The fact that people can even ask the question of who is better between them is a horrifying indication of how far this generation has fallen. Tolkien by a mile. Martin isn't even in the same league.
J.R.R Tolkien vs. George R.R. Martin
- Thread starter Fox12
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I was going to bring up the military thing. I think even with the knife Tolkein would stand a good chance. I can't see GRRM lifting any kind of weapon, let alone a shield and actual chain mail. He'd just collapse after a few steps and Tolkein could knife him while he was down.Fox12 said:
Assuming, you know, Tolkein could get over his own morals. I guess if you were to present GRRM as an evil the world had to unite in order to defeat?
Now, joining in with the off topic conversation on the authors' actual works, I've never been able to view A Song of Ice and Fire as anything more than fairly standard fantasy. Maybe fantasy with a little bit of historical fiction thrown in. Honestly, the only twist/shocking moment it ever managed to pull on me was Jaime turning out to be an ok person. Every death feels heavily foreshadowed, the political maneuvering and backdoor dealing tends to be simple and unimaginative, and I can only feel a bit of engagement for a few characters. It's not bad, I do find it acceptable, but it's not really more than competent at its best.
Tolkein, as DANGER- MUST SILENCE pointed out, is different. The works that founded modern fantasy don't even feel like fantasy stories. They feel like myths and legends, something greater. At their best, they almost feel real, which is something GRRM has yet to pull off for me despite his more grounded setting. I don't mean real as in "this actually happened", but real as in "this could be a real legend".
Martin might be a bit overweight and not exactly in peak physical condition which is a slight disadvantage but since Tolkien is already dead I guess Martin would win a fight to the death before it even begins.
a) Anduril is not the sword that severed Sauron's hand. Narsil was the sword that shattered while fighting Sauron, and was wielded by Isildur when he dealt that injury to Sauron. The shards of Narsil were gathered, then reforged in Rivendell into Anduril prior to the Fellowship of the Ring leaving on their quest.Fox12 said:
b) What do you mean "Tolkien is armed with"? There's a character that Tolkien self identified with, that appears on his tombstone, and it's not Aragorn.
GoT always struck me as a watered down version of Dune. The series had potential, and the first book was actually good, but after that Martin lost it. His prose are enjoyable, but the plot lost any sense of progression a long time ago. He's not bad, but I have huge issues with his themes and pacing. As for Tolkien, while he's not perfect, he's the one who sets the standard. No ones quite done what he's done before. His work reads like classic Greek myth, or like the viking Edas and mythology. They just feel grounded and rooted in a way other stories aren't. He's not the best author per se, but he's the best myth builder out there, period. Even then, I would argue that he could spin a mean yarn when he felt like it.Azahul said:
Well, assuming that Tolkien isn't dead in this imaginary fight, I'm going to give it to him.
On the note of his works, I'll just say that I love the Lord of the Rings, it is shockingly readable (I have read it more than 20 times), and that it is in no objective way boring or poorly written.
And I have never understood the criticisms people level against his style of writing (which I think is frequently magnificent). It's too slow? It takes to long to tell the story? What kind of complaints are those? Just about any story could be reduced to a few paragraphs synopsis; that would not make it a better story. For myself there is great deal of joy in the words themselves and the way that he links them together and creates phrases.
From The Fellowship of the Ring: "He gave away presents to all and sundry - the latter were those who went out again by a back way and came in again by the gate." That is a hilarious sentence playing on the common phrase "all and sundry" and it beautifully characterizes Hobbit society while also pointing out a foible one can easily imagine in real people.
Much of his writing is mythical and poetic, and if that's not for you fine. But it really does seem like it's just a matter of people today having developed a frighteningly short attention span. Have you read Tolstoy? He doesn't move his plot along at any great pace either, but I assure you that he too was an amazing writer. Also I strongly suspect that these particular complaints against writers have only been made in the post television (and perhaps even post internet) world.
I sincerely doubt that very many people in all of history prior to the 20th century complained that a story was too long or had too much detail. But then poetry used to be appreciated by mainstream society.
As for Martin, I tried to read his first book once but had to put it down after the first page. In terms of diction, style, and what felt like a tragic attempt to be cool (it is never cool to appear to be trying to be cool), it felt like something a teenager would write. And I mean that as no compliment.
Edit: Altered extensively since I first posted it.
On the note of his works, I'll just say that I love the Lord of the Rings, it is shockingly readable (I have read it more than 20 times), and that it is in no objective way boring or poorly written.
And I have never understood the criticisms people level against his style of writing (which I think is frequently magnificent). It's too slow? It takes to long to tell the story? What kind of complaints are those? Just about any story could be reduced to a few paragraphs synopsis; that would not make it a better story. For myself there is great deal of joy in the words themselves and the way that he links them together and creates phrases.
