Game of Thrones SPOILER FREE THREAD

[General Tsao]

Originally Posted by Shaffer

Jordan's strengths were his worldbuilding and the scope of his story; even most of his fans agree that the quality of his prose was generally pretty bad.

I didn't say Jordan was good, I said he's a little better than Martin.


What's great about Martin is his characters, their realism, and his "worldbuilding". Definitely not his prose, imo.

And how does being a professor of linguistics "buy him nothing". He was a master of language. He was the George Carlin of fantasy writing.

[stu+stu]

Am I in the book thread?

[TomVeil]

No you're in the "The General ****s all over all threads he posts in" forum.

Maybe if we just ban him?

[stu+stu]

Can I take a minute to think that over?

[General Tsao]

lol gmafb, show ended 2 weeks ago.

[stu+stu]

' \` Oh **** he's right there

[stu+stu]

Originally Posted by General Tsao

lol gmafb, show ended 2 weeks ago.

But how long ago was the last book written? Wasn't Cater the president or something?

[ThaSaltCracka]

Martins pacing and dialogue are great imo. He's not as great as describing in a grandiose style like Tolkien, but he does a good enough job. I think in an accessible pov, Martin is much easier to get into, but with Tolkien's stuff, you get surrounded by it. I think ultimately its just a personal choice, but I can see people who don't normally like fantasy will like Martin much more so than Tolkien.

[Aris Katsaris]

In what ways do you think Tolkein is better than Martin, and in what ways is Martin better than Tolkein, iyo?

It's spelled Tolkien. Not "Tolkein", Tolkien.

Some ways I believe Tolkien was better than Martin:
- A more complete cosmology, a grander scheme of things -- Tolkien universe literally begins from the beginning of the creation by God (Eru Iluvatar) and his angels (the Valar and Maiar); and has prophecies leading all the way to the final day (and Arda Healed).
- On the whole more memorable *single* moments of amazing beauty and wonder. Martin's birth of the dragons in Drogo's pyre is the only moment seen so far which I believe can compare with two dozen moments by Tolkien throughout his books.
- Better focused storylines (with some exceptions, like the first half of Fellowship of the Ring which meandered)
- More beautiful usage of language, yes.

Some ways I believe Martin is better than Tolkien:
- Much more surprising and intriguing plots. More gutsy in killing off protagonists and taking the storyline in unanticipated directions.
- Gives us a much better sense of a society's functioning at all its levels (from king down to peasant) than you'll get for most of Tolkien's societies.
- Much more intelligent antagonists.
- His characters seem more multi-layered and more diverse. His female characters aren't defined primarily by their beauty (as e.g. Luthien and Arwen were).

[General Tsao]

Originally Posted by Aris Katsaris

It's spelled Tolkien. Not "Tolkein", Tolkien.

Some ways I believe Tolkien was better than Martin:
- A more complete cosmology, a grander scheme of things -- Tolkien universe literally begins from the beginning of the creation by God (Eru Iluvatar) and his angels (the Valar and Maiar); and has prophecies leading all the way to the final day (and Arda Healed).
- On the whole more memorable *single* moments of amazing beauty and wonder. Martin's birth of the dragons in Drogo's pyre is the only moment seen so far which I believe can compare with two dozen moments by Tolkien throughout his books.
- Better focused storylines (with some exceptions, like the first half of Fellowship of the Ring which meandered)
- More beautiful usage of language, yes.

Some ways I believe Martin is better than Tolkien:
- Much more surprising and intriguing plots. More gutsy in killing off protagonists and taking the storyline in unanticipated directions.
- Gives us a much better sense of a society's functioning at all its levels (from king down to peasant) than you'll get for most of Tolkien's societies.
- Much more intelligent antagonists.
- His characters seem more multi-layered and more diverse. His female characters aren't defined primarily by their beauty (as e.g. Luthien and Arwen were).

Only one thing in this post has to do with style of prose which is the only thing I was talking about. In other words, none of the ways Martin is better than Tolkeane you've listed have any reason to be exclusive to the books, which is the question I was answering in the post you took issue with. Someone asked whether reading the book was worth it or just watch the show, as he liked the plot points, but wanted to know if Martin's writing style was any good. That's all I was saying Tolkeen was better at.

You may agree (I think you do), others do not. Either way, you've made me want to re-read the Silmarillion again.

[[Phill]]

Meh, its hard to ever defend a side that involves hobbits imo.

[425kid]

"none of the ways Martin is better than Tolkeane you've listed have any reason to be exclusive to the books"

The intrigue, the characters, plot and society are developed in much more detail in the books. As is the thinking of both the protagonists and antagonist. None of the characters in the show are really multilayered even though they're supposed to be, at least not to the depth they are in the books.

Martin does a way better job than tolkien at shocking the reader and making them emotional about characters. LOTR is broken down very definitely into good and evil, but Jordan is able to keep you guessing. A tv show just cant have same the subtlety and detail as the books.

[madnak]

Tolkien's style is lyrical, Martin's is brusque and straightforward. Both of them fail miserably at times, both of them succeed admirably at times. But you can't put the stylistic elements side-by-side to compare, because there's virtually no similarity. Tolkien goes for misty-eyed wonder and larger-than-life archetypes, Martin goes for grit and psychological realism.

Both have serious flaws as writers, and both are able to accomplish some remarkable and unusual things. But comparing them is like asking "who's better, Tolstoy or Yeats?"

[ballin4life]

Personally, I don't understand all this arguing over who has better prose. I don't read stories to say "wow, the writer really can put words together", I read so that I can say "wow that plot and those characters are amazing". As long as those elements are coming across, I am happy. If I cared about who was best at choosing words I'd read poetry.

[boomshakalaka]

Originally Posted by ballin4life

Personally, I don't understand all this arguing over who has better prose. I don't read stories to say "wow, the writer really can put words together", I read so that I can say "wow that plot and those characters are amazing". As long as those elements are coming across, I am happy. If I cared about who was best at choosing words I'd read poetry.

Yes, when making comparisons, nothing but the primary function of the two things in question should be compared...