asoiaf's place in cultural/literary history

[Morienthar]

I found A Dance With Dragons a tough read ;).

A Feast For Crows is the work of a great writer though.

Unrelated you might enjoy this.....

http://www.lotrplaza.com/showthread.php?83-Tom-B-Peeling-the-Onion-(Collegium-1)

[Miodrag]

1.The Language

OK, fair enough, Martin's expertise isn't the language, Tolkien is better in this regard, though, truth be told, Tolkien was a master linguist, so it doesn't mean Martin's bad.

2.The World Depth(World Building or whatever that is called)

The way Martin handled religions (four of them! plus a cult!), economy, the vassal system, the nature of monarchy, to name just a few aspects, makes ASOIAF second to none in terms of world building. All due respect for Tolkien and his achievements, but I don't see what Martin lacks in this regard, even if compared to Tolkien. Like, I really don't see what benefit would some invented language add.

3.Staying the same through out,Tolkien's writing never dipped in terms of quality,Heck even the stuff edited by Christopher are almost at the same level as Tolkien's own work.

This is probably rooted in popular notion that AFFC and ADWD are weaker than the first three books. Structurally, they are a little, no doubt about it, but thematically and characterization wise, and even prose wise, that's hardly the case.

4.The peripheral world building through letters and other media.

Why would this matter? Are we to include all the terrific interviews Martin gave, for example?

[James Sucellus]

Unrelated you might enjoy this.....

http://www.lotrplaza...n-(Collegium-1)

Will never forgive Jackson for cutting Tom out of the (Rather amazingly well done!) movies. Though I suppose the audience sitting through 30 minutes of singing may have been a bit much.

Hey dol! Merry dol! Ring a dong dillo!

[King Aerys the Just]

I don't think the world building of LOTR is all that great. It is extensive in that it covers very long time periods and contains made up languages and all, but it is lacking in depth regarding how things actually work and look, which makes Middle Earth seem a bit empty and "dead" in comparison to other fantasy worlds. So much of the world building in Tolkien's works just looks like lists of kings and queens and large battles to me. It might fit the setting and style of his novels, but still.

[James Sucellus]

The way Martin handled religions (four of them! plus a cult!), economy, the vassal system, the nature of monarchy, to name just a few aspects, makes ASOIAF second to none in terms of world building.

Nah, it makes him second to one in world-building ;). Tolkien invented fictional languages, a complete hierarchy of deities and lesser spirits, countless poems and songs, and a fictional history dating from the world's creation until its final Ragnarok-esque end.

I doubt Martin would agree he's better at world-building than Tolkien. Especially as his world is largely based on history and events that happened, whereas Tolkien's Elvish language, culture and history is entirely invented and comes from one genius's mind.

I don't think the world building of LOTR is all that great.

Not all that great!? You're a hard person to impress.

[Miodrag]

Well the complexity of the writing and the way it is written, the amount of history, the language the mythology behind it, the fact that it’s not only one two three books but Tolkien made a whole new world till the last detail etc… all of them. All of them make me believe that Tolkien’s work is and always will be the best of the best, like Iliad and Odyssey, there are others Greek ancient text stories etc but Homer’s are the best.

I already addressed some of these aspects in my previous post (a reply to other poster), but let ma ask you this: aren't Homer's and Martin's works closer to each other, than Tolkien's is to any of them? That's my opinion, of course, not same measurable fact. And, Homer's epics are written in language and style that resembles nothing modern. But, what I always find lacking with Tolkien is characterization. It's not that I think he had to characterize his novels differently. He did what he wanted to do, and he made great novels in the process. But, if we are to compare characterization, then Martin's saga is a lot closer to Homer's than to Tolkien's. And, since Martin's saga pretty much relies on characters as, say, vehicles for delivering the story and it's themes, I'd say Martin is highly successful in what he's doing - and not less successful than Tolkien was in what he was doing.

[Morienthar]

OK, fair enough, Martin's expertise isn't the language, Tolkien is better in this regard, though, truth be told, Tolkien was a master linguist, so it doesn't mean Martin's bad.

The way Martin handled religions (four of them! plus a cult!), economy, the vassal system, the nature of monarchy, to name just a few aspects, makes ASOIAF second to none in terms of world building. All due respect for Tolkien and his achievements, but I don't see what Martin lacks in this regard, even if compared to Tolkien. Like, I really don't see what benefit would some invented language add.

