Contrasting J.R.R Tolkien and George R.R Martin

knight_tour

Fantasy Tourist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
957
Reaction score
62
Location
Rome, Italy
Website
tedacross.blogspot.com
Martin's and Erickson's work are considered sagas. Sagas don't often have a unifying storyline other than how the families and kingdoms come to be.

I think Martin has always had a unifying storyline, only its arc is too long for some peoples' attention spans. He has the arc for winter's coming and he has the arc for Dany, and I believe he will not only wrap those up very well, but also wrap up all or almost all other loose ends.
 

Stoneghost

Registered
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
39
Reaction score
5
I think Martin has always had a unifying storyline
A belief demonstrated false by his apparent requirement to modify to the storyline after the first several books, thus delaying further release. If your hypothesis were true the series would already be finished.

People noted that Tolkien's work had a lot of material removed. I suggest that one of the reasons that Tolkien's work is considered the gold standard for fantasy is wrote the whole story arc BEFORE publishing. This current method of starting indefinite series is a recipe for lower quality material than might otherwise be produced.
 

megan_d

Falling in the milk
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
123
Location
Perth, Western Australia
A belief demonstrated false by his apparent requirement to modify to the storyline after the first several books,

Uh, no. Initially he intended to skip something like five years between books, but ultimately decided that too much would happen in those years to pass over. The overreaching storyline didn't change.
 

knight_tour

Fantasy Tourist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
957
Reaction score
62
Location
Rome, Italy
Website
tedacross.blogspot.com
Uh, no. Initially he intended to skip something like five years between books, but ultimately decided that too much would happen in those years to pass over. The overreaching storyline didn't change.

Exactly. Adding more detail does not mean he didn't know the primary story arcs.
 

AKyber36

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
231
Reaction score
14
Location
USA
Martin also got himself into something called a Meereenese knot, I think. That's why he's trying to unravel it and it's becoming a monster on his hands.
 

Nateskate

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
509
Location
Somewhere in the mountains
I might add Stephen R Donaldson to the mix with his Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever series.

Most readers I have talked to hated Covenant as a main character, but I think that was the point and it made many of the other characters that helped Covenant very memorable.

I'm up to date on Stephen R Donaldson. My take- His Thomas Covenant character was very sympathetic in "Our world". But he became one-dimensional in the Land. The reason why I didn't compare him, was simple, I wasn't comparring all Epic Fantasy Authors. However, I don't mind adding Donaldson to the discussion. Do I think Donaldson is on par with Martin and Tolkien? No. Some of his writing is very good, but overall, he beats some things to death. Replaying all the things Linda heard. Replaying all the things Linda did.

And he also spends too much time catching the reader up with backstory from previous books.

And lastly- this is a love or hate thing- I hate the fact that he feels he has to add fifty obscure words per book. Some may like that, but it pisses me off as a reader, to have to stop the flow and go look up a word, or five words in two pages. ...That game makes me want to throw his books against the wall. (A personal thing)
 

Nateskate

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
509
Location
Somewhere in the mountains
I don't think I said he was gory dark... And, as someone who is relatively indifferent to Tolkien, I have to say that my favorite book of his is the Silmarillion. It isn't much of a story, sure, but hell, it works to the man's strong points (worldbuilding). The Hobbit was alright; I liked it as a kid, but when I read it now, it doesn't blow me away. It's good, but it doesn't have much going for it. I'm curious to see how the movie handles it, honestly. Lord of the Rings, though... I respect it, for its influence, and I'll acknowledge a good world and nice prose for what it is, but I just don't like them much.

We will all love different things for different reasons, strawberry, chocolate, vanilla. Tolkien fascinates me because he says so much without saying it. (Feanor) - mother died of weariness. Left father a depressed shell until he marries a new wife. Feanor is pissed off and basically manipulates his brothers in a way that is cruel. And because he's brilliant beyond belief, he's pissing on the entire world.

It would take a psychology degree + years of counseling to figure out what Tolkien intuited by mere observation throughout his life.

Of course, he and his wife were orphans. Tolkien would have felt like a "burden" to his sick mother, who died when he was twelve, after his father died in his early childhood, after his illness forced them to part.

