> 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... Real-life kings had real-life problems to deal with... My people who are trying to rule don't have an easy time of it. Just having good intentions doesn't make you a wise king.
The nerve of this FAT FUCK. Who does he think he is?
An Elden Lord Of The Rings
Sneed
I unironically have yet to see a rebuttal to what Martin was saying. And yes, I've read LotR - or rather, I'm reading it, currently in The Two Towers. In truth, setting aside the deep worldbuilding and mythology, The Lord of the Rings is simplistic and not especially good. Yes, it's supposed to be an "epic" in the tradition of earlier "kingly" literature, but believe it or not, that in and of itself does not make it good. Literature made huge leaps and bounds as an art form in the 17th-20th centuries, and intentionally making a 1600 page throwback to a time when characters didn't act like real people and kings were always right and the morality of every decision was simple is not some act of genius. On top of all this, despite the grandeur of some of the prose, the overwhelming majority of the text rarely rises above average. Oh, and one other thing - there are literally no character arcs in this series - everyone is flat and unchanging.
>t-that's a good thing!
"No!"
Like I said, Tolkien - whether intentionally or through lack of skill - basically ignored the last 300 years of innovation in fiction and that is not a good thing. Fuck you.
Shut the fuck up you fat retarded scat fetishist
>Inadvertently equates taxation with being a "wise ruler".
HMMMMMM
based
GRRM literally solidified himself as one of the greats after Elden Ring. Go eat shit.
>Basically, Tolkien did X and that is not a good thing.
Nah get fucked pseud
he's an idiot who can only interpret medieval europe from a judeo-secular interpretation
Not an argument
>implying medieval european politics weren't incredibly comparable to modern world politics
>changes souls to runes
Fucking baaaaased
None of that fucking matters. You have actual autism.
>muh arcs!
You havent even finished reading them and youre making leaps kys pseud
>Oh, and one other thing - there are literally no character arcs in this series
Just type "I am actually a fucking retard" next time, jesus christ.
>Frodo goes from naïve backwater farmer to adult worldly damaged goods that saved the planet
>Sam goes from being a coward and a gardener to likely the bravest person on the planet
>Gandalf literally fucking dies and has to be resurrected
>Pippin changes from bumbling hick to warrior in what is essentially ragnarok
>Aragorn reluctantly becomes a king because of his magical bloodline he basically rejected for 80 years until he couldn't anymore as humanity needed a leader
GRRM's character arcs are
>person is mad about thing
>stays mad
Actually true
None of those characters change at all. Their arcs don't have any impact on the actual characters themselves. All the characters feel on dimensional. Compare that to a character like Jaime from game of thrones and you'll see how shallow tolkiens characters are
How did this guy become so overrated?
It does matter. It is not well-written. You aren't replying with anything substantive because you can't.
>Frodo
He's already worldly and learned. He knows elves and their language. He's by far the most adventurous, least backwards hobbit.
>Sam and Pippin
Arguably true, yes - the only arcs
>Gandalf
Being resurrected as a Christ allegory - from Tolkien of all people - is not a character arc.
>Aragorn
There's nothing reluctant about it. He's talking about retaking the crown and his lineage from practically the moment we meet him in Bree. Narsil gets reforged in Rivendell in Fellowship. Book Aragorn's attitude is so hilariously unlike film Aragorn's reluctance.
>Aragorn reluctantly becomes a king because of his magical bloodline he basically rejected for 80 years until he couldn't anymore as humanity needed a leader
He wasn't like that in the book
Martin was right about everything. I also hate the argument that Martins works are inferior because they’re cynical and pessimistic, and that they don’t show us “the good, the true, and the beautiful” like Tolkien, which is total bullshit.
Martins world is a reflection of our own, he shows it in all its horror and all its beauty, he depicts human nature at its most vile and he depicts it at its most beautiful. If all you take away from that is that it’s miserable, then you are the pessimist, not Martin.
I don't think knows about the book, user
Why do people like to shit on Martin when he's clearly a fan of Tolkien despite his criticisms?
>Reee reply to my completely empty, subjective post with substance!
No, get fucked pseud.
it's been 49 years george, let tolkien go
>that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper
I'm not surprised this fat fuck is never going to finish his series considering he clearly never finished reading Lord of the Rings. Good kings and good people in general get killed off a lot in the lore what the fuck is he talking about?
