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

[dragontamer]

To oversimplify things, to me, Tolkien is a great writer whereas Martin is a clever one. Obviously Martin is doing something right since he has found the way to make people stay tuned to his music for at least a decade but his work imo is incomparable to that of Tolkien.

In Lord of the Rings there is no great mystery of someone’s parentage, no enigmatic evil figure, no cliffhangers waiting to be resolved after many years and still I can read it and read it over and over again and I still cry when the horns of the Rohirim are been heard from Minas Tirith and they realized that help has arrived or when Sam holds Frodo while lava surrounds them.

Not to mention the complexity of his work, that includes the invention of different languages, theogony and cosmogony. But maybe I am just being sentimental…. :dunno:

[Tony Soprano]

I think Tolkien and GRRM are quite different writers. Tolkien was a master at creating new worlds and making them feel authentic, while GRRM has written some of the best characters in the history of fantasy.

I'll always hold LoTR dear to my heart, but if I had to pick between the two, I'd go with ASoIaF every time.

[The Marquis de Leech]

.In Lord of the Rings there is no great mystery of someone’s parentage, no enigmatic evil figure, no cliffhangers waiting to be resolved after many years

Actually, there is a massive cliffhanger: Frodo getting captured by the Orcs of Cirith Ungol. It's easy to forget that those who lived in the 1950s would have had to wait some time between the publishing of The Two Towers and The Return of the King.

[Lord Freypie]

They are two of the three series I've re-read the most times (I may have read The Accursed Kings a few more times, but as it isn't fantasy it doesn't count).

When I was a teenager I was a true Tolkien fanatic.

LOTR tome 2 was even the only book (and nearly the only thing) I ever stolen in my life as I couldn't wait for enough pocket money to buy it when I was 12 or so.

And Sindarin was the only non native language I ever wrote poems in around age of 16.

Now my worship for Tolkien has completely vanished with time, probably because I've found most universes he inspired more interesting than his own (I definitely don't agree about his "world building" skills out of inventing languages, his world is extremely poor due to his lack of interest for economy, sociology, politics etc... and extreme manicheism ; after visiting some dozen worlds when I was playing tabletop rpgs and as much reading fantasy series I rate a large majority as richer and a better fuel for my imagination than the emptiness Middle Earth is ; if Tolkien had with RE. Howard the merit to be a source of inspiration for most of them), His qualities were far more in the writting for me, his capacity to switch from a light storyteller tone to an old style history book one or mix very earthian food obsessed hobbit dialogues with extremely poetic descriptions in the same chapters. It's his capacity to include ancient songs and obscure references to his world legends and history in the middle of some dialogue about pipe-weed or piss contest between elves and dwarves that succeeds to make his world look richer than it is (basically his style denies the reader extensive or objective information about world history, which only appears as legendary hints in a book like LOTR, the interest for the world Tolkien succeeds to generate is a bit like the interest for conspirations theories when you read ASOIAF, the product of a good writing technique to hide enough elements to make the reader dream about them).

But once you have read the Silmarillon a few dozen times, or worse couldn't resist to devour the 12 volumes Middle Earth history by Christopher Tolkien (I wish he never had published anything but the few complete Silmarillon chapters and perhaps the Children of Hurin, I think it's what killed his father for me) I find really hard to find Tolkien world satisfying, it appears to me as a backbone of legends and languages with no flesh around, where most characters are conditionned by their blood or some blessing or curse to be what they are, with no human like personnality, and kingdoms just a list of ruling dynasties with no society around. Also becoming a grown up I started to see the racial manicheism of this kind of fantasy as a not so good element, not that I support political correctness criticism of books (hate nothing more), but because many elements of Middle Earth smell a little too much a writer who has grown up before World War II having no problem with the idea of superior races (as well as the one of giving absolute power to some providential leader of the "good blood") and I find escaping to a fantasy world a bit harder when you can only detect it's the product of such a very dated brain. I prefer by far mostly human universes now, like the ones of Robin Hobb or GRRM, or at least in the Tolkien inspired ones those who have removed the concepts of "doomed to be evil with no redemption possible" orcs and Mary Sue elves.

