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

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Best comment that I have seen about Martin's criticisms of Tolkien:

"It's like criticizing van Gogh for not making the clouds appear *real*."

That observation was made a very smart person.

[Alatar]

Except Martin wasn't "criticising" Tolkien. He made an observation about Tolkien's style, one that's pretty accurate.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It certainly reasonable to opine that you agree with Martin's critique of Tolkien (needless to say, I don't), but I think it is factually incorrect to deny that he is criticizing Tolkien. Nonetheless, if that is your opinion, you are welcome to it.

[Alatar]

I don't necessarily agree with his comments, but they also aren't necessarily critical. They are simply an observation of the type of Fantasy JRRT chose to write.

[axordil]

I would call them a critique or a critical consideration, rather than simply finding fault.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's cutting things too fine for me. If you want to call it a critical critique rather than a criticism, I wont complain. In either case, his purpose is to criticize Tolkien in order to bolster his own standing. Having not read Martin, I have no opinion on his own work, but I agree with the observation made that his comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of what Tolkien did.

And in any event, I am pleased with the observation that I quoted above, and glad I got to see it.

[WampusCat]

I enjoy Martin's series and am highly entertained by the show, thanks to good casting, excellent acting and attention to detail. But that story will never become a part of me, as LOTR did, because it lacks the mythological depth.

For me, at least, there is a difference between characters with whom I like to spend time and characters who inhabit me. It's not a matter of whether they are simple or complex, modern or archaic, good or evil or a mixture of the two. But that said, I'm not sure I can define what it is a matter of. Perhaps it is because Tolkien's story is rich with the archetypes that have been simmering in the human subconscious for millennia. Perhaps it is because the characters are capable of wonder, of perceiving a world of enchantment and pulling me into that world. They speak to what is broken and yearning in me.

I have no inner yearning to claim the iron throne, so ultimately all the machinations in Westeros are external. Power struggles are as alien to me as beheadings. But a longing to hear the singing of the elves, to gaze upon the the glittering caves, to sail into the West ... that may seem less rooted in reality but in fact is far more part of my inner reality, my psyche, my soul. So Frodo and Sam and Aragorn and Gandalf and Gollum and Éowyn and Faramir and Théoden and so many others are expressions of the deepest part of me, which underlies all that I do and say in what is commonly thought of as the real world.

Perhaps these thoughts are too personal to be of use in this discussion. I know what I mean, but it's difficult to explain.

[Smaug's voice]

Extremely well said WampusCat!
I am not sure why you think your post was not useful to the discussion, but for me, it was the best post yet.

For me, at least, there is a difference between characters with whom I like to spend time and characters who inhabit me. It's not a matter of whether they are simple or complex, modern or archaic, good or evil or a mixture of the two. But that said, I'm not sure I can define what it is a matter of. Perhaps it is because Tolkien's story is rich with the archetypes that have been simmering in the human subconscious for millennia. Perhaps it is because the characters are capable of wonder, of perceiving a world of enchantment and pulling me into that world. They speak to what is broken and yearning in me.

Purrr fect.

Best comment that I have seen about Martin's criticisms of Tolkien:

"It's like criticizing van Gogh for not making the clouds appear *real*."

That observation was made a very smart person.

Well, that's a good line!

On the topic, it is not a problem with me even if he tries to find fault or not. What really irks me is that when he criticises Tolkien, he goes on to compare and state how he himself wrote the same themes better. It is no longer only a criticism then but, as V says, "criticism to bolster his own position"
For instance "Gandalf should have died and his return lessened the impact" is a valid criticism. But if you add "but my characters who do come back from the dead are worse for wear, and in some ways are not even the same anymore. They've lost something", then it comes off as if he is implying that the concept of death is stronger in his work than Tolkien, that it has a larger impact.

