Well?

Well?

Other urls found in this thread:

rollingstone.com/tv/news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140423?page=4
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3110466/Game-Thrones-creator-defends-rape-scenes-Author-says-dishonest-boring-leave-sexual-violence.html
youtube.com/watch?v=XAAp_luluo0
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Tolkien

>Better prose
>Better worldbuilding
>actually finishing his series

GRRM

>Better characters
>Better "social commentary" (for lack of a better term)

rollingstone.com/tv/news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140423?page=4

>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?

>The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3110466/Game-Thrones-creator-defends-rape-scenes-Author-says-dishonest-boring-leave-sexual-violence.html

>'But if you’re going to write about war, and you just want to include all the cool battles and heroes killing a lot of orcs and things like that and you don’t portray [sexual violence], then there’s something fundamentally dishonest about that.

how could one man be so based?

B A S E D
A
S
E
D

Based fatman destroyed that racist/sexist old man long ago

>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?

tolkien is a great world builder. everything else is awful. terrible stories, awful one dimensional shit characters (but he gets a pass because 'muh fantasy')

grrm is a very good character writer, an ok world builder, used to be a good story teller but after a storm of swords it all went to shit because he never plans anything out

grrm is better

Definitive answer

youtube.com/watch?v=XAAp_luluo0

And based fatman was destroyed by Tolkien decades before fatman even thought to start writing his colossal goatfuck of a series. I don't have the pasta saved, but long story short, Tolkien considered a sequel to LotR that was basically aGoT, aCoK and a SoS and he abandoned it almost immediately because it was boring, depressive and not even worth writing.

Also fat man is a draft dodging hippy. Tolkien served King and Country in the Great War and bore witness to innumerable atrocities in the trenches, watching his friends die horrifically. He wrote his legendarium to escape the bleak, depressing world into which he'd survived. GRRM writes his generic high fantasy schlock with "cleverly" disguised cliches because LOL VIOLENCE IS BAD

>genocide of the orcs
>doesn't know that they're made out of black sorcery and the twisted souls of high elves

e b i n

>Tolkien considered a sequel to LotR that was basically aGoT, aCoK and a SoS
I'm gonna need some major sauce on that.

It's really not much of a comparison. Tolkien practically created a genre and was a very accomplished scholar and soldier, GRRM occupies the same pop cultural space that Christopher Paolini did a few years ago.

>idk how to use the internet
>i can't even be bothered to google "lotr sequel"
>i need to be spoonfed
>SAUCE SAUCE SAUCE

In the sense that it was more about the politics and scheming and court conspiracies than about a Big Bad and a war to save the World.

>The New Shadow was an incomplete sequel (approximately 13 pages) to The Lord of the Rings that J.R.R. Tolkien quickly abandoned. It is set in the time of Eldarion, Aragorn's son, approximately 105 years after the Fall of the Dark Tower. In it is mentioned the Dark Tree, and two characters: Saelon and Borlas.

>Tolkien commented this on it:

>"I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall, but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men, it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless — while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors — like Denethor or worse. I found that even so early there was an outcrop of revolutionary plots, about a centre of secret Satanistic religion; while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going around doing damage. I could have written a 'thriller' about the plot and its discovery and overthrow — but it would have been just that. Not worth doing."

>Also fat man is a draft dodging hippy. Tolkien served King and Country in the Great War
So Martin dodged being pulled into a completely pointless and destructive war to suffer or possibly die, whereas Tolkien didn't dodge being pulled into a completely pointless and destructive war to suffer or possibly die, which makes him better how exactly? Tolkien didn't serve King and Country, he was just a hapless cog in a murder machine started by an incompetent elite and an overly convoluted web of alliances. Stop romanticizing war and soldiers, the Great War was horrible and pointless.

That is how the race was born, but it's a safe assumption that orcs reproduce normally, with the possible exception of Saruman's Uruk

>denying war as the supreme God of mankind
>implying war isn't the noblest of pursuits
>pointing entry level red pill 101 stuff

How very edgy of you my friend

Tolkien
>finished LOTR

GRRM
>

Tolkien
>finished LoTR
>in the span of a few years

GRRM
>started aSoIaF two decades ago
>no end in sight

HAR

Eat shit bruh.