Anyway... I would still recommand LOTR to anyone having not read it yet, but I actually prefer ASOIAF by far, as well as a bunch of other books/series including some of the Zelazny, Moorcock and Robin Hobb ones (and if you love "feeling real coherent and complete" well developped fantasy universes more than quality artistic writting I'd say there are far richer options than Middle Earth, especially series set in worlds developped to be rpg settings, where every aspect of life and society has been considered).

[stu1987]

ASoIaF everyday. LoTR was enjoyable, but I don't think it really requires much input or thought from the reader. Immediately we know who's good and who's bad, and I think this, in turn, makes the characters quite predictable. I also couldn't really relate to the LoTR characters, as they are, to a certain extent, paragons of good or evil, there's often not much in between.

I could easily read LoTR and then forget about it when I put the book down. However, with ASoIaF... it's a different story.

[Volantene Republican Army]

LoTR is more thematically complicated (nature of good and evil, sacrifice as essential to victory) and so probably a better work of literature. However, ASOIAF is more entertaining (twincest, sarcastic dwarves, etc...).

The Los Angeles Review of Books recently published an essay on this topic that was pretty good:

http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?id=1543

[Veltigar]

ASOIAF wins this easily for me. LOTR is fucking boring. I saw the movies first and then read the books... What a bitter disappointment. The thing that made the movies great (Aragorn-Gimli-Legolas) was plain boring and unbelievable in the books. And I really thought that I couldn't hate the Hobbits even more than I hated them in the movies, but the books smashed that idea. I hate the Hobbits with a passion (the whole stuff with Bombadil or what's his name what an utter waste of time) and therefore I'm a strong Sauron supporter (even though Sauron is a pussy). I also found it strange that there wasn't really any hint at Frodo and Sam being gay in the books, while the movies strongly hinted that IMO (That scene where Frodo said "I can't carry the ring Frodo, but I can carry you" was probably the gayest scene I have ever seen in any film. That says a lot since I've watched Brokeback Mountain, A Single Man, Le temps qui reste, Spartacus, ... I still think that it would have been a stronger ending if Frodo and Sam would have left together and come to terms with their nature ).

But although I hate LOTR, I like the Hobbit (Dwarves and less Hobbits) and I love the Silmarillion. Especially the Children of Hurin, a great book, and probably the grittiest Tolkien story. A tragic anti-hero, two badass villains (Melkor is superior to Sauron in every way possible, Glaurung is awesome as well). But ASOIAF is still way better.

[The Storm King]

LoTR has a really detailed well established world. other than the three main books and the hobbit, there is a 12 book series on the complete history of middle earth, the silmarillion which establishes their mythology and many other books to compliment the main series. its a massive world with a deep detailed mythology and history.

i do like the story and the writing of Asoiaf better though. but its not quite there yet. and i doubt it'll get as big as Lotr (in terms of the worlds not popularity)

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I worship Tolkien's work but I am in love with ASOIAF...

[Jon Snow eats wild beaver]

Sorry to come to the discussion so late, but I must say that these cannot be easily compared. Both stories were affected by the events of the times (and localities, to a lesser extent) in which their writers wrote. These times are pretty far removed from each other, as is their cultural bent. I mean, do people prefer modern, or post-modern? Informed by the two horrible world wars from the standpoint of a European participant and the epic struggle against the evil of Hitler's Germany or the many varied lower level conflicts of these last twenty years? And George Martin's struggles are mostly those of men against other men. JRR Tolkein's struggles were imbued with a sense of danger and wonder at an undiscovered natural world, which in asoiaf seems to have been discovered, settled, and is populated. In fact, Martin's series seems to be the about the age of men that JRR Tolkein's books were not, but foretold was coming in his world.

The ideas of gender and societal violence and race and sexuality are so different now than they were when Tolkein wrote. I think it would be easier to compare George Martin's works with JK Rowling's honestly, or his other contemporaries (how about the Iron Druid series). Or if you want an even more jolting experience, compare his works to the Canterbury Tales, which is a real eye-opener. I mean, he is frequently said to be drawing from the time of the War of the Roses, right? Reading the Canterbury Tales will show you pretty fairly how informed he is by his modern world in the ideas that come across in his writing.

If you can get through it. I mean, if you guys are saying Tolkein bores you, well, I can't hold out much hope for you reading Canterbury Tales.

As for me, I couldn't or won't prefer one over the other.

