I've just finished reading "The Hobbit"...

[Young stormlord]

… and found it deeply unsatisfying. I just kept waiting for explanations until the end of the book: Why were goblins and trolls so evil and/or bad? and what made eagles, dwarves and elves noble and good? It is not explained in the story itself.


While there, I’ve found the story to be shallow, one Deus Ex Machina after another, without any rhythm or pace. Surprisingly enough (after reading GRRM, that is), I’ve found it to have too many characters, all of them as shallow as the story. Even the part that should have shown Gandalf to be wise and quick thinking, I’ve found contrived and pointless, with his ultimate trick producing just “Meh. Who cares?” reaction. As for other characters, there were just too many of them. Instead of fourteen shallow dwarfs, I felt through the book that four, maybe five of them would be sufficient: kingly dwarf, fat dwarf, young dwarf (there are two interchangeable in the book), old (ancient) dwarf and (maybe) one completely average dwarf.
I’ve also found logistics of “goblin kingdom” completely unrealistic. Seriously now, whole goblin people living underground and not starving or thirsting to death?

And what’s with all the fantastic racism? Humans live in their separate cities, dwarves live in their separate cities, elves live in theirs, hobbits in theirs and goblins in theirs. Not only cities, but kingdoms as well! What’s up with that? While I read, I kept wondering what would’ve happened if human or dwarf tried to open a shop in elven village... And when did “ethnic “ cleaning and genocide happen to make the world separated like that?

I don’t know why I felt that way. Maybe because I was introduced to fantasy genre by AGOT (“Watership Down” doesn’t count) and all other things look shallow after GRRM’s masterpiece. Maybe because only other “fantasy” author I’ve read was Terry Pratchett, who made intentional deconstruction of Tolkien and fantasy genre as a whole. I don’t know.
It’s a horrible feeling when you realise that one Grenn, one Samwell Tarly, one septon Merribold, one Donall Noye, one constable Dorfl or, hell, one Jason Ogg, the smith with fifteen sentences over the course of 30 books, have in them more life and realism than one Bilbo Baggins, the main character!

Even worse, even when Tolkien tried to put some life in the story, I’ve felt as being sold short there. “They had a feast with music and jests, which lasted all night.” (paraphrased). Can you be more specific? Can you name the meals, describe them a bit? Some example of those jokes they made, ‘cause I want to laugh too or at least understand what are they laughing at? Maybe a few song names or lyrics? No, wait, scratch that, not the lyrics, ‘cause you really don’t know how to rhyme or sing.

Or, other example. Wargs attack the company, the company climbs trees and Gandalf starts throwing and hitting wargs with exploding acorns and pinecones. All the while I’m thinking: “You b*stard! Wargs need to eat too!” and for Tolkien: “ Couldn’t you have thrown one or two interchangeable dwarves to them?! It would add real sense of danger, you know."
Or for example, horrible storm catches the company and, paraphrased, “stone giants started throwing boulders on each other, so big they crashed through parts of the mountain” and I’m thinking: ‘Awesome. I’ll see stone giants, or maybe company will fight one of them.’ But, when the storm ends, bugger that, Gandalf says he’ll ask one of stone giants to put boulder on the entrance of goblins’ den and that’s all we hear about that.

On the other hand, even bloody, awesome ending battle is so damn boring and not awesome at all. I didn’t bloody care that humans, dwarfs and elves joined the forces, I didn’t care that elves took the ridges, I didn’t care that four of fourteen dwarves in the company died... Hell, there was no proper description of battle. Not even: “[Named character] got hit with an arrow through the leg and fell so [another named character] quickly shielded him.” No sir, it’s all.
“Dwarves on the bridge almost got overwhelmed by goblins, when elves came to help them and there was great carnage.” Or something. I didn’t really care.

Does that mean that George RR Martin will ruin your life? Or just the part of your life enjoying fantasy genre? Does the same carries to Terry Pratchett? Or maybe, just maybe, “The Hobbit” and Tolkien himself is their grandpa, little senile and smelly but badass in his younger days, who got flattened by the wheel of time? I don’t know. Any thoughts?

