Martin Pwns the world!

[the smiling weirwood]

Okay, so we've pretty much picked every aspect of the series to death, undeath, and early retirement, so let's move outside the sandbox. We've discussed Jordan, and I think we can all agree that he looks positively juvenile beside Mr. Martin, but how do you think GRRM stacks up against other authors? I'm talking big names. Hobb, Erikson, Elliot, Bakker, Tolkien and whoever else y'all can think of.

I have only read Erikson, and personally I think he just isn't as good as GRRM. All around just worse. Still good, but no GRRM.

So! Have at it!

[genisis2]

Oh I think both Erikson and Bakker hold up very well to Martin. Both very different writers from GRRM and just as entertaining. Each has there strengths and weaknesses and all three are my favorite authors. I really cant pick one above the other.
Ive never read Elliot. I like Hobb but doesnt come close to GRRM, Bakker or Erickson.

[the smiling weirwood]

I was just throwing around some of the names I hear on the forum a lot.

I don't know, some of Erikson's character developement was really shabby. I mean, Tattersail and that guy after knowing each other for like a week? and being alternately unconscious, so it wasn't even that long.

I know this doesn't help my point, but GRRM just felt better. His characters are completely real and believable, to the point where I actually cried when some of them died. I feel like I know them and get slightly depressed when I put the book down and I realize they aren't real.

[genisis2]

Originally Posted by the smiling weirwood

I was just throwing around some of the names I hear on the forum a lot.

I don't know, some of Erikson's character developement was really shabby. I mean, Tattersail and that guy after knowing each other for like a week? and being alternately unconscious, so it wasn't even that long.

I know this doesn't help my point, but GRRM just felt better. His characters are completely real and believable, to the point where I actually cried when some of them died. I feel like I know them and get slightly depressed when I put the book down and I realize they aren't real.

First have you read all of Erikson's books?

I understand what you mean, I dont know if shabby is the word I would use describing Erikson's characters but each to his own. So Martin has stronger character traits or they seem to have more depth even the secondary characters than in Erikson work. Well ya you got me there, Martin has the edge. Erikson has gods interacting with man,powerful magics [unfortunately no evil chickens ] yet the stories have this unique quality to them that when read do not come across as silly or stupid which is the way I felt about Tolkien when I first read his work.

If you cried when you read GRRM. Then you should be equally moved by reading Bakker.

[Trey Greyjoy]

Ok, the "Erikson is god" posts in the Erikson threads I can let go, but not here.
Erikson is nowhere near the quality of Martin's work. Im sorry. Ive tried. Believe me.
I understand its a personal preference, but there seems to be this "group think" decision that Erikson is equal to if not greater than Martin on this forum.
Im officially standing up and saying "no" I strongly disagree. (at least from the relative safetly of my Martin subforum!)

GOTM is an incoherent mess in need of serious editing. Its not all bad. He has some unique ideas and some really great scenes, but the internal inconsistencies, sophmoric prose and freshman layout ruin it.
DHG, from the part I could wade through, is just silly.
Come on, the granddaughter of the city's most powerful wizard gets abducted in some ally and the main protagonist just "happens" to stumble across it? Please. 6th graders come up with better plot lines.
And a system where are the gods are tarot cards? Please. Even Piers Anthony abandoned that idea long ago.

Bakker has some good ideas, but I had a lot of trouble relating to his protagonists. When you choose to make your two male leads homosexual, well, you have to expect to lose some of your audience. I have no problem with it personally, I just cant relate. There are many other works I can read.

Scott Lynch is far more worthy of praise that either Erikson or Bakker.

[genisis2]

TG so you dont like Erikson? Please state what you really mean. Cmon get off the fence if you dont like Erikson just state it. I really dont like all this dancing around.
Seriously TG I remember in the Erikson thread that you were much nicer, something about not quite getting into the book. I certainly dont remember any threads that claimed Erikson was god.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
Bakker has some good ideas, but I had a lot of trouble relating to his protagonists. When you choose to make your two male leads homosexual, well, you have to expect to lose some of your audience. I have no problem with it personally, I just cant relate. There are many other works I can read.

Lets be honest. First you say that you have trouble relating to his gay protaganists but then you go on to say you have no problem with it on a personal level. Then end it with, "there are many other works I can read "the very fact that you bring it up in my opinion shows that you do have a problem with it. The way you end your opinion also shows you have a problem with it. Do you share the same opinion of Jaime and his sisters relationship? Can you relate to that? Are you really not judging someones work based on relationships that are gay or strait? Reread your post.

