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

[Smaug's voice]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 35551.html

Power is familiar territory for fantasy epic, but it is not normally examined so unflinchingly. Because fantasy is such an immediate turn-off for so many people, most of the examples that make it out of the nerd ghetto - Lord of the Rings chief among them, of course - have their escape justified by an appeal to the safest kind of story: the triumph of good over evil. This childish tendency was memorably described by the sci-fi writer Michael Moorcock as 'Epic Pooh'. I came to Game of Thrones shortly after seeing the first part of The Hobbit, Peter Jackson's indulgent Tolkien adaptation that hews closely to all the most tiresome tropes of the genre, and, despite HBO's fine track record for making genres dirty, I was ready to dismiss it in the same way.

http://dailyuw.com/archive/2014/04/08/a ... 0TxOKKmcQt

Most controversial passage in this (for me):

Fiction is a form of escape, and fantasy is perhaps the greatest escape of all, so it may seem silly to criticize “The Lord of the Rings” for lacking in realism and relatability. And while it’s triumphant to see good defeat evil in Tolkien’s trilogy its relevance ends when we return to reality and can’t solve problems by throwing them into a fire. Ultimately it’s easier to escape to something that connects with us and without sacrificing the swords and sorcery that make fantasy so exciting, “A Song of Ice and Fire” is realistic where it counts and strikes at the most internal conflicts that define humanity.

It's interesting that while both LotR and GoT/ASoIaF are set in pseudo mediaeval worlds, GoT is now seen as 'grown-up' fantasy while LotR is for nerds/children (or adults who refuse to grow up and live in the adult fantasy world of GoT.)
Yes, the two secondary worlds are different, and reflect the worlds/values of the authors, but, perhaps due to our own egotism, we feel (or are supposed to feel) that the fantasy created in our time is superior to the one created in the fifties, just as we are 'superior' (more intelligent/advanced) than the innocent/ignorant souls living back then - we know what the world is REALLY like and what REALLY motivates people. The characters in GoT are not shallow, petty-minded, cruel, self obsessed, greedy sociopaths but real human beings who know how things work in the real world. Just like us readers/viewers.

I don't think ASoIaF (the books) is better than dozens of other fantasy series - well, atleast Book 1 isn't. It's fairly typical fantasy fare. The fact it's been picked up by HBO has given it greater significance than it deserves as a fantasy series imo. It's more or less an entertaining read, but not good literature (which LotR is).
All the added sex and violence in the TV-series actually ties their hands as to what they are able to do creatively. And in the end sex and violence become ends in themselves, lose any shock value, and become boring.

But that's only my view, but I am interested if anyone else sees any fair criticism among these after the rise in popularity of GoT?

[Alatar]

I think there is definitely fair criticism there. I'm not one of those who believes that LotR is perfect, or even "perfect for me". I love it to bits, but I recognise its limitations and weaknesses also. I have not read Game of Thrones yet, although I owned the first four books a couple of years before the HBO series started. I decided, when the series began, to wait until it was complete and then read the books, just for a change, and so far I am not regretting that decision.

Yes, its darker and grittier than LotR. Yes, the characters are more morally ambiguous. Does that make it "better" than LotR? No, but it certainly adds interest. Will it be a classic in years to come? Only time will tell.

[Smaug's voice]

Alatar, can you expand upon which criticisms you think are fair?

I was mainly sticking to the criticisms of GoT being more real and hence more grownup than LotR, and of Tolkien having not much relevance out of escapism.

I often hear people say that it is the realism of the stories, that's the way it was in those ages - which is brought out by GoT.
I disagree. On many levels, to me, GoT does not show that.

First of all are the morals. Even in medieval times there was chivalry, there was honor, a code. Brutality existed surely, but not standalone.
Remove the fantasy overlay - the dragons, the knights, the castles and the rest, and you just have a bunch of nasty, selfish, power obsessed narcissists doing cruel things in ugly close-up. Almost every one of them.
Were all folks power hungry in those days? Did honor came at such low costs in those times?
Yes, characters dying - shocking, unexpected, totally true. But as I have heard as the series goes on, it itself depends on these tropes heavily - which slowly makes it predictable. As Hobbituk had stated once, if anyone says "I am going to do this ..." the person almost never ends up doing it.