[SilentSense]

LOTR. And it's not even because I read LOTR, the Hobbit and the Sil growing up. Reread lotr quite recently and still thought it was awesome.

[Gaz0680]

As others have said, it's apples and oranges.

In the end, it really comes down to personal preference. For me, I find the ASoIaF characters more engaging and find the books easier to read. Tolkien's writing is too similar to the bible for my liking, making it quite difficult to read. Some of the songs and storytelling means are a lot like psalms and proverbs and the sheer number of characters in the books and way they are referred to is a LOT like the bible.

However, the scope and detail of Tolkien's world is vast and Tolkien's works are without question THE definitive fantasy setting.The amount of imagination and detail that went into Tolkien's world is almost unfathomable.

Pretty much every single fantasy author today has been influenced by Tolkien in a major way (including GRRM). Aspects of Tolkien's work are prevalent in the world of pretty much every fantasy series out there, including the works of Robert Jordan, Raymond E. Feist, Robin Hobb, JK Rowling, etc. Each of today's fantasy writers have created their own worlds and have their own writing style, focuses and themes, but Tolkien clearly set the standard. Indeed, the interpretation of Tolkien's works (and those aspects that other fantasy writers liked/didn't like) have shaped the way today's authors have created their own fantasy worlds and characters.

I own LOTR, the Hobbit and the Silmarillon, and although I haven't read either in years (and when I've tried to, been unable to get through them), I find GRRM's world more engaging personally due to the scheming, politics and morally ambiguous but fascinating characters.

I prefer ASoIaF on a personal basis, but in terms of which overall is the more influential and definitive works of fantasy, there is no question that it is Tolkien's....despite the fact I think GRRM is re-defining the genre to a certain extent and will also be an influence on future fantasy writers.

[The Pain Yak]

When Minas Tirith is under siege by the forces of Sauron, there is no question who you are meant to root for. The armies of orcs and men corrupted by Sauron have only the desire to enslave and destroy, and should the Dark Lord win the whole world will be covered in sorrow and misery. In the end, all characters of good morals end up staunchly opposed to Sauron, and only evil men, the deluded and the deceived side with Mordor.

When Stannis assaults King's Landing, though...well, who are we rooting for? We hate Joffrey and Cersei, but we like Tyrion and (maybe not quite as much) Sansa. We don't want to see Tyrion burned or Sansa raped. We like Davos Seaworth (probably), but how much do we like Stannis, the 'rightful' ruler but also ruthless and in league with a fanatic who burns her enemies alive? So who are we expected to root for? It isn't spelled out.

No matter which side you look at in SoIaF, you can find people to like and people to detest, monsters and heroes fighting for any given cause, honorable men standing for Joffrey and Bloody Mummers fighting for the King in the North. Perhaps to some that's a weakness, causing apathy among those readers who need clear-cut heroes to root for and straightforward villains to root against. To me, its why I've never been able to get involved in LOTR in the same way I have with SoIaF. For all the depth of detail Tolkien poured into his world, the motivations of the characters and the dilemmas they face are almost always straightforward, the villains and heroes obvious. I simply can't find that as interesting as a world like our own, where the bad and the good is often hard to identify and sympathetic people can nevertheless find themselves working for opposite ends.

That being said, I've still enjoyed LOTR and read it more than once. I just don't find it as engaging as GRRM's world, which feels more like a place inhabited by actual people instead of figures from an epic poem.

[Naathi Prince]

When Minas Tirith is under siege by the forces of Sauron, there is no question who you are meant to root for. The armies of orcs and men corrupted by Sauron have only the desire to enslave and destroy, and should the Dark Lord win the whole world will be covered in sorrow and misery. In the end, all characters of good morals end up staunchly opposed to Sauron, and only evil men, the deluded and the deceived side with Mordor.

When Stannis assaults King's Landing, though...well, who are we rooting for? We hate Joffrey and Cersei, but we like Tyrion and (maybe not quite as much) Sansa. We don't want to see Tyrion burned or Sansa raped. We like Davos Seaworth (probably), but how much do we like Stannis, the 'rightful' ruler but also ruthless and in league with a fanatic who burns her enemies alive? So who are we expected to root for? It isn't spelled out.