First time author comes out with two who are not gay, but are actually bisexual main characters. I saw that as bold and original[ I really never have seen gay characters in the fantasy genre.[Im sure there are others]. I knew many people reading his work would have a problem with this. Its unfortunate people cant get past this.

[the smiling weirwood]

I thought his post was quite clear. He does not have issues with homosexuality, but he is not gay, so he can't relate to those character issues which are homosexual in nature. I got it. I get almost everyone. I'm very empathetic, when characters have depth, as opposed to being cardboard cutouts. And YAY! for freedom of speech!

[Winters_Sorrow]

Well I've read the first two Eriksson books and agree that it's a lot harder to get into than GRRM's approach. There were some good ideas and characters but I agree with TG that there were a couple of occassions where events occurred too conveniently for me. Bakker I've literally only just started reading so it's too early to comment for me.

genesis2, I think you may have misread TG's comments as he said that "I just can't relate". I took that to mean that he was unable to 'put himself' into that character's mind & motivations. The same way that I can empathise but never really understand the pain of childbirth I suppose.

Also, for my 2c worth, Gemmell, Raymond Feist & Harry Turtledove are also great authors and I still find myself re-reading their work on a regular basis. I read Hobb's original trilogy but for whatever reason, haven't read any others - I will have to at some point.

[genisis2]

Originally Posted by the smiling weirwood

I thought his post was quite clear. He does not have issues with homosexuality, but he is not gay, so he can't relate to those character issues which are homosexual in nature.

Regarding my last rant. There is not a homosexual theme running rampant through the book.This should be clarified. But one of the characters experiences a homosexual relationship with the father of the anti-hero. This relationship creates a number of complicated problems inward and outward for said character but mainly self loathing and revenge. The second character is an anti-hero and because I havnt read the book in a number of years may or may not be bisexual{ugh cant remember}.
The homosexuality that occurs in itself is minor but integeral to the story.Im as hetro as the next {I have a card in my wallet that says so } and one need not be gay to understand this aspect of the story. One need not be gay to relate to it.

Originally Posted by the smiling weirwood

And YAY! for freedom of speech!

Agreed.

[Boaz]

I'll do a little comparing of Martin to Tolkien. I can't believe my arrogance in attempting this... well, actually I can believe it. I'm Boaz, I'll jump at any chance to come off as foolish. Of Tolkien's works, I am very familiar with The Silmarillion, The Lord of the Rings, and The Hobbit. Yet, I've only read four of Martin's books... AGOT, ACOK, ASOS, and AFFC.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive or complete comparison. I'll try and discuss just a few areas. But, let me add this caveat before I begin... I devoured Tolkien at age 14, but did not pick up Martin until I was 35. So I am judging these authors by my initial reactions at very diverse ages and judging them based upon rereadings... Tolkien over twenty-five years and Martin over five.

One reason, and it's a big reason, I love Tolkien is that he put so much effort into his work before the public ever glimpsed it. True, he always tinkered with the stories that eventually became The Silmarillion and so they never became completely cohesive, but the scope is truly tremendous. Tolkien's son and friends read his works before he submitted them to his publisher.

Tolkien's effort included not one, but at least six languages... none of them are complete (all are fragmentary), but the feel of emotions and culture resound within those words. By the way, none of the languages use the letter X... in my opinion authors use X to describe alien or exotic places and names when they don't have a clue about how the alien and exotic should really sound.

Martin has not attempted to create languages for ASOIAF, except (iirc) for the few words of Valyrian. Valar morghulis, valar dohaeris, dracarys, and valonqar are the few words Martin gives to us. Valyrian compares to Tolkien's Black Speech, languages of the Woses or the Rohirrim in depth. But I do not chasten Martin for this... he is not working as a linguist. But I've thoroughly enjoyed Martin's slight changing of english spelling to create very real sounding names. Eddard, Sandor, Rickon, Loras, Robar, Sansa, Sandor, Amory, and Barristan all seem English with some French or German influences. Also, Martin only has two characters with X's in their names that I can recall... Jalabar Xho and Xaro Xhoan Daxos (sp?).

