A Game of Thrones
discussion
George R.R. Martin and J.R.R. Tolkein?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Kirby
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
May 26, 2012 03:38PM
Does anyone know if there is any significance to Martin having the same middle two initials as Tolkein? Was this a nod to Tolkein on Martin's part? It just seems too coincidental to not have been intentional...
reply
|
flag
His full name is George Raymond Richard Martin. Tolkien's full name was John Ronald Reul Tolkien. Just coincidence i assume since the letters actually stand for something and aren't just there to look pretty.
oh, I see- that is a very strange coincidence! most people don't even have two middle names, much less two that both start with an R...but, thank you very much for clearing that up for me! :D
No Comparison.J.R.R. Tolkein was able to execute and deliver a cohesive story.
R.R. Martin lost control of his story to the point where it morphed into a soap opera - you can't even tell who the protagonist is and he completely skipped a volume.
GRRM isn't done with his story, so you can't really say that with any sort of conviction other than speculation. The story has always been more about political intrigue than "adventure," and has never been about romance, so comparing it to a soap opera is unfair as well.
Will wrote: "GRRM isn't done with his story, so you can't really say that with any sort of conviction other than speculation. The story has always been more about political intrigue than "adventure," and has ne..."I disagree.
At this point he has completely skipped a volume. Major players have been removed or reset and events built up over volumes dismissed in a prologue.
He is a great storyteller and talented writer but he completely screwed up in execution. He has removed entire plot lines and characters from the story picking up in a new position; although not to the degree but similar to what has come to be known in movies as a re-boot.
If that is not a sympton of losing control of his story I don't know what is.
I'm betting he will be able to bring this to a viable conclusion but if I knew what I know now before I picked up the first volume - I wouldn't start the series.
I will never buy another product from Mr. Martin.
I buy a book with the understanding that I am purchasing a story that will be delivered in a reasonable time.
Mr. Martin (imo) broke that trust. He did not deliver a story (cohesive beginning - middle - end) and kept us hanging for years. Whether this was because of incompetence (in execution) or disregard (contempt) for his readers, I neither know, nor care.
I understand that others will undoubtedly disagree with me and that is OK. I know I speak for myself, although I have spoke to others who do feel similar. I respect the opinions of others - but again, in this instance, disagree.
He hasn't removed entire plots. When? He has set them aside for a time. Books 4 and 5, for instance, focus on separate locations and character, but both happening during the same time period.Yes, major players have been removed, sometimes they die. And yeah, sometimes they reset, they certainly don't often stay in one place for long.
I have a hard time understanding your criticisms. In what way has he "skipped a volume?"
Like you said, I can't expect everyone to agree with me, that would be lame, but I'm not really understanding what exactly you're so upset about. You can't complain that there is no clear beginning-middle-end when he hasn't even finished the series! How ridiculous!
Will wrote: "He hasn't removed entire plots. When? He has set them aside for a time. Books 4 and 5, for instance, focus on separate locations and character, but both happening during the same time period.Yes,..."
In the last volume I read Rob Stark was alive and well. Tywin was also alive and well. The army of Mance Rayder was still a force to be reckoned with. Tyrion was removed from power but still in good graces with his family (as good as he has ever been anyway) and still ensconced in Kings Landing.
In the beginning of A Dance with Dragons Mance Rayders amry has been scattered and Stannis holds The Wall. Jon Snow is now in charge of the Crows.
Perhaps I literally missed a volume. If not a lot of action was misplaced between the last volume and the current volume.
I think you've literally skipped a volume.
Err, sounds like you missed a Storm of Swords?
That's kind of embarrassing, but I guess it could happen to the best of us!
Pedja wrote: "Err, sounds like you missed a Storm of Swords?"Will wrote: "That's kind of embarrassing, but I guess it could happen to the best of us!"
Actually, I'm pretty sure I read it, it's just been so long ago perhaps I forgot these things - literally. I'm flabbergasted that all these events occurred and I have no recollection of them.
John wrote: "In the last volume I read Rob Stark was alive and well. Tywin was also alive and well. The army of Mance Rayder was still a force to be reckoned with. Tyrion was removed from power but still in good graces with his family (as good as he has ever been anyway) and still ensconced in Kings Landing.In the beginning of A Dance with Dragons Mance Rayders amry has been scattered and Stannis holds The Wall. Jon Snow is now in charge of the Crows."
isn't that also leaving out A Feast for Crows?
Regardless, John seems to have missed some key moments in the series!
