>Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?
Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with...
If he was a fan of Tolkein he would've known orcs are demon spawn, and without Sauron and the power of evil, their spawn rates decrease, they lose organization, and they gradually wither. Pretty straightforward to see. Is GRRM a plant to destroy the great traditionalist fantasy writer of our time?
spoken like a true jew
Well done, well done, Martin. But what is the linguistic differences between each of the Seven Kingdoms?
Don't forget the migration patterns.
Imagine comparing a literary and linguistic genius to this pad of butter.
finishing books is obviously even harder, right GURM?
why does everything he says invariably end up referencing little children
Would Aragorn have killed baby Orc Hitler?
>Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?
Didn't one of the movies show orcs being "born" fully grown out of the ground?
it proves that GRRM hasnt even read LOTR if he thinks Orcs have babies.
>be tolkien
>write an epic about light vs dark, how the smallest creatures can make a difference
>morally uplifting stuff
>die
>70 years later some fat fuck tsundere hack of a writer tries to bring you down by pointing out that you didn't add all of the superficial details that he did
>ignore him from the afterlife
Pic related
I'm just waiting for old Georgieboy to do a Robert Jordan on us. He's getting up in years and isn't really looking after himself. But I guess if you have enough money, the drive to complete the books is non-existing.
>What was Aragorn’s tax policy?
>What was Tywin's tax policy?
>"Uhhhhhhh gold mines and sound, prudent financial management :^)"
The books is this fattie are so forgetable I won't lose my time looking for the Tolkien quote where he says he thought about writing a story that happened after LOTR, but didn't bother with it because dealing with human politics would be boring.
LotR was pure fantasy without real world parallels like politics, taxes and morality issues. That's what makes it great, you can completely immerse yourself without having to engage mentally with the movies because you can relate with the characters situations.
I would have been okay with LOTR never being finished if it meant we finally got a comprehensive tax policy.
LOTR is idealised and was written as pdeudo-mythology by a guy who loved linguistics, but was sad that pre-Anglo-Saxon British mythology was wiped out
ASOIAF is more focused on characters, political intrigue and big fat titties, it's hard to even directly compare the two
>orcs are a silly one dimensional villain
>has literal zombies in his book
that one isn't in the books.
You haven't read LotR. Orcs reproduce in the normal way. They don't spawn out of the ground like in the films. For instance, Orc-women are referenced explicitly once in a letter from 1963:
>There must have been orc-women. But in stories that seldom if ever see the Orcs except as soldiers of armies in the service of the evil lords we naturally would not learn much about their lives. Not much was known.
What GRRM is missing is the fact that Orcs are either Men or Elves (Tolkien never settled on this point) whose ancestors were hopelessly corrupted thousands of years ago. Their nature cannot be redeemed.
>For the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar; and naught that had life of its own, nor the semblance of life, could ever Melkor make since his rebellion in the Ainulindalë before the Beginning: so say the wise. And deep in their dark hearts the Orcs loathed the Master whom they served in fear, the maker only of their misery. This it may be was the vilest deed of Melkor, and the most hateful to Ilúvatar.
Did anyone read The Last Ringbearer?
who are you going to sell the gold to?
what are they going to do with it?
how much gold does anyone really need?
how much are you going to pay the miners and traders and other workers?
THE MORE SHE DRANK
Imagine choosing to nitpick on something that's already explained because you haven't actually read Tolkien's work. Fatty can't even finish his own books.
>Writing is hard
>So I'm just going to give up before I finish
>Where did I leave that pie?
I'm more interested in their tax policies.
>Shitting is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do shit with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a shit man, the land would shit itself. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became a shit king and shat for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s shit policy? Did he maintain a shitting army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re shitting in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little shits, in their little shit cradles?
What the fuck happened to western literature? Even when you look at Nobel prize winners nothing of value has been written since the 70s.
What is peace time? GRRM is such a stupid fuck. I get it, it does not sound exciting to read, and that is probably why Tolkien did not write it, fucking moron.
>flood Gold market
>gold becomes worthless
>but somehow the Lannisters can do this for centuries and remain rich
Barvo Gurm you fat sack of shit
Artistic quality comes from struggle and no one in the west (at least in the upper class) has struggled for decades.
he loves Tolkien actually, everyone claims he has a feud with him but really he hates the Robert Jordans of the world (ironically you mighty say)
>Even when you look at Nobel prize winners nothing of value has been written since the 70s.
