G.R.R.M the American Tolkien?

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.

 

It's all good, bro

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.