I bet you're bald. Angry people get bald because anger increases the production of DHT which leads to hair loss.

Tolkein is better at building a coherent and working world with its unique mythology. He was also obviously more intellectually bright

GRRM is better at writing characters and the realities of their existence in the setting.

Tolkein is Homer (but not as timeless or ahead of his time) and GRRM is Victor Hugo (but not as good). Both are good and can't really be compared, and one developed from the other.

Tolkien was a Christian cuck.

>killing people for money is noble

I bet you unironically thought GRRM was better than Tolkien. I also bet you are a fat edgelord with a horrible neckbeard, just like your based savior.

Honestly, it sounds really interesting, though I understand why he didn't do it. Not everything needs a sequel. But I'm intrigued as to what could have been, maybe his grandsons or someone with rights will fuck with it one day.

>says the basement dwelling wizard who believes his intellectual euphoria has elevated him beyond the need for physical violence

I bet you've never even thrown a punch

Oh shit, looks like I struck a nerve. It's okay bro, bald men can still get laid as long as they have a nice face and aren't short.

Tolkien wrote a novel for the ages.

Martin wrote an incomplete and sloppy mess that he let a tv crew finish before he could.

Tolkien fans are noble, aryan, well groomed, well educated fine specimens of mankind.

Gurrm fans have 8 chins and are blue pilled fuckboys

Why do you measure your self-worth on how violent you've been? You sound like a nigger.

>Since we are dealing with Men, it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good.

Tolkien just summarized GRRM's entire "commentary" on human nature in one sentence, in a far more poignant manner than GRRM could ever accomplish. That's about as damning as it gets.

/thread

Tolkien wrote a timeless classic that will be studied in the halls of top tier institutions for decades to come,

Gurrm wrote a good novel series that eventually got bucked by two hacks that further assisted in bloating the story

>Tolkien fans are noble, aryan, well groomed, well educated fine specimens of mankind.

Knowing lots of Tolkien hardcore fans myself I genuinely laughed

You are you under the delusion that GRRM is the superior author when he's been struggling to finish his cliche riddled bloated corpse of a saga for well over a decade now? Martin is the definition of talent less hack.

Unless I've swallowed the bait hook line and sinker

meant to quote this projecting mother fucker not you

HEY!

i

I err

i agree actually

that was bait, Tolkien is GOAT, Gurrm is a shitty ass

>Tolkien wasn't as good as me because he didn't drag out the rule of Aragorn past the end of the saga and bog it down with dull as fuck minute and lol genocide
He really is clueless.

Grrm for characters and Tolkien for world building.

How can you expect to accurately depict violence if you've never partaken in any violence? GRRM is a draft dodging faggot, how does he presume to know anything about war besides what he read in his favorite history books? Tolkien lived it, saw it, breathed it, ate, slept and shit it.

>better prose

LotR often reads like a fucking dictionary

Who will inherit Tolkien's work tho?

>muh tax policies
>muh military policies
>baby orcs in craddles

Is that some sort of elaborate shitpost crafted by committee simply for ebin bait purposes? Or did GRRM actually say that? Because if it's the latter than GRRM had a fundamental misunderstanding of LotR. Complete misunderstanding.

>LotR often reads like a fucking dictionary
This is what stupid people say.

GRRM's prose isn't necessarily bad (although it definitely has its lows), it's just workmanlike. Tolkien's isn't necessarily great, it has flaws, but it is nevertheless better.

Its so damned plausible it could be either.

I don't think he was criticizing LotR as much as he was just differentiating his own brand of fantasy from that of Tolkien's

He just said that Tolkien wrote a manichaeist novel, which is true. He mainly criticized people who wrote tolkien-like stuff after him without the goodness of Tolkien

>m-muh realizm!!!!
Only GRRM himself isn't very realistic
>entire continent, from the rhoynar in dorne to the first men in the north speak the same language
>dynasties that last 8000 years
>Lannisters being rich cuz dey hav the mines xD
>a feudal times king being able to rule over a south american sized continent

trips of truth, always vigilant.