But speaking of the TV series, it is not the characters dying, it's the way graphic nastiness is shown which almost feels like there has to be violence for the sake of it.
How events are depicted will be down to the preferences of those depicting them. Exposition can be given with our without naked women simulating sex in the background, and a killing can be presented in slo-mo close-up or briefly in long shot. The amount of nudity and violence is a choice. It's not enough to say "Well, 'x' once happened in the real world, so it's OK to depict it in the series'. It's about how it's used, and what effect it's intended to have on the viewer.

Addendum, GOT's attitudes to sex I feel is also based on Contemporary world rather than Medieval Europe or any other society. As far as I know, men of power were quite open about their women, and bastard children had a definite place, though lesser than the legitimate heirs. And there was a tradition of chivalrous adultery that is also not seen in Westros.

It is this false criticism, that GoT is chock full of gritty realism, that everything it shows was exactly the way it was back then - and so LotR is childish and not relevant to RL and is just a medium to take those out of the realities of the world, who can't bear this "truth", which I find false.

[yovargas]

If we are to approach these works as sources of moral exploration than, yeah, maybe I guess it might be fair to say GoT is more "mature" or "complex" or whatever. But who says that's the only purpose of the books, or any story for that matter? You know what LOTR does better than GoT - both film and book (IMO)? Breathtakingly sublime beauty. If the modern critic does not see the relevance of the sublime to today's world than I do not see the relevance of the modern critic to art.

[Smaug's voice]

But who says that's the only purpose of the books, or any story for that matter?

I don't and I am not saying that is the only purpose of GoT. But it seems the popular criticism of Tolkien nowadays, after the rise of GoT is that it is a fantasy only for escapism and has almost no effect on our own lives or the current society. While GoT fulfills that.
I wanted to discuss this criticism mainly, since it annoys me.
Neither LR nor GoT are realistic in their portrayal (IMO of course) - but LotR is not trying to be, while the main reason people seem to like GoT is since it is extremely "realistic" and reflective of the times it shows.

[Alatar]

Alatar, can you expand upon which criticisms you think are fair?

I was mainly sticking to the criticisms of GoT being more real and hence more grownup than LotR, and of Tolkien having not much relevance out of escapism.

I often hear people say that it is the realism of the stories, that's the way it was in those ages - which is brought out by GoT.
I disagree. On many levels, to me, GoT does not show that.

First of all are the morals. Even in medieval times there was chivalry, there was honor, a code. Brutality existed surely, but not standalone.
Remove the fantasy overlay - the dragons, the knights, the castles and the rest, and you just have a bunch of nasty, selfish, power obsessed narcissists doing cruel things in ugly close-up. Almost every one of them.
Were all folks power hungry in those days? Did honor came at such low costs in those times?
Yes, characters dying - shocking, unexpected, totally true. But as I have heard as the series goes on, it itself depends on these tropes heavily - which slowly makes it predictable. As Hobbituk had stated once, if anyone says "I am going to do this ..." the person almost never ends up doing it.

But speaking of the TV series, it is not the characters dying, it's the way graphic nastiness is shown which almost feels like there has to be violence for the sake of it.
How events are depicted will be down to the preferences of those depicting them. Exposition can be given with our without naked women simulating sex in the background, and a killing can be presented in slo-mo close-up or briefly in long shot. The amount of nudity and violence is a choice. It's not enough to say "Well, 'x' once happened in the real world, so it's OK to depict it in the series'. It's about how it's used, and what effect it's intended to have on the viewer.

Addendum, GOT's attitudes to sex I feel is also based on Contemporary world rather than Medieval Europe or any other society. As far as I know, men of power were quite open about their women, and bastard children had a definite place, though lesser than the legitimate heirs. And there was a tradition of chivalrous adultery that is also not seen in Westros.

It is this false criticism, that GoT is chock full of gritty realism, that everything it shows was exactly the way it was back then - and so LotR is childish and not relevant to RL and is just a medium to take those out of the realities of the world, who can't bear this "truth", which I find false.

I didn't say any of those things, so I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.

[Smaug's voice]

Um, I was only explaining my point?
Didn't say I was contesting anyone else's opinions, though I did say I would like to hear anyone else's opinions.

[yovargas]

...while the main reason people seem to like GoT is since it is extremely "realistic" and reflective of the times it shows.

