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.
I understand what he's getting at though, have to explain his books for the lowest common denominator who didn't even bother to study LOTR
Andrew Thomas
>What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? What does it add to the story?
Carter Barnes
So did he finish writing his books? Or is his legacy literally going to be 'the fat author who stopped writing once non-bookreaders saw the tv version'
Angel Martinez
...
Noah Richardson
>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. No wars in history are like that. The Axis were the good guys.
Aiden Nguyen
GRRM is a good example of a creator who is actively harmed by amassing fame. If he still had to write to survive he'd be churning them put like nobody's business. Also, for what it's worth, his writing is not all that great. If you read his stuff, like actually read it not just the "sunset found her " bit, it's not really worth more than any other career sci Fi writer. His characters are good-ish, but his books are kinda trashy. Enjoyable, sure. But trashy.
Bentley Watson
It's OK for LotR not to have details like that, because that's not what the story is about. But if you want a really immersive fictional world that you can actually imagine living in, you need a lot of stuff that LotR left out. Middle Earth also had no religion, which is weird when Tolkein was so religious, and very few visible women. That's not lifelike.
Asher Cook
Good criticism except for the fact that Tolkien didn't fall short. He wasn't trying to write something remotely realistic in the first place. Lord of the Rings is not a novel, it's a romance
If G R R Fartin had actually read any pre-modern literature he would realise this
Brody Jenkins
>Criticizing a fantasy novel for not being realistic enough >Makes a 90% filler story with magic, dragons and ice zombies
George is a colossal hack who is not even in the same league as Tolkien.
Eli James
Lotr had other details though that added so much more the the whimsical fantasy setting. There's not many writers that keep track of the lunar cycle or invent their own language.
That said, when it comes to making gritty, political fantasy, GRRM is a baby compared to Glen Cook or Stephen Erickson
Jose Garcia
I don't think the idea is that he wants to be more immersive so much as he wants his work to able to lend more complex perspectives from which you can gleam more nuanced aspects of the triumphs trials and tribulations of humanity
Thomas Evans
Lord of the Rings was never intended to be realistic, though. What the fuck is he going on about? And it's hilarious he complains about LOTR not being realistic enough when he has magical ice warriors in his lore. Fucking hack.
Noah Scott
Apart from the fantastical elements, LotR is more realistic than ASoIaF overall. GRRM's shit is just so tainted with modern viewpoints while Tolkien was an expert medievalist.
Brandon Gutierrez
>What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? Only a Democrat would think this is relevant. The men of Gondor are freeman; it's implied all over the story that there is no 'standing army' and their motivated by an 'unconstitutional monarch', just like the Rohirrim. As for taxes, those could either be entirely voluntary or similar to early Roman policy... it really doesn't matter because the Gondorians are actually civilized and haven't gotten to the point of decadence that the late Roman Empire did...Tolkien was going to write about that but quit because it was too depressing.
Nathaniel Nguyen
Why is george so stupid about fantasy? Can he not see writing about food in a book about ice dragons doesnt make him good? Btw i am a published author who has made more books than him and is more successful
Hudson Murphy
He's literally saying that he likes lotr but not that it's become the de facto fantasy story format
Charles Hall
who books have you written I'd like to read one
Adam Hall
>Sunset found her squatting in the grass, groaning. Every stool was looser than the one before, and smelled fouler. By the time the moon came up she was shitting brown water. The more she drank, the more she shat, but the more she shat, the thirstier she grew, and her thirst sent her crawling to the stream to suck up more water. Not once in a thousand pages did Tolkien reach this level of poetry.
Joseph Peterson
I dont think he's talking shit on Tolkien as much as he's lamenting that the LotR template has been overused and oversimplified, been stretched way too thin to mean as much as it did originally
John Rodriguez
Fucking this, 100%
GRRM writes 20th-21st century americans with swords, all his characters read like LARPers. Tolkien was in the business of creating an artificial mythology.
Gavin Rodriguez
...
Anthony Scott
lotr is harry potter levels of bullshit,
Dylan Ramirez
>filler Hmmm?
Hunter Campbell
>GRRM writes 20th-21st century americans with swords, all his characters read like LARPers. Explain.
Dylan Morris
... Not him but pretty much exactly what it sounds like? It's a really good analogy that's hard to simplify further.
Charles Perez
Lord of the Rings is at the end of the day considered literature and A song of Ice and Fire is not. One is just superior storytelling because of the amount of details. The other is just full of plot twists and cliffhangers.
David Gomez
He means: GRRM's characters behave and think like like 20th-21st century americans. They 'act' the part of a medieval kings and queens like LARPers would, with obvious distance between their measured, fake words and their actual desires.
Elijah Gomez
This is if you assume that medieval kings and queens actually behaved like the romantic literature of their time depicted it.
