# G.R.R.M the American Tolkien?



## hots_towel

Recently I was out to dinner with some friends and the topic of George R.R. Martin's A song of Ice and Fire series came up in the discussion. One of my friends said that there are people out there saying that GRRM is the American Tollkien, Or the Tolkien of our time. A few of the others at the table agreed, but I wasn't so quick to say yes. Please allow me to explain myself.

I didn't open my mouth and object because I haven't read GRRM's books, and I've read some of Tolkiens works (I havent looked into the histories of middle earth or the silmarillion just yet, but its definitely on my list). The only Knowledge I have of Westeros is the TV show. As we all know, TV/movie adaptions of written work always ends up being the director's interpretation of the source material, and does not always make you credible when you say " I know what happens in the book cause I saw the movie". So I wasn't about to open my mouth about something I didn't know about first hand. But if the show keeps the basic plot structure in check, then I suppose I stand by my decision. 

Keep in mind, this is not a debate about which author is better. This is about if they're even comparable or not. 

Some people say GRRM is the Modern/American Tolkien. Why? Because he wrote a story set in a Medieval fantasy? ASoIaF is more comparable to historical fiction if you ask me (being sarcastic of course). The reason I say that though is because I don't feel like there are enough "fantasy" elements in the story (thats not to say that there are none. I'm fully aware GRRM suspends reality with classic fantasy elements). It's a little generous in my opinion to call it an "epic high fantasy". Now an epic low fantasy? Possibly. Nothing wrong with that, and I think it's more suited to the story. High/low fantasy isn't a scale of prestige to score the books, it's just a setting that tells the story best or the way the author wants. 

However, one could also argue that ASoIaF could take place in a sci-fi setting without changing the plot around too much, or even set in a supernatural modern society whilst retaining it's general plot structure. At it's core, ASoIaF is a drama. Not a fantasy adventure.

I realize the same could be said for other works of fiction, but think about it. Some people see star wars as a borderline straight fantasy, but many of its essentials and hallmarks are bound to that sci-fi setting. Lightsabers, giant space stations that double as WMD's, intergalactic travel/warfare, robots/driods, etc. 

I realize my logic is probably full of holes (or i just flat out wrote this illegibly), but for those that get the point  of what i'm saying, what are your opinions?


----------



## JRFLynn

Well, Martin definitely set the bar for multiple POVs. I haven't finished reading his books, but I agree that his story shouldn't be called a high-fantasy. Even though there are dragons and hints at elves, a crow of knowledge, and things of that nature...very few folk in his stories actually use magic, and the story has a strong supernatural element. His magic is mysterious. Meh, that's my opinion. Epic? Definately. Of course, with the little I've read there's a good chance that the story could burgeon into a "high-fantasy". It's a saga so anything is possible. 

Despite Martin's talent, I don't know if anyone can truly light a candle to Tolkien's genius. The man is the grand-daddy founder of the fantasy genre, he's the reason we read stories with bearded drunken dwarfs and flowery, beautiful elves. Martin has built on that, and I think he definitely is one of great american authors in the fantasy/drama genre. 

There was a blog post I read about the fantasy genre. It described the genre as a castle that writers either renovate or "tear down". So, I guess my point is that Martin is a renovator that has knocked down a tower or two, where Tolkien set the foundation. I don't believe you can compare Martin and Tolkien, that's just me.


----------



## Steerpike

I wouldn't say he's an American Tolkien. I think the fact that he has a successful TV show is the impetus behind a claim like this. You can find plenty of better fantasy series, including those with better or more in-depth world-building. Take away the buzz surrounding the TV show and look only at the series itself, and then tell me what it has to raise it head and shoulders above what many other fantasy writers are doing. Don't get me wrong, I like the books. But I wouldn't elevate it onto some higher plane.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I love GRRM's ASOFAI books.

That being said, I think you'd have to really break some new ground to be considered the "American Tolkein." 

We're talking about a writer credited with creating a modern genre after all. It's hard to compare anyone to that standard, regardless of how much you may like their work.


----------



## Steerpike

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I love GRRM's ASOFAI books.
> 
> That being said, I think you'd have to really break some new ground to be considered the "American Tolkein."
> 
> We're talking about a writer credited with creating a modern genre after all. It's hard to compare anyone to that standard, regardless of how much you may like their work.



Yeah, good point. Though not fantasy, you might look at someone like William Gibson as closer to what Tolkien was, in terms of establishing a modern subgenre.


----------



## SeverinR

Comparing Tolkien and GRRM is like comparing Chris Columbus and Neil Armstrong, both are explorers and set foot on new lands.
but they are worlds apart.

GRRM is drawing more people to the genre that probably would never have thought about Sword and sorcery books, but Tolkien opened up fantasy to something more the bedtime stories.

Personally, I think Game of thrones will evolve its magic that was lost to be found again. Dragons made the mage stronger, as they grow I must wonder if the worlds magic won't grow also.


----------



## Mythopoet

You have to remember that just about every up and coming or successful fantasy writer has been compared to Tolkien if at all possible for marketing reasons. It's probably the most common blurb or slogan that can be found on a fantasy book: "This guy is totally the next Tolkien! Buy this book!" One really has to feel sorry for Tolkien, having his name thrown around like that so loosely.


----------



## wordwalker

Agreed, things are too different for that comparison to really mean much. Especially since the most important thing about Tolkien was that he did so much first, "trope codifying" so much for the rest of us-- you can't really match that because now it *has* been done. (The Gibson comparison of complete difference, or the Columbus/Armstrong of whole different stages of a process, have a bit more meaning.)

Thing is, the phrase actually comes from a much-repeated rave review in the New York Times. Too true, every fantasy author gets someone comparing him to Tolkien, but Lev Grossman made a point of saying how Martin's work was as big (in fact some of our Scribes have shown _each book_ has as many words as the whole LOTR trilogy, and of course many other authors do too) and as important and yet "so much more mature."