I don't think anyone is saying it is "reflective of the times it shows" since it's not pretending to be reflective of our history in any way at all. What they are saying is that the morality and struggles on display are more reflective of real human morality and struggles. To which I say..........if anyone is watching GoT and finding themselves relating to anything or anyone on that show then their life must be pretty damn screwed. Even as a display of the corrupting influence of power or whatever I don't think it's reflective of much of anything. GoT is a highly entertaining, very well produced soap opera and not much more, IMO.

[Smaug's voice]

I think the general public (and the media, and the critics) say the show portrays the medieval times perfectly.
I have not heard anything from the makers though. What do they say?

What they are saying is that the morality and struggles on display are more reflective of real human morality and struggles. To which I say..........if anyone is watching GoT and finding themselves relating to anything or anyone on that show then their life must be pretty damn screwed. Even as a display of the corrupting influence of power or whatever I don't think it's reflective of much of anything.

Yes, I agree here.

[narya]

...if anyone is watching GoT and finding themselves relating to anything or anyone on that show then their life must be pretty damn screwed. Even as a display of the corrupting influence of power or whatever I don't think it's reflective of much of anything. GoT is a highly entertaining, very well produced soap opera and not much more, IMO.

Yov, Tolkien was able to draw us into his world by having humans and hobbits as a bridge to the more alien world of faerie. Avatar had humans to draw us into its alien world (it wouldn't be nearly as engaging a story if it was just the primitive blue aliens vs the technologically advanced orange aliens). One thing I especially appreciate about Game of Thrones is that there is more than one human female in the entire universe. And those females have some depth. Those females pull me into an otherwise alien world of faux Middle Ages in a way that Éowyn never could.

I definitely don't think GRRM's writing is as good as Tolkien, and it gets down right boring by the end of the most recent book. But he does know how to make multifaceted characters that are a dodgy mixtures of good and evil, rather than Tolkien's unequivocally good and evil archetypes. I care about GRRM's characters, but certainly wouldn't want them as real life friends - they are too unpredictable and have too many vices. I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating for the n00bs, that eight years ago, I moved out on my own for the first time as a 50 year old, and for the first time was coming home to an empty house every night. I started reading GoT, a little each night before going to sleep, and began to look forward to my "visits" with them. I felt comfort in immersing myself in another world and group of characters. It was a pleasant escape. When I read the most recent book, under different circumstances (now back together with family and snatching bits of reading time when I can) it was not the same.

When I was younger, I would read FotR for a dose of immersion into a world that was not the real world I was struggling with. I seldom read TTT or RotK, because the epic battles did not interest me. The character development of FotR interested and engaged me, so I came back again and again.

I've seen the TV series a few times (marathon viewing days once a year when HBO has a free week) and enjoy the gritty, muddy, world building, the detail in the costuming (if you look closely), the supportive music score, the good acting, the highly believable CGI, etc., but wish that it had less of the squirting arterial blood and pointless sex. I've said similar things about the LOTR movies - it would be a better movie, in my mind, with fewer hours of orc-hacking.

[Frelga]

I have written a few longish posts in my day arguing that people who dismiss Tolkien's characters as too simplistic need to read him more closely. And re-read the Silm.

IMO, the greatest drawback of LOTR is that the antagonists are literally monsters. You can't treat with them, they are not capable of redemption, and you don't have to live with them after you win. You do have to live with yourself, which as Frodo found is difficult enough.

I recognize many strengths in GRRM's writing. He is second only to Pratchett, IMO, in populating his world with women in a variety of roles, driven by many purposes, romantic or not. He makes good use of the slow or broken communication inherent in a world before radios. And many of his characters are capable of acting out of love and loyalty while being highly fallible at other times.

Ultimately, however, I gave up after the third book simply because I didn't care who if anybody of the characters won or survived. As others remarked, his way of breaking tropes itself became predictable to me. And frankly if I want to see a gritty depiction of war, I can watch the news.

The point of fantasy is not to offer escape. It is to offer hope. Tolkien does. Martin doesn't.

[axordil]

The point of fantasy is to move product by whatever means possible.

For some that means hope, for others that means escape, for still others it means outright wish fulfillment. No genre is one size fits all.

But no longer caring what happens to the main characters is never a good sign for a work.

