When did you realise that George RR Martin is an untalented hack who has no right to shit on Tolkien?

When did you realise that George RR Martin is an untalented hack who has no right to shit on Tolkien?

He talks down Tolkien for making his story "unrealistic" because Tolkien dreamed of writing an epic of mythic proportions telling of a bygone age of Gods and heroes, of lordly kings and ideals and values that had since disappeared. Its like asking "what was Beowulf's tax policy" or "what was Gilgamesh's tax policy" or "what was Hercules's tax policy", it completely misses its purpose as an origin-tale myth. People criticise Lord of the Rings for being too "black and white" becauses it focuses on the epic eternal clash between good and evil, between light and darkness, but you might as well criticise Genesis for being too black and white.

Martin thinks his stories are more "mature" because they appeal to disillusioned generation Y youngsters who have no ideals or virtues but circlejerk over "lol, everything is grey, nobody is a good person, there is no absolute morality!! kekeke i'm so mature" but in reality all it is is slasher and gore porn with tits and incest thrown in to appeal to horny adolescents. Its much more immature than tolkien's work because it doesn't even attempt to examine the nature of good or evil or examine what they mean or their origins, but instead just goes into "lol there's no good vs bad, everyone is bad, its shades of grey".

Martin is a hack.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QmKhGqWcJGY
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

He's a huge Tolkien mark, he's not "talking down" to him. He's explaining the differences between his stories and Tolkien's.

This isn't Sup Forums, take your console wars back to some DCvMarvel thread.

youtube.com/watch?v=QmKhGqWcJGY

>implying anyone would argue that Martin is better than Tolkien
>implying he can even compete

>DCvMarvel
both sucks, only capemedium is from nipponrandu

>being so much of a fat hack that you let other people finish your lifes work

For the last time GRRM isn't talking shit and is as much of a tolkienfag as the autists on this board.

Its all taken out of context

I know so many people who like GoT/asoiaf more than LOTR

They are usually invariably female and point to things like asoiaf being more realistic or having more female characters or being not black and white morality

Women are fucking stupid

choo choo!

>criticise Genesis for being too black and white.
Only idiots do tha.

t. fan of their yellow period

WHERE IS THE FUCKING BOOK

He is one of those guys who read Tolkien as a child and became """"inspired""" to do something different.

But OP is right, he is garbage.

The problem is generational though. Only millennials and genxers would confuse grimdark and titties with mature.
Please count how many things are now getting a grimdark reboot.

Tolkiens characters are bland and one dimensional

GRRM can write actual people

>I know so many people who like GoT/asoiaf more than LOTR

I'm one of them. I don't like Tolkien's writing style. Verbose purple prose, characters breaks out into ballads every other chapter, and then he spends forty pages meticulously detailing the conversation between a group of talking trees who never seem to make any fucking decisions.

No thanks. I read for entertainment, not to watch a linguist fellate himself on paper.

NEVER EVER

You are very right, tolkien can't even make a single good character.

Not really, you just have a shit taste son. Btw how do i stop sucking dick?

why would anyone voluntarily fight in vietnam if they could avoid it? it was one of the most retarded wars ever fought.

Now this is literally unironically some good fucking Reddit.

Please be joking

eh, i think GRRM can be a bit hit and miss with characters
some are actually pretty good, well fleshed-out characters, but others can tend towards the boring mary-suish side

>transcendental story of Good vs Evil, Hero vs Adversary
>against "gritty" autistic depiction of a bunch of events

but what was the tax policy guys????

>Please count how many things are now getting a grimdark reboot.

Very few. People call things like the new Power Rangers reboot "grimdark", when really the visuals are just made slightly more realistic. It's still PG-garbage for children.

The "grimdark" criticism is overused and thrown at everything nowadays.

Beside Denethor, Boromir, and Smeagol; you have a point. Most of the characters are fairly uninteresting. Wow, Frodo is sort of sad now. What a thrilling character arc!

>transcendental story of Good vs Evil, Hero vs Adversary

In other words, schlock for children.

>transcendental

forgot to take your name off faggot

No, a meaningful depiction of the existential struggle without a self-denying sarcastic perspective

I follow the same argument Oscar Wilde once made in The Decay of Lying, Martin suffers from an obligation to be realistic. Tolkien is thoroughly entrenched in fantasy and his work will remain far more memorable than this shit.

when he was in the army tolkien noticed his men sitting around in groups of friends and immediately started fantasizing they were gay. fucking brits, not even once

This. I hate LOTR

It doesn't seem like your dislike for LotR is entirely rational

>meaningful

What's meaningful about a conflict in which every antagonist is literally evil? How is this myopic trash supposed to tell me anything about the real world?

In your opinion.

>I don't like the writing
>Therefore I do not enjoy reading the books

Seems pretty rational to me. I don't say the books are bad or anything, they just aren't for me.

He's making a point. He's not saying Tolkien is bad or that The Lord of the Rings is bad. He's saying how he wanted to expand fantasy in a certain direction. Literally everything he writes is based on TLotR in some way, but he's explaining how he's different.

>They think Fat fuck that hasnt seen any combat knows more about war and conflict than WW1 veteran.

This is the problem with grrm faggots.

That's a very simplistic view. Not every depiction of a conflict has to have a direct real-world counterpart. It's a meta-story and an amalgamation of several mythological representations of the struggle between what's good in the world and what's bad in the world.
What's not to understand?

...

You keep forgetting you're making a reasonable point on the only place on the internet that still has console wars. PICK A SIDE, FAGGOT.

>Not blasting commies at any given opportunity

>I don't like Tolkien's writing style
But you like reading an entire page about someone taking a shit.

WW1 must have been like a vacation if Tolkien had the time to write those books instead of fucking fighting

What in the name of fuck is up with these threads lately? Is it always the same autist?

kinda playing devil's advocate here, but fighting front-line isn't really going to give you any particular deep understanding of logistics and overall strategy that the average guy couldn't gain, let alone an understanding that's applicable to medieval warfare

>*autistic screeching*

it was basically sitting in a trench eating mud and making fun of pvt. idiot all day

did you never watch blackadder?

At least you're in the right company.

t. reddit

>calling a writer a hack when you don't know the difference between "its" and "it's"
>in Youtube's comments
*golfclap*

t. tourist

I realised he was a hack when I read the first ASOIF book, and the TV show was just a reminder. He clearly isn't a good writer

I get your point, but I don't think he was referring to tactics and strategy.

Fat Fuck writes a lot of grimdark wankery and then calls Tolkiens work "too idealistic" even though HE was the one who admitted to be too big of a pussy to pull a trigger on a man. Despite writing the "less gritty, realistic story", it was Tolkien who had actually seen and most likely dealt killing blows on the battlefield.

In terms of the ethics and philosophy of war and killing, I'll hold the opinion of a man who has actually killed people on the front lines over some guy who straight up admitted he was a pussy.

So what WAS king joffery baratheon's tax policy then?

>baaaaaww muh shitty kids story about faggy elves and midgets, moooooooom

Hang yourself, manchild.

I have no issues with people that dislike tolkien, i think he is a little overrated myself.
And the movies are mediocre.

But please dont tell me you think GOT is realistic.
GrrM entire concept of history and warfare is ridiculous.

I mean he brings up that issue with taxes but he never effectively resolves how rulers govern himself.
ASOIAF all just teenager fantasy of sex and violence.

More like ameriblobs getting blasted by commies.

Martin isn't garbage. Some of his early work is pretty good and his work on the Wildcards and other anthologies is superb.
It's just that ASoIaF is garbage.
Dangerous Women is one of the best books I've read in a while. I mean, Dozois probably did most of the work, like he always does, but still. Martin was a part of it.

It has important themes of ecology, and considering when LotR was written I'd say it's incredibly important

>Fat Fuck writes a lot of grimdark wankery and then calls Tolkiens work "too idealistic" even though HE was the one who admitted to be too big of a pussy to pull a trigger on a man. Despite writing the "less gritty, realistic story", it was Tolkien who had actually seen and most likely dealt killing blows on the battlefield.

The two things have nothing to do with each other. You can object to war in the real world and object to the sanitization of war in the media at the same time.

>American losses
>58,000 KIA, 150,000 wounded

>Vietnamese losses
>440,000 - 1.1 million dead, 600,000 wounded

>"Americans BTFO"

Really made me think...

>GrrM entire concept of history and warfare is ridiculous.
>never effectively resolves how rulers govern himself
Can you expand a little? Not arguing, just curious as to what makes you think this.

>But you like reading an entire page about someone taking a shit.

That's more subject matter than style, but you absolutely have a point. Reading about Daenerys struggle with fictional-dysentery and repeatedly soil herself was much more arousing than anything found in the sexless tales of Tolkien.

>Vietnamese suffer more casualties
>still win
based

yep, George R.R Martin is exactly what you think he is when you look at this fat ugly face

Nevertheless, I disagree with you, tripfag. But what else could you expect from the dullest franchise in the history of tv franchises. Seriously each episode following Daenerys and her wyvern pals as they fight assorted shitlords has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when GRRM vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; he made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody. Just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for his books which he will never finish before dying of fat. The GoT series might be anti-Tolkien (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-fantasy series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "dies."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several hundred times. I was incredulous. GRRM's mind is so governed by cliches and literal shit metaphors that he has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of GoT by a Redditor. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading GRRM at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on Reddit." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "GoT" you are, in fact, trained to be a Redditor.

>americans loses trained soldiers vs civilians getting slaughtered and bombed

w-we won! oh wait we didn't but my kill ratio is good

>But please dont tell me you think GOT is realistic.

It's undeniable that his franchise more resembles the real world than Tolkien's, despite still being a fantasy series.

>but he never effectively resolves how rulers govern himself.

Examples?

>School bully beats the tar out of you for fifteen minutes straight
>He finally stops because he's bored and has better things to do with his time
>"Haha the bully is gone! I win!"

You sound Canadian.

>tax a lot because we should have a standing army

I mean it was stated.

>But please dont tell me you think GOT is realistic.
well it does have ice zombies so

Yes thats what i meant, but even if i was talking about strategy and tactics Grrm at no point shows any realistic understanding of the scale of war.

Fat fucks just uses conventional fantasy elements like dragons, magic and super swordsmen that can kill like 5 guys at once and just add his trademark grimdark wankery.
Had it been released 50 years ago it would be relegated to the pulp magazines for teenagers.

>Had it been released 50 years ago it would be relegated to the pulp magazines for teenagers.
Well it was before they made a show out of it.

But that's essentially what Tolkien is too and his works are essentially enjoyed by teenagers.

>Fat fucks just uses conventional fantasy elements like dragons, magic and super swordsmen that can kill like 5 guys at once and just add his trademark grimdark wankery.

Nice buzzword. Care to add an actual criticism somewhere in there?

>dragons, magic and super swordsmen
these are barely used in any war in the series

You know, the funny thing about this commentary is that what it really is saying is that the writer George R.R. Martin was a conscientious objector (and even the state recognized it) to something that is, you know, terrifying, with blood and shit and heavy artillery. While Tolkien, purposedly entered that atrocious war zone and, perhaps even literally, went through a sea of shit to write tales of nobility and grandeur and so on.

But my god, isn't it obvious that it would be so. Only those who went through that much shit may have the need to tell of its reverse inner imaginary counterpart of that christian nobility, fetishizing the battle, believing in what's at the face value of medieval politics and so on. Meanwhile, George, who opposed the factual war of Vietnam, can only talk about what's the ridicule of it. I claim this ridicule is even much more violent than even the gruesome parts, as the pathetic banality of war directly opposes the position to the imaginary scenario painted by governments to justify their wars and so on.

It's not that Martin can't talk about war because he hasn't been in a war. Perhaps the only people who can properly talk about war, with all its obscene reality of excrement and blood and fear, are those who have never been to war. While those who thought wars have all the reasons to conceal its shameful and pathetic parts behind a solid set of signifiers.

I basically made this point already, just less eloquently and with more buzzwords.

