LOTR vs. A Song of Ice and Fire

DeletedUser34315

I started the Ice and Fire series( Game of thrones), and am reading Dance with Dragons right now. In the introduction to one of the books, Rolling Stone stated that they considered GoT to be better than LOTR. ( As well as that GoT was for "hip, smart people"-gag...
I'd strongly debate that; I consider LOTR to be better written, more amusing, much more intellectual, and all around better books. I really enjoy the GoT books, but simply cannot ever regard them as highly as I do LOTR.
I might be biased however.
What do you guys think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Harsha..

Well-Known Member
The measure of a book's importance lies in how much it has influenced other books. This is because, writers - above all are the best readers and critics. So, if a work has inspired a writer to write another novel, it's good, quite so

Song of fire and ice had it's share of influence, redefining the high fantasy genre, but LOTR's sphere of influence is something else. It is the work that laid the foundation for modern fantasy - the things in it, ie - dark lords, elves, dwarfs (wizards too :p) have reappeared in many works...they're so common that their imprints will be seen in many more works to come.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser31931

One of the things I find most hilarious is that the LOTR universe and everything in it was created due to Tolkien's love of languages, and he wanted to make a universe where he could invent his own languages, such as elvish, and that this thing that just started as a little side project ended up being hugely famous. As for whether LotR is better than GoT, since I haven't either seen or read GoT I couldn't really pass judgement.
 

DeletedUser28032

I would argue that GoT's is a low fantasy setting as opposed to high fantasy as with the exception of the dragons and white walkers it is essentially medieval Europe and you can see the various real world influences within (E.g Braavos sounds remarkably like the old Italian states to me)

As for whether its better than LotR...I am not sure, I enjoyed LotR but I personally prefer the grittier setting and the fact that noone is safe as several characters whom I thought to be main characters and therefore untouchable have since been killed.
Its all down to personal preference really.
 

DeletedUser16008

Read the Ice and Fire series a long time ago its no better and no worse than a lot of other writers in that arena i thought, but to compare it with LOTR that spawned the whole high fantasy thing ? sorry but its not even in the same arena GoT is primarily political intrigue and as braet says low fantasy with very little resemblance to LOTR at all, people have a dragon in a book or series and suddenly they are comparable to Tolkien, ho hum. :rolleyes:

Tolkien not only was a professor of Oxford etc but a member of The Inklings, a kind of literary group with such contemporaries and friends as C. S. Lewis (chronicles of narnia ) to bounce off and other well known poets and writers that inspired each other in the day..an expert on Beowulf he virtually rewrote how writings of those exploits and poems were seen and understood as not just childish and trivial monsters but crucial tribal struggles and very deep meaningful poetry to the Danes. Now commonly cited as one of the most important works of Anglo-Saxon literature.

Tolkien also revealed how highly he regarded Beowulf: "Beowulf is among my most valued sources," clearly this influence can be seen throughout his Middle-earth series.

I love these stories about Tolkien.

Tolkien had an ingenious means of beginning his series of lectures on Beowulf:
He would come silently into the room, fix the audience with his gaze, and suddenly begin to declaim in a resounding voice the opening lines of the poem in the original Anglo-Saxon, commencing with a great cry of Hwæt! (The first word of this and several other Old English poems), which some undergraduates took to be 'Quiet!' It was not so much a recitation as a dramatic performance, an impersonation of an Anglo-Saxon bard in a mead hall, and it impressed generations of students because it brought home to them that Beowulf was not just a set text to be read for the purposes of examination, but a powerful piece of dramatic poetry.

Decades later, W.H. Auden wrote to his former professor,
"I don't think that I have ever told you what an unforgettable experience it was for me as an undergraduate, hearing you recite Beowulf. The voice was the voice of Gandalf."

Imagine listening in a hall or local bar with the crackling in the hearth and halflight of the fire casting shadows on the walls,bathing Tolkien in part darkness as he narrates the exploits of Beowulf, such as the encounter with Grendel the "troll" or fatally battling with a dragon in such a commanding, precise and foreboding voice as we have come to picture Gandalf having in his books ? captivating is probably an understatement. ;)

Probably the best series I ever found to compare with LOTR was the ongoing shannara series by Terry Brooks and that really only adapted the same world ideas and never surpassed the original, I don't see how its even possible tbh.
 

DeletedUser

I haven't read the books for either of them, and I've only seen three episodes of GoT so I'm not really in much position to debate about it. But personally I much prefer GoT to LoTR. Grittier, brutal, better dialogue plus you realise that only 15% of Middle Earth's population is female?
 

