George RR Martin on his Differences with Tolkien

Previous Video - George RR Martin on House Baratheon: • George RR Martin on Ho...
A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones Author George R. R. Martin Interview on his differences with Lord of the Rings Author JRR Tolkien

[@christianwelsh9669]

A lot of people seem to ignore that Tolkien's aim wasn't to create historically accurate fiction. He wanted his stories to be an alternate mythology for our own world. So of course the good man is a good king. Very different than what Martin is trying to do.

[@rothbardfreedom]

More specifically a mythology for England/English.

[@alokreigns4056]

And guess what,Martin's is better

[@balabanasireti]

@@alokreigns4056 That's very subjective.

[@christianwelsh9669]

@@alokreigns4056 if you want more historically accurate fiction then sure, but the depth and breadth of the world Tolkein created completely blows ASOIF out of the water. Tolkein created multiple languages and gave them all ancestors just like an actual honest to God language would have. Martin expressly did not do this and iirc he's said he doesnt want to. That's just one of many examples. It all relates back to what they wanted to achieve. Tolkein's desires for his work and achievements are far greater than Martin's. Both read like they're supposed to. Martin- A more accurate look at the medieval period in a fictional setting. Robert's tax policies matter for the story. Tolkein- An alternate mythology set in a fantasy world. Aragorn's tax policies don't matter for the story.

[@alokreigns4056]

Ok.I don't know which one is better,asoiaf or lotr?but I find asoiaf far more interesting,gripping,adventurous and shocking than lotr

[@Halbared]

As GRR says, there is politics in Middle-earth, and evil doesn't just come from Mordor and Sauron. The history of men, dwarfs and elves all have their moments. I think the eagles stand alone as uncorrupted.

[@renaigh]

the Eagles still have their bias.

[@Halbared]

@@renaigh Do you mean Thorondor's lot? I don't think the ones of the third age had issues beyond stealing the sheep of men.

[@renaigh]

@@Halbared you expect me to know the difference? lol

[@cattycorner8]

@@renaigh In Christian ethics, which are Tolkien's ethics, absolute good rules over everything else.

[@renaigh]

@@cattycorner8 what is Absolute "good"?

[@guille3622]

Everyone who says Tolkien has no politics, should read "The Silmarillion"

[@thesenate433]

*Everyone should read “The Silmarillion”

[@wserthmar8908]

The Silmarillion is not about politics, it’s more about the world’s genesis and the ultimate chronology

[@guille3622]

@@wserthmar8908 But it has a lot of politics in it, that influences most of characters actions, therefore their desitions and destiny

[@TheBayzent]

Or Lord of the Rings. Or anything Tolkien really, maybe not the Children stories like the Hobbit for Tolkien does have a lot of politics.

[@chrish4309]

@@TheBayzent even The Children of Hurin has a bit of politics, especially within Doriath.

[@DisturbingFacts7]

Love listening to this interviewer talking with George. He's very informed and doesn't ask generic , boring questions. Makes these conversations 100x better than all the other interviews I've seen George in.

[@Sev997jr]

Amen

[@jackstewart753]

Its Richard Fidler. Great interviewer for the Australian Broadcasting Corp. Free podcast 'Conversations With Richard Fidler' has lots of good interviews .... just so ya know

[@jaezon4040]

Some of these interviewers just like to hear themselves talk when they get in a room with George. Not this guy tho.

[@samuelbedsole5089]

The main difference between Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire is that one is mythology and the other is historical drama. You don't see the politics and policies of rulers in the Legend of King Arthur or Beowulf because that wasn't the point of those stories, and Tolkien, who was inspired by these myths and wanted to give England a sort of new mythology after the native Briton mythology was lost during it's christianization and Saxon invasions, wanted to create that type of story. Meanwhile GRRM is writing about a world more accurate to real medieval Europe with all the ugliness and hardship that would be seen in it. In a way Tolkien and Martin go hand in hand. GOT is the real world with all it's troubles and LOTR is the stories the common people tell each other to try and escape those troubles and dare to hope for goodness to persevere.

