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

Nateskate · May 15, 2011

I've been making it a habit to read the fantasy masters. I put off George R.R Martin, and I'm not really sure why. I think it was because of some of his short stories that I read?

In the fantasy Genre, George R.R Martin and J.R.R Tolkien have two of the most loyal fan-bases. I'm speaking mostly of Tolkiens Lord of the Rings, and Martin's Fire and Ice works.

Tolkien's fantasy is broader. Martin's fantasy is more detailed for what it is. Tolkien's world is a mixture of Elves, Dwarves, humans, Orcs, and assorted other creatures who are embroiled in a war over the fate of Middle Earth.

George Martin has some fantastical creatures, however, they are not central and exist mostly on the periphery. The majority of the tale is human to human.

What I like about Tolkien is his broad depth of layers. The "War of the Ring" is a complex story. That which seemingly can help you will ultimately destroy you.

Martin's tale reminds me of Mark Twain and Dickens, whose stories were filled with colorful characters, some pitiful, some ruthless, but all of them fascinating.

To be honest, Martin's tale is easier for me to read, and at times it's fun, those it's definitely "R" rated. And you can see his influences, his "Twilight Zone-ish" wights, and not allowing you more than a glimpse of the boogie man for so much of the story.

However, whenever I hear someone in a classic voice reading Tolkien, I get him so much more. He writes such complex phrases that sometimes I trip over them. And yet, they flow perfectly when read by a voice who understands the flow of his writing. And his descriptions of Mount Doom are classic, as are his descriptions of Morgoth's chambers in the Silmarillion.

All the same, I love both of their writing styles for different reasons.

Tolkien is a believer in "Eucatastrophe" even in his darkest tale, the Silmarillion. George R.R Martin does not. I think Martin borders on that shadowy area that mixes horror with fantasy. But he also has such fantastic human characters that his stories are addicting. It's easy to hate the spoiled brat, Joffery. It's hard not to like the dwarf, Tyrion Lannister, and root for him. And yet, he's not quite a good guy. And he's not quite a bad guy. He's such a sympathetic sort.

Martin's fools are fools. For so many characters in a story, they are each so distinct that you can't help but applaud Martin's mind at times.

Obviously, all thoughts, agreements and disagreements are welcome. I hope you will add your own opinions.

Miriel · May 15, 2011

Martin may be popular, but Tolkien arguably invented the genre. He's been around for decades. And he's brilliant. I love the dry humor, I love the characters. As for characters with layers of good/bad, Gollum, Borromir, and Denethor all jump to mind. Heck, even Sauron once considered stopping his evil ways (if you've read the Silmarillion...). I read LotR for the first time when I was in middle school. In no small way, it made me who I am today. It made me a better, kinder person. It got me through high school -- somehow Sam alone in Mordor with the one bright star shining above him seems a lot like being trapped in the sometimes-vicious and often confusing world of teenagers.

So, I give points to Tolkien for storytelling, for impact in the genre, for delightful humor, and for shaping me. I know lots of people who like Martin's books, but I've never heard anyone say it changed their life.

Nateskate · May 15, 2011

Miriel said:
Martin may be popular, but Tolkien arguably invented the genre. He's been around for decades. And he's brilliant. I love the dry humor, I love the characters. As for characters with layers of good/bad, Gollum, Borromir, and Denethor all jump to mind. Heck, even Sauron once considered stopping his evil ways (if you've read the Silmarillion...). I read LotR for the first time when I was in middle school. In no small way, it made me who I am today. It made me a better, kinder person. It got me through high school -- somehow Sam alone in Mordor with the one bright star shining above him seems a lot like being trapped in the sometimes-vicious and often confusing world of teenagers.

So, I give points to Tolkien for storytelling, for impact in the genre, for delightful humor, and for shaping me. I know lots of people who like Martin's books, but I've never heard anyone say it changed their life.

Hi Miriel. In my mind, Tolkien is far more inspiring in the conventional sense of making me want to be a better person. (LOTR) It's very much about love, loyalty, faithfulness, and standing firm in doing what you know is right regardless of the cost.

Martin's characters don't seem particularly noble. The purposes are not so much good vs evil, as kingdoms, misunderstandings, backstabbing, manipulations...etc.

Spoilers-

Good guys do finish last. Those with the noblest intentions fall prey to those who are selfish, and are out-manipulated.

George Martin would likely inspire writers, insofar as refining their craft, especially in character development. But he does not inspire human behavior in the way that Tolkien's story inspires. In fact, it never seems to aspire to that type of nobility.

A.V. Hollingshead · May 15, 2011

I wish my middle names were Rebecca Rachel or something.