It took Tolkien 12 years to complete the LOTR's. Now granted, he did not release each book separately but sometimes it takes some writers a long time to complete epic works. I love the GRR Martin books.
Will wrote: "Regardless, John seems to have missed some key moments in the series!"undoubtedly!
John wrote: "No Comparison.J.R.R. Tolkein was able to execute and deliver a cohesive story.
R.R. Martin lost control of his story to the point where it morphed into a soap opera - you can't even tell who the ..."
The arrogance of the man is mind blowing. I think he is writing to see where the story takes him. If I had known what he was going to do, I would never have started the bloody saga.
Just to address the original poster's question, from Wikipedia: "George Raymond Martin (he took the Confirmation name Richard at the age of 13)..."So, his given name lacked the second R, but he's been using that name for most of his life. I doubt either he or his parents came up with that confirmation name as a nod to Tolkien, though it is possible. Those were very popular books around that time, and it wouldn't be the most outlandish thing for a boy to do.
When he began writing, I think it was an obvious (maybe a bit too obvious) choice as it clearly references Tolkien. And it's paid off. He is sometimes called "The American Tolkien" and compared to him on a fairly regular basis.
Will wrote: "Arrogance? How so?"Arrogance because he assumes that it is not necessary for him to tell a story, nor should his readers expect it. He wants to keep churning out filler material because that's what he wants to do. Why shouldn't one expect a hero? I don't think it's particularly great to have every sympathetic character hideously killed or turned into a zombie.
Face it; He doesn't know which way the story is going. I will quit reading.
How do you know what he assumes about his writing? I think there is a pretty obvious story all with connected parts going on. Don't presume arrogance just because you don't like his story.
I have explained myself with perfect clarity. I am quitting reading because I don't know what story he is trying to tell.
Nothing wrong with stopping a book you don't like. I was challenging you on the accusation of arrogance and the claim you know what he assumes about his audience and his writing. He is telling a story about various struggles for power in a fantasy setting. Not everyone will like it.
Arrogance is because he has created a series of cliffhangers and then becomes annoyed with his many fans who have the temerity to ask when he might be putting them out of their misery. Look, I started out with very high hopes of this series, in fact I loved it. Now I feel let down, disappointed and Mr Martin is getting on his high horse. Like I say, I don't think he knows how to finish it.
He's writing a fantasy retelling of the War of the Roses... and he started in the middle of that conflict. Sure, it's a long project, but it's a huge conceptual idea, so doing that in a book or two doesn't really add up. And cliffhangers are a perfectly standard entertainment tool. Hell, Will & Grace has cliffhangers....In any case, I don't think it's reasonable to characterize that as arrogance. Rather, if you're disappointed for whatever reason that's probably on you more than on the project. GRRM is a pretty accomplished guy, and his skills are evident. Frankly, most of the criticism that I've seen of SoI&F (things like sexism, racism, homosexual content, violence, child abuse) is, at best, the product of the critic's imagination, or their projection of some personal issue onto GRRM.
I could see calling him arrogant for biting off more than he can chew if he doesn't finish... but we'll have to wait and see about that.
Nothing to add to that really. If he does finish, he has got an awful lot of loose ends to tie up.
I may be able to shed a small amount of light on the discussion. As a fantasy author myself, I very much admire Martin's writing, plotting and delineation of characters. But I am also puzzled and disappointed by the way he has jettisoned central characters - people you have grown to like and admire - and assumed would remain central to the plot. It would be risky behaviour for most of us. But Martin has such a huge following, he can afford to lose a sizeable section of his readership that, to judge from the many complaints I've seen, has resulted from this. It has certainly caught the attention of journalists and reviewers who would normally disdain fantasy as a writing category. I've read several articles in which these latter extol the fact that he appears to be sending up the tropes usually thought central to fantasy. I hope he isn't actually doing this, or at least not deliberately, since I believe fantasy is a very demanding and highly creative endeavour that deserves respect.
A friend of mine who is also deeply into the world of fantasy writing and publishing knows Martin and, indeed, asked him why he treated central characters in this way. Reportedly, he said something to the effect, "Maybe it's time the more minor characters got a break". Of course he may have been joking.
I will continue to read his series if ever it is finished but I'm not hanging on a thread about it since the characters and plot lines that most interested me are no longer part of it. I also wonder if part of the reason for the long delay in completion is related to this - that when you wipe out major threads, it may be difficult to pick up the creative flow again.
But that's just my opinion.