 

[The Ace]

To be fair, it was written as a children's book. Seen in that light, Tolkein's style makes a lot more sense.

Kids like the world divided into goodies and baddies and that's what he was trying to do.

LOTR is far deeper, written for a more sophisticated audience, and deals with the moral issues a bit more, but the best explanation I've ever read actually came from Eddings;

"There are two sides," said Belgarath.

"Good and Evil ?" asked Durnik.

"I prefer to think of Them and Us."

 

[Ghost of Harrenhal]

I've found it increasingly difficult to enjoy various types of fantasy after George RR Martin, I'll admit. Before his books I would have thought it unnecessary and even boring to use any sort of real political system in a fantasy world. However he writes it in such a way that has me hooked and now I can't go back to classical fantasy.

No more can I enjoy books, films or even games where kingdoms seem to have no social structure other than a king, the army and peasants. No more can I enjoy stories that involve magic that would realistically leave its users at such an advantage that they would have become dominant centuries ago, mated with whoever they wished, and thus created a future (or present) where EVERYONE would be able to use magic. No more can I enjoy stories with simple good and evil characters where the light eventually prevails. So sick am I of reading about the army of the antagonist being orcs or goblins or urgals or gargoyles, something that is obviously made hideous in an attempt to associate ugliness with evil personality. Don't even get me started on the predictable nature of a character based upon their race. I've actually grown to hate it and can't help but associate it with racism and prejudice.

Do I think it's bad for me to feel these feelings? Not at all. GRRM simply gave me a new twist on a genre and I got all the more sucked into it. The fact that books I never read, but previously might have liked, now seem boring and 2-dimensional doesn't bother me in the slightest because even if I'd read them first I would still look back on them with hindsight and pick out all of their flaws. I'm just glad something came along that could get me feeling so passionate about a genre.

My advice to you would be to take a break from fantasy and to try some historical fiction. I recommend reading Bernard Cornwell's books because his stories about English Longbowmen (Azincourt) and the Viking Invasions (Saxon Stories Series) portray warfare much like A Song of Ice and Fire, unlike most fantasy I've read. Like ASOIAF, they are quite educational and you get to read about all the fascinating ways people used to kill each other and read about cultures that are not shallow and inherently good or evil.

 

[The Imp]

My introduction to fantasy was The Hobbit and LOTR. I've recently re-read them, and I still found them to be enjoyable.

I think the two most important things to remember are, The Hobbit was written for children (as The Ace mentioned above). That sort of creates a problem, as it's also thought of as the preface or perhaps prequel to LOTR, so one might think of it as being PART of LOTR, and written for the same audience. If you let go fo the expectation that you're reading adult fare, you'll be better off. The other thing to remember is that the books were written in a very different time. Much of the world WAS segreagted. CLear lines WERE drawn between good and evil, and no explainations were needed as to which was which or why each was as they were, especially in a children's story.

I hope you at leeast start the LOTR. It's not at the level of what GRRM has done, but IMO Gearge owes Tolkien at least a debt of gratitude for paving the way into the world of fantasy. The books are well written, well told, and masterpieces that withstand the test of time.

 

[Eulalia]

Fantasy seems like a large diverse category now.

The Hobbit seems like a fairy tale, like 1001 nights. LOTR has the epic thing going, in a high fantasy style. It is good vs evil and nobody seems to have bodily functions.

GRRM is more fiction than history. He doesn't need to stick to historical sources or outcomes, but he can use it for inspiration, detail and grounding. I like how he takes some of the bizarre, but true, historical episodes, and gives them a work out. He uses just a touch of magic and a threat from the Others. I read a series the other day that got way out of hand by too much magic, so I'm glad he has the brakes on that.

 

[hadd]

My introduction to fantasy was The Hobbit and LOTR. I've recently re-read them, and I still found them to be enjoyable.