DeletedUser34315

I haven't read the books for either of them, and I've only seen three episodes of GoT so I'm not really in much position to debate about it. But personally I much prefer GoT to LoTR. Grittier, brutal, better dialogue plus you realise that only 15% of Middle Earth's population is female?

I've watched a few episodes of GOT, and I think the series would be better if they'd stop with the pseudo porn scenes that don't actually add anything to the story.

As the the only 15 % is female remark- I don't think that's true. I just think the main characters of the book interact far more with males.
They're fighting a massive war in a medieval setting. Women don't typically fight in wars in the middle ages. In medieval times, women held less places of power than men, so it makes perfect sense that they'd be less visible. Also, Tolkien doesn't seem as compelled as Martin to write a whole passage every time a character of any sort has sex...
LOTR has women where they realistically would be in medieval times- on the sidelines.(Not to say that's correct; but it is how things actually were in the medieval times.)

I think Tolkien wrote his characters in a way that fitted the world he'd created.


Edit: You should really read both LOTR and the Fire and Ice series- you are really missing out on a treat. If nothing else, read LOTR. It's well worth the time, and better than the movies(although they're very well done movies).
 

DeletedUser

As the the only 15 % is female remark- I don't think that's true. I just think the main characters of the book interact far more with males.

Wrong. You've obviously never heard of Emil Johansson. http://io9.com/5951489/the-chart-that-proves-just-how-much-of-a-sausage-fest-middle-earth-is

They're fighting a massive war in a medieval setting. Women don't typically fight in wars in the middle ages. In medieval times, women held less places of power than men, so it makes perfect sense that they'd be less visible. Also, Tolkien doesn't seem as compelled as Martin to write a whole passage every time a character of any sort has sex...
LOTR has women where they realistically would be in medieval times- on the sidelines.(Not to say that's correct; but it is how things actually were in the medieval times.)
I think Tolkien wrote his characters in a way that fitted the world he'd created.

GoT has that as well, but it also shows women attempting to empower themselves within the mainly male setting. I think. At least, that's the impression I got from the episodes I saw.

Edit: You should really read both LOTR and the Fire and Ice series- you are really missing out on a treat. If nothing else, read LOTR. It's well worth the time, and better than the movies(although they're very well done movies).

I tried reading LOTR once, and I actually fell asleep. No kidding. Haven't tried Song of Fire and Ice though. I too like the LOTR movies, although my enthusiasm for them kinda dissipated after I watched the 4-hour long extended Return Of The King.
 

DeletedUser34315

Simply because they aren't named characters doesn't mean they aren't there. Obviously, there has to be about 1/2 female people(excepting orcs- those seem to reproduce asexually) or else everyone would have died off from underpopulation :p
 

DeletedUser34781

GOT for me hands down.... by a country mile.. listened to all on audio book took months to get through it all.. roy dotrice's voice reading it is what adds so much to it.

Lotr has it good points..both do but GOT has more appeal..wider range of characters imo
 

DeletedUser

As previously stated by Harsha, Lord of the Rings birthed a genre. Since LotR, there have been thousands of lotr-genre novels and series. GoT is a lotr-genre novel. The epic nature of Tolkien's lotr is demonstrated by the decades in which other authors have been compared.

That said, since LotR, there have been many novels and mini-series that are "better" than LotR. I see them all as copycats. They do not present a new genre, they ride upon a "proven" genre. Tolkien took a risk creating a trilogy unlike any other. He was the first, just as Hemingway was the first, Shakespeare was the first, Jules Verne was the first, Frank Herbert was the first, etc. It is these creators of a genre that other writers are compared to. Any writer worth his salt has read these timeless classics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser28032

Although LotR's is undoubtedly the god father of the fantasy genre, GoT's unlike Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance isn't a direct descendant as such as there is no battle of good vs evil or powerful artifacts of a bygone age with which to combat it, nor is it chocked full with elves and dwarves.
To be honest GoT's probably has more in common with Robert E Howards Conan novels than LotR's.

GoT has that as well, but it also shows women attempting to empower themselves within the mainly male setting. I think. At least, that's the impression I got from the episodes I saw.

I don't think there is any intentional feminism, its probably because they're more suited to the political intrigue and backstabbing of the royal court than they are to the heroic sword play and epic battles of LotR. As Gandalf said Medieval women didn't really get that involved (although someone is undoubtedly going to prove me wrong on this)
 

DeletedUser34315

I don't think there is any intentional feminism, its probably because they're more suited to the political intrigue and backstabbing of the royal court than they are to the heroic sword play and epic battles of LotR.

Well said! I agree, LOTR doesn't dwell on political intrigue; but focuses on the quest to destroy the ring, and the battles.
 