I guess it isn't much more than a way of saying he has a Top Two list-- or maybe crowing that a modern and American author matched the old don, but all that's only in a general sense. It _matters_ that Tolkien did it first.

A comparison I'd like to see is the GoT cable series to Star Trek, for giving a non-reading world its first taste of how much coolness was already out there, mostly in book form.


----------



## Snowpoint

After reading "A Feast for Crows", a book most fans hate and rank as worst in the series, I understand why it sucks.

The forth book in the series has no 3-Act-Structure. It has no structure at all. There is no beginning, no middle, no end. It is just 1500 pages of events form several POVs in no particular order. The scene do not connect to each other, nor do they build up to a big climax.

There is no beginning, middle, or end to that book. That is why people hate it. It goes nowhere. Any value those events might have later is not expressed in the book itself. Each book in a series should stand on its own legs while being part of the larger work.

My review of "A Feast for Crows" - just ready a Wiki summary and save yourself the time and trouble.

So... GRRM has created a very detailed world. His success in Fantasy will help other Fantasy authors sell books and movie options. But his fourth book was just not good.


----------



## Reaver

GRRM is a great writer but nowhere near the same caliber as Tolkien. On a different note, I will say that I believe that Frank Herbert is the Tolkien of Sci-Fi.


----------



## Chessie

I also don't think the two works can, or should be, compared. I have read GOT but not the rest of the books in that series, so my experience is limited. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I see it this way: Tolkien's books are filled with high fantasy and abundant magic, whereas GOT is political intrigue at its finest. Tolkien provided us with a story rich in the fantastical...things you only experience in dreams. In GOT, its real life in a fantasy setting. Each author aimed to do something different and I think comparing the two is rather unfair and not valuing them for their own merits.

PS: I wonder if at the end of it all, when Martin is done writing the series, what if the magic doesn't come back? What if it isn't a bad ass fantasy finish like so many of my friends keep telling me I should stick with the series for? At least I got that from the beginning with Tolkien. Just saying.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Chesterama said:


> PS: I wonder if at the end of it all, when Martin is done writing the series, what if the magic doesn't come back? What if it isn't a bad ass fantasy finish like so many of my friends keep telling me I should stick with the series for? At least I got that from the beginning with Tolkien. Just saying.


That's exactly what is happening...magic, along with the dragons is returning to the world. I think the vision is Low Fantasy becomes High Fantasy... we'll see.

I'm going to have to disagree with my good friend Reaver though. This may be heresy in fantasy circles, but I prefer Martin to Tolkein. Yes, I said it. I do. Don't get me wrong, I love them both but Martin's books speak to me more than Tolkein's. It's all subjective of course, which makes comparing two authors of that caliber even more difficult.

Still, Tolkein is the father of the genre. As I stated before, it is unfair to compare anyone to that standard.


----------



## Reaver

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Still, Tolkein is the father of the genre. As I stated before, it is unfair to compare anyone to that standard.



Well said, TAS. I can't think of a better statement to sum up how I really feel about the two authors. I retract my opine about Martin not being of the same caliber as Tolkien. 

Like JRRT, GRRM created a rich history, highly developed languages and engaging characters.


----------



## Philip Overby

I disagree with the idea that Martin is not one of the best going today. Is he comparable to Tolkien? I can't really say since I've only read _The Hobbit._ I read Martin's books before the GoT TV series began and it's still one of my favorite fantasy series I've ever read and it's not even close. I do find that there are tons of fantasy authors I like, but I'm hard-pressed to find a series where I enjoy and connect with so many characters. Sure, there are other series I like as a total package, but as far as individual characters, Martin is currently at the top of the genre in my opinion. 

That said, what does American Tolkien mean anyway? Like he's the top dog in fantasy? Who else could be considered THE writer in fantasy right now other than Martin? Some may argue Sanderson, but I can't think of anyone else that has the same level of both critical acclaim and mainstream popularity as Martin. I feel like Martin has converted more people to read fantasy than any other author besides Tolkien. 

In any case, comparing the two is inevitable I guess because people like comparing popular figures. It's kind of like comparing Beethoven and Mozart though. It really is a matter of taste and preference.


----------



## kayd_mon

I think the comparison is great to communicate the idea to the average non-fantasy reader. For us, we might see them as too different to compare, which is fair.


----------



## Chessie

I overheard a friend at work once talking to a customer about GOT, which she loves. She called it Sci-Fi. I was like no...its fantasy.  But she doesn't like fantasy and the tv show has brought her around to it. She's also not a reader though. But my other work friends love GOT and I'm the odd lady out. Interestingly enough, none of them have read Tolkien, Sanderson, , etc. But GOT has brought them around to at least being interested in the genre. And although GOT traumatized and bored me to tears, I can still admit that Martin is the high shizzle in the genre right now. He deserves his own credit and being compared to Tolkien is lame and unfair. 

Some day, one of us will hit the jackpot and we'll be compared to both. I see it this way: as an individual, my work is personalized and it shouldn't be compared to any other author's. So why should we do that to them? There is good fantasy work out there that deserves praise for being good in its own right. It seems we all agree to that here. 

As a final thought, Tolkien wrote for _his_ modern audience. Martin is doing the same. Comparing the work of the two authors is like comparing the mindset of fantasy readers in 1937 to our 21st century minds which are more exposed to violence, sex, political intensity, etc. The reason why GOT is so popular is because fans can relate to the characters. There's someone for everyone. Tolkien's cast is much smaller by comparison which a more childlike concept.


----------



## Reaver

Chesterama said:


> I overheard a friend at work once talking to a customer about GOT, which she loves. She called it Sci-Fi. I was like no...its fantasy.



Let's not forget that science fiction is a type of fantasy, not a separate genre.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

…and they both have a double R as their middle initial.

(Pause for cricket chirping.)

