At the end of the day, will you admit that he managed to improve

GoT only good to people who never read a fantasy novel in their life. GoT is a generic cliche piles of shit.

>>87496551
Real answer: I don't think they're comparable. I also don't really know what you mean by Tolkien's "formula".

File: grrm.jpg (5KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 275x183px

"Ah, ha ha, *munch, munch* ol' J.R.R., didn't, ah, see you come in! -burp- No please, please, [smack] sit down, sit down, there' something we, (pant) need to talk about. *farts* Heavens excuse me, oh ho! Well getting down to 'brass tacks' - or brass tax, I might say SNORT! - yes, well I was sitting, counting the money coming in from, slurp, my show - terribly taxing ah yes? - when the thought occurred me, watching that money from my award-winning show... [belch] from my, (siiippp) award, award, awar... sorry, I lost my breath, award-winning books, that I [chews] that I can't seem to recall you mentioning [more chewing] anything about Gondor's *blows nose* taxation policy. Surely I must have -releases one long wet smelly fart - missed it while glancing through the pages (cough). You did [scratches ballsack] say something about it, right? Sales tax? (sweats) Value-added tax? *licks lips* Don't just sta - oh my my heart - stand there my man, out with it! Surely the, the thought has crossed your mind?! -chuckles until accidental urination-"

Tolkien is to creative literary genius what Martin is to hack pulp idiocy. They both so far surpass anyone else in their field that they will be remembered 1,000 years from now as a kind of yin and yang of fantasy, a Manichean duality of speculative letters. For every sublime, luminous beauty that Tolkien has gifted the world, Martin has cursed us with a tedious, banal ugliness. It is unfair to compare the two directly on any one point, because Martin is in every way the anti-Tolkien, patently sterile, craven, parasitical, and inferior, but so much so that he becomes a monument in his own right, and counterbalances Tolkien. Could one exist without the other? Tolkien obviously could. But it is only by the contrast that Martin offers that we can truly appreciate the full depths and heights of Tolkien. Our understanding of Tolkien would be incomplete if Martin had never set pen to page. It is through only the abject failure and futility of Martin that we can approach an apprehension of the true scope and scale of Tolkien's hitherto inconceivable greatness. Perhaps this is what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote about the Music of the Ainur. If Tolkien is a subcreator in the image of Eru, truly Martin is like unto Melkor. It is only reflected in the awfulness of the one that we can fully see the goodness of the other.

>>87496551
>Tolkien's formula
Wait what? The fuck is this now?

>>87496731
Don't bother. This is one of those bait threads where the OP will never respond.

>>87496608
>Muh deep fantasy
You're a pleb, no matter how you spin it.

>>87496809
> deep fantasy
Yeah because that is what I said you dumb cunt.

>>87496731
Did you read the books? His books are the template for any fantasy adventure.

>>87496888
OP should have worded his post better. That's not the same thing as a formula.

File: concerned pepe.png (198KB, 550x535px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 550x535px

>>87496932
>template and formula aren't the same thing

The second dumbest post I've seen on /tv/ today

>>87496968
No they aren't at all. Tell me what you think Tolkien's supposed formula is.

ASoIaF manages to be even more generic than LotR despite the latter creating the entire genre and copied endlessly. It's literally just a medieval world with a few common fantasy tropes like dragons and undead thrown in. There is even a 'chosen one' subplot which is the worst fantasy cliche of all.

>>87496888
yeah i've read the books. All of them several times over. And?

I think you don't understand the meaning of the words you're using. You're talking about archetypes. There is no Tolkien
formula nor template. I mean like what is the template of the Silmarillion? the old testament? that's the depth of your analysis mmm?

>>87497008
Tolkien's formula is a vaguely medieval world populated by dwarfs, elves, trolls; an evil lord out to enslave the good creatures; and, almost always, and magical object that will let him do it, if the hero doesn’t find or control it first

>>87496551
What's it like being so fat and rich?

>>87497146
If anything, GRRM went completely against this "formula", at least in early books. Also literally no one has topped Tolkien in terms of depth, detail and originality when it comes to the genre of fantasy.

>>87497146
I don't know if I'd count that as a formula since it's just the basic plot of LotR. Since Tolkien only truly completed two stories, it's hard to describe his writing as formulaic. That's why I think there's a distinction between formula and creating a template.

>She was sopping wet when he entered her. “Damn you,” she said. “Damn you damn you damn you.” He sucked her nipples till she cried out half in pain and half in pleasure. Her cunt became the world.
>"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."
>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.
>Ten thousand of your children perished in my palm, Your Grace. Whilst you slept, I would lick your sons off my face and fingers one by one, all pale sticky princes.
>The three men were erect. The sight of their arousal was arousing, though Daenerys Targaryen found it amusing as well.

>>87497305
The fact that GoT loosely follows this formula (no need for quotes you faggot) is the whole point of my original post. That he improved upon it. Doesn't it pay to read?

To your actual point: no one topped Tolkien in originality because he invented everything for fantasy. That's what I stated, he derived the template for fantasy.

>>87497315
Tolkien is an over worded, over complicated bore with plenty of filler padding it out. It's drastically overrated.

>>87497408
>That he improved upon it
In what way? I can't think of any fantasy/setting/world-building element that GRRM did better than Tolkien. Literally the only thing he might have a leg up on Tolkien with is character depth, but that's because he and Tolkien have to vastly different approaches to writing. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

>>87497458
>over worded
Explain
>over complicated
Are you literally retarded?