I am not a big fan of Lord of the Rings, I should start out by saying that. I don't like the language basis, and I say this as someone who did two years of linguistics. I didn't want to reference a glossary, nay, dictionary in order to fully enjoy the work. I didn't like the narrative pausing to give us a poem. And, this is not Tolkien's fault but nonetheless a result of Tolkien, I simply don't like a lot of things that he started. If nothing else, I think the need to have a map in every damn book can be traced back to him (though he wasn't the first to do it; which is the case with most things, really). That said, he is a good writer. Flowery, yes, but most old fantasy writers were. I can't really complain much about Tolkien being flowery when I am madly in love with E.R. Eddison (author of The Worm Ouroboros).

George R.R. Martin, in terms of prose, isn't much better. I have a low tolerance for supersaturated prose and epics, what can I say? But I prefer things to be dark. Perhaps not even dark; I wouldn't call a lot of what Martin writes really dark, perhaps just more realistic, more... willing to acknowledge that things can go from bad to worse. I like that, and when I am in the mood to powerhouse through a fantasy epic, I reach for Martin.

Neither of them have much of a direct influence on me, regardless. Tolkien is likely an indirect influence; how can't he be? It's hard to write after Tolkien and not acknowledge him, either actively acting like him or avoiding every trope he touched. But I'll certainly take Howard or Peake over either of these two.

Xelebes · May 15, 2011

I think GRRM's work is of the same vein (having not read it) that there are two things to do in combat: avoid it or get better. Elsewise, get crushed. I'm a person who prefers tragedies over comedies, so I can see the appeal of the general idea. Nobility and chivalry have fallen to the wayside for good reasons.

knight_tour · May 15, 2011

Tolkien changed me so much as a person, but it was only when I read Martin that I realized how much I wanted to write. With Tolkien, I knew I could never manage anything even close, nor did I wish to. With Martin I saw the missing ingredient that would have made Tolkien perfect for me -- the raw, gritty realism. I wanted more than anything to see a Tolkien-style world and story but done with the realistic flavoring of Martin.

IMO, many of the new gritty writers, such as Abercrombie and Morgan, are going so far down the dark path that they lose the realism that is most important for me. It isn't realistic for me to have every character be ignoble. Every person has flaws, but there is also genuine decency in people, and I want to see that.

Ian Isaro · May 15, 2011

In all honesty, I think most discussions comparing authors ultimately come down to personal preferences. As we gain education we become better and better at phrasing our preferences in absolute terms, but in the end we often just react to how close authors are to us on the scale of cynicism vs idealism.

Or purple prose vs boring prose, or mindless action vs boring plots, or crude fiction vs stuffy art. I'm not saying we can't discuss authors this way (I certainly do), I just try to acknowledge the subjectivity of much of what I say.

knight tour said:
IMO, many of the new gritty writers, such as Abercrombie and Morgan, are going so far down the dark path that they lose the realism that is most important for me. It isn't realistic for me to have every character be ignoble. Every person has flaws, but there is also genuine decency in people, and I want to see that.

I'm curious which Abercrombie books you've read, since our opinions vary on this one. I think Abercrombie does a good job of combining flaws and decency, particularly in The Heroes.

Teinz · May 16, 2011

Actually, I recently started reading the Song of Fire and Ice series, only half way through the first book. I must say it doesn't capture my imagination the way LOTR did when I read those books for the first time. Mind you, I was a whole lot younger back then. Having said that; I read LOTR two times after that and I couldn't wrestle myself through the boring parts anymore (travel, landscape, food). Having done that once, I feel like that is more than enough.

What I like about Martin is the way he sets up his chapters. (Spoiler)Example; the chapter about Bran discovering the truth about the queen and her brother. He starts out with telling how Bran climbs the castle but seems unable to fall. He is just too talented a climber. Then, through the climbing business, Bran catches the siblings making love. Then Martin lets Jaime kick Bran through an opening in a tower, crippling him. I remember reading that chapter with a growing sense of dread and I think it was the way he wrote it, that made me feel that way. So every chapter is like; Set-up, development, twist. It works for me.

Nick Blaze · May 16, 2011

Ophiucha said:
I wish my middle names were Rebecca Rachel or something.

I am not a big fan of Lord of the Rings, I should start out by saying that. I don't like the language basis, and I say this as someone who did two years of linguistics. I didn't want to reference a glossary, nay, dictionary in order to fully enjoy the work. I didn't like the narrative pausing to give us a poem. And, this is not Tolkien's fault but nonetheless a result of Tolkien, I simply don't like a lot of things that he started. If nothing else, I think the need to have a map in every damn book can be traced back to him (though he wasn't the first to do it; which is the case with most things, really). That said, he is a good writer. Flowery, yes, but most old fantasy writers were. I can't really complain much about Tolkien being flowery when I am madly in love with E.R. Eddison (author of The Worm Ouroboros).