Well, I really do agree that HBO's Game of Thrones attracted new readers to the genre. I started reading the ASoIaF books because season 3 ended mid-book. I can't wait for season 4, just so I can see what it's like to be one of the viewers who's already read the book. I likely read "season 5" by now as well, at least if Feast of Crows is two seasons. I was warned that book 4 is the hardest to read through, but the Brienne scenes keep me going. And Cersei. I hate her, but she's fun to read.


----------



## hots_towel

Chesterama said:


> I wonder if at the end of it all, when Martin is done writing the series, what if the magic doesn't come back? What if it isn't a bad ass fantasy finish like so many of my friends keep telling me I should stick with the series for? At least I got that from the beginning with Tolkien. Just saying.


i know exactly how that is. i have been exposed to fantasy movies, games, and books for a good long while now, but i didnt decide to sit down and read the hobbit till last summer. and it was like reading fantasy for the first time somehow. its like the words themsevles were under some spell or something. the feeling was still somewhat there when i started the fellowship, but the main series is such heavy reading i was more just trying to concentrate on what was happening. finishing a LoTR book is like winning a medal though.


----------



## kayd_mon

I don't know. LOTR is a breezy read compared to many. I plowed through most of it on my first time reading it. With A Game of Thrones, I didn't really get into it until I was pretty far in. I was reading sluggishly before the marathon reading sessions started. 

But the two books/series don't share much besides a medieval-style fantasy setting, and long length. They are completely different kinds of books. (I think many have said that already).


----------



## HUnewearl Shiro

As I'm not a fan of Martin's works, I may be a little biased. However, I just don't think he does anything new. It's on a larger scale when compared to other authors, but the basis for his storylines are by no means unique. Tolkien, as stated earlier in the thread, was the father of the genre, he took a lot of crazy chances in his works, whereas the only real chancy move I can see from Martin is "I wonder what happens if I kill this guy"

I would say that if anyone were to be dubbed "The American Tolkien" it would be Margaret Weis (and Tracy Hickman) for their expansive Dragonlance world.


----------



## Steerpike

HUnewearl Shiro said:


> I would say that if anyone were to be dubbed "The American Tolkien" it would be Margaret Weis (and Tracy Hickman) for their expansive Dragonlance world.



Oh, I don't know...that's pretty derivative too and the writing isn't all that great. I'd have to put Martin above those two.


----------



## HUnewearl Shiro

Steerpike said:


> Oh, I don't know...that's pretty derivative too and the writing isn't all that great. I'd have to put Martin above those two.



I agree that it's quite derivative. After all, it was originally a D&D campaign if I recall correctly, so by default a lot of common aspects were already there. I'm just a huge fan of the entire world it's set in, so it gets higher marks from me, heh.


----------



## Ruby

I love Tolkien's work and often reread The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. I tried to read the first Game of Thrones book and couldn't get into it.

 I know many people who love the Game of Thrones books and they have all watched the tv series and bought the DVD's. They tell me you have to watch the series and THEN read the books as otherwise the books are unreadable and boring. 

I have watched the first programme of series 1 and it was very good, so is this the only way to read these books?


----------



## Mythopoet

Personally, I don't see why there seems to be such a need to label an "American Tolkien" or a "next Tolkien". Tolkien was Tolkien. He was completely unique and no one will ever be like him. (Sad thought!) Those who try generally fail. Those who don't try get labeled as the next Tolkien anyway because Tolkien remains the most long lasting and popular author in the Fantasy field so that makes tricking people into thinking a new author _might_ be the next Tolkien good for business. But Tolkien wasn't great because he was like someone else. He was great because he poured his own heart and soul into his work. That's what _makes_ great work. 

Perhaps that's why I really hate A Song of Ice and Fire. I read about 2.5 or 2.75 of the books before I couldn't stand it any longer. They didn't feel, to me, as if they had any heart or soul. They just felt like an endless litany of murder, death, destruction, intrigue, politics, sex, more sex, and amorality. I'd always been secretly hoping that the story would develop more actual fantasy and less pseudo-historical torture-porn but I gave up that hope as it continued to get worse and worse. Eddard Stark was the only character worth reading about and we know what happened to him. 

To me the difference between A Song of Ice and Fire and The Lord of the Rings perfectly demonstrates something I've heard Mr. Rogers said: "“I feel so strongly that deep and simple is far more essential than shallow and complex." LOTR is "deep and simple". ASOIAF is "shallow and complex".


----------



## Philip Overby

I think ASOIAF is our generation's fantasy epic, that's why it gets compared to Lord of the Rings. There have been perhaps hundreds of people who have tried to replicate Tolkien to mixed results. Martin didn't do that. He instead turned to history. One reason I think his series is so popular, is because the characters _are_ deep and real, not just carbon copy good or evil archetypes. Not to say Tolkien did that, but he did spawn many copycat writers who have.

Again, this just goes to show how diverse the fantasy reading audience is. I know people who love Martin and ones that loathe Tolkien. I like both of them, but I do find them hard to compare really.


----------



## Bluesboy

Ruby said:


> They tell me you have to watch the series and THEN read the books as otherwise the books are unreadable and boring.
> 
> I have watched the first programme of series 1 and it was very good, so is this the only way to read these books?



That is utter rubbish! I have to admit I got into the books after seeing the first two seasons of the show and by that point I already knew who the characters were. Getting into the books was therefore easier, because I was already familiar with the world. But then they blew me away so much that I've since stopped watching the show because I was how they showrunners are turning an intricate, subtle, detailed, and complex world that is incredibly realistic into a dumbed down version for the mainstream american consumers who have to have everything brought to them on a silver platter.

So seeing the show makes you familiar with the world and the characters, but the real stuff is and always will be in the books. The show whitewashes most characters to make them likable while in the books you have "protagonists" doing morally questionable things all the time, like altering a scene that was a cold-blooded murder in the books into killing in self-defence on the show. The books play with rumours, wrong information, unreliable narrators, and other subtleties that most readers seem to overlook, because they fall into the traps of vivid realism that they take everything in the books at face value, without realising that each character arc that demands a certain structure to the story (focusing on the surface, ignoring the depth below - something of a pattern in today's culture). That's why many people dismiss the ASOIAF books all too readily. 