This is probably rooted in popular notion that AFFC and ADWD are weaker than the first three books. Structurally, they are a little, no doubt about it, but thematically and characterization wise, and even prose wise, that's hardly the case.

Why would this matter? Are we to include all the terrific interviews Martin gave, for example?

1.I'm not saying Martin is bad in any regard,You asked where Tolkien is better.

2.The Religions I give him credit for he showed how they affect the people that is one of Tolkien's failures,But most of the other things are borrowed from real world examples and a Language can add a lot to the world,Languages point out differences and similarities between people,It also helps make the world feel more diverse.The timeline of middle earth runs from creation(We can even read the creation in Sillim) to end and even recreation,These are things that are just absent in GRRM's work.

3.I don't really think AFFC was weak at all,ADWD was slightly weak in terms of characterization and prose.

4.I consider the SSM's as a part of GRRM's legacy,I think World of Ice and Fire might end up bridging the peripheral world building gap.

[James Sucellus]

Characters like Feanor and Turin strike me more as characters from Homer's epics than Martin's, who resemble Shakespearean more. Stannis and Jaime especially.

[Morienthar]

Characters like Feanor and Turin strike me more as characters from Homer's epics than Martin's, who resemble Shakespearean more. Stannis and Jaime especially.

Stannis is vaguely Macbethian.

[Miodrag]

Nah, it makes him second to one in world-building ;). Tolkien invented fictional languages, a complete hierarchy of deities and lesser spirits, countless poems and songs, and a fictional history dating from the world's creation until its final Ragnarok-esque end.

I doubt Martin would agree he's better at world-building than Tolkien. Especially as his world is largely based on history and events that happened, whereas Tolkien's Elvish language, culture and history is entirely invented and comes from one genius's mind.

But why would Martin invent new languages? To impress Tolkien fans? (I don't mean you nor anyone in particular, of course). The way I see it, world-building isn't some kind of a competition. Martin built just enough world for his story to be fully developed and realized. And he made a brilliant job with that. Could he invent/build/create more? Of course he could. Does he need? Absolutely not. So, in terms of did he 'forget' or 'neglect' some part or some aspect of the world, I'd say Martin's second to nobody.

[James Sucellus]

Tolkien breathed to life the culture of hobbits, elves, dwarves and men in quite a breathtaking way. By contrast, Martin did a superlative job with Westeros yet gave us the fairly shallow and not particularly believable culture of Essos.

I don't think the two men are close in ability at all, but I think Martin's ranking of distant second as a "modern" fantasy writer is still incredibly impressive and if the next 2 books are better than ADWD, he could move to a closer position.

Stannis is vaguely Macbethian.

Theon is probably the most Shakespearean of Martin's characters, definitely of the Macbeth/Othello variety.

[Morienthar]

But why would Martin invent new languages? To impress Tolkien fans? (I don't mean you nor anyone in particular, of course). The way I see it, world-building isn't some kind of a competition. Martin built just enough world for his story to be fully developed and realized. And he made a brilliant job with that. Could he invent/build/create more? Of course he could. Does he need? Absolutely not. So, in terms of did he 'forget' or 'neglect' some part or some aspect of the world, I'd say Martin's second to nobody.

At the end of the day ASoIaF isn't an Epic it's a political commentary with a dash of Fantasy thrown in,So you are right the story doesn't need the amount of world building that an epic like LotR would.

[Veltigar]

I think that the LOTR is incredibly overrated. It bored me to tears. I would consider the hobbits to be among the worst fantasy creatures ever created (right after shiny vampires) which is a shame because I really enjoyed the Silmarillion and I think that the Hobbit is a good children’s book (I hated Bilbo of course but the other characters were good). My favorite work is actually "the Children of Hurin" (although it's hard to say how much of Tolkien was really in there since his son composed the book IIRC). The worldbuilding although great in its own way (I'm impressed with the languages for instance) has nothing on ASOIAF when it comes down to effectiveness (GRRM doesn’t need endless list to make his world seem real). Of course I have my qualms with Westeros (the bad teeth off the farmers in a world without refined Sugar and the first night) but I find the culture in general to be incredibly real (the bastard surnames for instance are a sign of GRRM brilliance as a worldbuilder). I prefer that realism over Tolkiens mythological approach.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

snip

I don’t agree. I see more similarities between Tolkien and Homer than Martin and Homer

Characters like Feanor and Turin strike me more as characters from Homer's epics than Martin's, who resemble Shakespearean more. Stannis and Jaime especially.