[Smaug's voice]

Two interviews with GRRM that has some critique of Tolkien.
(and which, imo, proves that no matter how much a Tolkien-fan he is he does not understand Tolkien)


http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news ... w-20140423

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it's not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn't ask the question: What was Aragorn's tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren't gone – they're in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

In real life, real-life kings had real-life problems to deal with. Just being a good guy was not the answer. You had to make hard, hard decisions. Sometimes what seemed to be a good decision turned around and bit you in the ass; it was the law of unintended consequences. I've tried to get at some of these in my books. My people who are trying to rule don't have an easy time of it. Just having good intentions doesn't make you a wise king.

http://io9.com/5842798/george-rr-martin ... characters

I do think that if you're bringing a character back, that a character has gone through death, that's a transformative experience. Even back in those days of Wonder Man and all that, I loved the fact that he died, and although I liked the character in later years, I wasn't so thrilled when he came back because that sort of undid the power of it. Much as I admire Tolkien, I once again always felt like Gandalf should have stayed dead. That was such an incredible sequence in Fellowship of the Ring when he faces the Balrog on the Khazâd-dûm and he falls into the gulf, and his last words are, "Fly, you fools."

What power that had, how that grabbed me. And then he comes back as Gandalf the White, and if anything he's sort of improved. I never liked Gandalf the White as much as Gandalf the Grey, and I never liked him coming back. I think it would have been an even stronger story if Tolkien had left him dead.

My characters who come back from death are worse for wear. In some ways, they're not even the same characters anymore. The body may be moving, but some aspect of the spirit is changed or transformed, and they've lost something.

[Passdagas the Brown]

This tired, superficial argument that Tolkien's stories are not complex, and his characters are exclusively good or evil archetypes, is not even worth responding to anymore. Are Gollum, Boromir, Denethor, Frodo, the Dunlendings, etc, conveniently ignored to make this argument, or do people generally forget that those characters exist? Are these people aware that Frodo claimed the Ring, or that Samwise Gamgee can be such a mean-spirited guy? Do they get to the Scouring of the Shire? Do these commentators have anything to say about the deeply intellectual themes of death and deathlessness in Tolkien's work, his expression of different modes of character through subtle changes in language, his exploration of the concept of dehumanization, or as Shippey calls it, "wraith-ification," that Tolkien felt plagued the modern world?

Tolkien has taught me far, far more about how to live than GRRM (who is nowhere near the intellect that Tolkien was). You don't solve problems by throwing actual rings into actual fires. But on a daily basis, I do throw rings into fires all the time - treating people kindly, not abusing the powers I have, etc. Do these reviewers really not understand the concept of symbolism? Must the depiction of events and challenges be absolutely real to be valuable? Shockingly immature stuff from this guy.

Frelga,

Despite the above, I will say that we cannot know whether or not GRRM offers hope until the series ends. I actually have a hunch that the Stark children end up running Westeros justly (or at least some of them). There are good people in Westeros and in Essos, and a number of them are still in play.

SV,

There ARE honorable characters in GoT. The Stark family, Brienne of Tarth, Daenerys Targaeryn. Despite having not read the books or watched the show, you consistently say that everyone's a horrible back-stabbing narcissist. I understand the point you're trying to make, but there's no need to make exaggerated and fundamentally false assertions in order to do so (in fact, you may be replicating the actions of many Tolkien critics who never actually read his books). GRRM is simply giving us a version of historical humanity before the nation-state emerged. There are good and bad people in it, and grey people in between. But all of them are insecure. Accountable governments and parliaments, formalized legal structures, and institutions of justice where one could go to for recourse, did not exist. In that world, the physically strong and the morally grey, did tend to win a lot. Does that mean such a story is more valuable than the kind of story that LOTR is? Not at all. I find the latter to be a far more valuable story. But let's not bother overly romanticizing the dark ages and the medieval world. Tolkien may have been a medievalist, and he he may have been enamored of the northern spirit of the northern myths, but he was under no illusion that those ages were romantic Disney-lands. He probably yearned for the promordial spirit of those times, but I doubt he didn't understand that the very primordialism of the times (and its people) that is attractive to the romantic, adventurous and heroic spirit, is the same force that often lead to great suffering, slaughter and injustice. In other words, Tolkien could connect to the spirit of Thorin and Túrin Turambar, but he ultimately sided with the decidedly modern Bilbo Baggins.