While Tolkien deals with certain themes that stem from his experience in the trenches of the first world war and love of languages for which he invents fake history, the ASOIAF books are carefully crafted literary masterpieces where everything matters, they're full of symbolism, full of hidden messages that give you deeper insight into the story if you spot them. That's why they have such a passionate following, because people get engaged by those mysteries, they want to discuss them with others, share the theories and so on. 

There is a great literary analysis of the 5th book (but also discussing materials from the previous ones) in the series that explains you why the book is written the way it is and that it's not a 1000 page filler as many believe. Reading it will give you a ton of priceless advice on writing books, because there are things many people probably don't realise.


----------



## BronzeOracle

Hmmm, starting a new genre of literature - does Stephanie Meyer's Twilight rate as the creation of the now huge urban/paranormal romance genre?  This genre is pretty big in most bookshops I visit - about half as big as the fantasy/SF section.  Oh boy, is that a series far apart from LOTR!


----------



## God-Of-Toasters

I like Martin and I like Tolkien, but I would say that they go about writing fantasy very differently. For one, Tolkien was a linguist, and created multiple languages such as Numenorean and Quenya. Martin decided to base his fantasy more off of character development, so his characters may have normal(er) names, but they are well fleshed out. Martin also decided to play off of the different tropes that Tolkien had established, making a more cynical medieval time period. I do think that Martin tried to add an extra R to his name as a tribute to Tolkien though.


----------



## Steerpike

BronzeOracle said:


> Hmmm, starting a new genre of literature - does Stephanie Meyer's Twilight rate as the creation of the now huge urban/paranormal romance genre?  This genre is pretty big in most bookshops I visit - about half as big as the fantasy/SF section.  Oh boy, is that a series far apart from LOTR!



No because there was urban fantasy / paranormal romance before Meyer ever came along. You can't create something that already exists


----------



## Manalodia

If ASoIaF our modern day LotR, then I'm saddened to be apart of this generation. Are we really that shallow and base that THAT is what we care about? Murder, sex and moral ambiguity? No doubt the complex relations formed are what keeps many going, but every other bit of it to me, is garbage. Well crafted, but nonetheless more cess for the pool that America is increasingly being defined by.

I don't think I'm nostalgic for Tolkien's fantasy, I can adapt to many things easily. It is just when the content is no more than what one would expect, that is when questioning comes into play. Steerpike made a great point in saying what would people really have thought of the series if it never made it to TV? No breasts to gander, no horrible methods of death, just the writing. Before it was a show, not many knew or cared for it except among some in the fantasy community. Tolkien captured an audience even when there was television, so he needed no other facet other than himself to garner attention.

If I come of pessimistic or harsh, that is because I feel that anyone wiling to give their work to HBO is a whoremonger. Steven King does screenplays, so I think he is well adjusted to both worlds where Martin is not. Just think; if he dies before the books end, HBO was given the okay to finish what he started with the show....I know financial success as an author is a huge goal, but what did he really do?

I watched two episodes of the show. I admit I started because of Sean Bean and his character, but the filler nudity and sex made me reconsider. Then the tower scene with the Lanisster twins came and I was done. I would have been furious if I watched only to have Ned Stark die; the message was being good makes you stupid and dead. Sit on the fence and be conniving and you will live; essentially, become  a politician. T_T

I will make a scape-goat finish by saying Martin is good at what he does but, what he writes is nothing inspiring or inventive.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I'll never understand the human need to constantly draw comparison between something as subjective and individual as art. I get that it may help in determining what a consumer may enjoy, "If you enjoyed A, you may also like B". Beyond that though, what's the point?  

Can't we just appreciate the artistry on its own merit?


----------



## Reaver

To those new to Mythic Scribes, T. Allen.Smith has long been the voice of reason here. Thanks again TAS.


----------



## Manalodia

People love to draw lines in all facets of life. I don't think it is ever going to be avoidable but, we can point it out when it arises and reevaluate why we think it is so important.


----------



## WooHooMan

Can someone get me up to speed on this thread: explain what it means to be a Tolkien (of any nationality)?

I assume the thing that makes Tolkien "Tolkien" is his influence.  ASoIaF is a little too new to have the same influence that LotR has had.  Especially since Tolkien had an even bigger proxy-influence by influencing Dungeons and Dragons.

Am I off on this assessment?

My thoughts...
I think there are American writers more worthy of the title of "quintessential American fantasy writer".  
In my opinion, Terry Brooks should be the "American Tolkien" because that's basically what he was trying to be.

I also think we should start calling Tolkien the "British Lovecraft" because that makes as much sense as calling Martin the "American Tolkien".



T.Allen.Smith said:


> I'll never understand the human need to constantly draw comparison between something as subjective and individual as art. I get that it may help in determining what a consumer may enjoy, "If you enjoyed A, you may also like B". Beyond that though, what's the point?
> 
> Can't we just appreciate the artistry on its own merit?



Maybe.  We need a reference point to talk about things.  A thing can only be properly defined and given an identity by comparing it to an Other.  That's why "gold standards" exist.
Personally, I don't like Tolkien being the gold standard for fantasy writers but hey, I don't get to decide these kinds of things.


----------



## Jabrosky

Last time I checked, Tolkien successfully completed his epic magnum opus and then some. Martin's fans are still waiting for him to even finish his whole Song while hoping he doesn't die of old age first. Martin's whole career goes to show you that, contrary to conventional wisdom, you _can_ become a bestselling author without even finishing your story. But maybe we Scribes should see that as encouraging.



> Personally, I don't like Tolkien being the gold standard for fantasy  writers but hey, I don't get to decide these kinds of things.