Human nature fascinates me. Pyschology fascinates me. That's why when I read Eowyn's account, it's not about Zena female warrior. It's about a woman who lost her mother, father, brother, and wound up with a madman uncle- why she would have fallen so hard and fast for Aragorn, and even have been willing to throw away her life in the Paths of the Dead with him. (Which in her mind equalled suicide) And she didn't talk about going out to win a battle, but going out to die in battle. Why? That is very much like someone with a death wish, who has lost so many loved ones.

Tolkien lived through two world wars, the beginning of the Mechanized age. His books are a treasure trove of "Unsaid things", and insights only gleaned through walking in the dark places of this world.
 

Nateskate

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
509
Location
Somewhere in the mountains
At the risk of starting a flame war, I will bluntly state that I think GRRM is a hack. Comparing Tolkien and Martin is unfair to Tolkien because Martin has yet to finish his series, and I think when he does some of this street-cred will evaporate. That's because the Song of Fire and Ice isn't an epic, it's a soap opera. Which makes sense considering how many years Martin spent writing for them.

I enjoyed Tokien, and I enjoyed reading Martin. Martin writes entertaining material. If you started watching soap operas, you'd get caught up in them and be entertained they are designed to work that way. The difference between Tokien and Martin is to me the "legitimacy" of the plot conflicts. I feel Martin basically strings together a bunch of emotionally engaging tid-bits that ultimately can't be tied together into anything cohesive. The end of Song of Fire and Ice will be much like the ending of X-Files. It will tie up a story arc, but most of the conflicts in the series will be unresolved or unexplained. The accidental brilliance of Martin is the longer he drags out his series the more people will rationalize its inevitably inexplicable ending. Unless he dies first, in which case he would become a demi-god of fantasy writing.

Martin writes entertaining material, but I think his abilities are over stated. I would say rather than comparing Martin to Tolkien I would compare him to JK Rowlings. She is more coherent in story, but he better at prose. They are both excellent at eliciting readers emotions, better than Tolkien. There is something to learn from all of them. Their merits should recognized along with their faults, and not be exaggerated. Ultimately though, I personally value the form of the story than the journey. And as my argument is that Martin's popularity is based on him pulling emotional strings in a story that is going nowhere I call him a hack.

My initial comments weren't to say either was less than the other. That's not what I believe. But they have entirely different approaches. When I comparred Martin to Dickens and Twain, it was because of his ability to write very engaging characters that draw you in.

Yes, Martin is a serial writer. Maybe that's a problem for readers who want a nice and neat arc and "ta-da" ending. Tolkien's story- the scope- surpasses everything I've read. And the reality is that Tolkien could have written so much more about everything, but he was a bit OCD, which you can tell by how many passes he did on all of his stories. There were like five versions of many chapters in LOTR.

Tolkiens weakness was that it took an incredible amount of internal energry to write his stories. That's why he couldn't finish the Silmarillion. He admitted that without C.S Lewis he wouldn't have finished LOTR. C.S Lewis was the perfect helper- a prolific writer who was both patient and strong-headed enough to push and pull-back when Tolkien needed him.

To say that Martin isn't a good writer because he doesn't have a Tolkien-esque story, is to miss the other point that you're actually making. Great characters. Dozens of great sub-plots. The fact that his many smaller stories draw me in, and countless others, is a testiment to that strength.

Rather, Tolkien is brilliant at what he does. And Martin is brilliant at what he does. Tolkien's strength is thinking up collosal stories with countless creatures, all with their own unique histories.

Martin's strength is that he has more memorable characters than most of us have hairs on our heads. And each one of them is like Mark Twain's Prince and the Pauper- Arya, Jon Snow (Great writing), Tyrion Lannister- fascinating character.

The problem is that he's also writing about very unlikable characters, and less sympathetic ones. Great stories, but the Dothroki's brutality turns me off. It's those side stories that are the slow chapters for me.

If Martin had been a PG children's writer- not his choice- his novels would be the greatest "Twainish/Dickinish" stories of our century, hands down. Arya and Jon Snow's stories are as fun to read as any of Twain's work or Dickin's.
 

Stoneghost

Registered
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
39
Reaction score
5
One of the problems when making critiques of things you don't like is that bleeds over. Nevertheless I think all my points are objectively valid.