[@cattycorner8]

Samuel Bledsoe In a way? lol without Tolkien, there would be no Martin.

[@cattycorner8]

Samuel Bedsole Tolkien was a Christian. He was a friend and peer of C. S. Lewis. He did glean inspiration from Viking, Norse, German and other mythologies, but the story was pure Christian morality play: the triumph of Good over pure Evil and the Return of the King (Jesus/Aragorn) saving the world from the carnal Satan/Sauron/Morgath.

[@utkarsh2746]

@@cattycorner8 Exactly. It is basic. ASOIAF has so much more nuance to it it is like comparing the current iPhone to the first one. At best.

[@chrish4309]

@@cattycorner8 and without mythologies for Tolkien to copy paste, there would be no Tolkien.

[@chrish4309]

@@cattycorner8 Tolkien would hit you over the head for reading his work like that... just saying. Also, no. Tolkien's work is largely gleaned from medieval traditions and mythologies of pagans. For instance, the Turin Turambar is a carbon copy of Kullervo and Sigurd. It is, at best, fan fiction of Kullervo with the serial numbers filed off.

[@alexbattaglia8297]

I'm glad GRR Martin is to an extent defending Tolkien, whereas it seems that the interviewer is fanboying and trying to attack Tolkien to make Martin look better. I also kinda wish people would stop comparing the two writers, Tolkien's Stories were much more about the small individual in the big world, how little acts of kindness and good can triumph over great evil. Whereas Martin basically takes real life history and puts it into a fantasy world. Just because they both write fantasy, doesn't mean they're similar. Both are great though

[@cattycorner8]

Alex Battaglia I don't like to see them pitted against one another, either, but for different reasons. Martin comes so late behind Tolkien and is so derivative of him (J. R. R. Tolkien vs G. R. R. Martin? I mean, come on!) that this particular comparison is truly odious to me. lol. But I have a question, what real history is Martin's work based on? I keep seeing this idea being posted, but since I have not read anything by him, nor have I seen GOT, I am not able to see any resemblance to actual persons or events actually living or dead, as it were.... (LOL) . You seem smart and knowledgeable, so I thought I'd ask you!

[@Mahfireballs]