>Being resurrected as a Christ allegory - from Tolkien of all people - is not a character arc.
Gandalf grew to be more wise in his character as well, wasn't purely the same as Gandalf the grey
Being cynical and pessimistic doesn't automatically make something better by default either.
>Gandalf grew to be more wise
A bit. Growing a bit more wise is not a character arc.
>Being cynical and pessimistic
LotR isn't just hopeful/optimistic - it's simplistic.
>Being cynical and pessimistic doesn't automatically make something better by default either.
I agree with you, I’m trying to say that asoiaf isn’t cynical or pessimistic, it’s an unfair label people put on it
...
GRRM literally says he admires Tolkien and his work in this paragraph. At the end of the day they wrote two different type of stories, so why does it have to be one or the other? Seriously, why do you autistic fuckers do this?
>bro if every character isnt some shade of grey your story is simplistic
Okay retard. The world building that went into Middle Earth is not simplistic whatsoever.
>le subversion fat man
Turns out subverting for the sake of subversion isn’t conductive to a decent nor a satisfactory finale. This is one of the reasons why you will never see the last two books on his series.
*hits pipe*
How are those new books coming along, George, laddie?
Elden Ring>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A song of Fire and Ice
Elden Ring>>>>>>>>>>>> Lord of the Rings
How many of these guys do you think actually read tolkiens works or is that familiar with Martin outside the TV shows? Mind this is Yea Forums and not Yea Forums
I want to read his series but I'm not convinced they'll be finished.
You a bitch
That's seem a reasonable thing to say
He clearly didn't pay that much attention to the book if this is his criticism. It's just not true, good Kings and good men often fail in lotr. Anyone who thinks that Lord of the Rings is just a basic story of good adventurers vs big bad evil guy and save the day at the end like a DnD campaign did not actually read lotr. The series is pessimistic, Tolkien was an extremely pessimistic and reactionary person. Middle Earth isn't magically saved just because Sauron has been banished from it permanently, Middle Earth is a post apocalyptic shithole that is in a steady decline by the will of God due to its corruption that is not stopped by the destruction of the Ring. The forests will be cut down, magic will be drained from the earth, and the entire continent is doomed to be a dusty wasteland before Illuvatar remakes the entire world. Melkor's corruption is literally permanent until that happens. The core of the world was corrupted from the very creation of it.
The issue I have with Martin is that he misses the entire metaphysical aspects of Tolkien's high fantasy. His own low fantasy that focuses almost insanely on the grotesque and pornographic just doesn't have as much substance behind it except for the shock of detailed disgust that one would have reading through the absolute worst parts of history. Its just obsessive and strange.
They are well worth the read in their unfinished state.
Even if George dies and they’re never finished they will still be worth reading, if you’ve seen the first 4 seasons of the TV show you know it’s a special story, and the books are far better
Reminder
>so why does it have to be one or the other
Because one is just flat out superior to the other? I enjoy A Song of Ice and Fire and GRRM to a degree but I am not going to pretend he is anywhere near the quality of Tolkien's works. I also just don't think GRRM' criticism of Tolkien is good. As in I think he flat out doesn't understand a lot of the lore
I love both the same desu, but lotr is better
The worldbuilding is deep and impressive. The character writing is not.
Okay and? The world building in ASOIAF isnt particularly special.
That's not the point of Lord of the Rings, it's about adventure and the creation of modern English mythology like Camelot, not a political drama about the ins and out of a monarchial government. Comparing the two would be like comparing Goodfellas to the Godfather.
If you're an idiot maybe, LOTR is one of the greatest coming of age stories ever made. The character arcs of the Hobbits are amazing. If you think otherwise then please tell me, and I will tell you exactly why you're wrong
Topkek
Its not a fucking criticism you fucking autistic nigger. Martin has gone on to explain he was simply saying what I said. They wrote different kinds of stories. And no one isnt simply better. Both have a place and both should exist.
I am Malenia, Blade of Mequibbler.
Characters don't have to be complex to be good. You're acting like there's only one good way to write a book that conveniently follows your personal style preference. Lord of the rings isn't a character drama, its a story.
Threadly reminder that Tolkien hated Dune. GRRMs "criticism" of LOTR pales in comparison to what Tolkien said about Dune.