I disagree that Martin is better than Tolkien in any of the ways you describe, in story or in characterization. I think Gollum is the best character in any book I have ever read. Tolkien elicited far more emotion from me towards Gollum than all the characters in Martins books combined. Moreover he was able to constantly elicit sympathy and disgust. I don't recall feeling opposite emotions like that as strongly or as equally in anything else.

Martins characters aren't more complex than Tolkiens, they are just all tragic. And the emotion that comes from tragic situations character is attributed to, well, their character. I think this basically creates the emotional illusion of complexity. I think Martins characters are better than most, even flattest characters are at least honorable to a fault or have some motivation for them being dicks all the time. But I don't think they are as good as people purport.

Had he published all the books in a shorter time frame he would get less credit than he does now because peoples emotions wouldn't have been left to ferment. I'm not saying Martin is bad because he doesn't tell stories or construct plots like Tolkien, although I am saying I like Tolkien like plot architecture. But my main point is I think his story is going nowhere and that the only people who will accept the end of the series are his current fans, he will not gain new ones once the story is done.

Tolkiens fame in fantasy came after he finished the books and grew over time. Martins fame is the kind of like why Kennedy is famous, cause no one saw how it all ended. I don't think comparing Martin to Tolkien is apt.
 

SPMiller

Prodigiously Hanged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
11,525
Reaction score
1,988
Age
41
Location
Dallas
Website
seanpatrickmiller.com
I can't say that I see anything but differences between the two except in a tiny handful of cases: namely, those relating to sex and race. I've read nearly all the fiction Tolkien wrote, including what his son hashed together, his retellings, and many of his letters. These days, I strongly prefer what Martin's doing with fantasy.

And regarding Martin's most famous work, his fantasy series, it doesn't take a lot of thought to predict to a reasonable certainty how the series will end. All you have to do is consider his past work.
 
Last edited:

Stoneghost

Registered
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
39
Reaction score
5
A follow on.

Consider the purpose of this forum. This is a forum for writing, presumably everyone here has some kind of interest in writing, albeit a possibly abstract one. Also consider the arguments that I am making, and whether they are helpful to that end or not.

I am discussing how Martin in particular evokes emotional responses from readers. Not simply stating the he did and that I liked or didn't like it. I am doing this in part to refute the false belief that Martin has good characterization, I don't think he does. But the refutation of this argument is significant. I then suggest Martin establishes emotional depth, and involvement really, in characters through proxy, but the tragic situations the characters are in. If correct, I am taking this beyond a simply discussion of what we likes or didn't like about Martin, but a means of eliciting certain emotions readers, pity, shock, compassion, outrage etc.. This is why I compared Martin to Rowling rather than Tolkien. They both use this mechanism.

The second argument I'm making is that Martin may not be as good plotter or story teller as people believe, and or he didn't know where he was going from the start. Not something a lot of people like the idea of. Once again, consider the implications if I am correct. He is now a very popular, and rich, writer how might not be very good at writing stories that go anywhere. Are you good at writing stories that go somewhere? Probably not, that seems to be most impossible thing for everyone to do, the ending. But what if you can build a fan base and then drag it on for a long time, inflating your fan base and your profits. I would say understanding how to do that is a pretty valuable thing. I would say knowing how to build a fan base that will foam at the mouth when someone says you r not as good as people give you credit for (looking at you knight tour) on a forum is a valuable thing to have. I mean that very seriously.


The implications of my arguments being correct does not provide evidence as to whether or not I am correct. But I think this kind of systematic view of writing is more relevant than simply did we like it yes/no and why.
 

Anninyn

Stealing your twiglets.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
374
Location
Rain-swept dystopia.
Website
www.fivesquids.co.uk
The thing is- surely feeling someone doesn't do it effectively is subjective? I am on the second book in the series right now, and I can see flaws in his writing, sure, but I still feel for the characters. In fact, I read the last third of A Game of Thrones in a state of utter anxiety.

I do feel his characterisation is what makes me care for the characters, same as it is with Tolkein. I remember Aragorn being my first fictional crush, partly because of how Tolkein wrote him. I feel just as strongly for Martins characters. I felt very strongly for Rowlings characters too, but that was probably because I grew up with them.

