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

[Gannicus]

I'll wait until the novels are finished.

[King Tyrion VIII]

I agree with this. Although to be fair there are a some who say the same reguarding GRRM.

The main thing I prefer in ASOIAF over LOTR is the fact the characters don't burst into song every five minutes.

I have no idea how anyone could honestly say GRRM isn't a good writer. I've never read anyone that can even hold a candle to Martin. As someone who is working on their own series, it is very intimidating.

[Ribupr]

Im sorry I have to say it...Lord of the Rings sucked IMO. It was grueling to get through, and I knew how it would end from the end of book 1. Ice and Fire on the other hand is the opposite.

No comarison IMO.

[JonathanTheBold]

Im sorry I have to say it...Lord of the Rings sucked IMO. It was grueling to get through, and I knew how it would end from the end of book 1. Ice and Fire on the other hand is the opposite.

No comarison IMO.

Exactly and it bothers me how people like to talk a out how deep the world and rich the back story of LOTR is but when you brake it all down its just gods with nonsensical names makeing creatures the speake nonsensical languages. honestly how does anyone read the creation stories of elves and dwarf actually under stand all the names and who did what

[King Tyrion VIII]

I'm currently reading LOTR for the first time. It's great but it's no ASOIAF.

BUT, apples and oranges for sure.

[newwb]

people who say asoiaf is better because its 'realistic' remind me of people who say star wars episode 3 is good because its 'dark'. lotr is an epic, its not supposed to be realistic. if you dont like epics as a genre thats fine, but that doesn't make lotr bad. if you think its simplistic, you need to read it again. this time dont skim. asoiaf is a novel, its gonna do different things and have a different feel.

[Ser Not Appearing]

It's like comparing the first wheel and a new car.

[Thor Odinson]

It's like comparing the first wheel and a new car.

Not really, no. That would be an apt comparison if you were comparing ancient Neolithic cave paintings as a form of story telling versus modern narratives, but there's nothing that Martin does which is so profoundly new in comparison to what Tolkien did. They're both writing in the same genre using the same novel format. Martin just tells a different story from the one which Tolkien tells, which doesn't make it better or worse, just different.

[Ser Not Appearing]

Disagree.

Writers in general take inspiration and draw from both contemporaries and the past as they stitch stories together. It is much more collaborative than simply dreaming up a story.

Writers today have a backdrop of rich history to draw from (in the form of other books in this genre) that owes much to Tolkien... not to mention resources of research and other tools useful in effective world building.

[The Angels' Prophet]

LoTR just seems...dull to me. I think its something to do with the writing style. People who argue that Tolkien created a more, diverse, fleshed out world, i argue with that hesitantly. I never actually finished the series(LoTR) but I will argue that GRRm has the perspective of many different characters, in many diverse enviroment, and I think that there is even more to come through that. I Prefer ASOIAF, but I will not argue that it is, objectively, a better book series.

[Howling Mad]

ASOIAF without reservation.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

Not really, no. That would be an apt comparison if you were comparing ancient Neolithic cave paintings as a form of story telling versus modern narratives, but there's nothing that Martin does which is so profoundly new in comparison to what Tolkien did. They're both writing in the same genre using the same novel format. Martin just tells a different story from the one which Tolkien tells, which doesn't make it better or worse, just different.

This is so ridiculously wrong it's hard to believe you were being serious

[Lord Reaver]

Yeah, I had to do a double take of that one. Please, if you must respond to posts like these, do us all the favor and at least read up on basic literary styles and genres.

[Leif]

I really enjoyed the LOTR movies, but I've never been compelled to get the books. In ASOIAF's case, I started watching the show first, and for some reason was really intrigued. Ended up getting the books and they were a blast. I guess I just prefer the political struggle sprinkled with a bit of supernatural concept over the epic journey one. I'm a big fan of epic poems (Iliad, Odyssey, etc) and LOTR is kinda like a modern version of those, so it was interesting to read something slightly different but with bits and pieces of the former.

Though, I'll never understand why some people like to argue over which is better. It's all about personal preference, and there's no reason why you can't enjoy both without crowning one.

[Thor Odinson]

This is so ridiculously wrong it's hard to believe you were being serious

They're both writing novels. Martin does POV chapters, but again, that's nothing new. He didn't invent that concept, nor did it come about after Tolkien, but predates him. Tolkien using a different way to tell his story doesn't somehow make his story more primitive, as the person I was replying to was implying.

Yeah, I had to do a double take of that one. Please, if you must respond to posts like these, do us all the favor and at least read up on basic literary styles and genres.

They both wrote novels, a format which was fully developed and became popularized around the 18th century. So tell me exactly how I'm wrong? What did Martin create that was so groundbreakingly new that it didn't exist in literature before? Other than Martin telling his story through POV's, which isn't a concept he invented, what was so vastly different between them other than different stories?

[Flig]

Exactly and it bothers me how people like to talk a out how deep the world and rich the back story of LOTR is but when you brake it all down its just gods with nonsensical names makeing creatures the speake nonsensical languages. honestly how does anyone read the creation stories of elves and dwarf actually under stand all the names and who did what

I'm going to have to disagree here. Tolkien was very into linguistics, and his languages had rules and grammar and all made perfectly good sense. Just because you don't speak the language, it doesn't make it nonsense.

[jandslegate]

Tolkien's works will always have a special place to me. I can't say nothing is better, but on the same hand I don't think anything else would ever be able to replace what they mean to me. The fantasy world(s) he created are well...fantastic, but it's the underlying messages. The relevance of the stories events with what happened in his and our generations as we still and will always be effected by the World Wars. The rise of industry and the cause and effect it has on the 'old world' and nature; The Age of Man. I love ASOIAF, but as was said earlier, it's unfair to really compare the two. I feel both worlds give us vitally important lessons in human nature.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I've never read anyone that can even hold a candle to Martin.

So you've never read Shakespeare then?

For what it's worth, Martin wrote in Dreamsongs that when he was starting out as a writer, he used to think that if he worked at it, he'd one day be as good as Robert E. Howard. Then he read LOTR and got very discouraged - he didn't think he could ever be as good as Tolkien. Ever since then, he's said he tries to steer clear from Tolkien imitation on the grounds he doesn't want to tread on the master's heels.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'm going to have to disagree here. Tolkien was very into linguistics, and his languages had rules and grammar and all made perfectly good sense. Just because you don't speak the language, it doesn't make it nonsense.

JonathanTheBold is likely trolling. The languages came first with Tolkien: the stories were written to give a backstory to the languages,

[Thor Odinson]

So you've never read Shakespeare then?

For what it's worth, Martin wrote in Dreamsongs that when he was starting out as a writer, he used to think that if he worked at it, he'd one day be as good as Robert E. Howard. Then he read LOTR and got very discouraged - he didn't think he could ever be as good as Tolkien. Ever since then, he's said he tries to steer clear from Tolkien imitation on the grounds he doesn't want to tread on the master's heels.

I really wish I could remember this story better, or who told it, but I remember once hearing a story about an aspiring writer and how he felt totally discouraged about his prospects of ever getting published, because he felt he could never be as good as the greatest writers, so he gave up writing altogether. He then spent the next couple of years doing a lot of reading and in that time he ran across the work of a lot of writers whose work he was less than impressed with. Often times he'd find himself thinking "I can do better than this." That was when he realized that he didn't have to be as good as the greatest of the field to be successful as a published author. He just had to be better than the worst. Good advice, I think, for anyone who wants to be a writer. And who knows? Maybe with time and experience your name will end up being one of those luminaries that future aspiring writers look up to and compare themselves against?