I could not agree more. In some ways it's quite lazy storytelling too. The upshot is that the characters who could have made a difference to the outcome of the story are gone and you are left with people that you don't know or care about. What was the point of poor Quenton Martell, for instance? Poor bloke was a johnny come lately and then died a horrible death. Looks to me like the whole thing has become a chore to Martin. He's taken the money and now he's got to deliver, but he's a lot older. Think the fun has gone out of it.
Gary wrote: "Frankly, most of the criticism that I've seen of SoI&F (things like sexism, racism, homosexual content, violence, child abuse) is, at best, the product of the critic's imagination, or their projection of some personal issue onto GRRM."Really? How many repetitions make a pattern? When you have dozens of elaborate rape, torment and murder scenes, it becomes obvious that the author enjoys this content. For a full analysis of them, go here:
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/08/26/e...
The list is staggering and undeniable. Good luck as a GRRM apologist.
Ian wrote: "Really? How many repetitions make a pattern? When you have dozens of elaborate rape, torment and murder scenes, it becomes obvious that the author enjoys this content."It really just means he read a few books himself before he sat down to tell his elaborate, fantasy retcon version of events. In truth, if one knows the history that his project is based upon, his portrayal is more than a little toned down for the sensibilities of his readers (and I'd argue for his own.) If you think his characterization of the Dothraki is racist then have a look at what the actual Mongols did in comparison. The Dothraki are comparatively gentle. Think the killing off of "main" characters is an issue? Well, sorry to say, kings and pretenders to the throne during that period didn't have a long shelf-life. Think his portrayal of gender politics is sexist? Well, bad news: the actual treatment of women of the period makes his work look like something penned by Betty Friedan.
But the main point that I think people are stepping over in order to reach their conclusions, is that GRRM isn't presenting these things as his view of how the world should be. It's an attempt at a gritty reality fantasy story... but even the relatively mild bits of that he puts in provoke accusations that he is himself racist, sexist, perverted, etc. In truth, there's a real lack of intellectual objectivity (and more than little lacking intellectual integrity) amongst those who put that characterization on the author. His writing and commentary outside of the books clearly indicates his views on these kinds of matters, and those unable to grasp that simple value really are failing in the most fundamental of reading comprehension skills.
Gary wrote: "In truth, there's a real lack of intellectual objectivity (and more than little lacking intellectual integrity) amongst those who put that characterization on the author. His writing and commentary outside of the books clearly indicates his views on these kinds of matters, and those unable to grasp that simple value really are failing in the most fundamental of reading comprehension skills."No, in truth you took detestable English classes from a "postmodern" perspective where the "author is dead" in an effort to separate the human from the ideas.
This is the most perverse form of anti-intellectualism in modern history. You cannot decouple the two. If the CEO of an oil company claims he cares about the environment, but his company consistently ignores expensive safety measures to prevent oil spills, then the reasonable conclusion is that the CEO does not care about the environment.
Men and women write from an individualized perspective. Their biases cannot be ignored.
I dislike GRRM, and that cannot be ignored in my comments. If it could be ignored, then you could separate me from my opinion, and my opinion is then nobody's opinion, and therefore meaningless. But you already understand my meaning. Reading this comment is not like reading "Bob loves Myrna" in a bathroom stall. You know who I am and where I am coming from.
Using the "history" defense is also flawed. GRRM is not writing a historical account. He is creating a fantasy setting. While I find ridiculous the claim that most of humanity was raped and murdered throughout history, ignoring all of the people who chose not to do those things and to punish those who did, it's irrelevant. You are comparing two different subjects. History reflects on humanity as well as the person telling the story. Westeros only reflects on GRRM.
Were a historian to compile a book about the use of torture throughout history, his perspective might be observed by what he focuses on. Does he dwell on its effectiveness in keeping the underclasses from uprising, or write about its inhumanity and lasting effects on its victims? With a fiction writer, the focus and the outcomes are the points of observation. GRRM rewards characters who call pre-teen girls "cunts" while sexually abusing them, and often these characters run amok until he replaces them with the next set of baddies.
This clearly demonstrates two ends he wishes to achieve. One, he enjoys writing about these injustices, and his motivation in doing so comes into question. Two, he protects his evil actors - and the things they logically represent - from final consequence by simple replacing them with new villains. This likely serves a third end common to TV writers: keep the story going and make more money.
Ian wrote: "No, in truth you took idiotic English classes from a "postmodern" perspective where the "author is dead" in an effort to separate the human from the ideas."I did take those classes as a matter of fact, but that's not where my assessment comes from. I don't think the art can be decoupled from the artist in any way. In fact, I think just the opposite is true. I think art is entirely the product of character. Any writing is, in fact. Mine right now is, and your own in this thread is as well....