As for plotting, I don't know. I'm not far enough into the series to judge. It may all fall down around my ears, in which case it will be incredibly disappointing, but so far I'm finding the plotting good. Things happen, then other things happen as a irect consequence. I couldn't speak for an overarching plot, as two books in isn't really a good place to be able to tell these things.
 

AVS

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
529
Reaction score
73
Location
Beacon and mountain, river and road.
I will reread The Lord of the Rings, I will not reread A Song of Ice and Fire. That was my test as to which one I prefer.

However, that doesn't mean that Tolkien is better than Martin, just different, perhaps more suited to my taste.

Other factors include me reading LoTR long ago when I was a teenager, therefore more susceptible to primary influences.

The other feature is Martin's seeming inability to finish. One cannot help feeling he has written himself either into a corner or our onto a plain so vasty with a story so huge, he knows not which way to wander, so wanders not at all.

Tolkien's work is very deep in that the sense of an almost real history is pervasive. The world will either end or change and the sadness of the inevitable along with a genuine sense of impending doom gives it great depth. That said characterisation is limited, some might argue the detours add little to the overall structure, and the motivations are fairly simplistic.

Martin's work gives you modern writing, complex characters, shock and surprise, changing sympathies and strong character journeys. However, the overall plot seems weak. In that respect it does read like a well written soap opera. Nothing wrong with that; the Sporanos and Shakespeare's War of the Roses plays share similar aspects. But to me, ultimately it lacks wonder, fantasy depth (in the history of Westeros) and a key plot driver... what is this story ultimately about?

Both great, but LoTR already has its temporal proof stamp. Ask again about ASoIF in fifty years.
 
Last edited:

TheSupremeForce

Knight of the Word
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
I'm not a huge fan of either author, and I'm one of "those people" who prefer the LotR movies to the books, mainly because it cuts out large amounts of the excess I found in the books. Good story, but too much showing off (for lack of a better term).
With a Song of Ice and Fire, I stopped caring. What was the point in getting invested in any of the characters when the ones I liked had a habit of dropping like flies? The story then became "too much" and I'm one of those people who aren't convinced that Martin really knows what he's doing with it at this point. If he didn't write himself into a corner, he wrote himself somewhere where he probably wishes he hadn't gone at this point. I'd have found the story "stronger" if he'd cut out half (or so) of the characters and displayed a little focus.
 

Bigglesworth

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
194
Reaction score
26
Location
England
Martin also got himself into something called a Meereenese knot, I think. That's why he's trying to unravel it and it's becoming a monster on his hands.
I Googled this but it seems to be an in-universe term. Is it possible to elaborate with getting spoilery? (All I know about Song.../Game of Thrones is what I've seen so far on tv =))
 

Deleted member 42

I suggest that one of the reasons that Tolkien's work is considered the gold standard for fantasy is wrote the whole story arc BEFORE publishing. This current method of starting indefinite series is a recipe for lower quality material than might otherwise be produced.

Well, except, he didn't.

The best example of this is the way Tolkien had to change, post publication, Bilbo's story about the ring.
 

Hallen

Mostly annoying
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
971
Reaction score
111
Location
Albany, Oregon, USA
A follow on.

I am doing this in part to refute the false belief that Martin has good characterization, I don't think he does. But the refutation of this argument is significant. I then suggest Martin establishes emotional depth, and involvement really, in characters through proxy, but the tragic situations the characters are in.

Careful. It isn't a false belief to those who think his characterizations are good -- it's just opposite of your belief.

If the reader didn't care about the characters, then no amount of plot tension or tragedy is going to translate into a false perception of good characterizations. If they don't care about the characters then they won't care about what happens to them and the tension of the plot will fall flat. It's like watching Star Trek Red Shirts getting blasted by the bad aliens.

All of us respond differently to different types of characters and how they're written. Some people need deep characterizations to care about a character. Others respond well to common archetypes and need little other depth to a character to care. But Martin goes far, far beyond common archetypes and each main character has a real and visceral depth to them. The world is brutal and tragic, no doubt, but the characters all have enough depth for the reader to love or hate them, or sometimes both at the same time. The charter of Jamie is particularly interesting because of his transformations over time.

One extreme is Dan Brown. His plot is what makes the story. His characters are boring and flat. Not even the plot elements can make them seem alive. Yet Martin's characters come to life and add tension to the conflicts because the readers actually care.