I don't have a problem with Tolkien as a writer or even a leading influence on the genre. Without knowing too much about him or his work, I have to admire a guy who found a way to apply his linguistic education by building such a rich and detailed world. The only problem I see with his legacy isn't even his own fault, but that of popular culture upholding him as _the_ great fantasy writer that everyone should check out (and Martin is getting some of this treatment too). It's precisely this tendency to select one author for the pedestal of Greatest Ever that encourages so much of the genre self-cannibalism that we all like to complain about. Not to mention that this pedestal had to go to a dead white dude with a lot of money from the early 20th century...


----------



## Steerpike

ASOIAF is not Martin's whole career. He had success with short stories (including Hugo nominations) and even more success writing for television before his fantasy series.


----------



## Jabrosky

Steerpike said:


> ASOIAF is not Martin's whole career. He had success with short stories and even more success writing for television before his fantasy series.


True, but ASoIaF is what everyone has always known him for. It's the closest thing to his magnum opus right now, and he's still making money off it without having ever finished it.


----------



## WooHooMan

Jabrosky said:


> Last time I checked, Tolkien successfully completed his epic magnum opus and then some. Martin's fans are still waiting for him to even finish his whole Song while hoping he doesn't die of old age first.



The Canterbury Tales was never finished.  Lord Byron's Don Juan was supposedly never finished.  Frank Herbert never finished his Dune series.  Also, you could argue that Tolkien never really finished The Silmarillion.
Unfinished stories have their own appeal.  _Potentially_ unfinished stories do too.



Jabrosky said:


> True, but ASoIaF is what everyone has always known him for. It's the closest thing to his magnum opus right now, and he's still making money off it without having ever finished it.



Who determines an artist's magnum opus?  The artist or the audience?
More importantly: is comparing magnum opuses a viable way of comparing creators?  I argue no; you have to look at their complete body of work.


----------



## Jabrosky

WooHooMan said:


> The Canterbury Tales was never finished.  Lord Byron's Don Juan was supposedly never finished.  Frank Herbert never finished his Dune series.  Also, you could argue that Tolkien never really finished The Silmarillion.
> Unfinished stories have their own appeal.  _Potentially_ unfinished stories do too.


Fair enough, I was just feeling a bit cranky this evening and have never thought much for what I've read of Martin. I wasn't being objective when I posted that.


----------



## Mythopoet

WooHooMan said:


> Can someone get me up to speed on this thread: explain what it means to be a Tolkien (of any nationality)?



As I pointed out earlier in the thread, it's really just a marketing gimmick. Most writers of epic fantasy over the decades have been compared to Tolkien. Because Tolkien was always the biggest seller ever in epic fantasy. It's just saying, "you know Tolkien, how awesome he is? Yeah, this guy is totally just like him. You should buy this book." If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a fantasy book that had some variation of "this writer is the next Tolkien!" written somewhere on the cover I could probably buy my whole family a nice dinner out. 

Martin just happens to be THE big thing in epic fantasy right now, so of course he's being compared to Tolkien. Comparing one author to another is fine. It's just a frame of reference for introducing an author to a reader who is familiar with a different author. Though, yes, the whole idea of any one author being "the next" whatever is silly. Like I said, it's just a marketing gimmick.


----------



## Philip Overby

I agree. It's like in horror saying "the next Stephen King" or in SF saying "the next Frank Herbert" or something. Calling him the American Tolkien just kind of means to me that he's the biggest fantasy writer to ever come out of the US. I can't really disagree in that regard. The two are obviously very different stylistically.


----------



## WooHooMan

Jabrosky said:


> Fair enough, I was just feeling a bit cranky this evening and have never thought much for what I've read of Martin. I wasn't being objective when I posted that.



It's all good, bro


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Tolkien stood the test of time and is not really the first fantasy author, in the sense that old epic poems like Beowulf, Greek and Norse myths, etc. are fantasy. But Tolkien started the fantasy where elves hate dwarves, orcs hate everybody, wizards aren't nerds, etc.

GRRM is not the first grimdark author, nor is ASoIaF his first work of that style. But it's the work that's mainstreaming fantasy's dark side. He's a trendsetter who, like JRRT, introduced an incredibly large number of readers to a fantasy sub-genre and style of writing: multiple POVs with no apparent MC.

Whether or not his work stands the test of time would determine whether he deserves such a title. (If so, you'll know in a few decades when the next creator of new-&-different-&-popular fantasy is crowned "The New GRRM.")



STEALTH EDIT - One major difference between the two: JRRT did all that without HBO.


----------



## WooHooMan

Legendary Sidekick said:


> STEALTH EDIT - One major difference between the two: JRRT did all that without HBO.



No, Tolkien had 3 blockbuster movies plus 40 years of D&D to help cement his reputation.


----------



## Steerpike

I think it was well established before both of those. Certainly before the movies, and I'd read Tolkien before I knew what D&D was (which I started playing when 1e AD&D was released). D&D helped solidify certain tropes.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

WooHooMan said:


> No, Tolkien had 3 blockbuster movies plus 40 years of D&D to help cement his reputation.


When I read The Hobbit, I was 13. All there was back then was a cartoon, which didn't bust _any_ blocks. I didn't play D&D, but Gauntlet was out that year. I played that.

On rollerskates.


----------



## WooHooMan

Legendary Sidekick said:


> When I read The Hobbit, I was 13. All there was back then was a cartoon, which didn't bust _any_ blocks. I didn't play D&D, but Gauntlet was out that year. I played that.
> 
> On rollerskates.



And?
I read ASoIaF before the HBO show started airing.
And even if you didn't play D&D, that doesn't mean it hasn't had a big role in popularizing Tolkien's cliches.  Likewise, just because you read The Hobbit first, that doesn't mean the movies arent a big contributor to Tolkien's current popularity.

What I was trying to get at is that it's ridiculous to treat Tolkien as "the standard by which all fantasy writers are measured against and fail" and then start measuring writers against him.  I mean, it's not like Tolkien (or anyone else) is objectively the best or most important fantasy writer.

Full disclosure: I'm biased against Tolkien so I'm kind of trying to do a devil's advocate thing.