​@@cattycorner8 Lol I don't know whether there is much use telling comparisons between history and Martin if you haven't read or seen any of it. As it's not like Martin went like "hmmm the life of King Henry VIII I copy that but with Dragons". No, like any good writer he looked at things in the past both in literature and history itself. And as being totally original is literal impossible, given there are countless of books with tropes about dragons, good vs bad and everything in between, morality of war, love, people, aliens,... I mean we write books to make your own story from with the inspiration is your own life and things you have heard or read. Trying to express feelings, share ideas, make alternative versions of endings of things that happened or might happen. And if you are a good writer you will give a real nice twist to it, so much so that reading it feels unique. So much so you consider its original and has done things nobody has done before or things that have never happened or anything similar. Despite of course every single things in that book already having existed and used to some extent. (I mean you write in a a language about something know meaning everything has to exist or be expressed in something existing otherwise people can't understand or know what you write). So well with that huge most likely really unnecessary disclaimer done. XD Some of the big parallels which people have drawn between Martin's work and history is The Wars of the Roses which were a series of fifteenth-century English civil wars fought over control of the throne of England, between supporters of two rival houses. In these wars in England there was a lot of political intrigue and warring between the houses in an epic "free for all"/fight for the Throne. So naturally there are a lot of parallels that can be drawn and GRR Martin has already sited is as inspiration I think, although I'm not sure. But Martin story doesn't just boast new characters and different motivations and settings, it is a whole new story which is unique and no 1 clear inspiration but rather hundreds and thousands. Same as Tolkien who rather single handily invented/reinvented and most of all popularized the Fantasy genre in the 20th century. Making an unseen kinda of story so refreshing it became one of the biggest genres in literature and influencing so many works to come. Yet Tolkiens work isn't totally original either, it has so many parallels of ancient history and literature tropes so much so that when I studied History I would read names and stories. Being like "Hey this name/story is from Tolkien" Directly realising that it's the other way around as the story predates Tolkien several thousands of years. And Tolkien just took ideas from a very vast variety of sources and combined them in a very unique way making an epic story. Seemingly based of nothing while Tolkien made it so it seemingly fitted in our history with other myths, so boasting the same tropes and known ideas and virtues,... but in his own story. Other things you can see in Martin's work are the Dothraki, Great Horse Lords on the plains in the east who travel from east to west and back again plundering all on their way. Which are clearly inspired by the Mongols and other Great Nomadic nations, but he changed enough about them giving them cool customs and traditions. With unique believes,... but being a Nomadic tribe means there are indivertibly similarities. As a culture that is centred around horses and moving around means they have to live in a similar place as they did in history. As it is the very reason and requirements for it to exist so in a well build fictional world Nomadic Horselords should come from great grassy plains. And utilizing the horse as a resource should be in the centre of the tribes same as worshipping the creature as it's such a big part of their way of life,... Other similarities from the top of my head are things like the Doom of Valyria which was the fall of a vary advanced civilization who was so much a head of its time and conquered big parts of the world to only later mysteriously collapse and take with them a lot of their knowledge and... Which really clearly reminiscence Rome and even more so the fabled Atlantis. And so there are endless comparisons to be made as it such a well rounded series with so much info (pages). And some of these are rather big and obvious as the ones I wrote down, where the big majority are tiny as it uses only parts of something else combines multiple different ones into 1 thing making it original. As in the end the very words you write your books with do of course already exist and it's just you rearranging vast swathes of them to put them in a new order. Even if you invent names for things you just rearrange the letters in a different way, to make something that has not yet been made. (As far as you or your reader knows, making it feel original to them regardless of whether it is or not and how far)

[@themanhimself1229]

@@cattycorner8 The war of the Roses, and 1300-1500s europe more broadly.

[@cattycorner8]

@@themanhimself1229 Thank you!

[@adighraiz2008]

I see Tolkien as inspiration for martin,the source of inspiration of story is history,you need to read more little story and combine them and creat new version,and to keep in mind not to copy the original and thats the hard part

[@aquaticasmr184]

I love these videos thank you

[@rothbardfreedom]

01:53 - * Araragorn reigned for ~120 years * He took charge of killings orcs, which fled to the East and probably just faded away with time; * His son took the kingdom for a few more decades. One or two generations later, people were performing "satanic" rituals and some kids were playing as Orcs. This is the beginning of the unfinished follow-up called "A New Shadow".

[@balabanasireti]

I think that George knows about these events but wants something more defined.

[@brandtconor1]

This isn't canon though. A New Shadow was abandoned because Tolkien didn't think it fit with the universe.

[@Loammello2]

chora menos ai bundao

[@spiritgum]

@@brandtconor1 Did Tolkien ever say it didn't fit within his legendarium? He described New Shadow as "sinister and depressing", and thus "not worth doing" because it meant delving into the darkness of Men so soon (relatively) after their victory in the War of the Ring. But I don't recall him ever stating in letters or notes that it was non-canonical.

[@spiritgum]

@Joe Dirt Isn't that the focus of Saelon and Borlas' discussion? The dark tree that "will never be slain." And elsewhere Tolkien described Middle-earth itself as "Morgoth's Ring", Melkor's very essence being implanted in all of Arda.

[@renaigh]

Both had been an influence on the realm of fiction, but neither intended to.

[@cattycorner8]

Martin is a very late, late comer to the world of literature.

[@renaigh]

@@cattycorner8 he has written other novels

[@Legendaryium]

@@cattycorner8 yea no shit, because he was born later. tf?

[@TheSilentHeel]

@@cattycorner8 How dare he not be born before Tolkien

[@cattycorner8]

@@TheSilentHeel touche'! lolol I totally deserved that!