I think the two most important things to remember are, The Hobbit was written for children (as The Ace mentioned above). That sort of creates a problem, as it's also thought of as the preface or perhaps prequel to LOTR, so one might think of it as being PART of LOTR, and written for the same audience. If you let go fo the expectation that you're reading adult fare, you'll be better off. The other thing to remember is that the books were written in a very different time. Much of the world WAS segreagted. CLear lines WERE drawn between good and evil, and no explainations were needed as to which was which or why each was as they were, especially in a children's story.

I hope you at leeast start the LOTR. It's not at the level of what GRRM has done, but IMO Gearge owes Tolkien at least a debt of gratitude for paving the way into the world of fantasy. The books are well written, well told, and masterpieces that withstand the test of time.

Imp basically said it. You can't expect ASOIAF and Tolkien's stuff to be on the same level. They both have a completely different style and well personally I never compare books to one another nor authors. There's simply no parameters by which you could define which is BETTER.
In a case like this it all might as well come down to one's taste...

What left me haunting from your post though was the desire of explanations. Does everything have to be explained? I sort of miss the Hemingway'ish style of writing (the iceberg theory - there's like 2/9 on top of the surface and 7/9 below the surface, or well something like that).

Personally I find both ASOIAF and LOTR enjoyable, yet I can't compare them on the same scale or so...

As some people will always say fantasy as a genre itself sucks and is boring, there will be always people disliking whatever book too.
Lost my train of thought here but yea...lol.

 

[Boaz]

YS, I understand your complaints. Yes, Tolkien wrote it more as a children's book, but I think it's supposed to be even more of a fanciful tale from Bilbo's perspective.

What I mean is that Hobbits never did anything adventuresome. Bilbo bucked the system and wrote his account of his adventure. The whole story is his attempt to put a positive spin upon his shameful disregard for Shire social customs.

For instance, Bilbo went out of his way to show that he never wanted an adventure. He did not want to go with the Dwarves. He was suckered into it, but once in... he could not chicken out.

Bilbo goes out of his way to show that he was the clever one in the group. He saved them from the Trolls. He saved them from the Elves. He saved them from Smaug. He saved them from the Lakemen and the Elves.

Yet, Bilbo does confess that Gandalf does not quite believe his story about The Ring. He shows that Thorin was irate at his theft of the Arkenstone. He reveals some of his faults, but always claims it was for the greater good.

Another thing that Tolkien tries to do by having Bilbo tell the tale to other Hobbits is to make it a fanciful tale... almost a fairy tale. For example, Bilbo claimed that the Trolls names were William, Bert, and Tom. Really? Were there names really Bill, Tom and Bert or were they more like Bargok, Gordak, and Dugdug? And did they really speak some debased form of a common language that Bilbo understood or did Bilbo just make up the conversation by observing their quarrel.

Bilbo also observed Stone Giants throwing boulders at the party. Really? Nowhere else in The Lord Of The Rings or The Silmarillion (yes, I know The Sil may not be considered canon) is there a confirmation of giants. I suspect that Bilbo is trying to keep his reader's attention.

Did Bilbo really keep those poor Dwarves in apple barrels for two days? Somehow I suspect that they were let out much sooner than that... and that again Bilbo is trying to embellish the story.

On the surface, The Hobbit appears to be a children's book. I think there are many elements pointing to it's adult underlining. First, Bilbo is a most unlikely hero. Bilbo is fifty years old when the book opens. He's a middle-aged, country gentrified, bachelor. He's not a prince. There is not a prophecy concerning him. (I'd argue the prophecy concerns Frodo and not Bilbo in the slightest... except that Bilbo was the vehicle of the prophecy/Providence/fortune/fate/karma that brought The Ring to Frodo.) Teenage princes wielding magic swords, backed by a prophecy, are much more the norm for fantasy.