----------



## Svrtnsse

WooHooMan said:


> And?
> I read ASoIaF before the HBO show started airing.
> And even if you didn't play D&D, that doesn't mean it hasn't had a big role in popularizing Tolkien's cliches.  Likewise, just because you read The Hobbit first, that doesn't mean the movies arent a big contributor to Tolkien's current popularity.



I think that what LS and Steerpike are trying to say is that Tolkien would still be the gold standard of fantasy even without the movies and D&D. I'm inclined to agree.



WooHooMan said:


> What I was trying to get at is that it's ridiculous to treat Tolkien as "the standard by which all fantasy writers are measured against and fail" and then start measuring writers against him.



Yes. It is, but that doesn't mean it won't happen anyway. It's one of those things where "it's just the way it is" is the simplest explanation. People like to compare things. It gives them a better understanding of something without having to actually get to know said something.


----------



## Steerpike

In fact he was already the gold standard. The Lord of the Rings was published in the 50s, and by the 60s had become very popular in the U.S. Clubs formed around the work. Not sure how it did in the UK initially. You can find other fantasy novels published in the 1960s and 1970s, before D&D came on the scene, excerpting reviews on the cover or inside the jacket comparing the author to Tolkien. The status of LOTR in the fantasy genre isn't new by any stretch of the imagination. The books have pretty much stayed popular for the last 50+ years in the U.S.


----------



## Mythopoet

WooHooMan said:


> And?
> What I was trying to get at is that it's ridiculous to treat Tolkien as "the standard by which all fantasy writers are measured against and fail" and then start measuring writers against him.  I mean, it's not like Tolkien (or anyone else) is objectively the best or most important fantasy writer.
> 
> Full disclosure: I'm biased against Tolkien so I'm kind of trying to do a devil's advocate thing.



It may or may not be ridiculous. That's immaterial. It _is_ what publishers do to market new fantasy writers. That is indisputable. They've been doing it since at least 1977, when The Silmarillion was published and publishers scrambled to find other "similar" types of fantasy books to publish and market to Tolkien's huge fanbase. That's why The Sword of Shannara, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and others were published that year. That's why the big epic fantasy boom happened, because publishers were trying to cater to Tolkien fans who desperately wanted more of the same general flavor of epic fantasy. 

Tolkien has decidedly been thee gold standard of epic fantasy since the 60s. No one else had even come close. The movies succeeded not on their own merits, but _because_ of the huge and ravenous Tolkien fanbase who hyped them to infinity and beyond and dragged all their non-Tolkien loving friends along. I suspect HBO's GoT is successful because of its own merits, not because of Martin's fanbase. Those who have read the books seem to be a minority of its viewers. I also suspect that it will be the more well loved and well remembered version in a couple of decades. Since Martin's series isn't even finished, it's foolish to compare its success and longevity to a trilogy that has long since been completed and passed from one generation to the next and the next. LOTR has already proven its staying power. ASoIaF hasn't even been tested yet, because it isn't over. It's the ending that determines whether the book will get the kind of word of mouth treatment to last generations.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

@Mytho,

Totally agree (even though I know we have opposing opinions on GRRM's creation). It's always silly to compare a time-tested classic to what's currently popular, and it's even sillier when publishers market an author using such a comparison.

There's a possibility that only the HBO version of _Game of Thrones_ will actually have an ending. (Naive Hope Slash Conspiracy Theory: ...unless GRRM is already finished ASoIaF, and the release of books 6 & 7 will be timed with the 6th & 7th seasons of the show as a villainous marketing ploy that's being kept under wraps by a mustache-twirling publisher.)

My copies of the ASoIaF book have the HBO logo on them. I don't think there will be a book 6 or book 7 that lacks this logo. It's a reminder that GRRM's work was big enough for HBO to make a show of it, but thanks to HBO, his work grew from a tree-stomping giant to one who has to duck when walking under the moon.



LotR films grew JRRT's giant so its head is marginally closer to the sun, doubtfully enough to feel the difference. What got a lot bigger as a result of the films was Peter Jackson's name. Since the Hobbit films sucked (from what I'm told), my guess is that the book will remain a classic but the films will be forgotten when my girls are in their 20s. They can sit through 3 hours of _The Sound of Music_ (in two sittings). But I don't ever see them reaching a point in life where they'll watch 3 hours of Super Mario Legolas, or two trilogies that make up more hours than there are in a day.

Even the LotR trilogy, which I liked, will seem dated due to current films relying so much on CGI effects. I can't get my wife to watch it because of the length.

(On a semi-relaed note, last June I showed my high school students _Aliens_ on the last day of school after watching _Prometheus_ the day before. They agreed _Aliens_ is awesome, and thought they liked both films the 80s film was the far better one. My only regret is that I have the director's cut. It's better off without the extra 15 minutes.)


----------



## Fyle

You cant compare until Martins completes his story.  

I can't compare an unfinished tale to Lord of the Rings. Gotta see how it ends. Endings are important.


----------



## Pythagoras

Fyle said:


> You cant compare until Martins completes his story.
> 
> I can't compare an unfinished tale to Lord of the Rings. Gotta see how it ends. Endings are important.



If we are going to be technical here, Lord of the Rings was intended as a part of a much, much larger work which included the unfinished Silmarillion. In fact, LotR almost wasn't published because, after twelve years of writing, Tolkien insisted that it should be released in tandem with the Silmarillion once it was finished. So, really, Tolkien didn't finish his story either. 

But I digress. 

Another technicality: The Worm Ouroboros, by E.R. Eddison, was an adult fantasy novel that was written and published before LotR, and had an influence on Tolkien's writing. Tolkien did not invent the genre; he popularized it. 

But again, I digress.

Overall, I agree with the general consensus of this thread. They can't be compared, and when they are, it's usually for marketing purposes or because Tolkien set the standard by which all adult fantasy authors are compared. 

I have not yet read all of Martin's books, but what I have read, I genuinely enjoyed. He is a talented writer, and his books are masterfully crafted, in my opinion. 