Go out and read some of the hack and slash style "low" fantasy stuff out there. It's all about the gold, so to speak. Then compare that to Martin's characters. I think you'll see the difference.
 

Nateskate

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
509
Location
Somewhere in the mountains
One of the problems when making critiques of things you don't like is that bleeds over. Nevertheless I think all my points are objectively valid.

I disagree that Martin is better than Tolkien in any of the ways you describe, in story or in characterization. I think Gollum is the best character in any book I have ever read. Tolkien elicited far more emotion from me towards Gollum than all the characters in Martins books combined. Moreover he was able to constantly elicit sympathy and disgust. I don't recall feeling opposite emotions like that as strongly or as equally in anything else.

Martins characters aren't more complex than Tolkiens, they are just all tragic. And the emotion that comes from tragic situations character is attributed to, well, their character. I think this basically creates the emotional illusion of complexity. I think Martins characters are better than most, even flattest characters are at least honorable to a fault or have some motivation for them being dicks all the time. But I don't think they are as good as people purport.

Had he published all the books in a shorter time frame he would get less credit than he does now because peoples emotions wouldn't have been left to ferment. I'm not saying Martin is bad because he doesn't tell stories or construct plots like Tolkien, although I am saying I like Tolkien like plot architecture. But my main point is I think his story is going nowhere and that the only people who will accept the end of the series are his current fans, he will not gain new ones once the story is done.

Tolkiens fame in fantasy came after he finished the books and grew over time. Martins fame is the kind of like why Kennedy is famous, cause no one saw how it all ended. I don't think comparing Martin to Tolkien is apt.

You're mistaken if you think I'm arguing with you. I'm a huge Tolkien fan. None of this is about which writer is better. I don't believe that any of us has to chose sides, even if we love one and dislike the other. I just happen to like both for different reasons. Tolkien's overall story is a better story. It's enormous.

But I do understand what you're saying about Tolkien's people being complex. In an answer to someone else- speaking specifically of Feanor and Eowyn, I was saying how brilliantly complex his people are if you read between the lines. Tolkien's story is of a far greater magnitude than Martin's, while Martin's is mostly about all the sub-plots.

When I compared Martin to Dickins and Twain, remember- Huck Finn wasn't a tale of one adventure. Martin wove together a bunch of Huck Finn type adventures.

I really like Arya's story and Jon Snow, and Tyrion Lannister. But in a way, because it's like interweaving tales, some parts I don't like so much.

Martin may never finish his tales, though he does finish off plot points. Yet, he might become like Frank Herbert and Robert Jordan who continue to have devoted fans, while others carry on their Legacy. That could happen.
 

Nateskate

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
509
Location
Somewhere in the mountains
A follow on.

Consider the purpose of this forum. This is a forum for writing, presumably everyone here has some kind of interest in writing, albeit a possibly abstract one. Also consider the arguments that I am making, and whether they are helpful to that end or not.

I am discussing how Martin in particular evokes emotional responses from readers. Not simply stating the he did and that I liked or didn't like it. I am doing this in part to refute the false belief that Martin has good characterization, I don't think he does. But the refutation of this argument is significant. I then suggest Martin establishes emotional depth, and involvement really, in characters through proxy, but the tragic situations the characters are in. If correct, I am taking this beyond a simply discussion of what we likes or didn't like about Martin, but a means of eliciting certain emotions readers, pity, shock, compassion, outrage etc.. This is why I compared Martin to Rowling rather than Tolkien. They both use this mechanism.

The second argument I'm making is that Martin may not be as good plotter or story teller as people believe, and or he didn't know where he was going from the start. Not something a lot of people like the idea of. Once again, consider the implications if I am correct. He is now a very popular, and rich, writer how might not be very good at writing stories that go anywhere. Are you good at writing stories that go somewhere? Probably not, that seems to be most impossible thing for everyone to do, the ending. But what if you can build a fan base and then drag it on for a long time, inflating your fan base and your profits. I would say understanding how to do that is a pretty valuable thing. I would say knowing how to build a fan base that will foam at the mouth when someone says you r not as good as people give you credit for (looking at you knight tour) on a forum is a valuable thing to have. I mean that very seriously.


