Of LotR, Game of Thrones and recent 'criticisms' of Tolkien

[Frelga]

While that certainly is true, that doesn't mitigate the fact that Martin doesn't seem to demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of Tolkien. All you have to do is compare his comments to those of some other so-called fantasy writers, such as Ursula Le Guin (who has made some of the most perceptive comments about Tolkien that I have seen from anyone), Neil Gaiman, or Sir Terry Pratchett.

Le Guin is a very perceptive writer.

And back in 1985, Pratchett said of LOTR "That damn book was a halfbrick in the path of the bicycle of my life."

Actually a very spirited article here, titled Why Gandalf Never Married, and addresses something that bugged my raised on Slavic tales self since I was let loose on shelves on English-language fantasy. But that's for another thread.

[Alatar]

Yeah, cause we're all so smart and everyone who disagrees with us is so dumb. Let's all pat ourselves on the back and ignore them shall we?

[Passdagas the Brown]

I don't think anyone implied that, Al, though I may be wrong. The main point is that many critics clearly, based on their own words, seem to have either not read the Tolkien books they criticize, or not gotten very deep into their subtext. I say most critics, not all. There have been a few very thoughtful critiques which I respect, even if I disagree.

I don't put GRRM in the category of thoughtless critics, though. He has engaged with Tolkien's material in a respectful way, and has admitted to being deeply influenced by him.

In the end, Tolkien doesn't talk about Aragorn's tax policy not because his stories aren't nuanced, but because they are very different types of stories than GRRM's (and nuanced in different ways).

GoT is perhaps more nuanced in terms of the standards of modern characterization, while LOTR is more nuanced in terms of language, myth, timeless themes and the full exploration of the intersection of archetypal and modern characters and modes. The latter is far more valuable, IMO, but I can understand why some people prefer the former...

[yovargas]

In the end, Tolkien doesn't talk about Aragorn's tax policy not because his stories aren't nuanced, but because they are very different types of stories than GRRM's (and nuanced in different ways).

Which is pretty much what I took GRRM's statement to say, that Tolkien didn't write that kind of story. I didn't see a value judgment, merely an observation how he differs from JRRT.

[anthriel]

In the end, Tolkien doesn't talk about Aragorn's tax policy not because his stories aren't nuanced, but because they are very different types of stories than GRRM's (and nuanced in different ways).

Which is pretty much what I took GRRM's statement to say, that Tolkien didn't write that kind of story. I didn't see a value judgment, merely an observation how he differs from JRRT.

Very much agree, here. I almost can pick up on a bit of defensiveness in GRRM's comments; I would tend to think he has been compared to Tolkien more than once and found to be less... holy. Spiritual. Deep. I dunno, good.

So his response is, well, yeah, but I am more true to how people REALLY act and feel. That's my angle. I do that sort of thing better than JRRT did.

Different strokes.

[Primula Baggins]

Yes, different strokes. Different genres, really, even though they both fit under the umbrella of "fantasy"—much as Dune, A Wrinkle in Time, The Word for World Is Forest, the Hitchhiker books, and the Dorsai books all fit under the umbrella of science fiction. There are a lot of valid criticisms that can be made about Dune, but that it should be more like the Hitchhiker books isn't one of them.

[Smaug's voice]

For the most part, 'tis right.
But then GRRM starts to say that his portrayal of death and tragedy is more resonating, has more impact than the one written by Tolkien.
(reference to Gandalf's death)
That is where his comparison did turn into proclaiming himself better.

[yovargas]

That is true but at the same time, if he's saying Gandalf coming back lessened the emotional impact of his death for him, well, that's a pretty understandable perspective.

[Smaug's voice]

That is perfectly fine opinion to hold.
But he follows the comment, saying something similar to "my characters' death OTOH have more impact. Even when they come back from the dead they are not the same as before".
Which appears like he is suggesting that he is superior to Tolkien in writing about death and the return from there.

[anthriel]

I think he thinks he DID write about death and returning from there better than JRRT did. But I still think it is within the framework of "this is how I'm a different writer".




Look, when I wrote my piddly little articles for magazines here and there, I very much was set aback when the very passages I thought were resonant were the ones the editors wanted to re-write. I DID think my writing was better than theirs, and I'm sure there would be many who rolled their eyes saying that editors have tons of experience and tons of expertise and tons of respect from the writing world and who-do-you-think-you-are, you upstart, to disagree with their choices?

And yet... I did. I absolutely did. I felt that the way I wrote those passages was BETTER, more true, more right, and I still feel that way. I wrote them the way they should be written. Changing them changed everything about what I was trying to convey, and I don't care who would have written it differently. *I* wrote it, and that's what I thought was right.

