Tolkien and George R. Martin

[tumhalad2]

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?

[Mnemosyne]

I was supposed to read a Martin book for a class, but we ran out of time and never got around to it.

I'm rather glad I didn't as some of my friends did go through it and told me there were some explicit and mostly gratuitous scenes of venery. Which means I can't read it for personal reasons, but if they were right about the "gratuitous" then I cannot say that Martin could possibly be a better writer than Tolkien, who understood the laws of restraint and implication and did not include a single scene unless it was absolutely necessary*.

*Except possibly for some of that Bombadilian poetry...

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I 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".

They must be looking at the wrong characters! Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin are profoundly changed at the end of the book. That is the point of "The Scouring of the Shire"; to show how much they have changed.

The problem is that all these reviewers want Aragorn to be the hero of the story, and so they complain that he never changes. They miss the point that Aragorn is only a supporting character. The hero of the story is Sam ... he rises the furthest. Merry and Pippin were already "princes" of the Shire (as the sons of the leading Hobbits) and Frodo is spirtually broken by the quest ... so Sam is the unexpected hero.

It's a pity that PJ downgraded Merry to Pippin to mere comic relief while turning Aragorn into all-purpose action hero. I suspect most of those complaining about character development in the book are really having their opinions shaped by the movies.

I mean, isn't it a marvellous "character development" moment when the ruffians try to bar the hobbits' way at Bywater and Pippin draws his sword?

"...Swagger it, swagger it, my little cock-a-whoop. But that won't stop us living in this fat little country where you have lazed long enough. And" - he snapped his fingers in Frodo's face - "King's messengers! That for them! When I see one, I'll take notice, perhaps."

This was too much for Pippin. His thoughts went back to the Field of Cormallen, and here was a squint-eyed rascal calling the Ring-bearer "little cock-a-whoop'. He cast back his cloak, flashed out his sword, and the silver and sable of Gondor gleamed on him as he rode forward.

"I am a messenger of the King," he said. "You are speaking to the King's friend, and one of the most renowned in all the lands of the West. You are a ruffian and a fool. Down on your knees in the road and ask pardon, or I will set this troll's bane in you!"

The sword glinted in the westering sun. Merry and Sam drew their swords also and rode up to support Pippin; but Frodo did not move. The ruffians gave back. Scaring Breeland peasants, and bullying bewildered hobbits, had been their work. Fearless hobbits with bright swords and grim faces were a great surprise. And there was a note in the voices of these newcomers that they had not heard before. It chilled them with fear.

"Go!" said Merry. "If you trouble this village again, you will regret it." The three hobbits came on, and then the ruffians turned and fled running away up the Hobbiton Road; but they blew their horns as they ran.

The hobbits don't do anything like that at the start of the story, do they? Also, Frodo is the leader back then, but by the time of the Scouring Merry and Pippin have taken command.

I'd rather have this subtle character development instead of having to endure the sort of overblown "character arc" nonsense that every two-bit novelist feels compelled to inflict on the reader these days. You know ... these hacks who read a Cliff Notes version of Joseph Campbell and think that they are now God's Gift to Fantasy.

[Isabellkya]

This is .. odd. xD

I'm currently reading Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series right now.
I don't entirely agree that his character's are neither good nor evil.


I shall try not to spoil it, for any whom might want to read it in the future.
I find myself... loving and disliking the series at the same time.

Mostly because when it comes to fantasy, I'm used to a certain style of.. plot and writing. This is different in comparison. Which is one of the reasons why I both love and dislike it.

I personally wouldn't compare them too much; because they are different. So, to really gauge whether or not it is good, I suggest taking a read perhaps if you can.

[Rhugga II]

Martin is not for you if you have a weak stomach. He is not the American Tolkien. No one is the [insert nationality here] Tolkien. He is not a linguist. He was screenwriter and sci-fi author before he took up High Fantasy. However, I argue that he is quite good. He is realistic (in a fantasy sense) and there are true "good" and "evil" characters, but there are A LOT of gray characters. The character development is excellent (every main character has or get their own POV chapters) and magic is kept in the background, especially until the two most recent books. If you don't like nasty people and descriptions of the nasty things they do or the realistic battle scenes that really capture the horrors of medieval war, then I could see how you would have a hard time reading thousands of pages of it!

A question this raises for me - is it possible for modern fantasy authors to write a good trilogy or even a decent number of books? I am thinking of Martin, Goodkind, and Jordan and their insanely lengthy works. The closest I can think is Tad Williams Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn and the third book of that had to be cut in two for the paperback!

[Pitchwife]

OT excursus -

Originally Posted by Rhugga II

A question this raises for me - is it possible for modern fantasy authors to write a good trilogy or even a decent number of books? I am thinking of Martin, Goodkind, and Jordan and their insanely lengthy works.

