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

[The Marquis de Leech]

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

Let's see...

- Deformed, highly intelligent, and very short protagonist: L.M. Bujold's Miles Vorkosigan

- Setting of vastly long seasons: Brian Aldiss' Helliconia series

- Much-ridiculed and underrated protagonist is surrounded by a ruthless family with a mad nephew on the throne: Robert Graves' I, Claudius

- Decent upstanding protagonist is murdered in a political scheme, and his son takes the helm: Frank Herbert's Dune

And so on. ASOIAF isn't unique or original in terms of actual subject matter. What matters is that Martin reuses these tropes in his own way, and does so highly effectively.

[Thor Odinson]

He didn't invent the idea of chapters told from the POV of different characters, either. I can't tell you who did, but Hemingway used that in To Have and Have Not back in 1937, the same year Tolkien started writing The Lord of the Rings (And went so far that at least one of the narrators was pretty unreliable and the reader couldn't trust they were getting an accurate portrayal of other people from his chapters). Stoker also employed chapters from different character POV's it in Dracula back in 1897.

[Eli Stark]

I always felt that ASOIAF is LOR meets the Godfather. Si, the added grittiness, realism, and intrigue is an upgrade over LOR. However, I still love LOR. It's kind of like, Metallica was heavier than Black Sabbath (at least early Metallica), but Metallica never happens without Black Sabbath.

[Lord Reaver]

They both wrote novels, a format which was fully developed and became popularized around the 18th century.

Technically, the professor wrote (or set out to create) an Epic, or perhaps more fitting a series of interlocking Epics, It's just that those are rather hard to publish in modern society, so it had to be broken into novels, most of which were never finished, hence the name Unfinished tales in which is gathered some of the rough drafts to several of these.

Tolkien never sat down with the goal to publish a novel and get rich. He did not create his world for the purpose of publication at all, rather it grew from his interests in linguistics, mythology and literature.

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?

Oh, I never disagreed with THAT bit. GRRM is a proficient author, but his main feature as far as inventiveness lies in bringing about 'naturalism' within the fantasy genre. Not that he came up with that completely either, of course, the great R. E. Howard has been mentioned.

A crucial thing to remember is that no-one creates in a vacuum. I dare anyone to come up with a writer (or other artist) who is completely without impressions/inspiration from earlier works. Just as Tolkien drew much of his inspiration from earlier Epics/Mythologies, GRRM draws heavily from both history and earlier literature both within his genre and without. The important thing to remember is that this is not a bad thing.

[Thor Odinson]

An intent to get rich isn't a prerequisite of what defines a novel. Nor are epics and novels mutually exclusive. And while I can't speak to the Unfinished Tales, he did intend The Lord of the Rings to be a novel. It just ended up being broken up into several novels by his publisher, but they're novels just the same (As opposed to, say, poems, which are written in verse as opposed to prose).

Oh, I never disagree with THAT bit. GRRM is a proficient author, but his main feature as far as inventiveness lies in bringing about 'naturalism' within the fantasy genre. Not that he came up with that completely either, of course, the great R. E. Howard has been mentioned.

That makes the specifics of his story different, but differences in the details or tone of a story don't make it a wholly separate genre.

The important thing to remember is that this is not a bad thing.

I never said it was, nor did I say one story is better than the other. What I was pointing out in my initial post, which was a response to another poster, was that saying that The Lord of the Rings is to A Song of Ice and Fire what an ancient wheel is to a modern day car is a totally invalid comparison, because The Lord of the Rings isn't a primitive example of a form which A Song of Ice and Fire came along and massively expanded upon and changed almost completely. They're both fantasies, they're both epic in scope, and they're both novels. Tone and narrative technique don't constitute enormous differences between the two, nor do the narrative techniques which Martin employs represent some kind of massive evolution of those employed by Tolkien. They're just different.

[65536ob]

i prefered reading the asoiaf books but i prefer lotr as a whole due to the fact that there was much more world building in lotr

[The Marquis de Leech]

Tolkien never sat down with the goal to publish a novel and get rich. He did not create his world for the purpose of publication at all, rather it grew from his interests in linguistics, mythology and literature.

Yes and no. The Silmarillion was his own private hobby, but he was badgered into writing LOTR by Sir Stanley Unwin because Allen and Unwin wanted a sequel to The Hobbit. Sir Stanley then cut him a lot of leeway with the end product.

I dare anyone to come up with a writer (or other artist) who is completely without impressions/inspiration from earlier works.