I honestly have no fucking clue why people keep comparing tolkien and martin, other than the fact that both works are technically fantasy they have fuck all in common. you might as well compare the prince of nothing and the malazan book of the fallen, there's no connection there whatsoever

>>87496551
>he managed to improve on Tolkien
lmao his writing style is absolutely pathetic compared to Tolkien's prose. Seriously his shit is absolutely horrendous to read. Tolkien's writing flows like and endless stream of poetic and divine nectar (emphasis on endless), GRRM flows like an obese paraplegic piss stream chocking on kidney stones (emphasis on piss).

To compare the two is one thing, but to put them on equal ground is absolutely heretical and wrong.

>GoT was a more easily adaptable series than LotR ever was
How does that make it better?

>>87496551
They're not comparable.
Tolkien wanted to create a legendarium, Martin just wanted to create a fantasy saga.
That for the quality of their works, which once again, are not really comparable (you could compare the LotR saga to ASOIAF, something I don't want to do because I think LotR is terribly written and people will probably think i'm baiting)
However, when it comes to their work as literary fiction, Tolkien was far more original, and in the future I'd say he'll continue to be far more influential.
GRRM work can only be considered "original" in the context of a genre dominated by Tolkien wannabes.

>>87497630
GoT season one (the most faithful to the ASOIAF books) is a better TV show than Twin Towers (the most faithful to the books) is a movie.

>>87497707
Again, how does that make GRRMs work an improvement on Tolkien's? If we're talking about the books here, adaptability to another medium if probably the very last thing you should be considering. That's a terrible way to critique something.

>>87497707
Right, and Michael Bay is a better film maker than Tarkovsky because I could more accurately adapt The Rock to a novel than Zerkalo.

>>87497707
Two Towers and it was the movie that was least faithful to the books.

>>87497530
I'd rather read a Magic The Gathering book to be honest.

>>87497788
I never said that the GoT books being more adaptable made them better than LotR. And I'm not sure how that thought even crossed your mind. The GoT books are better for the reason I actually stated,

>>87497824
I never said shit about GoT being more accurately adaptable than LotR. Please read carefully.

>>87497852
We read different books, or watched different movies.

>>87497617
Yeah sure. What's with this propensity in literature to always venerate the shit that's old? If you had a novel about anything published in 1930 and a novel with similar themes published in 2003, jackoffs would always call the older shit better. Half the fucking "classics" I've read have been absolute dogshit but hey, the people who wrote them are dead now so that makes them good

>>87497934
>The GoT books are better for the reason I actually stated
Which is?

>>87497973
>people are just pretending it's good
L M A O

>>87497707
>Twin Towers (the most faithful to the books)
I can not take you seriously sorry.
Fellowship is the most faithful despite Bombadil's absence and the wheathertop changes. It's obvious to anyone who appreciates Tolkien. Two Towers takes several more significant liberties with Saruman in particular, and let's keep ROTK's out of this discussion for now because that one is quite a mess in that regard.

>>87498020
>doesn't read the OP
>asks a question that he'd know the answer to if he read the OP

I see you come from the /v/ school of posting

>>87497852
he was making a 9/11 joke dude

>>87498058
Not exactly. More like people are elevating something that's good, or was good at the time, into greatness because it's old. Maybe at the time it came out it blew everyone's minds, but it aged badly, and now because at the time everyone called it great everyone today is afraid to say "hey, this is just not that impressive"

>>87497934
Most notably there's the changes made to the whole Faramir/Ithilien segment. Elves did not come to Helm's Deep in the book and Aragorn didn't get dragged off a cliff by a warg. I genuinely can't understand how you think The Two Towers was the most faithful movie. I'd say it was Fellowship.

>>87498106
You've stated literally no reasoning in the OP as to how GRRM improved on Tolkien other than "GoT was a more easily adaptable series than LotR ever was", so please explain and clarify yourself.

>>87498174
Oh and the movie completely skipped over the Entmoot which was lame.

>>87498147
LotR is still incredibly impressive. The depth of and breadth of Tolkien's work has yet to be surpassed in the genre.

Why does he trigger neckbeards & nerds so badly? Does simplistic storytelling appeal to low IQs or something?

File: 1504822496863.png (263KB, 295x408px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 295x408px

>>87497707
>GoT season one (the most faithful to the ASOIAF books) is a better TV show than Twin Towers (the most faithful to the books) is a movie.

>>87497973
who said anything about old vs new but you?
I said Tolkien's writing is better, his prose is better, his style is better. Go ahead and explain to us how GRRM writes better literature in your opinion than Tolkien. I'm not asking to taunt, I'm dead serious I want to know your opinion on why GRRM is a better writer. What is it that he does that Tolkien doesn't do better?

>>87498235
I firmly disagree.

World-Building:Malazan books have a much greater and deeper scope in a larger and more intricate world

Story: Pretty simplic, and there's nothing wrong with that, but there have been lots of better and more sophisticated stories in fantasy since

Characters: Archetypes, and again, that's fine, but hardly anything revolutionary

His writing style is good, but LOTR shows its age

>>87497973
Which "classics" did you read and why didn't you like them, anon?

GoT is easily adaptable 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 agreed to D&D 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 /lit/. They wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading GRRM at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go and post on /tv/." And they were quite right. They were not being ironic. When you read "GoT" you are, in fact, trained to be a /tv/ poster.

