit it. It's interesting, though, that his aim was not to drive the wheel of industry and benefit the world around him, rather he turns to conquest; pulling down trees to fuel the fires of his armies.

The existence of orcs in Tolkien's works have unfortunately been tainted by white-supremacists insisting that Tolkien was advocating mono-racial policies. In fact, he detested racism (which was ground breaking given he grew up in the shadow of two nationalistic, highly racially charged wars). Instead, the elves represent the best ideal humanity could strive for and the orcs are the worst. Both are strong "races" in their own ways; one is wise, long-lived, conciliatory and largely lives without nature noticing. The other breeds quickly, fights constantly, plunders the Earth and uses aggression to solve problems. Attempting to use warfare to solve their problems was the eventual undoing of the elves; their people couldn't sustain war forever and it cost them their wisdom if their immortal lives were cut short through violence. In the end, the elves decided to leave the world for "undying lands," heavily implying that peaceful people are forced into violence or refuge if their neighbours are the aggressors. For Tolkien, this message was very real, as it was to everyone in the 1940s, as it soon became chillingly apparent what was happening to all of the refugees fleeing the Nazis who were refused entry into other European nations... :(

Tolkien also challenges the idea that history is an inevitable march towards a better future. After all, it's a constant theme throughout his story that life was once better than it was when Frodo and Sam set off to leave the Shire. Then again, it was also worse when Sauron was at his peak... but human greed postponed his defeat and evil remained. He doesn't suggest a cyclical view of history as, say, the Wheel of Time series does, rather he seems to contend that the impact of human agency on the world can be a force for the better or worse.

And, of course, there is the not at all subtle imagery that hobbits, the most overlooked, least appreciated and undervalued peoples of the world are the ones whose eventual actions change it. The bravery of the hobbits: Frodo's resistance to the Ring's power, Sam's outward optimism (that he later resigns himself to admitting isn't probable), Merry's desperation to fight despite his stature and Pippin's inquisitiveness in the face of pure evil; these are the characters who are the most human of all. And Tolkien very deliberately gave the most beautiful human qualities to characters who aren't even human, but treated as less than such by their peers.

My only real gripe with Lord of the Rings, as much as I love it, is that (and it's not unique to this series) there are only three female characters with anything remotely resembling impact on the plot: Arwen, Eowyn and Galadriel.

Despite that, the series is magnificent... and that's why it has lived on.

If A Song of Ice and Fire truly encapsulates what it is to be alive today, with the best and worst of human nature, the causes and effects of decisions we all make, and explores that with gorgeous imagery, then it may just well be another classic for all. I think it can do that, but it depends on how the story goes.

[DeathYon]

Lords of the Rings gained its popularity and reputation from being a very complete fantasy. Tolkien was a linguist, first and foremost, and also a fairly able historian. Frodo, Sam and Smeagol have character development but the rest of the characters don't have it in any significant manner and because character development is a driving force in today's stories, it seems that Lord of the Rings is lacking something.

Except, it isn't. :P It just takes some historical perspective to remember what it represents... and the lessons it informs us. Stories were written differently then, and the preference for character-driven plot will be replaced by something else and our books will seem archaic, too. But some will be so great they remain intriguing throughout the future.

Lord of the Rings was written by a World War I veteran who became disillusioned with the apparent progression of humanity. The fact that a war could escalate to such a scale, undo four great empires (the Ottoman, German, Russian and Austro-Hungarian) leave the vast plains ravaged and yet leave the world almost no different, no more equal, no more "great" was a turning point of history, and in how it is treated. World War I changed the idea that war was inherently "good" for people and that a lot of what humanity regarded as "progress" was actually regression.

Tolkien's stories reflect this attitude, and it's no coincidence that many of the horrific factors that shaped the world throughout World War II also influenced his books (given they were written during that period). Sauruman's rise in Isengard is at the expense of the natural beauty he once protected and admired. Over time, he grew indifferent to nature and soon sought to exploit it. It's interesting, though, that his aim was not to drive the wheel of industry and benefit the world around him, rather he turns to conquest; pulling down trees to fuel the fires of his armies.