[@TheRamsesII]

Extremely mature and intelligent take on politics and leadership. It gets harder and harder (and harder) to find people who have the understanding of reality on this level. Everything on tv or in the media or from people who affiliate themselves with a party or ideology seems unbelievably childish to me - regardless of their age and experience. It's good to know I'm not alone. Martin nails it here - and with no pretension. I don't think the guy interviewing him really gets it.

[@henrikfitch4017]

This is a bit of a weird take. Everyone has an ideology. If you want to "reject" ideology, you are simply advocating for the current system you live in. Which is fine, but is itself an ideology. I don't think its "childish" to want to change the world for the better. We'd still be living in a feudal society if not for radical ideologues fighting and debating the current system.

[@fatthorstumtum6593]

I don't get the fighting over which is better at all. Both are similar yet also verry different. In some ways Tolkien does it better, and in other ways Martin does. I'm just happy we have both to enjoy.

[@sirxarounthefrenchy7773]

The two of them are different genre of fantasy. I like both honestly, I like the kind of ancient epic vibe that LOTR have and I like the more political aspect of GOT

[@glorilol9546]

Tolkien is a far better writer and world builder his prose in his books is almost poetic. The dude is basically the father of modern fantasy

[@thabokgwele5268]

@@glorilol9546 what do you mean? Is he better at describing how something looks? I don't understand.

[@utkarsh2746]

@@thabokgwele5268 This is exactly what prompts people to point out that ASOIAF is "better" because real life is far more nuanced than "a good man makes a good King" and this "good man" is tall and strong and well-spoken etc. Those are ideas that have been around since the Code of Chivalry (1000 AD or whenever) but in reality was as hollow as Bushido (Japanese code of honour) Real history is full of Mongol hordes and Kings who would slaughter half their own population for taxes or religion or simply by being obsessed with a particular woman. So much of ASOIAF is actual British history that rings true in the back of our minds because that is how men are.

[@lycaonpictus9662]

@@glorilol9546 Tolkien probably doesn't have a peer when it comes to worldbuilding, but Martin writes better characters. Most of Tolkien's have very little depth or development. There are some exceptions, of course.

[@ashwinrajeev8055]

Thank you for uploading this. I love your videos.

[@MiddleEarthGirl75]

"There's no politics in Tolkien's work." Me - *laughs in Silmarillion* I do hate it whenever someone tries to pit their writing against each other. These men were from entirely different eras with entirely different objectives - yet both equally brilliant in their respective world building. It's clear that Tolkien's work gave George the idea....presented the challenge of world-building, but Tolkien was more into the mythological in a medieval package, whereas George was medieval/roman with real conflicted humanistic approaches.

[@stigkenobi7525]

The Song of Ice and Fire is really about Ragnarok. The throne and the fight for it, is a distraction. A distraction that also happens during Ragnarok.

[@imnackeredsirnackered948]

People seem to read to much into what George RR martin is saying. He isn't saying "Tolkien never really wrote taxation policy of Aragorn so Tolkien's work is bad" No George R.R martin is saying that his style of writing is different and that He still respects Tolkien's writing as the best he has ever read despite martin having a different style of writing.

[@henrikfitch4017]

Exactly, hes saying that HE would write the more human political side, not that it's objectively better or worse

[@defazant1609]

tolkien wasn't trying to write a realistic story. He specifically set out to create a legend, a king who ruled peacefully is part of legend, he can't just suddenly discuss the tax policy, it wasn't the aim of the book

[@benicioharnos1313]

In my opinion they can't be compared they are the two greatest fantasy stories ever written; Tolkien's story was a journey and a fight between good and evil, it details the perils of the road, the horror of war, and the leaving of magic from the world as it grew bigger. George's story is a realistic look at fantasy, it takes place during a civil war and focuses on characters doing things we're not sure we would or wouldn't do, people move up the ladder down it, betray allies, kill innocent people, some fall in love and have children others hate and do unforgivable things. Two characters to show this are Aragorn and Jon Snow, they both have complicated ancestry and a name to live up to, Aragorn however is this unrealistic hero he never does ant wrong and as you read the story you want to be more like him you want to be a better person, Jon's personality is just as important as humans we can't achieve Aragorn's kindness and honor, Jon second guesses himself doesn't always make the right choice as the reader you understand that it's normal to mess up everyone does mistakes don't define who you are as a person, so I say that The Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire get to sit at the top together for doing different things equally as well