In my estimation, both of these authors both knew where they wanted their stories to go from the very beginning. They knew the events. They knew the dilemmas their characters would face. They knew the important decisions that would be made. They knew the themes they wanted to delve into. In contrast, Edgar Rice Burroughs' work is pure pulp. He seemed to have kept cranking out stories as long as they were selling. (By the way, I love John Carter of Mars.)

Tolkien's world was intended as a sort of precourser to our own history. He was writing myth to fall in line with our world. But he created his own special world with special creatures. Martin's world, on the other hand, is not a precourser to our time nor is it an alternate world. But England, during the War of the Roses, is obviously implied.

Both have taken our histories and myths for their inspirations. Tolkien's creation story echoes the Genesis chapter one account. Numenor is, or at the least strongly implies, Atlantis. Boromir's fight to hold the bridge at Osgiliath is straight from the Roman legend of Horatio. Martin uses the War of the Roses... York becomes Stark, Lancaster becomes Lannister, Tudor may be Targaryen, and Neville may be Tyrell. The Ironborn, the Dothraki, the Wildlings, and The Wall all come from templates of our world.

I think the main differences between Tolkien and Martin lie in style of story telling and in the message.

In The Hobbit, Tolkien keeps a very light tone. The target audience is adolescents and adolescents at heart. In ASOIAF, Martin does not target adolescents, except mayhaps when he just tries to shock his readers.

In The Silmarillion, Tolkien attempts to present his stories as being related by a master bard. The characters are from ancient times... and they stay that way because all of the tales are told in the past tense. The only past tense that Martin uses, iirc, deal with Ned's dreams.

Perhaps the biggest difference in style is the use of hobbits as the only storytellers of LOTR versus Martin's use of different character's POVs. By my count, twenty-five different characters are used by Martin in the first four books to present his epic. By using all these characters, Martin is able to bring in various and differing emotional, theological, and psychological reactions to events... sometimes to the same events. From this we get the ethical values of the characters. In contrast, any action not witnessed directly by hobbits, LOTR, is presented to them in a story. The one exception is the chase of the three hunters from Amon Hen to the the Hornburg. All information is presented from the ethical values of hobbits... we have to read into the text to find the real Elven, Gondorian, Entish, etc. judgements on the events in the story.

Martin is an intricate story teller. He weaves many, many characters and plots to create a multi-level tale that engrosses his readers. The political intrigue, the constant bickering, the diplomatic deceptions, and the omni-present threat of death help me to suspend my disbelief at the right times and to follow the characters' motives. But with all this going on, I feel that Martin is not concerned about an overall message as much as the overall feel. He likes to shock his readers. Sometimes I get the feeling the shock is only for shock's sake.

Tolkien, imo, is more concered about conveying a message than presenting theatre. I know Tolkien eschews allegory, but the obvious espousal of Christian theology through certain archetypes is hard for me to not descry from my vantage point. Anyway, politcal intrigue is not a plot device that Tolkien uses much.

But for me the biggest overall difference between these authors is the presentation of their theological and moral beliefs on leadership, community and God. And these are probably best left for another post... this one is long enough.

[Raven]

Boaz: to expand a bit, GRRM himself has drawn a parallel in one area between the works, and that is in the gradually expanding scope he was aiming for.

He's said that, just as LOTR starts with the hobbits in the Shire and moves out to encompass more and more characters and epic world-changing events, he wanted ASOIAF to begin with the Starks in Winterfell and move outwards to King's Landing and beyond, expanding the scope and scale.

[Trey Greyjoy]

Originally Posted by genisis2

Seriously TG I remember in the Erikson thread that you were much nicer, something about not quite getting into the book. I certainly dont remember any threads that claimed Erikson was god.

Sorry if I was a bit too harsh, I certainly didnt mean anything personal, it was late here and I was very tired when I wrote that. We're still friends!
The truth is that Ive been trying to get into the series after so many people here and on the ASOIAF board rave about Erikson. Truthfully I began to suspect it was some sort of joke. Kind of along the lines how some people pretend to like Goodkind, but do so facetiously.
Like I said before, there seems to have been a decision made somewhere that its a universal truth that Erikson is equal to or superior to Martin. I kind of felt like I was the only person who read both and said "wha???". Recently Ive been emboldened by finally reading some like-minded opinions on other boards. At last I dont feel crazy and am the only one who feels this way.
I just wanted to state for the record that I do not agree. Im "coming out of the closet" as it were and announcing my love for GRRM.
With that said:

Lets be honest. First you say that you have trouble relating to his gay protaganists but then you go on to say you have no problem with it on a personal level. Then end it with, "there are many other works I can read "the very fact that you bring it up in my opinion shows that you do have a problem with it. The way you end your opinion also shows you have a problem with it. Do you share the same opinion of Jaime and his sisters relationship? Can you relate to that? Are you really not judging someones work based on relationships that are gay or strait? Reread your post.