The existence of orcs in Tolkien's works have unfortunately been tainted by white-supremacists insisting that Tolkien was advocating mono-racial policies. In fact, he detested racism (which was ground breaking given he grew up in the shadow of two nationalistic, highly racially charged wars). Instead, the elves represent the best ideal humanity could strive for and the orcs are the worst. Both are strong "races" in their own ways; one is wise, long-lived, conciliatory and largely lives without nature noticing. The other breeds quickly, fights constantly, plunders the Earth and uses aggression to solve problems. Attempting to use warfare to solve their problems was the eventual undoing of the elves; their people couldn't sustain war forever and it cost them their wisdom if their immortal lives were cut short through violence. In the end, the elves decided to leave the world for "undying lands," heavily implying that peaceful people are forced into violence or refuge if their neighbours are the aggressors. For Tolkien, this message was very real, as it was to everyone in the 1940s, as it soon became chillingly apparent what was happening to all of the refugees fleeing the Nazis who were refused entry into other European nations... :(

Tolkien also challenges the idea that history is an inevitable march towards a better future. After all, it's a constant theme throughout his story that life was once better than it was when Frodo and Sam set off to leave the Shire. Then again, it was also worse when Sauron was at his peak... but human greed postponed his defeat and evil remained. He doesn't suggest a cyclical view of history as, say, the Wheel of Time series does, rather he seems to contend that the impact of human agency on the world can be a force for the better or worse.

And, of course, there is the not at all subtle imagery that hobbits, the most overlooked, least appreciated and undervalued peoples of the world are the ones whose eventual actions change it. The bravery of the hobbits: Frodo's resistance to the Ring's power, Sam's outward optimism (that he later resigns himself to admitting isn't probable), Merry's desperation to fight despite his stature and Pippin's inquisitiveness in the face of pure evil; these are the characters who are the most human of all. And Tolkien very deliberately gave the most beautiful human qualities to characters who aren't even human, but treated as less than such by their peers.

My only real gripe with Lord of the Rings, as much as I love it, is that (and it's not unique to this series) there are only three female characters with anything remotely resembling impact on the plot: Arwen, Eowyn and Galadriel.

Despite that, the series is magnificent... and that's why it has lived on.

If A Song of Ice and Fire truly encapsulates what it is to be alive today, with the best and worst of human nature, the causes and effects of decisions we all make, and explores that with gorgeous imagery, then it may just well be another classic for all. I think it can do that, but it depends on how the story goes.

Thanks for taking the time to write a well thought out response. I enjoyed reading it.

I don't have much of a response, other than that I agree with you.

The Hobbits returning to the Shire only to find that it's been taken over and become an autocratic society is a great example of Tolkien breaking the good vs evil mold. As readers, we expected The Shire to be the way it was, but Tolkien did something interesting and broke away from the 'happily ever after' stereotype.

Frodo's melancholy after the book's main events is also another example worth mentioning.

I think that these two examples had a very profound influence on GRRM and his writing.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Yes , not on par with JRRT but better than the Potter series .

[ummester]

Pretty much agree with Yukle.

I think ASoIaF is more an adult fairy tale trying to make sense of humanity today, than it is a linguistically designed mythology commenting on human progress. ASoIaF is more pulp, more pop, more fishing for controversy - which makes sense in today's world.

It really depends on how ASoIaF ends. If GRRM nails the ending, if it expresses something profound - then yes, it will be remembered as a classic.

[Cat of the Rivers]

It's hard to say ASOIAF is a great series of fantasy books but are they truly worthy of considered classics? It's not revolutionary the way LOTR was and it doesn't show a historical background (Gone with the Wind for example) since it's part of the fantasy genre.

Game of Thrones will not be remembered as a classic television series IMO. The acting is weak (I am not a fan of Emilia Clarke or Kit Harrington), some of the good actors who can act get badly written scripts (Michelle Fairley, Lena Heady, Peter Dinklage I think could pull off Tyrion's grey character if the writing was good, Nikoljai Coster Waldau can certainly act) and the screenplay isn't strong. It's good but nothing great.

What makes it a bad adaption is that the screenwriters replace GRRM's strong writing with their rather weak ones, the characters are misinterpreted (Marge the girl who's innocent nature that makes even readers wonder if she's a virgin or not is now a femme fatale, Tyrion one of the most controversial characters in the books is whitewashed so much you'd think his character was as pure as driven snow, Asha is now Yara, Jon Snow is even more boring, Arya is a violent, sexist "all the other girls are idiots!" killing machine and that's presented as "badass", Sansa now doesn't even try to arrange her own escape with Ser Dontos, Daenerys is well Khaleesi, several entertaining side characters that would have been awesome are removed, Catelyn a strong, smart and pragmatic woman is a crying soccer mom who just wants everyone home so she can bake cookies, Jaime's a rapist, Cersei's regrets not reigning Joffrey in,Joffrey is blackwashed to a degree that you would think that he was the spawn of Satan, Stannis actually begs Mel for sex, Renly a charismatic politician and Loras the best swordsman of his age are now gay cliches etc) sometimes whole scenes as misinterpreted.