If one reads (or listens to) the interviews of GRRM it's easy to recognize that he isn't actually a racist, a sexist, a pervert or any of the other accusations that are getting leveled here. His project is about his own interest in fantasy and history. He's an artist creating an alternate history. That his alternate history contains racial themes in it is part and parcel of those self-same elements in the period that he's describing. It's not an endorsement, but a speculative analysis--and a pretty gentle one really if one wants to be blunt about it. Despite the accusation that he has created a racist product, he's soft pedaled more than a few of the cultural themes that he could have been portraying.
Sorry, but I found 'Game of Thrones' disappointingly derivative and somehow superficial. At times it seems like a painting by numbers approach to writing high fantasy - put in a nasty murder here, a rape there, but don't forget the modern audience so better have a disabled central character and a strong woman or two, and a bit with a dog. I also have to find fault with Martin in his comments quoted about Tolkien: he says, about religious belief, 'That's what Tolkien left out — there's no priesthood, there's no temples; nobody is worshiping anything in the Rings." This seems to show both arrogance and an unbelievably superficial knowledge of LOTR. What about about the Valar, the Ainur, with Melkor/Morgoth as a kind of Satan figure, a fallen angel? I know these aren't central to the main story but they are mentioned. He apparently didn't even get as far as the appendices. And as for 'The American Tolkien' - oh, please... there is no comparison other than an utterly superficial one. For a start, Tolkien wasn't writing with one cynical eye on the film/TV rights, as this guy so clearly is. I've given up reading it.
Gary wrote: "But the main point that I think people are stepping over in order to reach their conclusions, is that GRRM isn't presenting these things as his view of how the world should be. It's an attempt at a gritty reality fantasy story... "This. This all over.
Good guys sometimes get killed in movies/books, but people don't interpret that as the writer saying it would be best if we murdered all the good guys in the world, do they? No, because that would be stupid. The world he's describing may be fantasy, but the time in our history it's modeled on would very believably see rape, betrayals, main players being killed off, etc.
I don't understand why people assume that because a bad thing happens in a book the author must be condoning it. Yes, I suppose Martin COULD write about a world where everything is perfect and nothing bad ever happens, but who wants to read a series full of "and for the umpteenth day in a row, everything went as planned and life was just ducky"? Sure, I may not ENJOY rape scenes or the loss of main characters, but I understand why those things are in the book. They create conflict, they build tension by removing the "safe" label from the protagonists, and they serve to paint a clearer picture of a world in dire conflict. Martin's a damn good writer and I think part of that certainly comes from his refusal to treat his readers with kid gloves.
Jenn wrote: "I don't understand why people assume that because a bad thing happens in a book the author must be condoning it."I'm sure it's just a tendency amongst some folks. Many people seem to look mostly for validation of their own beliefs in their entertainment. Lots of people will reject a book because the didn't "like" or "relate to" the main character, for example. (I don't think you're supposed to "like" most of GRRM's characters.)
Other people read to experience things vicariously, or to find things very different from their own experience. I'll leave it up to everyone else to decide which method is better than the other. (I have my own ideas on that, of course....)
Ian wrote: "No, in truth you took detestable English classes from a "postmodern" perspective where the "author is dead" in an effort to separate the human from the ideas..."That's like saying that an author who wrote a novel about a Jewish victim of the holocaust was on the side of the Nazis. There's a difference between condoning an evil act and simply reporting it. Would you consider Shakespeare an evil writer or anti-Danish because he wrote a play in which the entire Danish royal family and a number of their courtiers die violently and cruelly?
And sure, Westeros is a fantasy world, but its primary characteristic is that it's very similar to real-life Europe during the Middle Ages, so the society GRRM describes can be validly compared to real society of those times.
Mitali wrote: "Ian wrote: "No, in truth you took detestable English classes from a "postmodern" perspective where the "author is dead" in an effort to separate the human from the ideas..."That's like saying tha..."
1. Is the Danish royal family representative of all Danish people?
2. Prove that the middle ages were consistently as morally corrupt and crime-ridden as GRRM describes. Use statistics and news stories.
Ian wrote: "1. Is the Danish royal family representative of all Danish people?2. Prove that the middle ages were consistently as morally corrupt and crime-ridden as GRRM describes. Use statistics and news stories. "
1. Are Khal Drogo, Daenerys, Ned Stark, etc. representative of all people in Westeros and Essos? The vast majority of people in these places are alive and (relatively) well. And by the same logic, neither are the characters representative of any real life people or groups. Daenerys is a female character in a series of novels, not a representative of all womankind.