>>87498383
fucking kek

>>87498344
>Characters: Archetypes
They're archetypes because Tolkien literally invented modern fantasy as a genre.
>LOTR shows its age
What does this even mean? "It seems old" is not a valid critique of writing

Tolkien has better world building but his prose is ass. GRRM has better characters, but his plot and world building pale compared to Tolkien. Overall LoTR is still much more impressive. GRRM could have done better if he didn't follow the cliche Aragorn hero trophe, which has already been done by y'know fucking Aragorn.

>>87498472
>his prose is ass
This has to be bait. Especially if you're comparing him to fucking GRRM

>>87498470
And we've evolved from those prototypes since then into more complex characterization

>>87498361
Wuthering Heights, Pride and Prejudice, War and Peace, Anna Karenina, are just a few off the top of my head that are shit. In fact the only great classics I can think of are anything by James Joyce and Moby Dick. The others are middle of the road stuff I forgot as soon as I read it. Like Dickens, what's the deal with fucking Dickens, fuck that guy.

OP here. The clear point in the OP is that the GoT books have a setting and cast of characters that makes it much more engrossing than that of the LotR books. A lot of LotR's characters are 1D. There are only a handful of GoT characters who are 1D (Ned, Arya, Tyrion).

>>87497376
>Ten thousand of your children perished in my palm, Your Grace. Whilst you slept, I would lick your sons off my face and fingers one by one, all pale sticky princes
How would they know what sperm is

>>87498584
What makes you think they're shit?
All the classics are considered so for a bunch of reasons, you just have to read the Wikipedia page of their books to find them.
Just because you don't like them doesn't meant they're shit. I couldn't even finish Ulysses, I was bored to death, but I still wouldn't say it was shit.

>>87498584
so basically your frame of literature references is hyper narrow. Now we know why you're into GRRM.
Next step for you? J.K Rowling? Stephen King? Kevin J. Anderson?

>>87498677
That point wasn't made clear at all, and I have to disagree. As a setting, Middle Earth is far more interesting than Westeros.

>>87498472
>but his prose is ass
People who repeat this tired old meme have never actually read Tolkien. His prose is brilliant, he just gets way too bogged down in irrelevant details.

my mom bought me all of the hobbit books. there are a lot of chapters where it's clear he didn't give a shit about what he was writing

File: Hell+i+dont+even+remember+the+names+of+his+characters+_af189b0dc8d35dcab8ff77266c1a39fa.jpg (9KB, 379x374px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 379x374px

>>87498776
>all of the hobbit books

>>87498761
His prose is fucking garbage mate.
Don't even try that "he wanted it to read like a classic epic like the Iliad or the Bible" bullshit because if no one writes like that anymore is for a reason.

>>87498776
Jesus fucking Christ lol.

>>87498806
>His prose is fucking garbage mate.
Why?

>>87496551
Took this guy 6 years to write a novel where nothing happens except Tyrion bitching about his wife.

File: 1504887712166.jpg (198KB, 725x640px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 725x640px

>>87498806
>His prose is fucking garbage mate.

I like this thread.

>>87498710
Oh sorry, I didn't know I was supposed to fill ten posts name dropping famous authors, how about you be fucking specific about who you want to talk about
>>87498707
>but I still wouldn't say it was shit.

No, you wouldn't. But you thought so. And that's the fucking problem in a nutshell. Maybe if you would and people discussed it, it would be more productive than just licking the balls of every old book in existence

>>87498806
>Don't even try that "he wanted it to read like a classic epic like the Iliad or the Bible"
Have you read a single page of either of those things? Tolkien's prose is nothing like the Illiad, you fucking dunce.

>>87496551
>improve on Tolkien's formula?

That's like claiming Tarantino is a reformulation of DW Griffith. Its absurd and retarded. There are decades and generations of evolution, directly indirectly, tertiary and otherwise that have influenced and changed what a writer might write,and how it would be perceived.

GRRM didn't reformulate JRRT. He stands downstream in a river a thousand miles long in ankle deep water and watches as it passes to the sea. He didn't create the mountain or the snow that melted long ago and far way a countless many times for eons. Neither does he contemplate the unfathomably deep ocean sending the water back to the top of the frozen mountain. He doesn't reformulate anything. He stands looking at his reflection in waters created by greater men and gods in processes he doesn't understand.

Reformulate indeed. He barely pisses in the pot and gives it a stir.

>GRRM is a hack!
>show turns to garbage immediately after they run out of GRRM material
umm....

>>87498870
>No, you wouldn't. But you thought so.
We have a genuine retard in our midst. If you can't make a basic distinction between personal taste and artistic merit then you're absolutely hopeless.
>>87498936
Well said

>>87498344
Tolkien's world building is not praised by its size or complexity, but by how he weaves it within his works.

His universe is not filled with original ideas, it's not huge and full of political intrigue. That was never his strength.

>>87498843
His prose is purple, even by the standards of the 20th century, but most of the times it was for the sake of it, to give a feeling of an epic saga, with nothing interesting to talk about.
To him, the setting of the ME was as important and the plot, and as cool as that might seem if you find the setting fascinating, from the point of view of the narrative that is atrocious.
What this means is that every few pages you have him going on a tangent explaining a tidbit of the world that is irrelevant to the overall narrative of LotR. This is cool if you're interested in worldbuilding, but it's an absolute faux pass when it comes to the quality of the books themselves.

>Have you read a single page of either of those things? Tolkien's prose is nothing like the Illiad, you fucking dunce.
I've read the Iliad, and I definitely see some of those endless monologue-like conversations in Tolkien, it was one of the traits that established the relationship between epic stories and that kind of prose.