Second, The Hobbit's successor, The Lord Of The Rings, and it's predecessor, The Silmarillion, are more adult in nature and scope. It seems to me that The Hobbit was not intended as a stand alone novel. It is part of a much larger story and world. Bilbo's story happens to work well as an introduction to Middle-earth. The story naturally starts with The Ainulindale section of The Silmarillion and naturally concludes with Frodo, not Bilbo.

As for evil and good races... Eomer was in a quandary about what to do with Aragorn when they first met and Aragorn told him something like, "Good and evil are not one thing for men and another thing among elves. Nor have they changed since yesterday." Okay, it's not an exact quote, but it's close. I take Aragorn's meaning to be this, We all know what is right and what is wrong in our hearts. Don't try and over do it.

Murder, rape, wanton brutality, tyranny, coercion, physical enslavement, and torture are all evil. Orcs (sometimes called Goblins), Trolls, Wargs, Spiders, Dragons, and some men from the east were guilty of this repeatedly in the history of Middle-earth. Why? They were coerced, seduced, or tricked into following a succession of Dark Lords who sought complete dominion of Middle-earth. After about seven thousand years of unprovoked attacks, lies, and enslavement at the hands of Orcs, Wargs, and Easterlings at the orders of Morgoth and Sauron, the Elves, Dwarves, and Northmen of Bilbo's time tended to shoot first and ask questions later.

For instance, compare the receptions that the Elves of Rivendell and the Trolls gave the party. Both of them invited the Dwarves for dinner, except the Trolls were going to eat them! Can you define cannibalism as good?

Or how about the receptions that the Goblin King and Beorn gave the party? Beorn at least heard them out and gave them shelter. The Goblin King wanted them dead immediately, if not sooner.

Compare the responses that the Elves and Men to that of the Orcs and Wargs when they found out that Smaug was dead. The Elves and Men wanted to discuss sharing the spoils to benefit everyone, while the Orcs and Wargs just attacked without parley.

Good is giving aid and shelter to travelers and the weak. Evil is kinapping, despoiling, and eating foreigners.

An author, Stan Nicholls, has written fantasy from the Orcs' perspective. I thought the idea was brilliant so I bought his book Orcs. I found it to be the worst written pulp I've picked up in twenty years. Great idea, terrible execution.

But Nicholls idea backs up the new concept of Orcs pushed by Dungeons and Dragons and World of Warcraft. Namely, Orcs are'nt bad, they're just misunderstood. Hmmmm... Well in the mythos of D&D and Warcaft, mayhaps Orcs are innocent of bloodletting, rapine, and wanton savagery against humanity. But in Middle-earth, Orcs and their allies are guilty as charged.

But in the end, I do not believe that Professor Tolkien was advocating that any race or color of our humanity is above the need for nor beyond the reach of redemption. We do good, we all do evil at times. We sin. Orcs may be beyond redemption, but none of us are. Elves may not need redemption, but we do. We need help. I could go into how I see Frodo, Aragorn, and Gandalf as three types of Christ, but I don't want to get further off topic.

I think Tolkien's writings are to fire our imaginations and to call us to go out and adventure... to be heroes in our lives... to be heroes in the lives of our families, our friends, our neighbors, and in the lives of those travelling by.

My last comment is that literature is art. You might like it, you might not. It may fire your imagination, it might not. It might inspire you to action, it might not. If not, keep reading until you find the story that resonates with you.

Edit: I meant to comment about ASOIAF in my post... I forgot.

Martin's epic strives more much more reality than Bilbo's. Bilbo embellishes. Bilbo takes poetic license. Bilbo strives for fancy... a fairy tale images.... romantic motivations. Martin glories in base emotions. Martin does not try and give us fairy tale characters... in fact, he gives us contemporary motives and morals in a semi-medieval setting. Martin is gritty where Bilbo is fanciful.

And I find, in my forties, that I resonate much more with Martin's story. Years ago this was not the case, but it is now.

 

[The Imp]

Boaz, I sit here in awe of the analysis you wrote. It''s wonderful to see you posting again.

 

[J Riff]

Nah, it was OK.