I agree Tolkien’s characters are closer than Martin’s to Homer’s characters. Like Tuor is close to Odysseus, Turin to Ajax, Luthien to Helen, Feanor to Achilles etc,

[Morienthar]

Theon is probably the most Shakespearean of Martin's characters, definitely of the Macbeth/Othello variety.

Yeah Theon is every tragic character personified.

[David Selig]

I never understood why the fact that tolkien was obsessed enough to create whole languages makes his worldbuilding supreme. The vast majority of the readers couldn't care less about stuff like this.

[Miodrag]

2.The Religions I give him credit for he showed how they affect the people that is one of Tolkien's failures,But most of the other things are borrowed from real world examples and a Language can add a lot to the world,Languages point out differences and similarities between people,It also helps make the world feel more diverse.The timeline of middle earth runs from creation(We can even read the creation in Sillim) to end and even recreation,These are things that are just absent in GRRM's work.

Just like economy, for example, is absent from Tolkien's. But, those are the natures of their respective tasks. Tolkien wanted to create a mythology that could inspire our world. Martin wanted to create the world that resembles and resonates in our world. They both succeeded greatly. The fact that GRRM borrowed a lot of history would take something out of his creativity, if world-building was his main goal. But, it wasn't. What he borrowed, he used in a dramatic and narrative sense to tell his story, which is a damn creative and tiring and difficult process. The success with which he accomplished is one of the reasons I salute him as much as I do.

3.I don't really think AFFC was weak at all,ADWD was slightly weak in terms of characterization and prose.

I beg to differ about ADWD. But, don't trust me. There's any number of threads about best lines in ASOIAF. Just look how many lines from ADWD regularly gets included in those threads. Re: characterization, sorry, but I'm clueless there, since characters are among the biggest strengths of ADWD in my eyes.

[Morienthar]

Just like economy, for example, is absent from Tolkien's. But, those are the natures of their respective tasks. Tolkien wanted to create a mythology that could inspire our world. Martin wanted to create the world that resembles and resonates in our world. They both succeeded greatly. The fact that GRRM borrowed a lot of history would take something out of his creativity, if world-building was his main goal. But, it wasn't. What he borrowed, he used in a dramatic and narrative sense to tell his story, which is a damn creative and tiring and difficult process. The success with which he accomplished is one of the reasons I salute him as much as I do.

I think I'll quote what I said a few minutes ago...

At the end of the day ASoIaF isn't an Epic it's a political commentary with a dash of Fantasy thrown in,So you are right the story doesn't need the amount of world building that an epic like LotR would.

I beg to differ about ADWD. But, don't trust me. There's any number of threads about best lines in ASOIAF. Just look how many lines from ADWD regularly gets included in those threads. Re: characterization, sorry, but I'm clueless there, since characters are among the biggest strengths of ADWD in my eyes.

AFFC has the best characterizations in the series next only to probably AGoT.

ADWD killed characters like Tyrion and Dany for me,But to each his own I guess.

[James Sucellus]

A Dance With Dragons is half great and half a mess. And half a mess is enough to make a whole book a mess. Especially in regards to pacing. The Lord of the Rings starts kinda slow for the first 100 pages but then gets increasingly exciting throughout, winding down slowly for the climactic scouring of the Shire.

I feel Martin has accidentally slowed down the pacing of ASOIAF to a complete halt, when he should have been building up to a finale. Who knows though, maybe I won't look back on "Where do whores go?" and Dany's fawning over Daario as a complete waste of time when the next book reveals some masterplan. All I know is that I found nothing in the entirety of Tolkien's legendarium as tedious as Tyrion and Dany's ADWD chapters. Nor did anything in Tolkien's legendarium frustrate me so much as having a roughly completed book rushed to a quick release to cash in on a TV show's success. ADWD obviously needed many more months of editing, I'm sorry but it just did.

Tolkien was a perfectionist. He would never have allowed an obviously unfinished book like ADWD to be published under his name. Being a perfectionist means that he published a lot less books than Martin, but it makes all the difference in regards to his reputation.

[Miodrag]

Just to add, before I vanish for a few hours at least: I enjoy the discussion very much. I mean, this is among rare threads that are meant for a comparisons of all kinds. And what I do think ASOIAF desperately misses, is to be compared to other great works of literature. I believe that, after this many testing and analyzing it is regularly subjected to, ASOIAF is more than ready to pass that test, also. But, it has to be tested. And, as I said, this is one of the rare threads that attempts exactly that.