>>87498936
lol shut up you goofy dink

>>87496551
GoT is fucking cancer. Don't compare that retard to Tolkien

>>87498982
If anything he weaves it badly, since the progression of the story is constantly stopping so that the world building can be inserted in
>>87498963
Oh god you're one of those.

>I hate this book, but yes, it's brilliant because a Wikipedia page wanks off to it's "themes", no matter how badly they're implemented

>>87498982
>They heard of the Great Barrows, and the green mounds, and the stone-rings upon the hills and in the hollows among the hills. Sheep were bleating in flocks. Green walls and white walls rose. There were fortresses on the heights. Kings of little kingdoms fought together, and the young Sun shone like fire on the red metal of their new and greedy swords. There was victory and defeat; and towers fell, fortresses were burned, and flames went up into the sky. Gold was piled on the biers of dead kings and queens; and mounds covered them, and the stone doors were shut; and the grass grew over all. Sheep walked for a while biting the grass, but soon the hills were empty again. A shadow came out of dark places far away, and the bones were stirred in the mounds. Barrow-wights walked in the hollow places with a clink of rings on cold fingers, and gold chains in the wind. Stone rings grinned out of the ground like broken teeth in the moonlight.

One of the things I absolutely love about LotR is the sense of ancient history going on in the background. It's fantastic and makes you want to know more.

>>87499012
>from the point of view of the narrative that is atrocious
No, it's what makes the books so good. Also, you don't know what prose is.

>>87499045
>I hate this book, but yes, it's brilliant because a Wikipedia page wanks off to it's "themes", no matter how badly they're implemented
Yeah, you're retarded. Case closed

>>87499045
>since the progression of the story is constantly stopping so that the world building can be inserted in

Never had any issues of the sort, but it seems to be a problem for you. Any examples of it?

>>87498870
Man, you sound like a kid who saw the last transformer movie and truly believes it's the best sci fi movie ever made by mankind. It's not about dropping names, but if you are starting a thread about literature I mean you better know a bit more about it than moby dick and war and peace if you want to be taken seriously don't you think?

Would you have a serious sci fi movie discussion with that transformer kid? I wouldn't. he's just a kid who doesn't know any better because he lacks the culture. He's not a bad kid. He's just young and uninformed. And you appear to me a bit like that. Strong opinions but nothing much to back it up or to dig any deeper.

It's ok if you prefer GRRM. Honestly I don't mind. Each one his own. But when you start comparing him to someone like Tolkien who achieved so much more than GRRM ever will, I have to tell you you are walking a very very thin line and of course chances are you'll fall. And landing usually hurts.

>>87499169
You're absolutely retarded. You asked me what classics I didn't like, I gave you a few examples of classics I didn't like, did you want me to seriously write 50,000 words on every single book I've read?

Are you fucking serious?

>>87499075
>No, it's what makes the books so good.
It's what makes the book objectively terrible.
>Also, you don't know what prose is.
I mentioned the prose in my first sentence, the rest of the rant was about the narrative because that's the other major flaw.
He forces himself to write in an epic style and that ends up being detrimental because he's just uncapable of, and that also is at odds with his narrative, because how can he convey the feeling of an epic journey to save the Earth when at the same time he introduces a character like Tom Bombadil? A character that is seemingly all-powerful, but that doesn't want to do nothing for whatever reason, and to understand what's the point of him (he has no point inside the plot of LotR) you have to read supplementary material, it brings down all his poor attempts to write a journey to save the world.

GRMM is for dumb people who think they're smart

Tolkien is for smart people who think they're dumb

>>87498870
>No, you wouldn't. But you thought so.
I thought I didn't like it, nothing more, nothing less.
Are you so fucking stupid you can't separate between your personal opinion and the objective quality of a work?

>>87499251
so far it's opinions you spit here, not comparative analysis, not reasoning, not demonstrations, nothing but opinions.
Have your opinions then. But don't be surprised if people disagree.

>>87496551
Why do these threads get a pass but you can't make a Harry Potter thread without copypasta about how bad it is?

>>87499408
See >>87498383

>>87499335
And every single reply to me from you has been not even your opinions, but ad hominems.
Here
>>87498344

If you want to call LOTR the greatest fantasy work of all time, then proceed to dispute any of my claims here

>>87499259
It's amazing how most criticism of lotr consists of Bombadil in a way. If you want to know why he didn't bother with the ring, it's simple: it's none of his business. And there is no need to read any extra material for that, because Bombadil himself implies so.

I wonder is this is the effect of modern fantasy, questioning why gods and immortal beings don't behave the way humans would.

>>87496551

>being an adaptable book as TV series means it's good literature

really takes my noggin for a jog

>>87499259
>He forces to write in an epic style and that ends up being detrimental because he's just incapable of
How so? His writing is excellent and portrays the sense of grandeur and scale perfectly. His intent was to write an epic, after all. There are also plenty of quiet moments in the book that you seem to be forgetting about. Everything in the Shire is fairly reserved in terms of prose and grandeur. The writing appropriately becomes more sweeping and bombastic as our characters venture further and the narrative slowing swings from "Hobbit on an adventure" to "quest to save the world".
>and that is at odds with his narrative
It isn't. Not even remotely. Tolkien set out to write an epic and that's exactly what he did.
>because how can he convey the feeling of an epic journey to save the Earth when at the same time he introduces a character like Tom Bombadil?
Tom Bombadil is an oddity that the Hobbits encounter on their journey. Nothing more. Nowhere in the book does it suggest overtly that he's all-powerful or omnipotent. Merely impervious to the ring. He's emblematic of a world far older and bigger than anything our characters know. This is exactly in line with the narrative.