Bob Dylan has a Nobel prize, I wouldn't put too much stock in those things.
On the question of why literature collapsed, it's
plus the fact we've been undergoing complete cultural collapse over the past 50+ years. Same shit with modern art.
Tolkein purposely designed orcs to be something you could go to war against without a shred of moral doubt. They are spawned, not born.
>Tolkein purposely designed orcs to be something you could go to war against without a shred of moral doubt.
yes, like the germans
literally the opposite, since he actually went to war against real humans and saw them die and it haunted him
Based quibble posters
Someone's corrected me on where little orcs come from, and I scrolled on past.
I got through book 6 of wheel of time. I got really goddam tired of hearing about this future final battle that was going to happen at the end of the series. And I also didn't like that he was adding new characters at a high rate. It was inevitable that he died before finishing the series.
LOTR is embarrassing, childish garbage.
This sums up the problem with GRRM. He only sees characters as a means to an ends, and not a means in and of themselves. This is why no single character in his collection of pop-fiction is developed beyond the surface level cliches which only exist in a pop-fictional world. One does not read ASOIAF and feel that they know, on a personal level, any Stark or Lannister, but recognizes the same character traits in other pop-fictional characters and thereby evoke the emotional attachment on the shoulders of other writers' shitty characters. Ned Stark's death is not a grievance to the audience because Ned Stark the character is dead, but because Bryan Mills/King Arthur/StockDadCharacter#43 is dead. What GRRM's theory on characters is most similar is to con artists pretending to be seers that use benign universal characteristics to trick others into believing they possess some special power.
So for him, death is the only opportunity his stock 'characters' have to stand apart from other shitty works. He literally is incapable of comprehending how Gandalf, as a character, gives so much more to the meaning of the Lord of the Rings than just a death.
The irony of this is that the death of a Tolkien character has a far greater impact on the reader, even with the survival of Gandalf. Boromir's death, for example, is one that continues to gnaw at the reader even after the completion of the trilogy. One can vacillate between thinking that Boromir died heroically but deservedly for being corrupted by the ring to believing that, within the scope of what Boromir knew, he literally did nothing wrong. Whatever the conclusion, the point is that Boromir's death hurts the reader deeper than Ned Stark's because Boromir is a person, uniquely flawed and uniquely virtuous.
If writers are painters, then Tolkien is Caravaggio and GRRM struggles with stick figures.
you need a very low or very high IQ to enjoy Tolkien.
>Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper.
That's exactly as Tolkien intended it to be. Middle Earth is meant to be a myth especially made for England.
this must be pasta but it's huge bullshit. Tyrion and Jaime and Cersei and Tywin and Joffrey are all very different characters
the two are really incomparable. if they are thought of in the same class of writer then its a real shame. tolkien is to shakespeare as grrm is to dan brown. formulaic, cheap and easily consumed.
yeah, what a shame that people would be idealistic in their mythos
He did base the Orcs of WW2 Germans, and rather fittingly.
Because he looks like the bog standard neighborhood kiddie diddler and very likely IS.
What does he have against Robert Jordan? Best not include Brandon Sanderson.
Meant for
But he has said that without Robert Jordan’s support he’d not have had as much success
>Tyrion and Jaime and Cersei and Tywin and Joffrey are all very different characters
>tyrion
>sarcastic, cynical dwarf
>jaime
>sarcastic, cynical warrior
>Cersei
>sarcastic, cynical woman
>tywin
>sarcastic, cynical king
>joffrey
>sarcastic, cynical brat
FRiendly reminder that no one gave a shit about his books before the TV series. He's an hack writer
Wrong nigger, wwi Germans. He was at the Somme. He saw how industrial warfare fucked everyone and nature.
t. butthurt Kraut
>Because he looks like the bog standard neighborhood kiddie diddler and very likely IS.
The fact that there's more graphic rape in his novels than there is regular, married couples having sex is a big red flag. Being a childless, grotesquely fat 70-year old and having a bizarre preoccupation with including graphic sex scenes in the books everywhere already should strike people as kind of "off".
Being a leftist also points to him being a pedophile, specifically given his weirdo demeanor and what he evidently likes to write about.
Good point. He definitely didn’t use one of the worse battles of his countries history and the enemies he faced as Inspiration
Is anyone else waiting for Game of Thrones to end so you can spam Westerosi taxposting after he fails to address such things in his own books?