2. A quick glance at the political machinations of any European royal dynasties in the middle ages/early modern age will show just how morally corrupt people could be when there was a throne at stake. Hell, just read a short summary of the War of the Roses (the conflict that is the primary inspiration for the War of the Five Kings in ASoIaF). The wars and genocides set in motion by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries were so bloodthirsty that they make Westeros seem like a haven of peace in comparison.
If you want actual statistics, then here's a quotation from The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker:
"From the 13th century to the 20th, homicide in various parts of England plummeted by a factor of ten, fifty, and in some cases a hundred—for example, from 110 homicides per 100,000 people per year in 14th-century Oxford to less than 1 homicide per 100,000 in mid-20th-century London."
In other words, the average person in 14th century England had a hundred times higher chance of being murdered than the average person in 20th century England. And that's not even taking into consideration the simple fact that the homicide rates would have been much higher than average among the people vying for power.
Mitali wrote: "Ian wrote: "1. Is the Danish royal family representative of all Danish people?2. Prove that the middle ages were consistently as morally corrupt and crime-ridden as GRRM describes. Use statistics ..."
I am impressed you bothered to look something up, but you pulled from a clearly biased source, given the title.
We could throw facts at each other to favor a side, but that none of this matters. Westeros is an imaginary setting and you misunderstood my previous point.
When GRRM creates a fantasy world where literally dozens of incidents happen with males gleefully insulting and raping a girl - a girl of an unusually early age - then no historical accuracy can be applied. He created this world, regardless of any similarity to historical events. It's his fantasy. He does not "report" when it did not happen. I have a B.A. in Print Journalism but it doesn't take a 3rd grade graduate to figure that out.
Were this not the case, then "The Dark Knight" could be considered fact because "American cities existed." The book "The Life of Pi" could be considered "a valid look at life as a survivor on the ocean." We could extrapolate forever, ignoring any truth somebody managed to write down, insulting history, and ignoring an obvious red flag. When a man repeatedly writes creepy things, and writes them without an explicit or legitimate purpose, it becomes reasonable to suspect that he values creepy things.
Conversely, Tolkien wrote about heroism and stoical cheer in the face of inevitable doom. His characters repeatedly expressed these qualities, so it becomes clear that he valued these things.
If this is not the case, the meaning of language is reduced - perhaps rendered meaningless - as we are unable to perceive patterns within it.
As such, you already perceived that I value Tolkien by juxtapositioning his values against GRRM's. You can predict that I agree with Tolkien's values and will speak more about them. And so the nature and truth of how we interpret literature is proven.
Ian wrote: "I am impressed you bothered to look something up, but you pulled from a clearly biased source, given the title. "I quoted that book because it's one I happened to be reading at the moment. There are literally hundreds of other sources I could quote, but I won't bother, since obviously you have no interest in actually looking at the evidence, and will probably dismiss everything that disagrees with your viewpoint as 'clearly biased'.
As for the rest of your argument ... it's merely devolved into you trying to justify your hatred for GRRM. I have no objection to that in itself. People have different views, and not everybody likes the same things. But I don't see why you feel the need to insult the people who do like him.
Mitali wrote: "As for the rest of your argument ... it's merely devolved into you trying to justify your hatred for GRRM. "Can't dispute that. We are here to express our opinions. As for insulting, I am fairly certain we insulted each other, more or less calling each other stupid. And for that I will try harder to show respect to you and others in my arguments.
I may have actually read part of "Better Angels of Our Nature" for a paper on altruism a while back, and I am not opposed to giving it a look.
John wrote: "No Comparison.J.R.R. Tolkein was able to execute and deliver a cohesive story.
R.R. Martin lost control of his story to the point where it morphed into a soap opera - you can't even tell who the ..."
EXACTLY how I feel about Martin. Almost as if, once Hollywood became interested, he created more characters so he could write more books and get paid for the rights to another season. Blah. I quit reading somewhere in the middle of book 5. I'll wait for the HBO condensed version.
I loved the first 3-4 books. The first book in particular was stellar. The later ones, however, don't seem to have quite the same spark as the first few. That said, I think he's a good writer, and I'm hoping he can return to form in the next book.
I think all the main characters dying adds realism to the story. Like how if you're that involved in the game of thrones, you're not likely to survive. It makes it interesting and adds unexpectedness.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
A Feast for Crows (other topics)
A Game of Thrones (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (other topics)A Feast for Crows (other topics)
A Game of Thrones (other topics)