Jace Long
Sounds more like a criticism of the show than the books.
Eli Hall
Book and show are a complete symbiotic organism: they're both shit but in ways so different it's quite impressive.
Evan Jackson
I think its pretty safe to say they wouldn't act the same way a modern person does
Matthew Perry
Damn...he's right you know
Charles Davis
>Abloo abloo muh orc babies GRTM confirmed a shit
Zachary Lopez
I think it's safe to say that Vikings probably acted more like your local football team than what some chronicle scribbled about them 200 years later.
Zachary Hughes
Has anyone ever read any of GRRM's blog posts? Reads like a teenage girl's tumblr.
Charles Morris
Link/post/etc
Juan Campbell
not only is this criticism retarded when it comes to the type of stories Tolkien was trying to tell, but GRRM has also never held himself to this standard and when he tried, it has only shown his own dilettantism and ignorance when it comes to the economics and matters of state
David Brooks
Maybe Aragorn should send all the orcs back to Africa.
Christopher Bailey
Hack doesn't even use Microsoft Word, he uses WriteStar like a snowflake.
Luis Ramirez
>Middle Earth also had no religion you forget Galadriel is living in M.E and she saw the gods with her eyes,so there is a religion,people just dont care about the gods anymore.
I'll copy n paste something just for an example. Beware, all he does is whine like a little bitch about everything. >So far, the new year is off to a terrific start. Not. Yesterday mostly sucked. >All the teams I cared about having been eliminated, I am now rooting for Whoever Plays the Cowboys and Whoever Plays the Patriots. And if we wind up with a Cowboy/ Patriot SuperBowl, I will be rooting for A Giant Asteroid Strikes Houston.
>I don't want to talk real world politics here, however >We all know how the recent presidential election turned out in the real world. Hilary Clinton won by three million votes, but Donald Trump is going to take office in a week and a half, thanks to the electoral college, James Comey, and some Russian hackers. I've seen a lot of Trump voters saying, yes, Trump was bad, but they thought Clinton was worse, so... lesser of two evils and all that. (FWIW, I don't think Hilary was evil, but even if we accept that premise, no way she was the lesser when up against the Pussygrabber-in-Chief).
Tyler Rivera
He is right, Aragorn is not a human being. He's a trope from Saxon literature. THE GOOD KING. That's him, that's it, there is nothing more. No one like that has ever existed in the world.
Throwing modern Chad Thundercock in a Medieval setting and trying to have him deal with its contemporary issues is helluva lot more realistic, though not perfect either.
Camden Green
>is quite good at world building >shit prose >writing ranges from just passable to school level >thinking people give a fuck about his opinion of arguably the most prolific fantasy writer of all time
Nice try, George. Just enjoy the ride while the hit show lasts, because no one would know who you are without it, and you certainly won't be talked about after your death.
Samuel Morgan
It's not just the kings and queens acting out their royalty. It's the sons, the daughters, the priests, the peasants, the slaves... There isn't a substantive reality to these characters' beliefs. The whole action of the series comes with political upheaval but it's not entirely clear what was stable beforehand. Where's the gentle nobility, the clear-minded faith, the prosperity and good-will? The best answer here lies with the Starks (whom GRRM is the cruelest to) but it's a flimsy fleeting image I find, frankly, all-too-relatable to the modern mind. Read the "romantic literature" and you'll find medieval people have doubts and anxieties of their own, but of a different sort than we do, and also a more profound faith in humanity and their community that comes not just with 'optimism' or their humor but also their earnest criticisms and condemnations. The irony was not so thick then as it is now.
Camden Nelson
>football, football, football, now here's why Trump is Hitler compared to a criminal
Jason Smith
Yeah, I bet someone like King Arthur or Robin Hood totally really existed.
Aaron Ross
Dude I don't want to get all political but [insert politics] lmao
Jason Perry
There have been several benevolent monarchs in history, and the point is that these 'good kings' are respected by their subjects without actually ruling over them.
Joseph Ortiz
hey dudes is for politics, thanks!
Evan Taylor
I don't think you get the point. He clearly likes Tolkien, just like basically everyone else who likes the fantasy genre likes Tolkien. This is just about how there's an opportunity to tell a fantasy story from a different angle, rather than just being Tolkien imitator #33432 who mindlessly copies the formula and races. I don't think he's the first person to say this or even write a story with that in mind (Tolkien himself, who had plenty of experience with real war, probably even thought about it while writing), but for whatever reason he's the most successful.
Juan Anderson
muh three million votes
James Mitchell
fantastic and relevant point clearly you represent how intellectual and mature the average gotfag is
Dylan Turner
>>All the teams I cared about having been eliminated, I am now rooting for Whoever Plays the Cowboys and Whoever Plays the Patriots. And if we wind up with a Cowboy/ Patriot SuperBowl, I will be rooting for A Giant Asteroid Strikes Houston.