Do Harry Potter now!!!!

 

[Eulalia]

I find as I get older, I still like lots of choices, but agreed I'm drawn to the more modern characters. I can relate to most of GRRM's characters or, I know people a little like them. Maybe not Ramsay, thank goodness.

But HP is fun too, and Rowling's characters are usually on one side or the other with a few exceptions. However, most of the good characters have serious blemishes. They almost have bodily functions. There are comic characters. There is angst. There is even a ghost in the girl's can.

Boaz is right, orcs are evil, and I can't recall any exceptions or good actions on the part of orcs. You are never really wondering (as you might with GRRM) if an orc is suddenly (or slowly)going to have an attack of conscience and do the right thing. There is never any potential for them to change sides. LOTR is more invented mythology. A few characters struggle with the Ring, a corrupting factor, causes us to wonder if the good characters will be turned. Even Frodo. But, one more time with feeling, wow, Tolkien did develop a whole mythology! And even a few languages.

Fairy tales--nothing wrong with that! The Arabian Nights is one of the most iconic tales out there. Characters don't really change.

GRRM has personal details and more realistic portrayals. And part of the intrigue is not knowing how the characters will develop. But if you want to relax with clearcut objectives and a reliable unblemished hero--you are going to be out of luck. As you would be in real life, rather than a mythic life.

 

[Young stormlord]

And thus my job here is done *smug grin*. I've finally got all the answers on age old question: Which writer is better, JRRT or GRRM? A dozen of my friends went with JRRT, and I kept saying that JRRT was a linguist and not really a writer, the guy that started whole fantasy genre going and did a great job of it... but, wasn't really thinking as a writer at all. Go read George to see what a real writer can do.

Now, what might surprise you is this: I've read both Silmarilion and LOTR. They both have their problems, in my opinion. Silmarilion seemed too much like a learning from textbook to me: there's a definition of someone at the start of chapter (or whole book), with dozen of names and explanations to whom that person or what that object is then *BAM!* there's just one of the names mentioned at the begining in the chapter twenty/Forty/ Two hundred pages later. It drove me nuts first time I read it and made me almost give up. Of course, that's explainable, since the book was never finished by JRRT and he tinkered with it 'til the day he died and was actually published from his notes after his death.

LOTR has the similar problems as "The Hobbit". It's nicer, it's more epic, it's more serious and better done. But (thanks to GRRM) I could never get used to the pace of the book. I kept expecting it to go smoothly, without the history of every object and thing explained almost in the middle of the action.
I also kept looking too deep into it, so to say. I kept thinking: What if Orcs weren't so bad? Why does JRRT need beings of pure evil when regular, imperfect humans would do? Of course, GRRM spoiled me there as well.

P.S. Bonus points for me making Boaz do one of his epic posts . I guess we need one of these threads from time to time to liven up discussion.

 

[Dozmonic]

I still don't understand the GRRM fascination, I've not managed to finish one of his books yet. They bore me so senseless it's unreal :-(

 

[The Procrastinator]

YS: All other things aside (children's book etc) its a bit unrealistic to compare ASOIAF with the Hobbit or LOTR just yet. Firstly, ASOIAF is unfinished; the final volumes could make or break it, so its not yet made (or broken). Secondly, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but the enduring popularity of Tolkien's books (both published more than 50 years ago) does indicate quality, whether you can appreciate it personally or not.

Personal taste comes into it of course, as does one's reading expectations and perhaps breadth of other reading. It could be that in this respect GRRM has "spoiled" you - the Hobbit was a disappointing read for you because it did not meet the standards you had come to expect from reading GRRM. Nor should it, it's a kid's book, but you weren't to know that when you started. But even Tolkien's adult-oriented works have a very different feel to ASOIAF. For that matter they have a very different feel to all modern fantasy. They were groundbreaking works at the time, but it was a different time.