How sad. You'd hate just about every Chinese classic, Japanese classic, and many other countries-- just thrown out the window. Metaphorically. As for dictionaries and such, that's exactly what I loved about Gene Wolfe's A Book of the New Sun. Every page had a new word I didn't know. On context, I knew what he meant it to be and could read from there. But sometimes, and it certainly helped, it's good to use the dictionary and broaden my vocabulary.

As for flowery... I prefer that kind of writing. Something that weaves beauty, complexity, and motive into every line. Something that many novels now lack. It's a different type of talent that's under appreciated.

Sarpedon · May 16, 2011

One thing I like about Martin is that his bad guys aren't all bad. I, for one, if I were a knight in the Seven Kingdoms who needed to choose a lord, I would definitely choose Tywin Lannister above all competitors.

A.V. Hollingshead · May 16, 2011

Nick Blaze said:
How sad. You'd hate just about every Chinese classic, Japanese classic, and many other countries-- just thrown out the window. Metaphorically. As for dictionaries and such, that's exactly what I loved about Gene Wolfe's A Book of the New Sun. Every page had a new word I didn't know. On context, I knew what he meant it to be and could read from there. But sometimes, and it certainly helped, it's good to use the dictionary and broaden my vocabulary.

On the contrary, for many years of my life, had you asked, I would have told you my favorite novels were The Tale of Genji and Journey to the West. However, those had a couple of key distinctions of note. Firstly, there was no gratuitous Japanese/Chinese. The translators left only what could not be easily translated. Secondly, they were originally in a foreign language, and not simply pumped up with a foreign/con language. And thirdly, all of the necessary translations - in my editions, at least - were footnotes, so I didn't have to do much flipping at all.

I am willing to forgive a lot for the sake of a classic that I won't forgive in a modern work that's just wasting my time. I mean, I've read Gilgamesh. Loved it, but if someone wrote that now? Jesus Christ.

Also, I would look in a dictionary for an English word to 'broaden my vocabulary' - I enjoy that. I don't like flipping to the back of the book to figure out what the hell 'tumba' or 'nem' means.

Hallen · May 16, 2011

I think Tolkien used a lot of imagery and theme where Martin just slams it in your face. Tolkien leaves it to the reader to see the deeper meanings that may or may not be present in the story. Martin shows you and leaves little doubt in what he means -- the intrigue is in the plot.

The are two stories written in two different times that really only share castles and swords as common elements. I like them both for completely different reasons.

Nateskate · May 16, 2011

Ophiucha said:
I wish my middle names were Rebecca Rachel or something.

I am not a big fan of Lord of the Rings, I should start out by saying that. I don't like the language basis, and I say this as someone who did two years of linguistics. I didn't want to reference a glossary, nay, dictionary in order to fully enjoy the work. I didn't like the narrative pausing to give us a poem. And, this is not Tolkien's fault but nonetheless a result of Tolkien, I simply don't like a lot of things that he started. If nothing else, I think the need to have a map in every damn book can be traced back to him (though he wasn't the first to do it; which is the case with most things, really). That said, he is a good writer. Flowery, yes, but most old fantasy writers were. I can't really complain much about Tolkien being flowery when I am madly in love with E.R. Eddison (author of The Worm Ouroboros).

George R.R. Martin, in terms of prose, isn't much better. I have a low tolerance for supersaturated prose and epics, what can I say? But I prefer things to be dark. Perhaps not even dark; I wouldn't call a lot of what Martin writes really dark, perhaps just more realistic, more... willing to acknowledge that things can go from bad to worse. I like that, and when I am in the mood to powerhouse through a fantasy epic, I reach for Martin.

Neither of them have much of a direct influence on me, regardless. Tolkien is likely an indirect influence; how can't he be? It's hard to write after Tolkien and not acknowledge him, either actively acting like him or avoiding every trope he touched. But I'll certainly take Howard or Peake over either of these two.

Martin isn't gory dark. But it's more like he's writing about the dark ages where men were more brutal. The influence of the Elves and the Men of the West gives Lord of the Rings a Renaissance feel, or at least varied parts of antiquity where there was history and culture.

Tolkien's Silmarillion was one of the hardest reads I've ever partaken of. And LOTR had parts that dragged for me. But oddly, each of those stories grew better with each reading- and I almost never reread a book of any Genre.

In a sense, I think the Silmarillion is a brilliant story, but written in a manner that turns many readers off. Even diehard LOTR fans don't make it through. Those that do fight until they grasp the story seem to love it.

Nateskate · May 16, 2011

knight_tour said:
Tolkien changed me so much as a person, but it was only when I read Martin that I realized how much I wanted to write. With Tolkien, I knew I could never manage anything even close, nor did I wish to. With Martin I saw the missing ingredient that would have made Tolkien perfect for me -- the raw, gritty realism. I wanted more than anything to see a Tolkien-style world and story but done with the realistic flavoring of Martin.