Amen. When was the last time we had a Super Bowl with a truly likable team, anyway? 2012?
Jacob Sanchez
Sadly we don't have any writings from the common man, so we can't really say what they were thinking. Except those vulgarities and dick graffity from Pompei.
Evan Turner
Hey dude, suck my cock. Thanks!
Jonathan Hall
>good at worldbuilding >one half of his world is a simplistic, childlike take on feudal Europe >the other half is a laughably eurocentric parody of everything to the east of Bosporus >the few fantasy elements are tropish and hardly ever utilized
James Baker
The topic at hand is GRRM's blog, which includes his elementary opinion of politics. Thanks.
Eli Reed
The way he thinks people give a fuck about his opinion reminds me a lot of that World War Z Q&A panel where Max Brooks won't let anyone talk and spends the entire half hour talking himself up.
People like this get five minutes in the spotlight and become inflated assholes who think they're far better and more respected than they are.
Elijah Davis
I really enjoy ASoIaF and it's one of the few things I didn't drop over the creator being such a dumbass SJW
Isaiah Allen
He cries about his team losing, meanwhile, I'm here waiting for the Jacksonville Jaguars to get good. He's a fucking little girl.
Anthony Powell
>QUITE good at world building Calm down, m8. I wasn't praising the fat fucking hack.
Lincoln Edwards
>if you want a really immersive fictional world that you can actually imagine living in
That's pathetic.
Kevin Rivera
>simplistic, childlike take on feudal Europe actually read about chivalry in the middle ages >laughably eurocentric Most of everything far to the east of Europe was a mystery to Europeans in the middle ages too
Camden Bailey
>I am a history junkie, as many of you know >That would be Andrew Jackson, who once killed a man in a duel. >once this guy doesn't know shit about shit
Ryder Campbell
take THAT drumpf
Josiah Thomas
It's funny how everyone calls the GOT book series and show mature and "deep" just because it's full of violence of nudity and discusses politics a couple of times. LOTR tackled much stronger themes and did it in a manner that GRRM could ever dream of. His books are incredibly shallow and worthless compared to Tolkien
Samuel Carter
>Last night we also had the Golden Globes. Where Lena Headey lost, and GAME OF THRONES lost, and WESTWORLD and its two amazing actresses lost as well. Pfui. That was disappointing, but not unexpected.
WHY IS MY SHOW NOT GETTING AWARDSSSSSS REEEEE
Julian Campbell
THE MORE SHE DRANK THE MORE SHE SHAT Who is he to critique anyone?
Jackson Hall
They literally tried to prepare everyone for a Hillary presidency with that shit, and now it's completely forgotten.
Colton Torres
inb4 the dragonlady uses couple of ships to transport a huge mounted army over sea
Ian James
You should take Tolkiens shriveled ballsack out of your mouth buddy.
Jace Ward
>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. GoT turned exactly into this lel. Is he mad about it?
Cameron Watson
Maybe you'd feel better back on tumblr
Benjamin Wilson
We got other bawdy stuff. Fabliaux were popular tales, usually involving cuckoldry. Here's one about a priest tricking a peasant:
"And then he did that thing That women love more than anything; For he so battered and pounded That she could not prevent His doing what he wanted.
And the peasant peeked Through the door and saw clearly His wife's arse uncovered And the priest on top; And he asked, "As God may save you," Said the peasant, "is this a joke?" And the priest immediately Answered, "What do you think? Don't you see? I have sat down To eat at this table."
"By the heart of God, this is like a fabliau," Said the peasant; "I would certainly have believed -- If I had not heard you say otherwise -- That you were screwing my wife!"
"I am not, sir, hush! By my soul, It seemed the same to me just now." Said the peasant, "Indeed, I believe you." Thus was the peasant tricked And so deceived and befuddled Both by the priest and by his own weak wit That he never felt any pain; And because the door had a hole in it, It is said to this day: "One hole satisfies many fools."
Michael Lewis
>GOT book series GoT is a show. Asoiaf is a book series.
Henry Cook
Tolkien wrote beautiful mythology. I don't even know what to call ASOIAF
Sebastian Stewart
I barely even know her
Chase Martin
>The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity Actually the war he wrote about was Gondor and other parts of Middle-earth standing against Sauron's subjugation; literally defending against a muslim invasion.
Aaron Lopez
>I don't even know what to call ASOIAF War of the Roses but with Deviantart edgy characters and some shitty dragons in the background?
Landon Davis
>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.