There are openly gay characters in ASOIAF (ok, not openly to the world so much, but clear to the reader). I have no problem with it whatsoever. Search these and other boards though and you'll find many posts where individuals were shocked by the notion that Renly was gay. I never was. Doesnt bother me a bit. In fact, I have read works by openly homosexual authors with clear a definative bent to their themes like James Baldwin, Oscar Wilde, Franz Kafka, Jeanette Winterson, Ive seen the Torch Song Trilogy etc. Great stuff. The difference here is that what I want out of my fantasy novels is just...something different. I usually like to imagine myself in the role of the main characters...its just...hard to do when they start kissing other men....you see what I mean?
Personally I think the idea of a strong gay male character in fantasy is a great one. Just, mmm....when there's more than one it begins to appear more like a...statement.
I felt the same way about the Poppy Bright horror novels, but I didnt have a problem with Anne Rice's vampire novels or Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius. Hopefully thats enough examples to see the difference.

[genisis2]

Originally Posted by Trey Greyjoy

Sorry if I was a bit too harsh, I certainly didnt mean anything personal, it was late here and I was tired. We're still friends!

Absolutely. I didnt take it personally, more I was shocked by your vehemence when the last thing I read by you was that you you would give him a shot.

Originally Posted by Trey Greyjoy

The truth is that Ive been trying to get into them after so many people here and on the ASOIAF board rave about Erikson. Truthfully I began to suspect it was some sort of joke along the lines how some people pretend to like Goodkind facetiously.

Unghh ...as he pulls the Goodkind knife of bad writing from his back... I did not see that coming Brutus , please my back is open to you have another plunge.

Originally Posted by Trey Greyjoy

Like I said before, there seems to have been a decision made somewhere along the lines that its a universal truth that Erikson is equal to or superior to Martin. I just wanted to state for the record that I do not agree. Im "coming out of the closet" as it were and announcing my love for GRRM.

As I said earlier and much different from posts others have stated. Erikson & Bakker totaly different writers from GRRM but for me just as entertianing.

Originally Posted by Trey greyjoy

There are openly gay characters in ASOIAF (ok, not openly to the world so much, but clear to the reader). I have no problem with it whatsoever. ...I have read works by openly homosexual authors with clear themes like James Baldwin, Oscar Wilde,Franz Kafka, Jeanette Winterson, Ive seen the Torch Song Triology. Great stuff. The difference here is that what I want out of fantasy is just...something different. I usually like to imagine myself in the role of the main characters...its just...hard to do when they start kissing other men....you see what I mean?
Personally I think the idea of a strong gay male character in fantasy is a great one. Just, mmm....when there's more than one it begins to appear more like a...statement.

Ahhh much differently stated than the previous post. I see what your saying but once agian the first book is not the act of hosexuality, nor a shock factor but snowball into a realistic portrayal of a vengful, self hating character. Nor might I add is Bakker moralising in his first novel.

[Trey Greyjoy]

Originally Posted by genisis2

Absolutely. I didnt take it personally, more I was shocked by your vehemence when the last thing I read by you was that you you would give him a shot.

At the time I was probing tenderly into the heart of Erikson territory looking for answers! I feel more comfortable here in the lair of the GRRM.

Also, I focused more on the negatives in my last post. GOTM had some good ideas, I just didnt see in DHG a transitioning to something better....

I should know enough to realize that I need to expound on any thoughts concerning homosexual themes in novels...its a touchy subject and comments can easily be misconstrued. No, I dont think that Bakker was necessarily trying to make a definative statement...just clarifying where he lost me and where things seemed to be heading...

Which character is the one who is self-hating? I cannot recall the names but there was the "monk" and the trapper and the "wizard" and his apprentice.

And GRRM does pwn the world btw.

[Boaz]

Raven, I agree. But again, it's interesting though as the authors expand their worlds one keeps the same POV while one multiplies his POVs.