Harsha..

Well-Known Member
I tried reading LOTR once, and I actually fell asleep. No kidding. Haven't tried Song of Fire and Ice though. I too like the LOTR movies, although my enthusiasm for them kinda dissipated after I watched the 4-hour long extended Return Of The King.

lower attention spans, meh

these days readers always look for spectacles, instantaneous action and all that. LOTR is special in that major events are measured and balanced out. Tolkien lets a major event sink in, before bringing about the next event. It wont be good if we just stuck to modern novels with non-stop action, as it can narrow down the things we can read - and understand
 

DeletedUser

lower attention spans, meh

these days readers always look for spectacles, instantaneous action and all that. LOTR is special in that major events are measured and balanced out. Tolkien lets a major event sink in, before bringing about the next event. It wont be good if we just stuck to modern novels with non-stop action, as it can narrow down the things we can read - and understand

Wrong actually, my problem with the books is not that they're not 'non-stop action', I in fact approve of introducing major events at sufficiently separated intervals, however I just found the books unreadable, I'm not sure I can really describe my problem with them, but I'll have a go anyway. In my view, Tolkien used a hundred words where ten or twenty would suffice, it felt too padded out by going into irrelevancies.

As for the extended edition with ROTK, I hardly need to explain my problem with a 4-hour film.
 

DeletedUser16008

Wrong actually, my problem with the books is not that they're not 'non-stop action', I in fact approve of introducing major events at sufficiently separated intervals, however I just found the books unreadable, I'm not sure I can really describe my problem with them, but I'll have a go anyway. In my view, Tolkien used a hundred words where ten or twenty would suffice, it felt too padded out by going into irrelevancies.

As for the extended edition with ROTK, I hardly need to explain my problem with a 4-hour film.

Writings is about personal pref and yea the silmarillion is a bit hard going i found.

A 4 hr movie thats done properly and warrants it to a book tho ? no problem with that at all far as i can see.

Beats having the connecting bits cut out and it was a stipulation my his son the books weren't to be devalued by over editing .. a hard fought concession and well worth it imo. A finer fantasy trilogy you wont find thats for sure.

If it had been up to Hollywood it would have been a stupid cut to the bone 1 hr 30
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser20688

I've read LotR, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion (several times), and the Unfinished Tales. I've only read the first Song of Fire and Ice novel, Game of Thrones and I'm an obsessed fan of the tv series. I agree with the points made about Tolkien's indelible mark on the "fantasy" genre. It's difficult to rise to that status. Martin's character development and intrigue are really amazing though.

I also agree with the low verus high fantasy comparison as being a point of why one might favor Westeros versus Middle Earth. Martin's world is more favorable to the common reader/tv watcher because there are no demi-human races to consider and no truly cryptic names or terminology to understand outside of the occasionally odd place name or family name.

I think the real interesting difference is the morality/mores outlook of both settings. LotR/Silmarillion is a world based on the author's Catholicism/Monotheistic outlooks with One God (Iluvatar) and his Angels (Valar/Maiar) versus the Rebel Angel(Melkor) and his corrupted servants(Sauron, etc.) and all the little people that get swept up in between. There's no real grey area in terms of character morality except for rare characters like Boromir and Galadriel. Martin has this entire array of moralities and religions at play with incredibly complex characters wrestling with various moral and belief dilemmas. Jamie Lannister is a great example. There's really not a character in LotR as deep as Jamie in terms of personality and moral complexity except maybe Feanor or Túrin Turambar from the Silmarillion.

So, my point is the Song of Fire and Ice is much less black and white in terms of morality and "sides" as LotR which is more of a fairy tale morality setting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Harsha..

Well-Known Member
Wrong actually, my problem with the books is not that they're not 'non-stop action', I in fact approve of introducing major events at sufficiently separated intervals, however I just found the books unreadable, I'm not sure I can really describe my problem with them, but I'll have a go anyway. In my view, Tolkien used a hundred words where ten or twenty would suffice, it felt too padded out by going into irrelevancies.

As for the extended edition with ROTK, I hardly need to explain my problem with a 4-hour film.

fair enough, Tolkien's vocabulary is quite expansive and he employs most of it in LOTR. As you guys might have seen, older works are more about word play than action. I have seen it in use in works like Mansfield park and Jane Eyre. It's an hallmark of an old era. Then, authors focused heavily on realism (you'd be surprised, there was a story in the 1900s about a big ship resembling the titanic sinking, everyone didn't believe such a thing was possible and rejected the work. Ironically, the titanic sunk some years later)

so Tolkien's achievement, of bringing the idea of fantasy into the open is no small feat
 
Top