>>87496551

"easily adaptable" isnt a good thing though, usually it just means "straight forward"

>>87499533
Those are mostly just memesters.

>>87498344
You're making statements here with absolutely no reasoning to justify them.

>>87499533
>It's amazing how most criticism of lotr consists of Bombadil in a way.
He's simply the tip of the iceberg, I distinctly recall several pasages of brief exposition about zones around the world that were not important to the overall narrative but I couldn't name one off the top of my head. Tom Bombadil stucks because it's a whole character that his entire existence is tangential to the history.
This by itself is not important (plenty of characters they met in the travel are one-note), but it becomes annoying when Tom Bombadil is portrayed as an all-powerful person, and the book just expects you to go "yeah, whatever" and return to the journey of epic proportions to save the world. It brings cognitive dissonance, it breaks the theme of the narrative. To build his world and his legendarium, he's bringing down the storytelling of the book. And, as a person that has no interest in immersing myself in the lore of the ME and just wants to read the damn books, that's incredibly annoying.
>His writing is excellent and portrays the sense of grandeur and scale perfectly.
I don't think so, I find his prose failed spectacularly to convey the gravity of the situation in, for example, the battle for Gondor (the Pelennor fields?).
>Nowhere in the book does it suggest overtly that he's all-powerful or omnipotent. Merely impervious to the ring.
The single fact that he's impervious to the ring raises a great ton of questions, when the ring is a Macguffin of untold power.
Tom Bombadil goes against the Chekov's gun principle, it's literary masturbation.

>>87499829
>Tom Bombadil is portrayed as an all-powerful person

He isn't though. He's just very ancient.

>>87498687
Sperm are microscopic, but big enough to be seen with fairly rudimentary microscopes. If the maesters had them, they might be able to know.

>>87499873
To further explain, my interpretation of Bombadil is that he isn't affected by the Ring because he isn't really a person, even more so than Gandalf isn't really a human. My understanding is that he's essentially the personification of Middle-earth itself.

>>87499789
So basically you've never read the Malazan books, because while they have many, MANY problems like comic book deaths and overpowered characters, the World Building in them dwarfs LOTR to such a degree that it's laughable to compare them almost.
You think LOTR's story of good guys taking a MacGuffin to a place to stop the DARK LORD is some seriously sophisticated shit, and you think the characters have a deeply complex morality, motivations and nuances of behavior.

Okay. You sure showed me

>>87498383
God bless you. Im posting this in every new /got/ general

>>87500007
You're misusing the term McGuffin just so you know.

>>87499829
>The single fact he's impervious to the ring raises a great ton of questions
That's the point anon. It was also very clearly Tolkien's intent to never answer these questions. You should be able figure out why for yourself.

>>87499145
i can only think of tom bombadil

>>87496888
The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are themselves subversions of traditional fantasy stories, I don't know why people don't realize this.

>>87500007
>the World Building in them dwarfs LOTR to such a degree that it's laughable to compare them almost.
Still waiting for you to justify this statement with reasoning.
>You think LOTR's story of good guys taking MacGuffin to a place to stop the DARK LORD is some seriously sophisticated
I never said it was sophisticated. Complexity isn't the be-all and end-all of literature, and it never has been. Nor has moral ambiguity. You're conflating these ideas with depth.

File: bfdsgwret.jpg (25KB, 405x359px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 405x359px

>>87496653
This anon knows!

>>87500040
Masterful deflection my friend, I didn't even notice it.

>>87499259
>>87499045
Anons don't even try, pointing out the criticisms in LotR is like shitting in the mouth of God to these people.
They hate GRRM because of his tax policy quote, failing to understand in their frothing, simple minded hate that he never said Tolkien was a bad writer. He only said that the legacy of writing that he left, that is, hundreds of shallow copy paste fantasy novels where a wide eyed hero fights a great evil and wins against all odds, is a bad thing.
His literal only criticism of Tolkien was saying that, for all his in depth world-building, he failed to bring any realism (of the kind that he brought to every other aspect of his fantasy world) to the aftermath of the story- that is, how Aragorn ruled, and what they did about the still existing armies of monsters that were poised to destroy the world.

One anon informed me a long time ago that the Silmarillion says they genocided the surviving orcs, but I never confirmed that for myself.

>>87500190
Not deflecting, I'm just saying I don't think the Ring should count as a MacGuffin. Frodo possesses it for almost the entire story and it gets used multiple times.

>>87500245
>Anons don't even try, pointing out the criticisms in LotR is like shitting in the mouth of God to these people
What are you talking about? His criticisms were addressed and responded to directly, multiple times.

Also at this point no one is debating what GRRM thinks of Tolkien or LotR. We're sharing our own opinions here.

>>87499829
The book expects you to understand that Tom Bombadil is not a human being, and so he'll likely not behave like a human being would. This is not hard to understand.

It's the same type of idiotic assumptions all the time, "why don't these all powerful beings behave in a way humans would?". I'd say that same questions shows itself about 90% of the time in every Tolkien criticism there is. Why didn't Bombadil take the Ring? Why didn't Galadriel take the Ring? Why didn't Elrond do something? Why don't the elves care, and why are they leaving middle earth to die? The answer to all these questions are the same: They are not humans. Elves and beings like Bombadil don't try to "change" fate and do things their own way, that's what men do. They know that God exists, they know about the Valar, they know that things happen for a reason and not mischance. They always choose to play their part in the song instead of taking liberties, because they are not humans.