The implications of my arguments being correct does not provide evidence as to whether or not I am correct. But I think this kind of systematic view of writing is more relevant than simply did we like it yes/no and why.

Ultimately, someone can say that a restaurant can stink, but even the Top Chef judges disagree at times. If readers love Martin's characters, you can suggest they do nothing for you, but you can't say that it's not working for others, when clearly it is.

Take Tolkien out of the equation for a second. Martin's fans aren't all dumb readers. He's certainly connecting with a large volume of people since all of his stories have been best sellers, and that's before he had a television series based on the novels.
 

Nateskate

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
509
Location
Somewhere in the mountains
I'm not a huge fan of either author, and I'm one of "those people" who prefer the LotR movies to the books, mainly because it cuts out large amounts of the excess I found in the books. Good story, but too much showing off (for lack of a better term).
With a Song of Ice and Fire, I stopped caring. What was the point in getting invested in any of the characters when the ones I liked had a habit of dropping like flies? The story then became "too much" and I'm one of those people who aren't convinced that Martin really knows what he's doing with it at this point. If he didn't write himself into a corner, he wrote himself somewhere where he probably wishes he hadn't gone at this point. I'd have found the story "stronger" if he'd cut out half (or so) of the characters and displayed a little focus.

I think your appraisal is honest. That's why I called the story "Dark"- Martin has a gift for drawing you in to a plot line or a character. And then when you think you've guessed where it's going, he kills off someone you wanted to see more of, and then there's a new dark twist.

This is one of those areas where fans can get annoyed and even leave an author. It speaks to the danger of constantly denying reader's their expectations. Twists are good to a point- but you can shoot yourself in the foot.
 

SPMiller

Prodigiously Hanged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
11,525
Reaction score
1,988
Age
41
Location
Dallas
Website
seanpatrickmiller.com
To this very moment I do not understand why so many people persist in saying Martin kills interesting characters. None, and I mean none as in zero, of the characters I like ever die--with the possible exception of the SPOILER Red Viper SPOILER, about whom I was undecided. Even worse, Sansa remains alive, much to my dismay. I wish he'd mercilessly kill characters like a horror writer. I wonder if most fantasy readers can accept character deaths at all.

On a more general note, Martin's greatest flaw (aside from the obvious racial and sexual issues) is the same as Tolkien's: the tendency to wax infodumpy about stuff that doesn't matter. Both needed serious editorial love. Granted, Martin has gotten better about murdering his darlings, but Tolkien never made much progress on that.
 
Last edited:

megan_d

Falling in the milk
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
123
Location
Perth, Western Australia
And yet a whole bunch of the characters I found most interesting did die. Maybe so many people persist in saying it is because so many people feel the same way?
 

Death Wizard

Tumhe na koci puujetha
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
1,011
Location
South Carolina
Website
www.deathwizardchronicles.blogspot.com
I love Tolkien. I have read the series start to finish at least 25 times. No other written work has captured my attention in anywhere near this scope.

Yet ... in some ways, Martin, Erikson and Donaldson are undoubtably better. Hate to admit it, but it's so.
 

Stoneghost

Registered
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
39
Reaction score
5
Most of the responses to what I wrote are based on implications you believe I'm making, sometimes implications I explicitly state are not what I'm saying.
 

megan_d

Falling in the milk
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
123
Location
Perth, Western Australia
It's a little hard for me to tell what you're saying. But I think what you're saying (or one of the things you're saying) is that Martin doesn't make us care about the characters themselves, he just puts them in "tragic situations."

Which, I'm sorry, but is just plain wrong. I'm not defending Martin here, but rather I'm saying that such a technique would never work, for any author. The tragic situations mean nothing if you don't already care about the character.

I also think you're saying that Martin is stretching the books out to make money? I remember people starting saying that exact same thing about J.K. Rowling around the time the fifth Harry Potter book was released. "She'll never finish it now, she's already rich, why would she bother?"

I find the idea that increased riches result in decreased desire to write frankly insulting to writers. I don't think many of us are in this game to make money, and I'm doubly sure that making money would not make any of us want to write less.

If you don't like Martin, that's fine. Really, it is. But I think you need to consider that your dislike is subjective, not objective.