It is quite literally literary criticism you absolute brainlet lmao
>And no one isnt simply better.
Yes. Lotr is a better story. Objectively. Tolkien is also the better writer. Objectively. That doesn't mean GRRM isn't good or his book isn't , he's just clearly inferior
>The character arcs of the Hobbits are amazing
They arent. Tolkienfags are pathetic, Tolkien greatness comes from his use of language, his lore, not narrative or character construction.
>HMMMMMMM
To be fair people on this site constantly try to frame it as George criticising Tolkien.
It’s just funny to frame George as this hedonistic lazy cynical fat fuck that shit talks Tolkien all the time when in reality George admires Tolkien and is working on stuff all the time. George isn’t actually the meme Yea Forums portrays him as and he would probably defend Tolkien as much of any of you
Tolkien didn't really give any criticism of Dune, he just said he intensely disliked it but didn't want to nitpick another author in detail who was making the same genre of story. So he just cordially refused to do so.
I almost guarantee Tolkien would've hated Martin's work just based on the pornography alone. He was an extremely reactionary Catholic after all.
See, this is what Tolkienfags always cope with.
>simplistic one dimensional characters are good!
>Doesn't actually give any details as to why he thinks that and just goes for ad homs
Yeah, yeah that's about what I expected. No, actually, Tolkien's greatness absolutely comes from his narrative and character construction and only contrarian brainlets say otherwise.
Because they can't actually say anything at all. Like you
Tolkienfags have been playing this game for DECADES, they have sperged over star wars, harry potter, dune, dungeon and fucking dragons, Willow, they can't stop themselves, they are extremely insecure and autistic.
I dropped Lord of the Rings in the middle of the first film when some gay ass elves appeared. George is right, the series is garbage.
god i fucking hate this reddit board
But the characters in Lotr aren't all simplistic and one dimensional. Some of them are - because some people irl are - in fact Martin has his share of simple minded and one dimensional characters. Some people remain roughly the same their entire lives and some people radically change.
>coming of age stories
what are you on about?
the youngest merrin or pippin is 35 years old when the story starts, frodo is 50.
it is a middle-aged coming of story if anything
You are so retarded it hurts. He isnt saying one way is better or worse. Its not a criticism. Its pointing out a difference. You autistic individuals are the ones framing it as criticism and saying one type of story is better than the other, which is false.
Its fucking stupid. Both stories have their place and are immensely enjoyable. I will say, sadly, it seems like typically its "Tolkien fags" shitting all over ASOIAF. Although this thread seems to buck the trend.
>t.user who actually prefers LOTR but enjoys both
>Yes, it's supposed to be an "epic" in the tradition of earlier "kingly" literature
That's not even what the definition of traditional epic is
>Literature made huge leaps and bounds as an art form in the 17th-20th centuries
Lord of the Rings being one of them you absolute pseud
>Oh, and one other thing - there are literally no character arcs in this series - everyone is flat and unchanging.
Literally all of the Hobbits and the Fellowship come back as different men by the end of the book, Jesus Christ what an idiotic opinion
You're retarded. Why do characters have to be deep and damaged and go through personal struggles and overcome obstacles to be good characters? They don't. Especially if the work isn't a character drama. Again, there is more than one way to write a story. Your personal preference isn't objectively correct. Lord of the rings isn't bad, its just not for you because you're holding it to the standards of something it's not, which is retarded. Its like watching an action movie and complaining that it's terribly written because it wasn't scary.
>Jaime
>is a bastard
>loses his hand
>becomes less of a bastard
>you know what, I liked being a bastard. Where's cersei?
10/10 one for the ages
spoken like a true patrician, i´m pretty sure even Wagner would see tolkien´s work as infantile garbage, which of course it is
>Oh, and one other thing - there are literally no character arcs in this series - everyone is flat and unchanging.
Is this bait? Frodo leaves Middle-earth because the journey forever changed him. He was wounded by the Witch King, Shelob, and Gollum.