If Galadriel or Elrond or Bombadil or Gandalf were supposed to take the ring, they would know it in their hearts. Unlike hobbits and dwarves and humans, they know it wasn't an accident that led Bilbo to the ring, they know he was meant to find it and Frodo was meant to inherit it. Frodo was meant to bear the ring, the council was to make sure of that, because, even though they are immortal beings, elves and demigods don't know all that will happen.

Even assuming you somehow miss all this information, which is implied all around all the books, Tolkien goes out of his way to give several reasons to why it goes like that. Elves couldn't do anything even if they cared, because they're leaving the world and their numbers are too few. And to Bombadil there are given several reasons by Gandalf during the council. The only reason I can see why you would have this information is either not reading the books or having a serious mental retardation.

>>87500162
In the ten core malazan books, six other novels, two short story collections and a prequel trilogy, it in detail explores the histories, cultures, myths and geography of a world with several continents which we all get to see. Erikson was an archaeologist, and it shows in the books. The sheer amount of lore in the Malazan world is literally fifty times that of LOTR.

>be incredibly vulnerable to fire
>your two arch nemeses breathe fire

What did that faggy blue dragon mean by this

>>87499829
>The single fact that he's impervious to the ring raises a great ton of questions, when the ring is a Macguffin of untold power.


yes and no. If you're familiar with the Silmarilion you should have deducted that Bombadil is probably a powerful Maia doing his thing on his own without caring about sides. He clearly surpasses the abilities of Gandalf after all. His naturalistic sensibilities seems fairly in sync with Yavanna's sphere of influence too.

Or you could simply deduce that he is a whimsical enigmatic allegory thrown in for giggles by Tolkien. Enigmatic characters are quite common in fantasy.

If you actually research about Bombadil, you would find out that Tom Bombadil was the name of dutch doll which had been flushed down a lavatory by Tolkien's own children. He wrote poems for his kids about him before even writing Lotr.


The character is intriguing for sure, but to say that it was "bringing down the storytelling of the book" is exaggerated to say the least. It's the last peaceful scene before the story really relentlessly takes off. And I have to say I fail to understand how someone would read Lotr and yet had no interest in immersing in the lore. That seems really contradictory to me.

>>87500317
You're basically making up the point you're replying to, because it's not what I said.
LotR is a tale about the Ring, a powerful object that has a big part of the soul and power of a Dark Lord that threatens the whole world. The plot of LotR is about the journey of a bunch of unlikely heroes to destroy that Ring.
That is the premise of the book. A bunch of relatable and unwilling heroes that only wanted to live a quiet, peaceful life are forced to fight for the destiny of the world, and the Ring is the central object of this drama. The Ring is the reason the plot exists, the Ring gives purpose, gives hope, and at the same time is a testament to the power of the forces they're fighting against.
You can't just write this tale about the quest to destroy a dangerous and powerful object, and at the same time present, for no reason at all, a character that is absolutely immune to the Ring and the Dark Lord influence.
The quest is no longer epic, the feeling of danger is lost. Not even 1/3rd into the book Tolkien presents a character that is impervious to the narrative premises he established (with awful exposition, by the way) at the beginning, and the worst part of that is that there's no reason for it. LotR could do without Tom Bombadil. He's a character that is there just for the sake of it. From the point of view of a fantastical setting, I'm sure you won't mind a character that could fix all the problems but doesn't do it because he just can't be bothered to (sure, you can say "he's no human so you just can't understand", whatever), but from the point of view of a book centered about those problems the unjustified presence of that character is terrible.

It's the worst exponent of the fact that Tolkien didn't want to write a story set in a new world, but build a whole new world with a tale set on it. He wastes words and pages to detail that world and add tidbits of lore about it, but all of them are absolutely irrelevant to the story itself.

>>87496551
>GoT was a more easily adaptable series than LotR ever was
Then how come LotR got one of the best cinematic adaptations ever, while GoT's adaptation is vastly inferior to the books in almost every aspect?

>>87497146
Replace the races with the Westerosi houses and Sauron with the Night King and GoT followed that same formula.

>>87497376
>tfw no deleted scene of Dany squatting in a puddle of brown water

>>87498584
Dickens and Tolstoy are part of the Romantic literary movement. Overall they idealize the lives and loves of humble and hardworking people from a variety of backgrounds, and negatively depict hypocrisy, obsessions with status, and disloyalty. If you don't enjoy that aesthetic, that's fine, but plenty of people do. That's why they are rated highly.

>>87500925
Didn't GRRM just rip off actual history?

>>87496653
10/10
I came like a hurricane cat 5

>>87499621
being straightforward is a good thing for fantasy novels.

>>87500933
Their characters are fucking cartoons, so no, that's not an "asthetic" I enjoy. Dickens was a pulp writer of serial novels in his day which were popular precisely because of the things you said.

>>87500806
I didn't create any points. The existence of Bombadil doesn't take this supposed feeling of danger out of the story at any point, for the reasons I said.

I'll ignore the pathetic attempt at dragging me into your other discussion and reply: this sense of danger doesn't exist. It's a rumor at the start of the books, a whisper at best. Tolkien makes the story feels like so to place you within it, with the hobbits. It doesn't really take off until after Bombadil. At that point their biggest worries were black riders they (and you, as you say) knew nothing about.

File: thethousandfoldthought.jpg (60KB, 347x500px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 347x500px

Kellhus is laughing at all you intellectual fantasy midgets.

>>87500837
probably has something to do with the LotR series having a budget of $281 million over 560 minutes while GoT has a budget of $100 million over 600+ minutes per season

dumb faggot

>>87500958
he did, even in the Supernatural aspects of the story

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

>>87501231
Do you think a better adaptation would have been seven three-hour movies?

