Tolkien and George R. Martin - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

tumhalad2 · 09-24-2009, 10:34 PM

I've been looking around for some alternative fantasy recently and I've come across a (seemingly) renowned writer hailed as the "American Tolkien", George R. Martin.

He of course writes the Song of Ice and Fire series, which has apparently been lauded as "better than Tolkien" by many officionadoes as well as sections of the media. Most commonly, Martin is praised for his "realism" as compared to Tolkien; his characters are said to be neither "good nor evil". Message boards are chockablock with followers writing about how Tolkien's characters are "flat" and "never change", they are "emotionally the same at the end of the book as they are at the first".

Listening to a radio interview with British literary critic Matthew Wood the other day, I was struck by his assertion that we moderns place, in his view, way too much emphasis on that emorphous thing we call "character development" and "character transformation" Admittedly Wood was making the point that many people go through their lives without actually changing much; and this should be reflected in literature.

As one blogger put it: "and I'm sorry to say if you think Tolkien is better than Martin you are sadly mistaken.
Buy "A Game of Thrones" seriously."

Another interesting factor which seemed rather universal among the Martin admirers was their oft professed liking for the Jackson "adaptations" of Tolkien. Personally I can't stand them; I am a book lover through and through. But often, the posters would justify their liking of the films by invoking "Aragorn's journey" or some such "modern" twist Jackson and his crew imposed on Tolkien's story.

Thoughts?

09-24-2009, 10:34 PM	#1
tumhalad2 Haunting Spirit Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 95	Tolkien and George R. Martin I've been looking around for some alternative fantasy recently and I've come across a (seemingly) renowned writer hailed as the "American Tolkien", George R. Martin. He of course writes the Song of Ice and Fire series, which has apparently been lauded as "better than Tolkien" by many officionadoes as well as sections of the media. Most commonly, Martin is praised for his "realism" as compared to Tolkien; his characters are said to be neither "good nor evil". Message boards are chockablock with followers writing about how Tolkien's characters are "flat" and "never change", they are "emotionally the same at the end of the book as they are at the first". Listening to a radio interview with British literary critic Matthew Wood the other day, I was struck by his assertion that we moderns place, in his view, way too much emphasis on that emorphous thing we call "character development" and "character transformation" Admittedly Wood was making the point that many people go through their lives without actually changing much; and this should be reflected in literature. As one blogger put it: "and I'm sorry to say if you think Tolkien is better than Martin you are sadly mistaken. Buy "A Game of Thrones" seriously." Another interesting factor which seemed rather universal among the Martin admirers was their oft professed liking for the Jackson "adaptations" of Tolkien. Personally I can't stand them; I am a book lover through and through. But often, the posters would justify their liking of the films by invoking "Aragorn's journey" or some such "modern" twist Jackson and his crew imposed on Tolkien's story. Thoughts?