[Theon {HUNGRY WOLF} Stark]

Lords of the Rings gained its popularity and reputation from being a very complete fantasy. Tolkien was a linguist, first and foremost, and also a fairly able historian. Frodo, Sam and Smeagol have character development but the rest of the characters don't have it in any significant manner and because character development is a driving force in today's stories, it seems that Lord of the Rings is lacking something.

Except, it isn't. :P It just takes some historical perspective to remember what it represents... and the lessons it informs us. Stories were written differently then, and the preference for character-driven plot will be replaced by something else and our books will seem archaic, too. But some will be so great they remain intriguing throughout the future.

Lord of the Rings was written by a World War I veteran who became disillusioned with the apparent progression of humanity. The fact that a war could escalate to such a scale, undo four great empires (the Ottoman, German, Russian and Austro-Hungarian) leave the vast plains ravaged and yet leave the world almost no different, no more equal, no more "great" was a turning point of history, and in how it is treated. World War I changed the idea that war was inherently "good" for people and that a lot of what humanity regarded as "progress" was actually regression.

Tolkien's stories reflect this attitude, and it's no coincidence that many of the horrific factors that shaped the world throughout World War II also influenced his books (given they were written during that period). Sauruman's rise in Isengard is at the expense of the natural beauty he once protected and admired. Over time, he grew indifferent to nature and soon sought to exploit it. It's interesting, though, that his aim was not to drive the wheel of industry and benefit the world around him, rather he turns to conquest; pulling down trees to fuel the fires of his armies.

The existence of orcs in Tolkien's works have unfortunately been tainted by white-supremacists insisting that Tolkien was advocating mono-racial policies. In fact, he detested racism (which was ground breaking given he grew up in the shadow of two nationalistic, highly racially charged wars). Instead, the elves represent the best ideal humanity could strive for and the orcs are the worst. Both are strong "races" in their own ways; one is wise, long-lived, conciliatory and largely lives without nature noticing. The other breeds quickly, fights constantly, plunders the Earth and uses aggression to solve problems. Attempting to use warfare to solve their problems was the eventual undoing of the elves; their people couldn't sustain war forever and it cost them their wisdom if their immortal lives were cut short through violence. In the end, the elves decided to leave the world for "undying lands," heavily implying that peaceful people are forced into violence or refuge if their neighbours are the aggressors. For Tolkien, this message was very real, as it was to everyone in the 1940s, as it soon became chillingly apparent what was happening to all of the refugees fleeing the Nazis who were refused entry into other European nations... :(

Tolkien also challenges the idea that history is an inevitable march towards a better future. After all, it's a constant theme throughout his story that life was once better than it was when Frodo and Sam set off to leave the Shire. Then again, it was also worse when Sauron was at his peak... but human greed postponed his defeat and evil remained. He doesn't suggest a cyclical view of history as, say, the Wheel of Time series does, rather he seems to contend that the impact of human agency on the world can be a force for the better or worse.

And, of course, there is the not at all subtle imagery that hobbits, the most overlooked, least appreciated and undervalued peoples of the world are the ones whose eventual actions change it. The bravery of the hobbits: Frodo's resistance to the Ring's power, Sam's outward optimism (that he later resigns himself to admitting isn't probable), Merry's desperation to fight despite his stature and Pippin's inquisitiveness in the face of pure evil; these are the characters who are the most human of all. And Tolkien very deliberately gave the most beautiful human qualities to characters who aren't even human, but treated as less than such by their peers.

My only real gripe with Lord of the Rings, as much as I love it, is that (and it's not unique to this series) there are only three female characters with anything remotely resembling impact on the plot: Arwen, Eowyn and Galadriel.

Despite that, the series is magnificent... and that's why it has lived on.

If A Song of Ice and Fire truly encapsulates what it is to be alive today, with the best and worst of human nature, the causes and effects of decisions we all make, and explores that with gorgeous imagery, then it may just well be another classic for all. I think it can do that, but it depends on how the story goes.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :owned: :owned:

[Roose Trollton.]

Lords of the Rings gained its popularity and reputation from being a very complete fantasy. Tolkien was a linguist, first and foremost, and also a fairly able historian. Frodo, Sam and Smeagol have character development but the rest of the characters don't have it in any significant manner and because character development is a driving force in today's stories, it seems that Lord of the Rings is lacking something.

