EFFORTPOST THE AMERICAN TOLKIEN :marseythegrey: :soyjakyell: :marseygeorgerrmartin: :marseyit:


								

								

https://time.com/archive/6675462/books-the-american-tolkien/

A common discussion in Fantasy online circles seems to be "who's the new Tolkien?", this article by Time magazine dates from 2005 and is responsible for popularizing the idea that George RR Martin is the "American Tolkien".

What really distinguishes Martin, and what marks him as a major force for evolution in fantasy, is his refusal to embrace a vision of the world as a Manichaean struggle between Good and Evil. Tolkien's work has enormous imaginative force, but you have to go elsewhere for moral complexity. Martin's wars are multifaceted and ambiguous, as are the men and women who wage them and the gods who watch them and chortle, and somehow that makes them mean more. A Feast for Crows isn't pretty elves against gnarly orcs. It's men and women slugging it out in the muck, for money and power and lust and love.

Now I have to say a like ASOIAF a lot, but I never understood why those two authors get compared to each other. They both write Fantasy and love (loved in Tolkien's case) world-building and lore but that's it, their writing styles are different, their stories are different, their themes are different. Is it just because :#marseygeorgerrmartin: has a "double R" on his name (the second R which he added by the way). Is it because the "what's Aragorn's tax policy" quote? :soyjakfat:

The article talks about Robert Jordan too @kaamrev :marseysoypoint: and what's funny is that it comes as a review for "A Feast for Crows" which is… well, ranked low among ASOIAFcels, most fans feel the series peaked in "A Storm of Swords" and AFFC can be a slog for many.

I think it can be argued GRRM is currently the best Fantasy author alive (I guess this speaks more of the current state of fantasy but many would claim it is :marseyrowling:), there's a lot of his writing which is good but also what is bad tends to be very bad

Like this:

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 pooping brown water. The more she drank the more she shat, but the more she shat, the thirstier she grew.

Daenerys last chapter on ADWD lmao

Or this from AFFC which I don't know if it is good, bad, funny or what

Ten thousand of your children perished in my palm, Your Grace, she thought, slipping a third finger into Myr. Whilst you snored, I would lick your sons of my face and fingers one by one, al those pale sticky princes. You claimed your rights, my lord, but in the darkness I would eat your heirs.

Cersei describing licking Robert's c*m instead of finishing inside her, she says that while anally fingering a woman. Maybe we can qualify it as a realistic :marseywomanmoment:

Then there are the thematic differences, Tolkien's Legendarium is mythology, which was Tolkien's life passion, he gets criticized for making "black and white" characters instead of "morally grey" ones but the thing is his main themes are "Good vs Evil" on a cosmic battle, envy (Morgoth) and the will to dominate (Sauron) are the ultimate evil, he's not aiming at historical accuracy as mythology is always anachronistic. ASOIAF is an attempt at European Medieval History but "what if dragons and evil ice elves existed?" Is not good representation of Medieval Western Europe either as medieval peasants were just passive NPCs which lords like the Boltons could skin alive without repercussions, the evil characters of ASOIAF like the Boltons, the Mountain or Tywin get away with too much shit. The high lords of Westeros are also weirdly and modernly atheistic or irreligious, so for all of GRRM's talk about his saga being "historically well grounded" it doesn't seem better than any other fantasy novel, not that it is a problem as it doesn't affect writing quality and storylines just something to point out.

A good way to conclude is that GRRM is not the American Tolkien, in fact no one is and that's ok. An author should be it's own thing, they shouldn't live under the shadow of another author to be compared and I feel like every time the media or fans say stuff like "X IS THE AMERICAN Y" :marseysoylentgrin: or "A IS THE NEW B" :marseysoyhype:they're doing X and A a disservice.

Here are some reddit threads on it

https://old.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/hw0ls4/the_american_tolkien_isnt_george_r_r_martin_its/

Here this redditor argues the American Tolkien is not GRRM but Stephen King :marseyxd:

And here's Robert Jordan's thread

https://old.reddit.com/r/books/comments/61k1v0/robert_jordan_the_american_tolkien/

I never read Jordan so maybe their fans can tell us if that's an apt comparison but I'm certain having Jordan just be Jordan is much better

https://old.reddit.com/r/gameofthrones/comments/1fim7a/no_spoilers_the_american_spectator_is_george_rr/

The Game of Thrones sub (normiest ASOIAF sub ever).

!bookworms !ringbearers

68
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>What really distinguishes Martin, and what marks him as a major force for evolution in fantasy, is his refusal to embrace a vision of the world as a Manichaean struggle between Good and Evil. Tolkien's work has enormous imaginative force, but you have to go elsewhere for moral complexity.