But in so doing he makes his own sound extraordinarily dull, autistic and edgy.

Robert Jordan shits on them both. Gentle femdom and mind-numbingly ineffective communication is my cup of tea

Yeah, so what? What about it? There's nothing in the post you're replying that even implies that GRRM's war stories are realistic or more accurate to war than Tolkien's stories, so you're certainly not refuting anything by stating that Tolkien went through some awful shit.

/thrd

GRRM isn't very clever either. Despite his claims of subverting all the generic shit of the genre, his series is blatant high fantasy and full of all the expected cliches. There's even a big bad with an army of devoted mindless evil people. Only they hail from the North instead of the East. Anyone who read his sci fi stuff has a pretty strong idea of what he's trying to do. GRRM is pretty one note.

As it is all he knows how to do is introduce characters, make you think they have plot armor, and then brutally murder them in a "shocking" manner. He can't even come up with any original ideas. He either repeats himself or rips from history.

OP here, I just wanted to know which one you guys thought had the best fashion sense.

the whole point of the original argument is that Tolkien's work is inferior because it's romanticised and noblebright fantasy while GRRM wrote realistic intrigue and cruelty into his books

the thread's not even 50 posts, try to keep up

You're saying that magic fire lizards versus the frosty zombies is dumb? How dare you?

>moving the goalposts

I replied to a guy who made some sort of ham fisted implication. And I actually expanded on the point I was making, which he had missed. GRRM prides himself on showing the bad side of war and violence. Which anyone with half a brain realizes. But what does he really know? He witnessed none of it first hand. What does he have to be so preachy about? If anyone should have been the anti war guy, between the two of them, it was Tolkien. GRRM just comes off as an edgelord GRRM prides himself on his depiction of war and violence, but really what the fuck does he know? He's never been in the thick of combat, etc. etc.

That turquoise necklace on GRRM looks fucking shit. Lkike GRRM it says "thrift store". But look at Tolkien, the man exudes class.

I have read all of ASOIAF, but only 1-2 books from Tolkien. I don't read genre fiction anymore and consider both of them equally bland.
However, as someone in the field of literature (and medievalism in particular), the idea of GRRM even being compared to JRRT is laughable.
Tolkien was an Oxford professor who, years before he ever published any fiction, had singlehandedly reinvented the study of Anglo-Saxon writing and the history of the English language. He conducted textual studies which proved OE was spoken up until the 13th century in the West Midlands and brought Beowulf back to the public eye, a place in which it has remained ever since. His lecture/essay On Fairies ended two centuries of academic ignorance of so-called 'fairy tales' which in the medieval era were read by all age groups.
By adapting the tropes of the stories he studied for the modern era, he created the entire genre of Fantasy as it exists today, which previously had been relegated to children. The word 'wight' as it exists now, meaning 'undead monster' only exists because of people misunderstanding Tolkein's usage.
While you can debate which one crafts the better story to the end of days, taken as overarching figures, it isn't even remotely competitive.

He's not writing a total subversion of high fantasy, numbnuts, he's just approaching it from a different angle than Tolkien.on one hand you're bitching that he's not Tolkien, and then on the other you're saying he's not differentiating himself enough. What the fuck do you want?

Honestly it just sounds like to me other people enjoy a fantasy series that you don't.

Tolkien
>Hobbit goes there and back again in 300 pages

GRRM
>Tyrion or Victarion spend 1050 pages trying to get to Kelly C who is stuck in Slavers cities for several books.

I'm saying that people masturbate to aSoIaF because it subverts the genre cliches, because it's low fantasy, blah blah blah. It's the same generic shit that's been spit out a hundred times, by better authors. GRRM doesn't posses an original bone in his body.