Will GRRM come up with a new classic work of fantasy that people will still be reading in 60 years? Hard to say. Taste plays a big part of course and that's a very personal thing. Tolkien's works have stood the test of time not because they have elves in them, but because that deceptively simple approach to writing he employs covers many hidden depths - the echoes of effective myth that tug at ones psyche - densely worked themes that flow like music beneath the text, rising and falling - archetypal characters sitting beside "real people" in a fully imagined "real world". Many people "find something" in LOTR in particular - something that uses fantasy, legend and myth to speak about real things, touching things. Things have resonance - they represent things on an emotional level. They were never meant to be "real" in the sense of modern writing, where the author tries to put you right there. Tolkien is consciously telling a story and harnessing the "power of story". It is like the power of a dream - intensely personal, hard to articulate, difficult to hold, but powerful nonetheless. And like a dream, there is a timeless quality to it.

Is ASOIAF a similarly "groundbreaking work"? I've read it and I like it but I can't really say - not enough of a fan to reread it enough perhaps! It's certainly good. Once again, not for everyone, but that doesn't mean its not good. It remains to be seen if it has the qualities that will make it timeless. At this point I'm a little sceptical of that. Maybe too much soap opera, too much deliberate manipulation of the reader's emotions. Those kind of things don't always stand up to well to twenty years of re-reads. The ultimate test will come when GRRM finally pulls all the strands together and brings resolution. That is going to be interesting.

PS Heh, I've tried but I can't let it pass. Sorry, but its your comment about Tolkien being a linguist but not really a writer. Not true I'm afraid (google his bio, see what kinds of work he did), and rather amusing considering the success and widespread appeal of even the Hobbit (originally published in the 1930's). How many writers would kill to have the impact of this "non-real writer"?

 

[Pyan]

My attachment to JRRT is very strong and personal, and I find it extremely difficult to respond to criticisms of his work, mainly because I get really, really annoyed with people that haven't the sense to realise just how good he is. (By no means take that as a personal insult, Young Stormlord - it applies to just about everyone from Peter Jackson down to my sister...)

The Procrastinator has said most of what I think - can I just add that what I want from Fantasy is just that, fantasy - not really what GRRM has done so well, a re-telling of the Middle Ages with a few bolted-on fantasy elements. Kudos to the bloke - he's really cornered the market in gritty, bloody, no-character-is-safe-from-being-killed-off drama, but I'm afraid I prefer a story where there's a chance that my identified hero will live to the end of the chapter, let alone the end of the book.

I might get ADwD, (if I'm spared - life expectancy in the UK is 79.9 years, and it may be published by 2034) but by then, I dare say I'll have re-read LotR several times, and still found joy of reading it. Meanwhile, my only-once-read GRRM books sit on the shelf...

 

[J Riff]

It was written, or conceived in the thirties. Without a full understanding of that era...
Parts of it are hard to read, part of it's charm. Try other 'fantasy' from the era, there's tons of it. The pulps were full of horrific expositions, JRT stood out nicely at the time.
None of this denigrates GRRM, who is absolutely terrific and probably a nice guy to boot. )

 

[Perpetual Man]

I'd just like to add something a little oddity I found with The Silmarillion, which I read years ago, and found it hard going, almost to the point of giving up. But I didn't, but to say I enjoyed it would have been a lie.

I was talking with another Tolkien reader a few months later and happened to mention how hard it had been and she told me that it worked better read aloud, and lent me a CD (or more likely a cassette tape) of Tolkien himself reading the Tale of Beren and Luthien.

It absolutely blew me away, I could hardly believe it was something I had read myself. Since then I've 'read' Unfinished Tales and a lot of the other published stuff - but read it to myself out loud, and I've loved it...

Go figure, eh?

 

[Young stormlord]

PS Heh, I've tried but I can't let it pass. Sorry, but its your comment about Tolkien being a linguist but not really a writer. Not true I'm afraid (google his bio, see what kinds of work he did), and rather amusing considering the success and widespread appeal of even the Hobbit (originally published in the 1930's). How many writers would kill to have the impact of this "non-real writer"?