That kind of critic misunderstanding annoyed Tolkien. From a reply to an article in 1956:

>Of course in 'real life' causes are not clear cut — if only because human tyrants are seldom utterly corrupted into pure manifestations of evil will. As far as I can judge some seem to have been so corrupt, but even they must rule subjects only part of whom are equally corrupt, while many still need to have 'good motives', real or feigned, presented to them. As we see today. Still there are clear cases: e.g. acts of sheer cruel aggression, in which therefore right is from the beginning wholly on one side, whatever evil the resentful suffering of evil may eventually generate in members of the right side. There are also conflicts about important things or ideas. In such cases I am more impressed by the extreme importance of being on the right side, than I am disturbed by the revelation of the jungle of confused motives, private purposes, and individual actions (noble or base) in which the right and the wrong in actual human conflicts are commonly involved. If the conflict really is about things properly called right and wrong, or good and evil, then the rightness or goodness of one side is not proved or established by the claims of either side; it must depend on values and beliefs above and independent of the particular conflict.

>...In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit. In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. The Eldar and the Númenóreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world.

>… Some critics seem determined to represent me as a simple-minded adolescent, inspired with, say, a With-the-flag-to-Pretoria spirit, and wilfully distort what is said in my tale. I have not that spirit, and it does not appear in the story. The figure of Denethor alone is enough to show this; but I have not made any of the peoples on the 'right' side, Hobbits, Rohirrim, Men of Dale or of Gondor, any better than men have been or are, or can be. Mine is not an 'imaginary' world, but an imaginary historical moment on 'Middle-earth' – which is our habitation.

From a draft letter of 1971:

>Affixing 'labels' to writers, living or dead, is an inept procedure, in any circumstances: a childish amusement of small minds: and very 'deadening', since at best it overemphasizes what is common to a selected group of writers, and distracts attention from what is individual (and not classifiable) in each of them, and is the element that gives them life (if they have any). But I cannot understand how I should be labelled 'a believer in moral didacticism'. Who by? It is in any case the exact opposite of my procedure in The Lord of the Rings. I neither preach nor teach.

But some critics, like Edmund Wilson, were and are very determined that's Tolkien is writing simple black-and-white childish fantasy, not like the proper writers of real fantasy which is good.

Ooo, those awful Orcs! by Wilson.

An article discussing why Wilson liked Cabell (a now-obscure fantasy writer) when he first disliked his work. Also, if you like Tolkien, you're gay (according to Wilson):

>But there is another aspect of Wilson's reaction to Tolkien that is considerably darker than this. Though some now claim that The Lord of the Rings was generally hated when it was new, it in fact received some ecstatic reviews, and Wilson addresses this. How could such a terrible book garner such praise? "The answer is, I believe, that certain people – especially, perhaps, in Britain – have a lifelong appetite for juvenile trash." There, that settles it.

>Who are these people? Wilson is referring to an earlier paragraph in which he quotes favorable reviews by four critics, three of them British: Richard Hughes, Naomi Mitchison, C.S. Lewis, and one American, Louis J. Halle. He then turns in more detail to "the most distinguished of Tolkien's admirers and the most conspicuous of his defenders," W.H. Auden (British by origin, later residing in the U.S.). Wilson manages to dismiss Auden's praise by suggesting that Auden's professional interest in the theme of the Quest, a matter at the forefront of Tolkien's tale, has short-circuited Auden's critical judgment. So much for him.

>…Wilson counted Auden as a personal friend as well as an admired poet, and I guess this sharp dissimilarity in their tastes ate at Wilson. At any rate, it was still gnawing away a decade later, when, in 1967/68, Wilson made a note in his personal journal, which was posthumously published (The Sixties: The Last Journal, 1960-1972, edited by Lewis M. Dabney, 1993, p. 642). In a context of musing on how (hetero)sexual lust (by men) has given rise to a disproportionate amount of "rapture and despair … heroisms and excesses," he comments: "Yet homosexuals don't seem to have flowered and borne fruit, don't seem to have fully matured: Auden with his appetite for Tolkien."

>Here we have hit rock bottom. Auden's "lifelong appetite for juvenile trash" is because he's gay, and Auden's liking for Tolkien is evidence that there's something immature about gay people in general.

>…It's also absurd even on its face. Need I even point out that not all gay people like Tolkien? And those other three British critics – Hughes, Mitchison, and Lewis (I don't know anything about Halle) – were sexually straight, and they were just as ecstatic about Tolkien as Auden was. ("They bubble, they squeal, they coo," says Wilson.)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That is such a cwope defense. I wwote a stwory where I repwesent characters as evwl perswonyifwied but acktuawwy they aren't twuwy evwl as pure evwl dwoesn't exist. Nyo, I wiww dwo nyothing in the bwook itself two shwow this cwompwexity.

:marseyakshually: :soysnootypefast:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As opposed to Game Of Shit where everyone fricking sucks and it's a completely unwatchable (probably unreadable) piece of cynical garbage?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

All fantasy writers are trash by default and modern day audiences are so desperate for escapism that they would embrace even the middling shit author as a new found lover.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can't argue with that

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.