Exactly. Everyone has influences - what matters is how you use them. The closest I can think of for 'writer without influences' is probably the Marquis de Sade, who was driven by his own, um, fetishes. In genre fiction, Mervyn Peake comes fairly close - there is nothing quite like Gormenghast, before or since, but even he owed much to gothic literature.

[Morienthar]

Lets set things right...

LOTR is a historical perspective of things,i.e after the fact.

ASOIAF is a running commentry.

I prefer the writings of middle earth and Tolkien,but that doesn't take away from the fact that GRRM is almost as good as Tolkien was.

[zaphodbrx]

I like LOTR but it just doesn't stand up to ASOIAF in any number of ways. Particularly, it lacks interesting villains. Orcs are evil. Why are the evil? Who knows, they're just evil.

[Morienthar]

I like LOTR but it just doesn't stand up to ASOIAF in any number of ways. Particularly, it lacks interesting villains. Orcs are evil. Why are the evil? Who knows, they're just evil.

Try to read his other works and some of the accumulated work by his son,You might get a good idea as to why things are evil.

As for the origins and evil nature of the orcs I think Tolkien said he'd expand on it in the sequel to LOTR,he never got to write it unfortunately.

[ARYa_Nym]

The series is not finished to make a good comparison imo. I say this because the last 2 books I think aren't all that good and had too much filler but he still has a chance to get back to form.

[Lord Reaver]

Well, if you're going that route, you can never compare them, as Tolkien's work was never finished.

[newwb]

I like LOTR but it just doesn't stand up to ASOIAF in any number of ways. Particularly, it lacks interesting villains. Orcs are evil. Why are the evil? Who knows, they're just evil.

why are joffrey and ramsay evil? they're just plain psychopaths. i guess we'll have to wait and see with the others.

in a way, tolkien's evil is more interesting, since its rooted in character flaws we all have; pride, selfishness, possessiveness...

it gets even more interesting when you expand the definition of villain. is boromir a villain? feanor in the silmarillion?

[ARYa_Nym]

Well we still don't even know exactly what the series title is about even. Is it Jon? Is it the war with the Others? Or opposing forces and balance in general?

[Kienn]

ASoIaF hands down. Dany could come in next book and roast everything then sit on a charred Iron throne with nothing but corpses around her and it'd still beat LotR.

[JonisHenryTudor]

I subscribe to the consensus that Tolkien was a fantastic world-builder, but not that great an actual writer. Also I'm not too fond of some of his views, some of which are reflected in pretty strongly in his work (mostly thinking of his stance on science and technology and all that stuff here).

So, I prefer ASOIAF, but I respect LOTR for inspiring GRRM and so many other writers in the first place.

Not sure what his stance was? Care to elaborate?

I have always said this, and took much criticism, but Peter Jackson did a better job with LoTR than JRRT did....sorry.

[Morienthar]

I have always said this, and took much criticism, but Peter Jackson did a better job with LoTR than JRRT did....sorry.

If inserting more action is your definition of better then D&D's show must be better than GRRM's books too right??

[Lord Reaver]

I have always said this, and took much criticism, but Peter Jackson did a better job with LoTR than JRRT did....sorry.

Well, in that case, you've probably heard every counter argument, so I'll instead say: Good for you, I am happy you can enjoy the movies. Me personally, I can't but to each his own and all that...

[mrunderhill]

Not sure what his stance was? Care to elaborate?

I have always said this, and took much criticism, but Peter Jackson did a better job with LoTR than JRRT did....sorry.

I honestly think Jackson did a poor job given the source material and ruined many a character and some of the greatest scenes in the book. That people come out of the film thinking Frodo is a wimp or a loser says its own story.

When Tolkien writes a scene it is much more powerful. Just look at the accidental death of Beleg by his best friend.

But as he stood, finding himself free, and ready to sell his life dearly against imagined foes, there came a great flash of lightning above them, and in the light he looked upon Beleg's face. Then Turin stood stonestill and silent, staring at that dreadful death, knowing what he had done, and so terrible was his face, lit by the lightning that flicked all above them, that Gwindor cowered in the ground and dared not raise his eyes......

Thus ended Beleg the strongbow, truest of friends, greatest in skill of all those that harboured in the woods of Beleriand in the Elder Days, at the hands of he whom he loved most; and that grief was graven on the face of Turin and never faded.

[Lord Reaver]

Indeed. And that passage also illustrates Thor's error when classifying Tolkien's work as purely novels. There's poetry in his work, quite a bit of it in fact. The rather obvious use of alliteration (a rhyme form used heavily in Norse literature, a clear influence on Tolkien), could be used to argue it's actually poetry as much as it is a passage from a novel.