>sunset found her squatting in the grass
>Tolkien was an extremely pessimistic and reactionary person. Middle Earth isn't magically saved just because Sauron has been banished from it permanently, Middle Earth is a post apocalyptic shithole that is in a steady decline by the will of God due to its corruption that is not stopped by the destruction of the Ring. The forests will be cut down, magic will be drained from the earth, and the entire continent is doomed to be a dusty wasteland before Illuvatar remakes the entire world
Yes, in the mythology of his world it is quite pagan in which in the end there will be a large battle, and afterwards a sort of rebirth of the world. Tolkien himself was pretty pessimistic, he wasn't all white-pilled as a lot of people portray him. He was pretty critical, like the scenes of nature being destroyed in middle earth was very much inspired by what he saw in his own life. However, his Catholicism and philosophy paints him as a cosmic optimist in the long run.
fantasy is proto capeshit, so tolkien mouthbreathers behave like fanboys, who knew!
>his narrative
His narrative peaked with hobbit, and even then the ending is a mess. Pretending Saruman and gandalf are complex is just bullshit, his characters are just reactive, and aside from the hobbits, the rest of the cast only grow in the form of "being less intolerant towards my allies".
To be fair I dont think ASOIAF would trigger Tolkien nearly as much as Dune would have. With as obsessed with language and history as tolkien is the anachronisms and the seemingly random clashes of languages and cultures in Dune probably triggered him to no end.
EACH STOOL LOOSER THAN THE LAST
35 is is basically the equivalent of being a teenager for hobbits. They're *hobbits*, they're supposed to be unusually naive and youthful. They're sheltered , essentially young adults setting out on a journey to discover themselves. Candide and the Red Badge of Courage are coming of age stories ffs and they also revolve around stories of adults. It's not just an issue of age by literal years but experience in general which is usually the focal point of a good coming of age story.
Any book that isnt a work of non fiction is infantile garbage to be fair.
Bait, but anyone who says this unironically doesn't know what makes capeshit bad.
This man has never heard of Tuon, or Thingol, or Feanor.
>user doesn't understand how literary criticism works
user, it's literary criticism. Look up what that is before you make another post lmao. It's not inherently a negative thing, criticism in general is not inherently a negative thing let alone literary criticism.
>Any fantasy book is infantile garbage to be fair.
FTFY
Tell that to Thomas pynchon or James Joyce you turbo fag
Not to mention the mind-numbingly boring prose and the, dare I say it, one dimensional characters.
The only character with any development is Leto II.
There isn't a single board here with good taste in anything
>Martin is a Boomer of Generation Draft Dodge, apex specimen
>Martin's prose is middling, and that's being charitable
>He's a commercial writer, and his lane is prurient scifi and television serials and is main work will never be completed, primarily because of the quantity and quality of theories the readership has spun has set the bar too high for him, and he's too prideful to pick and choose from any of it for the sake of expediency
>The Eternal Boomer Martin is incapable of writing counter to his personal politics since 2016 or Vietnam and can only over compensate by pushing the gas for the totally nihilistic by the same coin, to the detriment of the material, and he feels this at some level
LOTR is not a novel: it's a prose epic for Western/Celtic Europe's prehistory originally pursued as fluff for his linguistics experiments. It's not a novel, and you're not there to be 'entertained'
Miyazaki > the consultant. Martin's not responsible for the alchemical and hermeticism incorporated into it, just loathsome dung and transparent cribs from his own universe
>literally proto-King Kobracel
Tolkien is more talented because he can actually wrap up a fucking story.
Martins writing style is just creating nothing but fluff. The pacing is fucked. A dance of dragons was mostly dead end plots for dead end characters. The series has gotten away from Martin
He knows it and he doesn't even want to write the fucking books anymore.
The first few books were good though
amerimutt puritanism makes them believe in good vs evil meanwhile ignoring the complexities of real life, makes sense they hailed garbage like lord of the rings as their canon
good taste is 4channeler repellent
>his characters are just reactive, and aside from the hobbits, the rest of the cast only grow in the form of "being less intolerant towards my allies
Theoden is literally an interpretation of the Fisher King from Arthurian legend who is healed by Gandalf, a reincarnated ethereal spirit sent by God, who then grieves over his dead son instead of remain in abject misery and serve evil. He then goes on to redeem himself fighting for his people and dying a heroes death. That is an important archetype on mythology and absolutely good character development. That is just one example. If you think characters are merely reactive and don't change then you just didnt pay attention to the story. At all, in fact.
Overrated, James Joyce's characters are simplistic and one dimensional compared to say Ned Stark and Cersei Lannister