>>87496551
No, and GRRM himself wouldn't admit that. He';s a massive Tolkien fan. I don't know if this meme is just shitposting or if you guys really think that GRRM considers himself above Tolkien. If it's the latter then you're dead wrong. He considers himself above the likes of other modern fantasy writers, he got really mad when JK Rowling won some award and he didn't, but Tolkien is the god of western fantasy.

>>87500958
>Didn't GRRM just rip off actual history?
So did Tolkien.

>>87501231
GoT needs far less budget anyways since it has way less magical elements and the scale of the few battles it has is much smaller.

>>87501944
In what way?

>GoT was a more easily adaptable series than LotR ever was

are you serious? no of course you can't be. GOT had to cut entire stories and characters from the show and have changed a lot of shit, LOTRs movie adaptation remains mostly unchanged from the book.

>>87502083
>LOTRs movie adaptation remains mostly unchanged from the book
This isn't true at all anon

>>87502063
Tolkien fought in WWI, and a lot of the shit he saw inspired the events in the books.
Some argue that LOTR is an allegory for WWI or even WWII.

>>87496653
FETCH THE BOOOOOAAAAAARRRR

Good post though although I love GRRM. It's a sub/dom literary relationship

>>87502083
>GOT had to cut entire stories and characters from the show and have changed a lot of shit
You mean like how they cut out the barrows, Tom Bombadil, the scouring of the Shire, etc in the LOTR adaptations?

>>87502274
>Some argue that LOTR is an allegory for WWI or even WWII

Yeah but Tolkien shot that down in the forward published in later editions. I know people still argue over it but Tolkien himself definitively stated that there was no intended allegory.

>>87496551
But it wasn't easily adaptable. There are so many things they got wrong. It's basically it's own thing.

Also, you can't really compare adapting a book into a movie vs a tv series.

>>87502274
>Some argue that LOTR is an allegory for WWI or even WWII
It absolutely isn't, at least not by his intent. You'd know this if you read the book as Tolkien explicitly states it in the foreword. Also Tolkien began creating middle earth as early as WWI in the trenches, as a form of escapism. Pretty much the only thing we can definitively say is a direct reference to his experience in WWI is the dead marshes. Of course his writing and him as a person would be influenced in some way by war, but you can't with a straight face call that ripping off history in any way, shape or form. Come off it

>>87500115
we're addressing someone who has no knowledge of such notions. Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Percival, all that stuff is shit because it's old don't you get it anon? we've advanced to an extremely more sophisticated characterizations like Daenerys Targaryen! We've evolved!

>>87502386
>Tolkien himself definitively stated that there was no intended allegory

Of course he will deny it and try to keep his carefully crafted fantasy world away from the issues of reality, but the parallels do exist and are pretty fucking evident.
Maybe he did it unconsciously as a way to exorcise his war related traumas, who knows? but he also has said that even if he wanted he could not completely prevent his experiences in the war to influence the story.

>>87496551
>to improve on Tolkien's formula
21st century audience is stupider than 20th century audience.
He's the Tolkien of his day but his day is retarded

>>87502487
To be fair, GoT has overall better developed female characters than LOTR.

>>87502574
I fail to see any significant parallel between WWI and LOTR, even looking at the broadest possible strokes of each situation.

>>87496551
George Martin didn't "improve" anything.
He's a fat hack who is going to have his most important story finished by a couple of jewish hacks.

>>87502644
>I fail to see any significant parallel between WWI and LOTR, even looking at the broadest possible strokes of each situation.
That's because you are a braindead retard.

>>87502574
Why would he deny it? The point is that there was no intended allegory on his part and any parallels you want to draw are your own.

>>87502696
Solid argument anon. Care to elaborate?

>>87502574
>As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and
The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, "The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.

>>87502696
Explain the parallels

>>87502751
>The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves.

>Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

>>87502702
>Why would he deny it?
Because it doesn't look good that one of the most original fantasy works of all time is based on two of of the most overused historical topics of all time.
>there was no intended allegory
Intended being the keyword here.

>>87502847
See>>87502793

>>87502847
See >>87502751 and >>87502836

>>87502857
>>87502878
Give proper relply, you lazy fuck. Don't backpedal to already addressed posts.

>>87502979
I was the one that posted the excerpts from the foreword. Just wanted to make sure you read them.

>>87502979
>already addressed posts
You haven't explained the supposed parallels between LOTR and WWI/WWII, which is what this entire argument about. There's no point continuing this conversation if you can't explain your position.

>>87503033
I think he rage quit the thread, kek.

>>87503033
>parallels between LOTR and WWI/WWII

people die! The ring is an allegory for the H bomb! Dwarfs are jews!

>>87503033
Google scholar is your friend, use it.
I could see you having problems understanding the parallels between LOTR and WWI because they exist on an internal level rather than an overarching level (which is the only aspect Tolkien cleverly chose to address), but if you can't see the stupidly obvious parallels with WWII then you are either severely uneducated or just plain retarded.

>>87503375
Again did you even read the excerpts I posted?

>>87500245
>He only said that the legacy of writing that he left, that is, hundreds of shallow copy paste fantasy novels where a wide eyed hero fights a great evil and wins against all odds, is a bad thing.
Funny thing about that. GoT has basically fallen into that archetype with Jon Snow and the Others. Maybe the books will be a bit different if he ever gets around to finishing them, or maybe he just couldn't help himself.