Was about to post that

Tolkien created at least 4 new languages and thousands of years of mythology and history as backstory to the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. Most of it's not even in the books, he just made it to create a sense of coherence in the world for his own sake

GRRM pulls plots and character arcs out of his ass and is just throwing them together willy-nilly with no greater meaning other than to get people's attention with sex and violence and harp on how there aren't really heroes and villains

if I wanted a deconstruction of the hero myth I'd read Dune which did it infinitely better in 4 books with a fraction of the mindless violence and only like half as many orgy scenes

>Subverts cliches
No, it just takes longer to get to them.

Both wrong

Yet every one of his stupid fans believes he's writing a subversion of high fantasy. He prides himself on "not being Tolkien" but his stuff is poorly disguised and inverted Tolkien.

Never said anything about not enjoying the books either. There was a time where I read them ravenously. Then aFFc rolled out and it was clear the fatfuck had no idea where he was headed, how to get there, or even what he was doing any more.

Fuck, even Robert Jordan was better. Sure he didn't finish his series, but he wrote until he died. GRRM just gave up apparently.

pardon me, excuse me, coming through

hi preston
i like your videos

"Its The New Anti-Tolkien"

Still havent written anything better or lasting; thats why they come and go.

>Yet every one of his stupid fans believes he's writing a subversion of high fantasy.

You really need to judge a work by it's own merits rather than its fanbase.

if you were alive in the 60s you'd know Tolkien's audience back then was the DUDE WEED LMAO counterculture types because they thought it was funny to pretend the Hobbits smoked weed

>pretend

Bakker is cranking out books for his epic at a ridiculous rate, flying past GRRM at light speed.

if we're doing fantasy writer fashion sense, Terry Pratchett definitely wins with the subdued wizard look
and honestly as far as prose, he beats both Tolkien and GRRM but might just be because I'm biased towards comedy over serious fantasy

GRRM himself believes he is writing a master crafted subversion of the genre. And yet Jon Snow is the "Chosen One" hidden heir to the royal blood line that we've seen hundreds of times before.

>cranking out books

and that is why he fails.

And yet I've still to find a Bakker book to bore me. Every part of GRRMs canon is now bullshit and it'll never be finished as the fat fuck gave up.

>does his job
>isn't distracted by literally everything
>isn't letting a crew of tv writers finish his series because he doesn't care any more

and yet he fails? He wrote the same amount of books as GRRM for his series in half the time

Is Dune good? Been thinking of reading it or watching the movie.

Its one thing to be entertained by a book, its another to be potentially changed by one.

Not to mention that Bakker's series will be finished (two more books) before TWoW even comes out. I guess Tolkien failed too because it only took him three years to write his seminal work?

Tolkien completed his 'series' before he even published it. Didnt waste peoples time.

These people crank out carbon copys of the same books.

You were changed by GRRM...?
Read more. Its that simple.

what is danyreis (sp?) tax politics?

>implying aSoIaF changed you
>derivative unimaginative genre fiction changed you

Sci-Fi > Fantasy

You spell in Danny, or RunnyBum.

High fantasy > soap opera

Did i say i was the GRRM fan?

Didnt i just criticise authors who crank out books without end?

Danny doesn't have politics, she's just a crazy evil psychopath.

Tolkien's unpublished scrap notes are probably better written than GrrM's entire output.

>sci-fi

Let us give thanks to another based English author H. G. Wells.

>LotR often reads like a fucking dictionary
Heaven forbid you read something by Clark Ashton Smith.

GRRM has stopped. About time you realised.

This is the trouble with being on anonymous message boards; people confuse you with someone else.

>science fiction
>fiction
>fantasy

what are we even arguing about?

i feel like we're talking about two diffrent things.

So GRRM is a better author because he hasn't released a book in five years? And it took him a decades worth of rewriting two books to even get to that point?

One is a war hero and Cambridge professor who spawned a new genre of literature, the other's an obese retard who wears a gay cap all the time and sold his show out to a couple of Jews. Tough choice.

nigga, you didn't even explain why Tolkien is better