Tolkien is quite possibly my favorite author. His world, characters, stories, and backstories are all stirring on an elemental level. Many of my friends disagree with me, but I also really enjoy his writing style. I could say much more about both Tolkien and Martin, but I won't bore all of you who have your own opinions.

These two authors are each worthy of their own merits.


----------



## Mythopoet

Pythagoras said:


> If we are going to be technical here, Lord of the Rings was intended as a part of a much, much larger work which included the unfinished Silmarillion. In fact, LotR almost wasn't published because, after twelve years of writing, Tolkien insisted that it should be released in tandem with the Silmarillion once it was finished. So, really, Tolkien didn't finish his story either.
> 
> But I digress.



LOTR is a finished story. No question about it. Tolkien had a lot of ideas an intentions over the years. In the end what matters is that LOTR is a published complete story and has been for decades. 



Pythagoras said:


> Another technicality: The Worm Ouroboros, by E.R. Eddison, was an adult fantasy novel that was written and published before LotR, and had an influence on Tolkien's writing. Tolkien did not invent the genre; he popularized it.
> 
> But again, I digress.



Not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand. I don't think anyone has said that Tolkien invented the genre. Though I would argue that the influence of The Worm Ouroboros on Tolkien was minimal. Tolkien's writing and Eddison's are vastly different and their approaches to storytelling are vastly different. Any similarity between the two is merely superficial. And yes, I've read The Worm Ouroboros and I find its style to really be in stark contrast to Tolkien's. 

Few people read The Worm Ouroboros these days. Fewer people love it. I confess I did not love it. I also think it is much too archaic to survive the test of time. It is really not the classic that LOTR is.


----------



## Pythagoras

Mythopoet said:


> Not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand. I don't think anyone has said that Tolkien invented the genre.



I read a few posts throughout this thread that did claim Tolkien was the inventor. All I was saying was that he wasn't the first.


----------



## Mythopoet

Pythagoras said:


> I read a few posts throughout this thread that did claim Tolkien was the inventor. All I was saying was that he wasn't the first.



Really? Goodness. I'd strongly recommend that any aspiring fantasy writer who thinks Tolkien invented the genre should learn more about it, quick.


----------



## Gurkhal

Mythopoet said:


> Not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand. I don't think anyone has said that Tolkien invented the genre. Though I would argue that the influence of The Worm Ouroboros on Tolkien was minimal. Tolkien's writing and Eddison's are vastly different and their approaches to storytelling are vastly different. Any similarity between the two is merely superficial. And yes, I've read The Worm Ouroboros and I find its style to really be in stark contrast to Tolkien's.
> 
> Few people read The Worm Ouroboros these days. Fewer people love it. I confess I did not love it. I also think it is much too archaic to survive the test of time. It is really not the classic that LOTR is.



Guess I might be strange then because I've also read both The Worm Ouroboros as well as Tolkien, and I love them both for their different styles.


----------



## Mythopoet

Gurkhal said:


> Guess I might be strange then because I've also read both The Worm Ouroboros as well as Tolkien, and I love them both for their different styles.



I definitely don't think it's strange to like both Eddison and Tolkien. The Worm Ouroboros certainly deserves a lot of appreciation. It really is the very first instance of real epic fantasy worldbuilding, such as it is. It has a lot of amazing imagery and brilliant passages. However, taken overall as a story, and not as a piece of fantasy history, I just found it profoundly unsatisfying in the end. Mostly because of the ending and the whole ouroboros thing which is the point but left me feeling cold toward the story. That's just my personal opinion. I'm certainly not trying to suggest that people shouldn't like both The Worm Ouroboros and Tolkien's works. I just don't think Tolkien's writing was influenced by it much at all.


----------



## S J Lee

Goodness, "the next Tolkien!"
 What does this mean, if it is not just blurb/clickbait on an ad/webpage...? ( "Is the Avengers the new Star Wars?")

Do you mean, "He has popularized fantasy fiction to a whole bunch of people who do not read (any other) fantasy novel / fantasy on a regular basis"... well, then, maybe. Still, a lot of people have only seen the TV series... are there many people who only know LOTR as a movie? I cannot say?

Do you mean, he has sold more books than any of his contemporaries in the genre? The ASOIAF books have apparently sold 90 million copies. Tolkien's Hobbit and TLOTR have sold 100 + 150 million... and Tolkien is long dead, so GRRM is doing better than I thought on this score. LOTR is usually sold as one book now, but GRRM's books are not...? So, they are ahead of everyone else, assuming JK R doesn't count...!  And GRRM isn't even dead yet... so... so a lot of room for GRRM to catch up....

IF...... people are still reading him in 50 years..... no-way I can possibly predict this....


The great writers forgotten by history
OR....
Anyone remember Sven Hassel? His (purely fictional?) fictional-memoirs of colourful, cynical German soldiers fighting the Russians in WW2  (maybe 12 books or so?) sold *53+ million* copies in the 1950s - 80s, according to Google. I enjoyed them immensely as a kid, even seeing then they were pulpy trash... and later I realised the SH had A - never been a German soldier at all? and B - arguably, the books were crap, they had no real plot - BUT they had distinctive characters that could tell amusing stories etc... and a soldier's experience of war doesn't have a "plot"? But he sold 53 million copies.
Sven Hassel - Wikipedia

Think about that. People called him "the new Hemingway" in his native Denmark. But he has disappeared now?  Wiki says *Although he is arguably one of the bestselling Danish authors, possibly second only to Hans Christian Andersen, Danish public libraries, as of 2012, do not stock his books.[7][8]*
first, he fought for the Germans... and second, he DIDN'T even fight for the Germans, but was some sort of collaborator at home! Even outside Denmark, where people don't care about that, his books have died away...? Now, back on topic! All I am saying is that selling many millions of books is not what we are talking about....?