It's the hooks like that one that make threads live through the fire of boredom . Involving people on personal level, remember?

Actually, I agree with all those things you all mentioned and wrote intensively about. See last paragraph of my original post.
As I said before, the problem is in me. I've read Pterry and GRRM before Tolkien, so my expectations were a lot different. After reading (and enjoying) complete inversion of every trope (Discworld) mentioned and played straight in the book (LOTR), original work does not hold as much magic as it could/should have. When you see one master of words play with the tropes another word master made famous... before seeing the works of that other, famous master... Let's just say it doesn't work too well and end it there, okay?

ETA: Something I forgot to put in my original "about The Hobbit" post... Singing parts. Good god, singing parts! I've felt as if dwarves share one Hive Mind and elves share another. Mind that makes them sing in unison songs invented on the spot. Mind that does not sleep. If you are elf or a dwarf, no matter what you do at the moment, no matter if you are shoeing a horse or reading a book, if you hear one of your people sing you'll immediately know the song and have no choice but to join in. And your people would be considered "Merry people, spending their time in song."

Mind you, I do realise we can put it all to Bilbo's "artistic licence" as Boaz had so eloquently put it, but damn... It was really putting me off during the course of the book.

 

[Pyan]

I was talking with another Tolkien reader a few months later and happened to mention how hard it had been and she told me that it worked better read aloud, and lent me a CD (or more likely a cassette tape) of Tolkien himself reading the Tale of Beren and Luthien.

This might be it, Perp, but it's Christopher Tolkien reading, not JRRT himself.

Audio Editions of Tolkien

I haven't got that one, but I do have this:

J.R.R. Tolkien: An Audio Portrait. 2001

which has various interviews with the man himself, and an extract from the 1981 BBC LotR, starring such luminaries as Ian Holm, Michael Hordern, John Le Mesurier and Bill Nighy.

 

[j d worthington]

I think that does have a fair amount to do with it, myself. Most modern readers forget how much writing, throughout history, has been tied to oral speech, and literary writing to rhetoric. The best writers have been those who had that in mind, and carefully chose their words and modulated the rhythm of their writing to enhance certain impressions, moods, and the like. Tolkien was intensely aware of this, as can be seen from both a reading of the fiction itself and from his essays. As a result, I'd say his writing is richer, more complex, nuanced, and frankly profounder than that of Martin (or the vast majority of modern writers, for the matter of that).

Most modern writers (and this is especially true of Martin, who has worked in the medium in various capacities) are more influenced by the visual media, especially film and television, than the written medium, particularly the literary tradition. Where they have been most influenced by writing, the strongest influence (though not the only one) is in the popular literature, from the pulps on. While these certainly have their undeniable strengths, they seldom stand comparison with a seasoned experience of literature as a whole. They almost inevitably come out feeling flat and tame in comparison to what great literature has to offer. These are often very good spinners of yarns, but their appeal is often more immedate, rather than deliberate, deep, or lasting -- more particularly, as noted, the more one reads of literature in the wider sense.

Tolkien certainly has his flaws (I tend to see at least some grounds for some of the complaints leveled against him by Moorcock and Mieville, for instance), but I still would have to take the stand that he is much the better writer overall when compared to Martin. What Martin offers is more to the contemporary taste, but I have serious doubts that this is, in itself, a long-term recommendation. Not to knock Martin; as I say, he is a fine teller of tales, and certainly has a strong dramatic sense. But his strengths (as well as that of a fair number of other current writers in this or other genres) are not, I think, destined to give him nearly as strong a place in posterity as Tolkien is, by this point, almost assured of holding -- and that last is not because of his codification (not originating) of many of the common tropes of the fantasy genre.

 

[Perpetual Man]

Your probably right Pyan, it's such a long time ago that my memory hurts just thinking about it. It seems to make sense that it wouldn't have been Tolkien senior doing the reading from The Silmarillion. I had some of him reading bits from The Hobbit and LOTR, but I've no idea where the cassettes are now...