You know, it's funny how the trilogy format became so associated with fantasy chiefly because of LotR when Tolkien insisted again & again that LotR isn't a trilogy but a single novel and the decision to publish it in 3 volumes was Allen & Unwin's. There's really no reason why fantasy should be in trilogies rather than single volumes or any other number of books.
That said, the 3-volume novel is an apt format for telling an extensive story while still keeping a sense of focus and purpose - something which many of the moderns seem to be lacking. Unfortunately, I haven't read Martin or Goodkind (yet, although I'm getting really curious 'bout Martin), but Jordan, may he rest in peace, is a specially lamentable example - lamentable because I really liked some of his ideas and can't help feeling that if only he'd cut down on braid-tugging, descriptions of clothing and Aes Sedai intrigues, he might have wrapped up the story several volumes ago.
But yes, it's still possible. If I may flog my personal hobby-horse once again - The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Eight volumes up to now and aiming for ten, linked by setting and recurring characters and themes, but divided into two 3vn's and a quartet, each with their own well-defined story arc. Sort of a trilogy of trilogies.

The closest I can think is Tad Williams Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn and the third book of that had to be cut in two for the paperback!

Indeed, TW's a good example of how to do it right: detailed and panoramic world-building (including some 'unexplained vistas' of things beyond recorded history and geography), lots of POV characters, but he never loses sight of the story he's telling. He also has some nicely grey characters - most notably Gúthwulf, who is first presented as one of the villains, but becomes more and more likeable later on; even Elias and Ineluki himself have convincing subjective motives for what they're doing (actually, Pryrates may be the only cliché villain in the whole book). His elves (the Sithi) are both Tolkienesquely lovely, noble and faerish (for lack of a better adjective) and at the same time slightly eerie and clearly non-human.
And you can tell he's a sincere Tolkien fan, as he's paid homage to the Prof in several ways: the first thing that comes to mind is the Erkynlanders with their Anglo-Saxon names, but there's also the term 'white-foxes' for the Norns, which (for me at least) clearly echoes Tolkien's 'white-fiends' (Easterling name for the Elves in the Narn). A few years ago I had the luck to be present at a reading of his where, asked about his favourite scene from LotR, he answered, after very little hesitation: 'Horns, horns, horns. Great horns of the North. Rohan had come at last.' Can't find fault with that!

EDIT: P.S. Welcome to the Downs, Rhugga, and enjoy being dead! You've made some interesting posts so far, and I hope we'll see more of you!

[Thinlómien]

Personally, I do like Martin, but for very different reasons than I love Tolkien. I like his gruesome realism and his complex characters and the lack of definite good and evil. I don't really think there are good or evil characters in the books (Izzy, make your judgements only when you've passed further, my favourites and least favourites have changed innumerable times on the course of reading the series and I have started to understand characters whom I originally thought flat and unrealistic).

But - of course! - I disagree with what these people say about Tolkien. They have very many sides, it is just not explicitely stated, you have to read between the lines. Just think of the coolness and subtlety of characters like Aerin, or even the hues in Frodo or Aragorn (!).

Also, although Martin is good, he is in no way a match for Tolkien. True, he has his elaborate world, but it's history is not as deep, it has no own languages or such, and Martin doesn't have the same sense of words as Tolkien, nor does he mix folklore or big themes the same way. I'm not claiming he can't write fluently or beautifully, or anything else degrading, but his works just don't reach Tolkien's level and wide scope of expertise.

Originally Posted by Rhugga

A question this raises for me - is it possible for modern fantasy authors to write a good trilogy or even a decent number of books? I am thinking of Martin, Goodkind, and Jordan and their insanely lengthy works. The closest I can think is Tad Williams Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn and the third book of that had to be cut in two for the paperback!

I would point the attention to Ursula Le Guin, the only author that for me can compete with Tolkien in terms of wisdom&depth, writing skill and entertainment value (catchy storytelling) combined. If you're looking for something less "profound", Guy Gavriel Kay's books have wonderful storytelling, recycling of old myths, beautiful language and deep tragedy, and Robin Hobb is a superb storyteller, character-creator and recycler of clichés.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

If you're looking for something less "profound", Guy Gavriel Kay's books have wonderful storytelling, recycling of old myths, beautiful language and deep tragedy, and Robin Hobb is a superb storyteller, character-creator and recycler of clichés.

If you can get around the religious overtones (and to me, they're no more heavy handed than the ones in C.S. Lewis's Narnia) I've also derived no small joy from Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker series. At six books (with one more to go) and two short stories (plus one epic length poem if your a real devotee) it's a bit lengthy. but as has been discussed seven books is nothing compared to how long people like Jordan have strached things (one of my other frustrations with Jordan is that, as less and less actual "in story" time passed with each book versus outside time (the time it took the actual books to come out), and the story got more and more complex, it became harder and harder, and yet more and more necessary for my comprehsion of each new book, to re-read ALL of the previos ones before starting each new volume). Card's Alvin is particulary good if you have a fondness for American "Tall Tales" as opposed to the romaticized medival world that most fantasy writers seem to look to for inspiration.

[Thinlómien]

PS. More 'downish book recommendations can be found here. It is also a less off-topic place to discuss other writers than Tolkien and Martin.

[obloquy]

Martin blows my mind. I pooped my pants at least 5 times while reading the first three books of his series. Dany and the funeral pyre??? Melisandre birthing a shadow??? Seriously.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

I*Except possibly for some of that Bombadilian poetry...

Nonsense!