Do you mean, he has a rep (even after his death) among the readers of the genre as being the best / one of the very best / being a titan ARTISTICALLY, as being the one that everyone else wants to copy...? (again, remember that many people who "know the story" would not be readers of the genre at all, as I said above!) Hmm.... I like both books, and though the last book in ASOIAF did indeed wander, still, I gave it props for not following any rules.....
I prefer to think of this as being GRRM deliberately giving a finger to everyone quoting rules to him "You must fit within a certain length. You must have a hero / heroine. You must not have multiple characters with similar names. The story must actually go somewhere. You must have a three act structure. You must not keep introducing new characters late in the story and expect us to care..."  By gad, sir, he has broken these rules, for better or worse. I am waiting for him to start using red herrings and to tell not show and dump in exclamation marks and parentheses too...and switch to present simple too.... can he do THAT too, and still sell missions of copies? Part of me would love to see him try!

BUT I do not regard GRRM as a "great writer". I regard him as a good story teller who finally got a big break, and milked it well. He showed what can be done with 3rd person limited POV, with a story that isn't about any hero but the game of thrones itself, and no need for chapters with names or numbers, just a character's name. He can be criticized for many things. Cynical/ruthless people seem to usually beat idealistic ones, but many of his cynical/ruthless characters are just idiots .... I often wonder how they lasted even as long as they did....
 His world-building isn't actually up to much. (Where do the tiny Iron Islands get the timber for all those ships? What did King Robert say while they rebuilt their fleet? The Targaryens had total military supremacy for at least 150 years - why the hell didn't they disarm the local warlords? How on earth is it still possible for the Tyrells etc to expect men to fight for them and NOT for the king / country? Compare to actual Wars of the Roses England - Henry VII needed the Stanleys to switch sides to beat Richard III - but two generations later, such a private army would be unthinkable. Westeros has gone on unchanged (fundamentally) for many centuries, with just a few irrelevant Targaryens added at the top somewhere - is this really plausible? It's like a fly trapped in amber. Not very convincing. But who cares?)

Tolkien is (though professional critics may sniff), a college professor who became a great writer without meaning to...? His original aim was the creation of the Elvish languages, and the Silmarillion was a context for those languages to be used, and to give England the (non-Frenchified) mythology it SHOULD have had instead of King Arthur etc.....  His lack of deliberate "I will fill a novel with sex and violence and package and sell it" gives him a flavour that makes him, deep down, uncopiable by writers today, who are either hacks or good writers, but all trying to write a best-seller.

His world-creation can't be beat. Period.  Above mere attention to detail, most of his societies actually EVOLVE!!!! Human kingdoms grow and then decline and are finally wiped out, often after fighting each other. Arnor and Numenor and (nearly) Gondor. What do the Numenoreans do with their long lifespans? They postpone getting married! VERY modern!

Can I argue that some things in Tolkien could have been better handled? I'm not talking about the absence of sex scenes, or the lack of PTSD in his veterans, or the lack of foul language. (eg, Eowyn seems to think she is in love with Aragorn, or the freedom she thinks he represents, for a little while. Maybe GRRM would have had Aragorn seduce her, accidentally get her pregnant, then foist his bastard off on Faramir.... dramatic. But not "better". That isn't a flaw, just Tolkien's taste. When we go to Minas Tirith, no-one asks "so where is the brothel? Were Aragorn and Arwen virgins on their wedding night?" Don't even go there.) Never mind the endless descriptions of food and drink, but nothing about going to the toilet! No-one had to pee during the whole Moria dungeon-crawl?

I COULD criticise Tolkien for some POV errors (eg,Frodo explaining to Sam that orcs must eat real food, and some narrator out of nowhere explaining that Sauron grows food around Lake Nurnen)... and he loves exclamation marks, which noob writers are now told to avoid. Maybe Tolkien is simply better and braver than the idiots teaching newbie writers today. I could criticize his 25 page INTRODUCTION to LOTR about hobbits ... although this isn't fair, because LOTR was at first seen as a sequel to the Hobbit, and he KNEW he had an audience.
I could criticise him for not anticipating some objections a reader might have - eg, why are the Nazgul so crap in the Shire, and yet seem so deadly at the end? Why not get the eagles to just fly Frodo to Mordor / the edge of Mordor? Why don't the gods in the west just ride in and save the day? Although there may be answers.... eg, the eagles are the servants of Manwe, and the west does not want to interfere UNTIL the mortals save themselves... and the west DOES inerfere, in subtle ways.. eg Gandalf is from the west, and the gods / Illuvatar bring him back to life.... and the wind from the west changes the course of the battle by bringing Aragorn's ships to M Tirith just in time...
BUT Tolkien DOES anticipate at least two of the big objections... so why not do more?

EG - "why not send the ring over the sea to the west?" --> we are still stuck with Sauron anyway, and the west will not accept it, it belongs to Middle earth, we must fix this ourselves....
How did Sauron ever lose the ring?  Because elves and men of N were stronger long ago......

Tolkien is not above the occasional plot hole - EG, in Akallabeth, Sauron corrupts the last king of Numenor into attacking the gods in the west, because the king is desperate for immortality...but why didn't Ar-Pharazon say "But Sauron, YOU are immortal! If you serve me, give me your ring..." the one thing that WOULD have made the king "live forever!" just ask Bilbo and the Nazgul and Gollum....

I could criticize him for what is not in the book - so, where are the female Uruk hai, and the baby orcs? Did the ents kill all of them too when they attakced and only let the men of Dunland go? Or maybe some of the Uruk hai warriors WERE female???? Tolkien never said they weren't? Isn't the "orcs are always evil" similar to "the only good indian/jew/etc is a dead one...", and a fostering of racism? But it's fantasy.
Tolkien himself said what was wrong with LOTR - "It is far too short." This, I agree with!!! Could you imagine an alternate universe copy with 1000 pages EXTRA  - BUT not the bits set in the Shire....?

My final analysis: they are both successful, and highly influential (though it is a bit soon for GRRM to be sure). They both have their strong and weak points. But T is a great writer, and GRRM is not. Just one person's opinion.


----------