Except, it isn't. :P It just takes some historical perspective to remember what it represents... and the lessons it informs us. Stories were written differently then, and the preference for character-driven plot will be replaced by something else and our books will seem archaic, too. But some will be so great they remain intriguing throughout the future.

Lord of the Rings was written by a World War I veteran who became disillusioned with the apparent progression of humanity. The fact that a war could escalate to such a scale, undo four great empires (the Ottoman, German, Russian and Austro-Hungarian) leave the vast plains ravaged and yet leave the world almost no different, no more equal, no more "great" was a turning point of history, and in how it is treated. World War I changed the idea that war was inherently "good" for people and that a lot of what humanity regarded as "progress" was actually regression.

Tolkien's stories reflect this attitude, and it's no coincidence that many of the horrific factors that shaped the world throughout World War II also influenced his books (given they were written during that period). Sauruman's rise in Isengard is at the expense of the natural beauty he once protected and admired. Over time, he grew indifferent to nature and soon sought to exploit it. It's interesting, though, that his aim was not to drive the wheel of industry and benefit the world around him, rather he turns to conquest; pulling down trees to fuel the fires of his armies.

The existence of orcs in Tolkien's works have unfortunately been tainted by white-supremacists insisting that Tolkien was advocating mono-racial policies. In fact, he detested racism (which was ground breaking given he grew up in the shadow of two nationalistic, highly racially charged wars). Instead, the elves represent the best ideal humanity could strive for and the orcs are the worst. Both are strong "races" in their own ways; one is wise, long-lived, conciliatory and largely lives without nature noticing. The other breeds quickly, fights constantly, plunders the Earth and uses aggression to solve problems. Attempting to use warfare to solve their problems was the eventual undoing of the elves; their people couldn't sustain war forever and it cost them their wisdom if their immortal lives were cut short through violence. In the end, the elves decided to leave the world for "undying lands," heavily implying that peaceful people are forced into violence or refuge if their neighbours are the aggressors. For Tolkien, this message was very real, as it was to everyone in the 1940s, as it soon became chillingly apparent what was happening to all of the refugees fleeing the Nazis who were refused entry into other European nations... :(

Tolkien also challenges the idea that history is an inevitable march towards a better future. After all, it's a constant theme throughout his story that life was once better than it was when Frodo and Sam set off to leave the Shire. Then again, it was also worse when Sauron was at his peak... but human greed postponed his defeat and evil remained. He doesn't suggest a cyclical view of history as, say, the Wheel of Time series does, rather he seems to contend that the impact of human agency on the world can be a force for the better or worse.

And, of course, there is the not at all subtle imagery that hobbits, the most overlooked, least appreciated and undervalued peoples of the world are the ones whose eventual actions change it. The bravery of the hobbits: Frodo's resistance to the Ring's power, Sam's outward optimism (that he later resigns himself to admitting isn't probable), Merry's desperation to fight despite his stature and Pippin's inquisitiveness in the face of pure evil; these are the characters who are the most human of all. And Tolkien very deliberately gave the most beautiful human qualities to characters who aren't even human, but treated as less than such by their peers.

My only real gripe with Lord of the Rings, as much as I love it, is that (and it's not unique to this series) there are only three female characters with anything remotely resembling impact on the plot: Arwen, Eowyn and Galadriel.

Despite that, the series is magnificent... and that's why it has lived on.

If A Song of Ice and Fire truly encapsulates what it is to be alive today, with the best and worst of human nature, the causes and effects of decisions we all make, and explores that with gorgeous imagery, then it may just well be another classic for all. I think it can do that, but it depends on how the story goes.

I wonder how much of that Tolkien really intended to put in his work/people are reading too much into it and how much people got right. Tolkien himself said he hated allegories and that he had put none in his work, LOTR being just a story. I'd definitely go with the first option. Though he was probably somewhat influenced by the WW's and getting to despise violence and wars, something that reflects a bit on his books, I think all these deep allegories people think up aren't meant to be there in the first place.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

No I don't think so. I think that it will be a very good series of book but not a classic. Not yet anyway, if something changes so much during the last two books I don't know.

I disagree that LotR is a simplistic conflict. You do know who will win from the beginning, but the ending is anything but happy. Tokien described it as a novel about mortality, and that's how it reads to me.

So true!