>>87502574
>story is nothing like ww1
>author says story is not an allegory to ww1
>i know better, the story is actually about ww1

lmao

>>87503375
>Google scholar is your friend
>find your own sources because i'm too lazy to back up my argument
>because they exist on an internal level rather than an overarching leve
>2SMART4U BRAINLET?

EXPLAIN your REASONING

>>87503509
Welcome to arguing with /pol/tards. They're so used to their agreeable echo chamber that they crumble when challenged on other boards.

File: 1502537109503.png (643KB, 1022x731px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 1022x731px

>>87503375
>Google it lmao
Like I said. There's no point continuing this conversation

>>87503457
>GRRM heavily despises the idea of good guys versus the bad guys trope

>Jon Snow, the hero who was ressurected by the Lord of Light is going to battle an army of ice demons

Maybe George wanted to create his own version of the Bible or something.

>>87503457
>Funny thing about that. GoT has basically fallen into that archetype with Jon Snow and the Others. Maybe the books will be a bit different if he ever gets around to finishing them, or maybe he just couldn't help himself.

He did a decent job of subverting some of the cliches, though. Jon chapters always felt like the most fantasy of all of the series to me, and I think it was on purpose.
The show has gone full fantasy on him, and I imagine the books will too.
GRRM said the ending will be "bittersweet" so I imagine he'll use it to set up a happily ever after situation and then tear it down.
Like Jon lives and Dany dies or vice versa, because if both die then it's only really bittersweet to the audience

>>87503553
>Somehow this has anything to do with /pol/
Get help you mentally ill faggot, you're obsessed with a fucking 4chan board

>>87503619
mhmm.

>>87496551
>Tolkien's formula
That phrase alone makes me think you're a moron.

>>87503403
>muh Hobbit doesn't mirror the WWs therefore LOTR doesn't
>le ending is different therefore the inner workings are different
>I don't like allegory, stop realizing I ended up writing an allegory!
Most fallacious arguments I've ever seen from a supposedly reasonable person.

>>87503553
>/pol/
what are you referencing here?

>>87503673
Nothing in either of those posts is about The Hobbit, it's all about Lord of the Rings. You still have yet to tell us which parts are allegorical btw.

>>87503509
Probably some predictable crap about the Ring being the atomic bomb even though that doesn't make sense.

>>87503553
You realize I'm what you'd call a "/pol/tard" right? I'm just proving a moron who doesn't know anything about Tolkien or how he operated wrong.

>>87503673
Ok but how does LOTR mirror either World Wars?

>>87503619
Not him, but quite frankly given the threads i've seen lately on /tv/ I'd say he's not that wrong. The op seems as deep as a /pol/tard.

>This is my opinion and it's obviously right.
>Let me use I can't even understand to explain why I'm evidently right.
>Tolkien brainlets can't comprehend the vastness of my understanding of GRRM's sophisticated storytelling. Sad!

>>87503457
>Funny thing about that. GoT has basically fallen into that archetype with Jon Snow and the Others.
There's still the Lannisters and the Greyjoy.
It's not a good-vs-evil battle, it's a battle between humans from opposing houses and some snow zombies that just want to kill everything.
I'm not going to excuse the use of prophecies because I think it's the laziest gimmick there is, but even with all that shit ASOIAF isn't as white vs black as you people pretend it to be.

>>87503982
>ASOIAF isn't as white vs black as you people pretend it to be.
It is pretty black and white when you have a Jesus character leading the fight against a bunch ice demons trying to wipe out the human race.

>>87503912
So you've got nothing except "I hate a 4chan board so deeply I developed an obsession for it and anything that angers me or I see as something negative is immediately associated with it"?
The other guy said it right, you need to get some help.

>>87504060
Once again, and what about the Lannister currently occupying the Iron Throne? What about the Greyjoy that seem more intent on let the zombies fuck everything than to help against it.
Just because there are characters on either side of the spectrum doesn't mean the morality is limited to those extremes, you have characters all along the moral compass and several of those cannot be put on one side or the other.

>>87498183
sorry you can't follow a thread conversation.

>>87504192
Cersei is a psycopathic cunt. Even her brother realized that in the lastepisode of this season.
And Euron Greyjoy is basically a pirate Ramsey Snow.

Besided, the whole story is moving towards the conclusion of Jon Snow fighting off against the white walkers.

>>87504152
the fuck you talking about? the OP sounds like a brain dead uneducated american millennial. Do you understand? You know people with strong opinions but with fuck all to back their claims? pretty much like the shitshow that goes down on /pol/ every day.
what fucking obsession you mean? Reality? Facts?
Help yourself I'm fucking fine. At least I know a shit writer when I see one unlike some of you GRRM cocksuckers here.

>>87504498
>You know people with strong opinions but with fuck all to back their claims?
Kinda like you, yeah. You fit the bill better than the people you have an obsession with. Get help, you're not well.
And fuck GRUM, this stopped being about him and his shit writing when your mental illness surfaced. What the fuck does another 4chan board have to do with the topic at hand you fucking virgin lunatic?

>>87503912
>This is my opinion and it's obviously right.

In fairness this is the lifeblood of every message board and forum in existence.

>>87500483
Yes but the Malazan books are thick tomes of inane drivel that puts Tolkien's pointless fluff to shame.

When I realized I was reading about some half giant barbarian raping and pillaging for 200 pages i said ''you know what no, fuck this, I don't care about this guy"

I remember the second (or was it third?) book had so much shit going on that it was daunting. Like you're following the perspective of some mercenary dude and suddenly he's the tiger god's avatar and just...just so much shit.