[Passdagas the Brown]

IMO, the greatest drawback of LOTR is that the antagonists are literally monsters.

Except for Saruman, Bill Ferny, Boromir, Denethor, the Dunlendings, the Haradrim, Gollum...I would classify all of these humanoid individuals as antagonists, and capable of being treated with.

But you're right. The masses (and the primary antagonist) are monsters. But does anyone really believe that Tolkien intended for those monsters to be interpretations of real people? Like all monsters, they are elements of people. They represent aspects of character, not whole characters. Archetypes.

In the end, Tolkien wasn't writing a modern novel, and that's his greatest sin according to most critics (despite the fact that his hobbit characters are rather modern characters). But if you put aside the standard current consensus on what constitutes literature, you can appreciate Tolkien on a very profound level.

[Smaug's voice]

SV,
Despite having not read the books or watched the show, you consistently say that everyone's a horrible back-stabbing narcissist. I understand the point you're trying to make, but there's no need to make exaggerated and fundamentally false assertions in order to do so.

I have. I have read Book 1. Besides Ned and Jon, I do find most of the characters to be selfish and manipulative. After what happens to Ned - a character I did find quite intriguing - I lost interest. I guess it's not my kind of thing, then. Hope you like whatever ending GRRM gives it.

ETA:
Daenerys too is an honorable character. But I found that part of the story quite boring and superfluous.

[Passdagas the Brown]

But having only read Book 1, you simply cannot make such sweeping statements about the series. It reminds me of those critics who can't get through "A Long Expected Party" in FOTR, and then dismiss LOTR in its entirety as Ren Fair trash.

I do agree that GOT loses its way in books 4 and 5. But you should at least give books 2 and 3 a go (or watch the show...).

As I have said, this is not really my kind of fantasy, and I don't think GRRM is a very good writer (and I prefer the show to the books). But it's not fair to mischaracterize them if you haven't read them.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Frelga,

The point of fantasy is not to offer escape. It is to offer hope. Tolkien does. Martin doesn't.

Watch the final scene of Season 4, Episode 3. That's basically hope in a bottle.

I agree that Tolkien does the hope thing far better, though. But these broad brush strokes about both Tolkien and GRRM are creating a lot of unnecessary smoke.

Also, escape (or "recovery," as Tolkien called it in "On Faery Stories") is, IMO, a perfectly legitimate human yearning.

[kzer_za]

But having only read Book 1, you simply cannot make such sweeping statements about the series. It reminds me of those critics who can't get through "A Long Expected Party" in FOTR, and then dismiss LOTR in its entirety as Ren Fair trash.

I don't think this is really fair. Book 1 is what, 600 pages? More? It's not exactly a small sample, and unlike the LotR volumes, it was intended as its own book from the start. And it's pretty representative of the direction the rest of the series goes in, or at least the next two books. I read the first four books in high school, used to be pretty into them - don't really have any urge to read book 5 now though. And as far as I can recall, Brienne and Davos are the only important honorable characters introduced in the next couple books (and maybe you could add Samwell's elevation to a major character).

Accountable governments and parliaments, formalized legal structures, and institutions of justice where one could go to for resourse, did not exist. In that world, the physically strong and the morally grey, did tend to win a lot.

Kind of. Civilization did almost completely collapse for awhile, but by the twelfth century western Europe was back on its feet as a functioning civilization. It was a very different society from our own, but then so was the Roman Empire. The modern state did not exist for a few hundred more years, but its roots were developing. Historians generally only use "Dark Ages" for the early Medieval period now. The Middle Ages shouldn't be romanticized, but neither should they be degraded as a uniquely ugly and brutal time.

[kzer_za]

As for Tolkien's critics, I think there are three important things to note:
1. One of the keys to understanding LotR is that it's a mythic/heroic story seen through modern eyes. So if some characters such as Théoden seem archetypal, it's intentional. The Hobbits are venturing out into the world, and they see things from a passing age for the first time.
2. As PtB mentioned, a lot of these people just aren't reading the books that carefully. Beyond the most obvious stuff like the Ring and Boromir, Sam's mean streak is a good example.
3. A lot of these people probably haven't read The Silmarillion, which is full of grey characters, good guys getting easily killed off, suicides, a sense of darkness and impending doom, and more. Túrin's tale is as dark as anything Martin has written!