Lords of the Rings gained its popularity and reputation from being a very complete fantasy. Tolkien was a linguist, first and foremost, and also a fairly able historian. Frodo, Sam and Smeagol have character development but the rest of the characters don't have it in any significant manner and because character development is a driving force in today's stories, it seems that Lord of the Rings is lacking something.

Except, it isn't. :P It just takes some historical perspective to remember what it represents... and the lessons it informs us. Stories were written differently then, and the preference for character-driven plot will be replaced by something else and our books will seem archaic, too. But some will be so great they remain intriguing throughout the future.

Lord of the Rings was written by a World War I veteran who became disillusioned with the apparent progression of humanity. The fact that a war could escalate to such a scale, undo four great empires (the Ottoman, German, Russian and Austro-Hungarian) leave the vast plains ravaged and yet leave the world almost no different, no more equal, no more "great" was a turning point of history, and in how it is treated. World War I changed the idea that war was inherently "good" for people and that a lot of what humanity regarded as "progress" was actually regression.

Tolkien's stories reflect this attitude, and it's no coincidence that many of the horrific factors that shaped the world throughout World War II also influenced his books (given they were written during that period). Sauruman's rise in Isengard is at the expense of the natural beauty he once protected and admired. Over time, he grew indifferent to nature and soon sought to exploit it. It's interesting, though, that his aim was not to drive the wheel of industry and benefit the world around him, rather he turns to conquest; pulling down trees to fuel the fires of his armies.

The existence of orcs in Tolkien's works have unfortunately been tainted by white-supremacists insisting that Tolkien was advocating mono-racial policies. In fact, he detested racism (which was ground breaking given he grew up in the shadow of two nationalistic, highly racially charged wars). Instead, the elves represent the best ideal humanity could strive for and the orcs are the worst. Both are strong "races" in their own ways; one is wise, long-lived, conciliatory and largely lives without nature noticing. The other breeds quickly, fights constantly, plunders the Earth and uses aggression to solve problems. Attempting to use warfare to solve their problems was the eventual undoing of the elves; their people couldn't sustain war forever and it cost them their wisdom if their immortal lives were cut short through violence. In the end, the elves decided to leave the world for "undying lands," heavily implying that peaceful people are forced into violence or refuge if their neighbours are the aggressors. For Tolkien, this message was very real, as it was to everyone in the 1940s, as it soon became chillingly apparent what was happening to all of the refugees fleeing the Nazis who were refused entry into other European nations... :(

Tolkien also challenges the idea that history is an inevitable march towards a better future. After all, it's a constant theme throughout his story that life was once better than it was when Frodo and Sam set off to leave the Shire. Then again, it was also worse when Sauron was at his peak... but human greed postponed his defeat and evil remained. He doesn't suggest a cyclical view of history as, say, the Wheel of Time series does, rather he seems to contend that the impact of human agency on the world can be a force for the better or worse.

And, of course, there is the not at all subtle imagery that hobbits, the most overlooked, least appreciated and undervalued peoples of the world are the ones whose eventual actions change it. The bravery of the hobbits: Frodo's resistance to the Ring's power, Sam's outward optimism (that he later resigns himself to admitting isn't probable), Merry's desperation to fight despite his stature and Pippin's inquisitiveness in the face of pure evil; these are the characters who are the most human of all. And Tolkien very deliberately gave the most beautiful human qualities to characters who aren't even human, but treated as less than such by their peers.

My only real gripe with Lord of the Rings, as much as I love it, is that (and it's not unique to this series) there are only three female characters with anything remotely resembling impact on the plot: Arwen, Eowyn and Galadriel.

Despite that, the series is magnificent... and that's why it has lived on.

If A Song of Ice and Fire truly encapsulates what it is to be alive today, with the best and worst of human nature, the causes and effects of decisions we all make, and explores that with gorgeous imagery, then it may just well be another classic for all. I think it can do that, but it depends on how the story goes.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: no comment!

[The King in Black]

Yukle's reply is classic :thumbsup:

And Asoiaf will be remembered as one of the best fantasy books, if it's ever completed. ....

[MakeThemBurn]

Perhaps. The last two books have raised suspicion that GRRM is more interested in twists and shock value than creating a good story. In all honesty, does anyone even know what the story is about? We have dozens of characters doing their own things all around the world and no one can say what the big picture is. At this point, it depends whether GRRM can tie all the loose ends together and focus on what really matters. Or if he can even finish it. Judging by the last two books I wouldn't be surprised if this series reached 9 or 10 books.