What an appaling simplification. Does Tolkien play around with ideas and myths like the Fisher King? Yes (so does Martin, see "a Stark in Winterfell). Does he stick to such a philosophy rigidly? No. There are many good and just rulers in Tolkien's works, Dior, Ecthelion, various kings of Arnor and its successor states, who nevertheless preside or the decline or fall of their lands. If a good ruler was all you needed then Inziladûn would have redeemed Númenor, but he didn't (and if we're just talking strictly about prosperous in terms of materialism, which I suspect Martin is, then his son was one of the most evil rulers described and yet conversely he achieved the greatest material success of any kingdom ever before his sudden fall). Tolkien describes plenty of complicated rulers that are simply "good" facing complicated situations with no easy answers. Denethor, Thingol, damn near every descendant of Finwë.
Continued...
Chase Robinson
>Sup Forums's use of the word cuckoldry is only correct when talking about things that have no relation to Sup Forums There is some sort of irony here
Nathaniel James
Final Fantasy Tactics and Tactics Ogre is better than ASoIaF and doesn't meander into dead ends
Luis Myers
>I'm here waiting for the Jacksonville Jaguars to get good.
They'll get a stadium in London before they get good. Just give up and watch college ball, you're not that far from FSU.
David Cooper
call it what it is - a glorified telenovela script
Easton Sanders
Says the hack who hired a fan to keep track of characters since he couldn't even remember which characters died. His writing is random shit with poor prose and poor storytelling and his grasp on politics is too elementary for a series that revolves around political intrigue.
Asher Allen
>But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army?
It is of course supremely arrogant of Martin to declare what Tolkien did and did not think about. As to why Tolkien does not give a detailed account of Aragorn's reign it is incredibly simple: Aragorn is not the main character of Lord of the Rings (for example Tolkien once mentioned if he had been writing the Saga of Aragorn he would have given a live narrative of the Path of the Dead, but since he wasn't a recap by Gimli and Legolas sufficed). Aragorn is an important character, but his importance has actually ended by the time he becomes king, hence why he drops out of the narrative almost immediately. Tolkien's aftermath is not fixated on the fate of kings but the fate of the hobbits. In the appendix we do get a lot on Aragorn's life, but there we see Tolkien's focus is more on fleshing out say Aragorn's relationship with Arwen than his rule, which is kept at a very high level.
And this opens up the obvious question: where are Martin's tax policies and standing armies? Martin's narrative is absolutely about the detail of ruling, both by his own remarks and by the structure of his books. King's Landing is the most common and featured location, and 3 of the 5 books have the ruler of King's Landing as the most prominent character. And yet his descriptions of finances are incredibly vague. So vague people are able to construct elaborate conspiracy theories in the gaps (e.g. was Robert actually a bad ruler who spent too much, or was it all just another supervillain-esque scheme of Littlefinger?).
I could go on about Martin's armies and how they help expose his faux realism with questions about their size, composition and his use of the myth of levied peasantry, or about how a reasonable reader can figure out what happened to orcs, but the post size limit is hitting me again.
Nathan Walker
tl;dr nerd
Jackson Lee
I stil dont get why this is bad?
Blake Brooks
No joke?
Grayson Brooks
So no religious practise from anyone?
Ethan Cox
Martin's armies make no sense. The Lannisters are supposedly the richest family in all of Westeros, their armor and weapons in the show are the most baudy and ornate, more designed to look cool than be practical, and yet these armies are also the most numerous. Yet, somehow, the crown is in debt a colossal amount to the Iron Bank. Why the fuck does Tywin Lannister think its such a good idea to have such baudy outfits with Lions everywhere? no wonder Robert with a Warhammer was so dangerous because the richest people buy the most fucking useless armor to be crushed
Logan Taylor
Explain Robert's tax policy, pro-tip, you can't
Josiah Barnes
Yes, George, LOTR is literally written for children by a man child—So is Game of Thrones.
2 hacks squaring off on who is the bigger hack. The fact that LOTR is medieval fantasy Opera makes it better than GoT which attempts to be some hamfisted "gritty" social commentary. The only problem? It's written by a greasy imbecile autist who does not understand social events through an accurate philosophical lens. GRRM presents Game of thrones as a deep and meaningful reflection of society but in actuality it has no substance, merely feigning social-critique by shocking the delicate sensibility of normies. Game of thrones will be forgotten in 20 years, while LOTR will continue to be read and enjoyed.
Asher Taylor
>Tolkein's "unrealism" >Gandalf notes even an ordinary gold ring wouldn't melt in a fireplace
>GRRM's "realism" >You can pour out a stew pot, fill it with golden jewelry, put it back on the fire, and it's fucking molten within seconds
Nicholas Richardson
For one thing the grammar is highschool level. Sentences don't flow and I can spot at least one comma that should be a semicolon.
Which would be fine, to be honest, if he then didn't talk as though he should be considered an authority on the written word.