[yovargas]

Another quote from that article with a small comment on Tolkien folks here would be more amenable to:

One letter I got was from a woman, a waitress. She wrote me: "I work hard all day, I'm divorced, I have a couple of children. My life is very hard, and my one pleasure is I come home and I read fantasy, and I escape to other worlds. Then I read your book, and God, it was fucking horrifying. I don't read for this. This is a nightmare. Why would you do this to me?" That letter actually reached me. I wrote her back and basically said, "I'm sorry; I do understand where you're coming from." Some people do read . . . I don't like to use the word escape, because escapism has such a pejorative aspect, but it takes you to another world. Maybe it is escape. Reading fiction has helped me through some bad times in my own life. The night my father died, I was in Michigan and I got word from my mother. I couldn't get to a plane until the next day, so I sat around thinking about my father, the good and the bad in our relationship. I remember I opened whatever book I was reading, and for a few hours, I was able to stop thinking about my father's death. It was a relief. There are some people who read and want to believe in a world where the good guys win and the bad guys lose, and at the end they live happily ever after. That's not the kind of fiction that I write. Tolkien was not that. The scouring of the Shire proved that. Frodo's sadness – that was a bittersweet ending, which to my mind was far more powerful than the ending of Star Wars, where all the happy Ewoks are jumping around, and the ghosts of all the dead people appear, waving happily [laughs]. But I understand where the other people are coming from. There are a lot of books out there. Let everyone find the kind of book that speaks to them, and speaks to what they need emotionally.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I enjoy Martin's series and am highly entertained by the show, thanks to good casting, excellent acting and attention to detail. But that story will never become a part of me, as LOTR did, because it lacks the mythological depth.

For me, at least, there is a difference between characters with whom I like to spend time and characters who inhabit me. It's not a matter of whether they are simple or complex, modern or archaic, good or evil or a mixture of the two. But that said, I'm not sure I can define what it is a matter of. Perhaps it is because Tolkien's story is rich with the archetypes that have been simmering in the human subconscious for millennia. Perhaps it is because the characters are capable of wonder, of perceiving a world of enchantment and pulling me into that world. They speak to what is broken and yearning in me.

I have no inner yearning to claim the iron throne, so ultimately all the machinations in Westeros are external. Power struggles are as alien to me as beheadings. But a longing to hear the singing of the elves, to gaze upon the the glittering caves, to sail into the West ... that may seem less rooted in reality but in fact is far more part of my inner reality, my psyche, my soul. So Frodo and Sam and Aragorn and Gandalf and Gollum and Éowyn and Faramir and Théoden and so many others are expressions of the deepest part of me, which underlies all that I do and say in what is commonly thought of as the real world.

Perhaps these thoughts are too personal to be of use in this discussion. I know what I mean, but it's difficult to explain.

This 1000 times over. Very well said, and though a personal response to Tolkien, is exactly the same personal response I experience. Tolkien's books satisfy my deepest and least psychologically-muddied yearnings. Reading his stories is like a profound meditation. Like catching a glimpse of what Buddhists call enlightenment.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I knew there must have been some cherry-picking of GRRM's comments, because I have usually heard him offer both praise and a decently sophisticated understanding of Tolkien.

[Smaug's voice]

In my defense, I'll point out that I wasn't cherry picking comments to say that GRRM has no respect for Tolkien.
In the post I gave the quotes, I only said "some critique of Tolkien by GRRM".

[Voronwë the Faithful]

While I certainly don't disagree with the quoted passage, I also would not say that it demonstrates a "sophisticated understanding of Tolkien." Particularly when taken in the context of the rest of the interviews.

[kzer_za]

While I certainly don't disagree with the quoted passage, I also would not say that it demonstrates a "sophisticated understanding of Tolkien." Particularly when taken in the context of the rest of the interviews.

Well, it's not a super deep insight, but at least he understands that it's not just a happy and triumphalist story.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Agreed, but that is a pretty basic observation.

[kzer_za]

Agreed, but that is a pretty basic observation.

Yeah, but a lot of Tolkien's critics don't even get that far.

[Frelga]

Agreed, but that is a pretty basic observation.

Yeah, but a lot of Tolkien's critics don't even get that far.

+1

[Smaug's voice]

IAWK

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Agreed, but that is a pretty basic observation.

Yeah, but a lot of Tolkien's critics don't even get that far.

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.

[Passdagas the Brown]

While I certainly don't disagree with the quoted passage, I also would not say that it demonstrates a "sophisticated understanding of Tolkien." Particularly when taken in the context of the rest of the interviews.

I said "decently" sophisticated (i.e. adequate, fair, passable), which was an important qualifier that you omitted. As kzer said, most critics don't even get that far (usually because they haven't even read it!)

In short, I was trying to be polite to GRRM, who at least read and appreciated LOTR.