Am I superior to those editors? Categorically no. Am I right about the utter rightness of what *I* wrote, how it reflects what I meant when I wrote it, how deeply and fervently their words are NOT right? To me? The upstart piddly magazine article writer with no cred whatsoever?

Heck yeah.

So there you go. Disagreement about style is not necessarily a judgment about "superiority". But it can seem a bit more passionate than it would need to be.

[axordil]

Here's the ugly truth: writers of fiction are manic-depressive egomaniacs who fluctuate between moments of sublime overconfidence, edging into narcissism, and periods of bleak despair about their own ability, the life they've led, and the pointlessness of human existence.

Or is it just me?

Anyway, while I like LOTR better than anything GRRM has done, I do sympathize with his position. LOTR remains the 800-pound troll in the topiary when it comes to high fantasy: you can emulate it or you can react against it, but you can't ignore it. I've tried writing medieval-ly fantasy and discovered I can't do it, not without somehow undermining it--but that doesn't affect my enjoyment of LOTR.

[WampusCat]

Thanks, SV and PtB.

Anthy, I'm afraid I must insist that editors are always right. Always.

And Prim, I can't stop thinking now about a Hitchhiker's makeover of Dune. Perhaps one could add "Don't Panic" to the Litany of Fear.

Back on topic, though, I suspect GRRM did and does appreciate Tolkien's work for what it is and deliberately set out to do something different. That's to be expected, both because of the difficulty of emulating JRRT (as Ax pointed out) and because he wanted to make his own mark on the genre.

There's a place for brutal fantasy. I don't consider it more realistic just because it depicts more violence and sex, though. There is, I think, just as much violence and sex going on in Middle-earth. Much of the violence is shown, but much more stays in the background. Sex stays behind closed doors. And that's ok with me. The characters also, no doubt, relieved themselves regularly. But the story is perfectly fine without describing it.

I'm no prude. I like Game of Thrones. I read some books that would make my son blush. But LOTR is what it is, and that's everything I could wish it to be.

[Alatar]

Well said Kitty.

[yovargas]

Kinda what grated on me about the response here, and Al too I'd bet, is the same old discussion we've had before where some super-fans seem to hold LOTR as above criticism. That thing where any criticism is met with stuff like "oh, obviously they just don't understand Tolkien" or "that's such a superficial perspective" or whatever. It should be possible for someone to say "I don't think this aspect of the books works well" without being met with responses that amount to "you're just too stupid to get it".

[Alatar]

What yov said.

[Passdagas the Brown]

yov,

I think people are just talking past each other here. The kind of reactions you describe are usually in response to expressions of Tolkien criticism which people feel are indeed superficial, condescending, or both. As I have said, I have read Tolkien criticism for a long time, and have found a few critics to be very compelling and thoughtful. I respect their opinions. But a lot of Tolkien criticism is penned by people who clearly have not read his works (or have only skimmed them), are deliberately sneering, condescending and mean-spirited towards "high fantasy," which they deem to be a low form of story-telling, or who dismiss anything that doesn't fit the standard model of the modern or post-modern novel.

Frankly, I'm puzzled by why people are annoyed by this. Critics criticize. And they are therefore fair game for criticism themselves!

All many of us want is for Tolkien to be taken seriously enough for critics to actually dig into what Tolkien achieved as a writer, what he was trying to achieve, and what the story really means. It's the dismissive tone that we take objection to. The sense that Tolkien is not worth criticizing at more than a superficial level. After all, trash doesn't deserve more than a cursory glance. Let's just call it boy's own good and evil balderdash and be done with it.

[yovargas]

Frankly, I'm puzzled by why people are annoyed by this. Critics criticize. And they are therefore fair game for criticism themselves!

Of course. But IMO, the criticism of those criticisms in this thread have leaned towards the superficial, condescending, or both.

[Passdagas the Brown]

How else should superficial and/or condescending criticism be treated?

Though I disagree that GRRM is assessing Tolkien superficially (I believe he understands Tolkien quite well, based on previous statements and his ability to turn Tolkien upside-down with GoT) I don't believe that superficial critiques of Tolkien, especially if they are offered condescendingly, merit a lot of attention.

[Frelga]

And the criticism of the criticism of the criticism wasn't that much better. IMO. Worse, actually, because it was directed at people who actively post here rather than at someone who will never know what any of us said.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Frelga,

Your criticism of the criticism of the criticism of the criticism is spot on.

-PtB