From The Fellowship of the Ring: "He gave away presents to all and sundry - the latter were those who went out again by a back way and came in again by the gate." That is a hilarious sentence playing on the common phrase "all and sundry" and it beautifully characterizes Hobbit society while also pointing out a foible one can easily imagine in real people.
Much of his writing is mythical and poetic, and if that's not for you fine. But it really does seem like it's just a matter of people today having developed a frighteningly short attention span. Have you read Tolstoy? He doesn't move his plot along at any great pace either, but I assure you that he too was an amazing writer. Also I strongly suspect that these particular complaints against writers have only been made in the post television (and perhaps even post internet) world.
I sincerely doubt that very many people in all of history prior to the 20th century complained that a story was too long or had too much detail. But then poetry used to be appreciated by mainstream society.
As for Martin, I tried to read his first book once but had to put it down after the first page. In terms of diction, style, and what felt like a tragic attempt to be cool (it is never cool to appear to be trying to be cool), it felt like something a teenager would write. And I mean that as no compliment.
Edit: Altered extensively since I first posted it.
Regardless, it's the weapon reforged from the pieces that severed his hand. I also don't really see the point in bringing beren into this when he's not nearly as recognizable as Aragorn, and I don't recall him having a particularly iconic weapon. If you have to include several thousand years of fictional history into your joke thread, then it's not a very good joke thread.madwarper said:
At the risk of turning this thread into a circle-jerk, I completely agree with you.Dimitriov said:
I understand how someone might find LOTR boring, even though I like it a lot, and if someone doesn't get into it, that's fine by me; you don't have to like everything.
However, it's one thing to find it dull, it's quite another to declare that it therefore must be shit. When people start saying it's poorly-written or that Tolkien's a bad writer, fairly or unfairly I tend to assume that they've both missed the point of the book (that it's not meant to be a fast-paced fantasy romp), and that they have a very narrow taste in literature.
This applies to the people in this thread too, so they can feel free to have a go at me.
Well since Tolkein is/was a real person (flesh and blood and bone, etc) and not a fictional character, Martin has no power over him and couldn't win no matter what the state of things were. Also Tolkein survived WWI, GRRM has no record on that.
Tolkein wins, sorry George, go back to killing fictional folk for a living and purposely pissing off overly-demanding readers with more exposition on Theon's penis or some shit like that.
Tolkein wins, sorry George, go back to killing fictional folk for a living and purposely pissing off overly-demanding readers with more exposition on Theon's penis or some shit like that.
Well that just makes me sad, I was aiming for funny.Maphysto said:
I am a pretty average gal, if there is a list of top ten things I will tend to agree with the list if not the order. If everybody likes something I don't I usually get why people like it. JRRT is a mystery to me there is something that people love about it that I can't even see. It doesn't make me mad at people, my best pal adores his books, I tease her about it mercilessly but it's all in good fun.
Sometimes I get mad at the books.
I guess what it comes down to is that LotR was the first modern epic fantasy. It's not that Tolkien was the first to write about elves, or dragons, or good vs evil, it's that he was the first to write fantasy at such a grand scale, and with such attention to detail. It doesn't read like a novel, but half as a collection of myths and half as a historical manuscript. It's that sweeping scope and level of worldbuilding that every fantasy author since has tried to capture.CymbaIine said:
With that said, they certainly aren't perfect books. I think the movies did a good job of trimming the fat from the LotR trilogy (Although it looks like old PJ was saving that fat to slather all over the Hobbit), and I have yet to finish the Silmarillion for how wordy and long-winded it is.
It's worth checking out Martin's other books and short stories, aside from the Game of Thrones series. His horror work is creepy as hell.
JRR Tolkien all the way. Whatever George Martin does Tolkein JUST PUTS ON THE MUTHAFUNKING RING, its game over man, game over.
Created ..no.Things like Orcs,Elves,Dwarves,Dragons etc have existed in mythology for thousands of years.What Tolkien did essentially was popularize the current forms we use for a lot of these things e.g Elves being treehuggers with a superiority complex,Dwarves loving drinking,fighting and gold and so onCymbaIine said:
Interestingly, IIRC, Tolkien didn't invent the pointy ears and Scottish accents, but they got tacked onto Tolkien style elves and dwarfs anyway.MetalDooley said:
Been a while since I've read any Tolkien so I genuinely can't remember if he ever mentions elves having pointy ears.The scottish accents though did that just come from the LOTR movies or were they being used before then I wonder?thaluikhain said: