Who is the better author?

Tolkien is far superior. The hobbit reads like a typical Victorian novel, complete with wonderfully memorable beginning lines, set in an alternate universe.

That's why no one has been able to best Tolkien. Not only was he a great world builder but he could actually write a novel, which gives lotr the distinction of being "literary fantasy" -- something one else has really achieved since. Grrm is a script writer and so his novels are entertaining but they are not literature.

I'm sad that I have lived to see the time where this question can be asked; sincerely or not.

Spotted the plebs who didn't read The Two Towers.

>fiction

that aside 0.5/8, made me respond

Singing isn't rapping user.

That's all shit you'd find in any mythology, though

this graph is actually pretty accurate, can confirm. source: i've been baiting for years

So you might say you've become a master baiter ?

his prose is so slow and boring that it doesn't really shock anymore

Martin is one ugly motherfucker. So i'll go with Tolkien

Nice bait

So having a dozen meandering plot lines that go no where and don't relate is better plot structure?

>DUDE CHARACTERS DIE LMAO
>except muh main characters hehe

Fuck this overrated fatfuck piece of shit

Well they are really fundamentally different. One invokes the ideas of grand adventure an mythology whilst the other is down to earth and character driven.

>world building
>adventure
>ideas
>general fantasy and sense of wonder

Toke the weed

>characters
>story
>politics
>interesting, realistic locations
>use of fantasy to either A) take a sledge hammer to the convictions of people in his world or B) provide conspiracies for lore masters

George Cholesterol Tits and Wine Martin

>shock value.
Please go back to tumblr. Human history is filled with strife and wa has always resulted in someone getting tortured or raped. Its just realistic that so many people die or get fucked over by others

Yeah people overlook how much he protects certain characters. Namely tyrion, who should have died at least 10 times by now

>reading the songs
nigga i just skimmed that shit

Don't make the excuse that Martin was trying to be "realistic" and/or "confrontational." He's was being edgy because most people (whether or not they would admit it) are attracted to the most disgusting things (everybody is a /b/tard gore person inwardly, it's just active /b/tards are vocal about it); it has nothing to do with trying accurately write about the dark side of the human condition.

Check out the Tolkien Ensemble. There a group that makes music out all the songs and poems of LOTR. It'll make you fall in love. Tolkien's poetic ambition.

They're both good, why does everything have to be a competition with you guys?

They're both bad, why does everything have to be a competition with you guys?

actual value is able to also be shocking. generally saying "shock value" refers to works with no value other than the shock.

fucking metal

there's only one way to settle this

youtube.com/watch?v=XAAp_luluo0

>Don't make the excuse that Martin was trying to be "realistic" and/or "confrontational."

Why not? That is clearly his intent. If he was trying to be edgy why would he even try to have character development and world building? He would do what the show would do and cut straight to all the sexual assault and keep shoving it in. The only original addition those writers have is a rape scene and the stabbing of a pregnant woman.

That's is a serious choon. Love that bassline.

>"clearly"
show ur work

No

I'm reading throught the feast of crows and I refuse to give a fuck about any of the fuckers in Dorne.

Pleb

Such a pleb. The Dorne arc has a really satisfying end in AFFC.

in Dorne everything is either a spear, a snake, or sand. fuck that.

>Check out the Tolkien Ensemble. There a group that makes music out all the songs and poems of LOTR. It'll make you fall in love. Tolkien's poetic ambition.
If this is bait it really worked. If it's not ...

Regardless, the Dorne arc is inherently filler that can be ignored, compared to the main arcs. You faggots are grasping at straws. I'm straight up laughing at you, stay cucked by that bloated sack of shit while he flushes $5 bills down the toilet.

This is such a stupidly groovy song. It feels so inappropriate but I love it so much.

Actually good Fantasy author coming through.

>good Fantasy author

Is this the new Harrisposting? The answer to this question is obvious. Gurm reads like bad television put to paper. He is a young adult author who tries to disguise the immaturity of his works with grotesque and at times scatological shock to the point that it becomes banal. Tolkien, while insipid and overly sentimental at times, is almost universally regarded as a solid writer who essentially spawned an entire genre complete with its own network of tropes and inspired the imaginations of three generations in less than 1,200 pages.

Tolkien wrote his books with a grander philosophical message in mind. Tolkien wanted to show a new generation what was important in life, it all goes back to friendship, loyalty, honesty and ultimately faith. Gurm, in his """realism""" has no overarching message or framework in his books. They are commercial pieces, the 'worldbuilding' he does is an end in itself while for Tolkien it was merely a means to his end.

>durrrrr human history was like this so you have to write fantasy novels like it, no choice to do things any differently
>thats why everyone loves fantasy novels, they're just like real life!

Have you listen to Tolkien Ensemble? No?

Then fuck off.

That's not a raps and I love it

>we don't want want to go to war today

>Tolkien wrote his books with a grander philosophical message in mind. Tolkien wanted to show a new generation what was important in life, it all goes back to friendship, loyalty, honesty and ultimately faith. Gurm, in his """realism""" has no overarching message or framework in his books. They are commercial pieces, the 'worldbuilding' he does is an end in itself while for Tolkien it was merely a means to his end.

This is the real difference between the two

>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.

CS Lewis

>new Harrisposting
This has been going on on here since nearly the beginning

Tolkien wrote a novel for the ages.

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

Tolkien is a much more important and influential author.

That being said, I'd always choose to read GRRM because his works relates to me much more.

>because his works relates to me much more.

So you're an edgy imbecile?

You didn't finish your sentence. You meant to write:
>Martin wrote an incomplete and sloppy mess that he let a tv crew finish before he did... for the ages

What did he mean by this?

>Gurm, in his """realism""" has no overarching message or framework in his books. They are commercial pieces, the 'worldbuilding' he does is an end in itself while for Tolkien it was merely a means to his end.

I would not say that this is true. The overarching theme is the pursuit of power, love, honor, and other universal things that human beings strive for. The different ways various rulers handle the power they have is especially interesting - just compare how Theon, Jon, Daenerys or Tyrion do when they become figures of authority. Martin also does a great job at depicting that being a good person does not necessarily make a good ruler or vice versa.

Another overarching framework is the nature of war and its effect on people - with the ultimate, mythical clash of Ice and Fire being the continuation of this theme. This is, of course, much more interesting than just another clash of Good vs Evil as both Fire and Ice are deadly to regular humans. That is why we should expect a bitter-sweet ending to the series and it is this pathos and this tragedy, which can can be felt throughout the series, from the very beginning, that makes most of the appeal for many readers.

No, see this

Also there are shit tons of blogs on theme analysis, mainly from the point of view of plot directory. So if you are to lazy to do it your self just watch or read those.

>He found a line and pulled on it, fighting toward the hatch to get himself below out of the storm, but a gust of wind knocked his feet from under him and a second slammed him into the rail and there he clung. Rain lashed at his face, blinding him. His mouth was full of blood again. The ship groaned and growled beneath him like a constipated fat man straining to shit.
What did he mean by this?

Have you listen to a pathetic manchild? Yes?

Then fuck off.

Good post. I don't consider either to be amazing as a reader, but as a scholar the idea of even comparing GRRM to Tolkien is laughable.
Before he ever wrote a page of fantasy, Tolkien reinvented the entire study of historical English and brought Beowulf back to the public eye. He proved that OE was spoken all the way up to the 13th century in parts of England through careful linguistic examination, and singlehandedly brought the genre of 'fairy tales' and 'fantasy' to a modern adult audience. Every trope of fantasy people are familiar with today is rooted in Tolkien's emulation of Anglo-Saxon and Germanic literature.
GRRM essentially writes down real historical events with the names changed, then throws in the schlockiest elements of Tolkienian fantasy at the periphery

>amazing
>scholar

The people who understand human nature and look at it up close are typically better off than the ones who don't and actual create REAL gorey situations.

Go to any rekt thread on /gif/ most of the people in those images are not people who have read or thought about anything in their life, with the laughable exception of extremists.

George doesn't write deeply. The love, honor, and conflict are ultimately pointless because of his nihilism and negative outlook on life.

I don't even like GRRM, but your reductionist treatment of him is just a miss. Have you even read his blog? He believes in the good in people, and tries to express a full range of human emotion.

I have and generally he points out how horrible people are and how terrible life can be because his favorite football team lost.

Nothing he has written suggests to me that he believes in people beyond their ability to destroy. All of his works reflect this as even the good characters and institutions are actually horrible deep down.

I wouldn't say that all his good characters are horrible deep down. They have flaws sure, but everyone does. He's talks a lot about how he thinks no one is all good and no one is all evil and I think he tries to reflect that in his writing.

I think Gene Wolfe is a better writer than both, no meme.

Tolkien is the most significant by far however.

I agree, Wolfe is the better story teller of the three, but holy shit, Tolkien's influence.

Where does that leave Martin, idk, the fattest.

Joffrey lacks any redemptive qualities. As do a number of other characters who are agonists.

Aye, but Joffrey was, ultimately, just a kid who was ruined by his mother's spiteful upbringing and lack of a real father figure... Robert didn't give two fucks about his "children" and neither did Jaime. It was also hinted that he may have had a mental disorder from a young age (see the incident with the cat and her kittens).
The realization that he's just a child who does not know any better hit Tyrion hard while he watched him choke... quite a powerful scene.

>All of his works reflect this as even the good characters and institutions are actually horrible deep down.

I wouldn't say that Jon Snow, Ned Stark, Bran or Tyrion are horrible deep down. They are good people and, unfortunately, that is what brings them down ultimately. Hell, I wouldnt even say Jaime or The Hound are horrible deep down... quite the opposite. They seem horrible and do horrible things but are also very tragic and have the capacity to redeem themselves and do better.

There are only a very few characters that I would call outright evil. The Mountain, Ramsey, Euron Crow's Eye... and scum like Bloody Mummers and Mountain's men.

What?

>reminding me of turin

I'll just leave this here

...

Tolkien slapped GRRM down, and deservedly so.

Tolkien, easy.

The problem is more on George's modern outlook on life.

What do you mean, exactly? We're discussing his writing, not his personal life.

Or do you want to say that his outlook is too modern for what he's writing about?

Joffrey clearly had sociopathic tendencies that I don't think parenting could have totally eliminated. It's often emphasized how Tommen and Myrcella don't behave like him, and granted they're younger, but not by that much. Joffrey enjoys torturing animals, and his own father is bewildered and repulsed by him.

That said Joffrey does have humanizing characteristics if you read between the lines a bit. He has a respect for his father that the rest of his family doesn't, and is desperate for his approval. He tells off Tywin in favor of Robert, and refuses to believe that he's the product of incest. But he doesn't know how to seek Robert's approval, so he reroutes the desire into violent tendencies. Dad likes to hunt, so he shows him a cat he butchered. Dad likes to defeat his enemies, so he sends a man to murder Bran Stark. He's warped, but there is a genuine person underneath.

Well said, user. I think that the problem is that most readers don't read the books very carefully and are therefore unable to appreciate all the careful planing and minute details of Martin's writing.

>the careful planing and minute details of Martin's writing

Laugh all you want but it's true. The story has a dozens of overarching plot lines and a cast of hundreds but still manages to be coherent and make sense. You can't deny it.

Probably not the right thread but yeah

Should I buy The lord of the Rings one volume edition or 3 divided books? Thanks.

Both authors have very different viewpoints of the world that bleed into their work.

You have Tolkien who took part in a war, lost all his friends, and came back to find his home altered by industrization forever. He had a wife and kids and taught at Oxford until he died. Then you have GRRM who spent his life writing scifi novels and TV scripts to make ends meet. Nothing much else about him other than lost loves and the overweightness, and he never finished his own series.

I could go on about the dynamics, themes, characters, plot for both book series, but its easier to condense everything into one sentence.

Ultimately, Ice and Fire pulls me down while Lord of the Rings brings me up.

>Ultimately, Ice and Fire pulls me down while Lord of the Rings brings me up

yes

His personal life bleeds into his writing like said. He's very much an anti-war, hippie sort of person which is nearly the opposite of the times he is writing about.

Yeah, GoT doesn't get pull the human history card. It has a fucking entire continent that has had steel for 6000 or so years and barely progressed, and a main plot point where control for a continet the size of south america is being fought over, despite the tech level and fact that the population is about 40 million, lower than even the lowest point in medieval europe.

came here to post this

Has anyone managed to finish Clash of Kings. I find it awfully boring and slow.
>yfw it's a Sansa chapter

Anyone having read "On Fairy-Stories" knows the answer.

Hate his translation of Beowulf, though.

I kinda wanna watch the animated movie now.

I'm like 300 pages into the 1st ice and fire book, and am quite frankly thinking of dropping it. The book spent the first one hundred or so pages vomiting exposition at me, and now just feels like it's meandering around. Is this basically what the whole series is like, or should I stick with it?

read something decent

He has stated many times publicly that he is anti war when the war seems unnecessary. In this instance he is talking about the American intervention in Vietnam. He filed for CO status and was granted it quite easily because of his moral standing. Martin has said that he is not a complete pacifist and there are wars that have moral stakes that he would have taken part in, like fighting the Nazis.

His message isn't just flat out "dude war is bad make peace not love" but that war is reality and often times mass life is utterly wasted for petty reasons which we see in his work. On the flip side we see the glory of battle and how thrilling the violence is because its inherent to us as a species. He tries to cover the glory and the aftermath.

sort of related

youtube.com/watch?v=ek2O6bVAIQQ