No matter which side you look at in SoIaF, you can find people to like and people to detest, monsters and heroes fighting for any given cause, honorable men standing for Joffrey and Bloody Mummers fighting for the King in the North. Perhaps to some that's a weakness, causing apathy among those readers who need clear-cut heroes to root for and straightforward villains to root against. To me, its why I've never been able to get involved in LOTR in the same way I have with SoIaF. For all the depth of detail Tolkien poured into his world, the motivations of the characters and the dilemmas they face are almost always straightforward, the villains and heroes obvious. I simply can't find that as interesting as a world like our own, where the bad and the good is often hard to identify and sympathetic people can nevertheless find themselves working for opposite ends.

That being said, I've still enjoyed LOTR and read it more than once. I just don't find it as engaging as GRRM's world, which feels more like a place inhabited by actual people instead of figures from an epic poem.

Boromir? Gollum?

[The Pain Yak]

Boromir? Gollum?

Do you root for Boromir when he tries to take the ring? Do you root for Gollum when he betrays Frodo and Sam?

Neither are examples of sympathetic characters who are ideologically opposed to other sympathetic characters. Rather, they're examples of sympathetic characters who nevertheless cease being sympathetic during those tragic periods when they oppose the heroes, only to return to our sympathies when and if they fall back in line with the plan of destroying the ring. The right thing to do (destroying the ring) is never really in doubt and, in the end, all the characters we're truly meant to find heroic fall in line with that plan.

[billy g.]

LOTR by far.

I've read it through maybe 8 times since '75. aSOIAF is still new to me, and presently enthralling, thanks to HBO. :)

[conon394]

I simply can't find that as interesting as a world like our own, where the bad and the good is often hard to identify and sympathetic people can nevertheless find themselves working for opposite ends.

Well as I noted before JRRT did start a similar book GRRM writes to some extent but stopped. I suspect at the end of the day the very grey world of political machinations that GRRM likes to write about was not a place JRRT wanted to go. After all it is that world that made WW1, killed all his best friends and sent him to the Somme

[The Pain Yak]

Well as I noted before JRRT did start a similar book GRRM writes to some extent but stopped. I suspect at the end of the day the very grey world of political machinations that GRRM likes to write about was not a place JRRT wanted to go. After all it is that world that made WW1, killed all his best friends and sent him to the Somme

Right, I agree. And you can find some slightly more morally ambiguous characters when you get into the Silmarillion. though there's still no doubt that Morgoth = Evil and those who follow him are either evil themselves or deluded fools.

I think he wrote for his time. There's nothing wrong with that, but it means that if you don't share a desire to enter a somewhat more comforting world where the good and the bad is mostly pretty straightforward, you probably won't enjoy it as much.

And going along with what others have said, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever which of the two series is the most influential, and which will likely remain the most influential for a long time to come. Tolkien wins handily in that regard, despite the current mainstream popularity the HBO series has brought to GRRM.

[mrunderhill]

Right, I agree. And you can find some slightly more morally ambiguous characters when you get into the Silmarillion. though there's still no doubt that Morgoth = Evil and those who follow him are either evil themselves or deluded fools.

I think he wrote for his time. There's nothing wrong with that, but it means that if you don't share a desire to enter a somewhat more comforting world where the good and the bad is mostly pretty straightforward, you probably won't enjoy it as much.

And going along with what others have said, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever which of the two series is the most influential, and which will likely remain the most influential for a long time to come. Tolkien wins handily in that regard, despite the current mainstream popularity the HBO series has brought to GRRM.

No things are not that simple with Tolkien. What about Denethor? What about the Numenoreans? The elves, who forged the great rings? Feanor and the Noldor? In the end Gondor and Arnor could only be overcome, because of their own civil wars. The terrible way the Numenoreans treated their kin, who did not look like them. There is the question of Turin? Then there is Maedhros and his brothers. The question of loyalty that the Lords Andunie had between their king and the Valar.

[The Marquis de Leech]

No things are not that simple with Tolkien.

The thing that gets overlooked by simplifying Tolkien into Good and Evil is that Good and Evil is a struggle both in an external sense, and in an internal sense. Yes, there's a desperate struggle against Mordor, but the good guys aren't good because they're our jolly protagonists. They're good because they are capable of rejecting the Ring (i.e. they act good, despite temptation). Gandalf could, if he so chose, claim the Ring, and use it to defeat Sauron. But that wouldn't mean a victory for Good: it'd mean the exact opposite.