IMO, many of the new gritty writers, such as Abercrombie and Morgan, are going so far down the dark path that they lose the realism that is most important for me. It isn't realistic for me to have every character be ignoble. Every person has flaws, but there is also genuine decency in people, and I want to see that.

Tolkien influenced me in many ways, even through his non fiction, like his essay on Fairie Stories.

George Martin helped me to realize that life is what I suspect. You can head hop. You can show and not tell at times. You can break all the sacred rules when you like, just so long as you have a good story with strong writing.

I think rules should be "suggestions". Otherwise they become shackles and chains that stiffle creativity.

Nateskate · May 16, 2011

Hallen said:
I think Tolkien used a lot of imagery and theme where Martin just slams it in your face. Tolkien leaves it to the reader to see the deeper meanings that may or may not be present in the story. Martin shows you and leaves little doubt in what he means -- the intrigue is in the plot.

The are two stories written in two different times that really only share castles and swords as common elements. I like them both for completely different reasons.

Very good points. Both are very insightful men. You'd have to be to have such rich characters as Tyrian Lannister and Samwise Gamgee. Martin says it. Tolkien uses setting to say it without any inner dialogue. Martin says far more about the people than the landscape. Tolkien's landscape descriptions sound brilliant when others read them aloud. But I have a hard time reading some of his lengthy descriptions and following the caddence in my head.

thothguard51 · May 16, 2011

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.

A.V. Hollingshead · May 16, 2011

Nateskate said:
Martin isn't gory dark. But it's more like he's writing about the dark ages where men were more brutal. The influence of the Elves and the Men of the West gives Lord of the Rings a Renaissance feel, or at least varied parts of antiquity where there was history and culture.

Tolkien's Silmarillion was one of the hardest reads I've ever partaken of. And LOTR had parts that dragged for me. But oddly, each of those stories grew better with each reading- and I almost never reread a book of any Genre.

In a sense, I think the Silmarillion is a brilliant story, but written in a manner that turns many readers off. Even diehard LOTR fans don't make it through. Those that do fight until they grasp the story seem to love it.

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.

Stoneghost · May 16, 2011

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.

Xelebes · May 16, 2011

Stoneghost said:
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.

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.

Stoneghost · May 16, 2011

Xelebes said:
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.

A distinction I was unaware of. I have an OCD like desire for completion though, i'll have to avoid sagas.

Mark W. · May 16, 2011

It's difficult to compare these two since they were written in different times and under different circumstances. Also, one story is complete while the other is not.

That being said, both stories are great stories written by great writers.

Ardent Kat · May 17, 2011

Nateskate said:
Martin isn't gory dark.

This is the series where a guy get his nipple hacked off in battle, little children are hung from castle ramparts until they rot, a man is forced to wear his own severed hand around his neck as it decays, and a woman gets her breasts chewed off while she's still alive. Just wondering what your definition of "gory dark" is exactly.

Jamesaritchie · May 17, 2011

Tolkien knew when to stop.

Deleted member 42 · May 17, 2011

Jamesaritchie said:
Tolkien knew when to stop.

Not so much, actually; his editors cut 30K words from Fellowship, and 18K and 15K from Two Towers and Return of the King.

Had the good Don not died in medias res, I suspect he would still be revising the Silmarillion.

AKyber36 · May 17, 2011

Medievalist said:
Not so much, actually; his editors cut 30K words from Fellowship, and 18K and 15K from Two Towers and Return of the King.

Had the good Don not died in medias res, I suspect he would still be revising the Silmarillion.

Seconded. Tolkien was still going over stuff in the Sil like origin of orcs and the redemption of them plus other fun stuff before he kicked the bucket. His notes tell a lot about how he was still considering revising his work. 'Sides, The Lord of the Rings was originally supposed to be a one-volume work. It was his publisher that went with the idea of splitting it into thirds because it was a hefty doorstopper.

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

Nateskate

Miriel

New kid, be gentle!

Nateskate

A.V. Hollingshead

Vive la révolution littéraire!

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

knight_tour

Fantasy Tourist

Ian Isaro

New Member

Teinz

Back at it again.

Nick Blaze

Jun-Ikkyu

Sarpedon

A.V. Hollingshead

Vive la révolution littéraire!

Hallen

Mostly annoying

Nateskate

Nateskate

Nateskate

thothguard51

A Gentleman of a refined age...

A.V. Hollingshead

Vive la révolution littéraire!

Stoneghost

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

Stoneghost

Mark W.

Ardent Kat

Kill your television

Jamesaritchie

Deleted member 42

AKyber36