>every antagonist is literally evil

>Gollum
>Denethor
>Wormtongue

>le good guys defeat the bad guys because gandalf shows up at every every possible moment with a shitload of gay poetry

barvo tolkien

I do agree that this "tolkien was at the Somme therefore his depiction of medieval-fantasy wars must be inherently better than anyone else's" stuff is a bunch of bullshit. But this
>Perhaps the only people who can properly talk about war, with all its obscene reality of excrement and blood and fear, are those who have never been to war
is a bit of a jump and a dumb conclusion

The US went to war to keep the South from being communist. The South became communist. You lost the war. That doesn't mean you have to like it.

Game of Reddit

>mary-suish side

How can you accuse GRRM of this and not Tolkien? Jon Snew and Dany are pretty cliche but that applies to almost every hero in his books.

>Advocating for good vs evil worldview
wew lad, when will American posters get rangebanned?

Not op but your being very hyperbolic, ASOIAF has entire chapters based around characters just sitting around and blustering at each other.

I've read through every book by both and I have to say Martin is the king of "Get to the fucking point"

Neither is Pratchett, someone who did both the brutal nature of life along with high fantasy shit and he is way more entertaining than either.

I'd rather read Pratchett's watch series any day of the week than read one fucking chapter about the boring fucking wall and the politics of why we can't defend people from the fucking ice zombies.

The only Commander is His Grace, His Excellency, The Duke of Ankh; Commander Sir Samuel Vimes Blackboard Monitor.

>Perhaps the only people who can properly talk about war, with all its obscene reality of excrement and blood and fear, are those who have never been to war

This is a conclusion that doesn't logically flow from your preceding text.

Clarify how you got here.

>screencapping your own poorly written fedora youtube comment to try and impress people with on the chans

presumably when you wrote "dubious title" you meant to write "dubious honour" you colossal mong

Tolkien's writing was good for his time but writing has evolved since then.

It wouldn't stand out at all if it was released today.

oh, don't get me wrong, Tolkien takes those cliches to an extreme length with a ton of his characters (but you could sort of say he half-invented those cliches so idk)
im just saying that GRRM isn't quite perfect in this regard

Here we have a very rare sight indeed. Someone this a decent opinion.

>but writing has evolved since then

evolution doesn't tend to involve getting worse. Pick a different word.

But Dany is an intelligently written villain who has been developed over two decades.

this. viserys was the only sane targ of his generation

Dany is the hero of the story, user.

We can only hope so my friend, the show hasn't portrayed that side of her much which makes me worry.

>The Americans fought alone herp derp
The actual score is pretty even
479,668–807,311 vs 510,114–1,166,114 Kills
1,340,000+ vs 604,200 Wounded

Does he even wrote about elves or dwarfs

Or just blonde woman getting fucked by brown savage men?

>le good guy inevitably gets stabbed in the back by some moustache twirling caricature who magically knows everything about everything
>this shows how gritty and realistic asoiaf is because it is endlessly subverting tropes to the point where all it ever does is "subvert tropes" and becomes just as predictable as the fantasy genre it is "subverting"
>not to mention that since the plot is just an endless succession of twists, GRRM has literally no idea how to conclude the story since he has killed off so many people for the cheap shock value that most of the remaining characters are literally whos that noone is invested in
>i didnt go to writing school i went to mcdonalds
oh it shows george

>anonymous youtube comment

Into the trash it goes

>there is actually a small amount of semi-decent discussion in this thread
this isn't the real Sup Forums

Martin is a hack, and Game Of Thrones might be the one of the dullest franchises in the history of tv franchises. Seriously each episode following the girl queen and her pals as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Martin vetoed the idea of David Benioff and D. B. Weiss writing the series; he made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for his books. The Game Of Thrones series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went to take a shit, the author wrote instead that the character "shat but the more she drank the more she shat but the more she drank the more she shat but the more she drank the more she shat."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Martin's mind is so governed by "brown slime streaked with blood" and "pool of his own excrement" that he has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of A Song Of Ice And Fire by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading A Song Of Ice And Fire at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to watch scat porn." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "A Song Of Ice And Fire" you are, in fact, trained to watch scat porn.