[@musashi.miyamoyo]

“Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.” -Shakespeare (Henry IV)

[@tavleenkaur2796]

Why is the interviewer asking the questions and then immediately interrupting Martin's answers. 😵

[@aesir1ases64]

another obnoxious interviewer smfh

[@Ian-Omega]

It’s very arrogant.

[@fransmith3255]

I've heard massively worse. He did interrupt a couple answers, but only after the basic answer and it was to ask another question. Very few interviewers, as in almost no interviewers, don't do that in some way. I've heard MUCH, MUCH worse than this, particularly in America where interviewers barely allow the interview to even speak a lot of the time. And he is a little arrogant, but once again, I've heard much worse. Also, this is a radio show, so it's more of a conversation style, rather than a straight interview.

[@paulbarry3400]

I disagree..He’s a thoughtful, informed interviewer, asking questions I haven’t heard George asked 1000 times before. I later listened to the full 45 mins and it’s all good stuff. The program is called ‘Conversations’ and that’s exactly what this is. Thanks for posting.

[@PointnShootMovies]

Paul Barry yeah I wasn’t so quick to jump on him. The guy was engaged in the conversation

[@arthropod-doctor]

*The Hobbit* and *The Lord of the Rings* are found manuscript novels. Tolkien roleplays as a translator who converts Frodo's prose to English. LotR doesn't delve into the political landscape of Middle Earth because that's not something Frodo is concerned with. *The Silmarillian* gives a deeper look into the nuances of Middle Earth, including the politics.

[@mschell8022]

Love hearing him talk about Tolkein

[@lordodysseus]

Yeah, it's not often I agree with someone so much, but George made a good point. If I wrote about what I knew, I'd write about domestic abuse and child abuse and no one would ever want to read my stuff.

[@lordodysseus]

@Indigo Rodent I don't think many people would enjoy the kind of abuse I write.

[@eodico]

Write about what you know means know about whatever you want to write. So go learn it then write it. You will expand your knowledge and the depth of your writing.

[@DaviGDS]

That's rough buddy

[@EdNorty]

It's Hume. Descriptive and Prescriptive. GRRM tells you what is. Tolkien tells you what you ought to be.

[@darrylhammett63]

G.R.R. Martin writes "Historical" fantasy where as J.R.R. Tolkien wrote "Mythical" fantasy. Very different stuff.

[@Jack-uy7ie]

Tolkien also finished his story

[@diegoolivaresgonzalez42]

​@@Jack-uy7ieNo, he didn't... Tolkien's main story project was the Silmarillion but he couldn't finished it becouse of its perfectionism, his son Christopher is the one who finished it.

[@Jack-uy7ie]

@@diegoolivaresgonzalez42 You changed the goal post. He finished the stories of Frodo and the fellowship. Then told the story of Bilbo and built an entire world summarising thousands of stories in a history book of sorts for his mythology he built. Tolkien took his characters through their entire journey. Martin has yet to finish it.

[@diegoolivaresgonzalez42]

@@Jack-uy7ie He started the Silmarillion way before the Hobbit or even TLOTR ... And he couldn't finish it.

[@Jack-uy7ie]

@@diegoolivaresgonzalez42 It is a collections of myths and stories. He gave us the story of the Lord of the Rings with complete character arcs.

[@richmondlandersenfells2238]

People tend to ignore the sceptre of kingship in Numenor, the kin strife in gondor, and the fall of arnor every time.

[@TV4Fun2]

There's something very British about the way LOTR treats royalty. All of the kings are absolutely noble and above reproach. If there is corruption in the land, it must come from elsewhere. His chancellors can be wicked, and they're the ones really responsible for any trouble. If I king makes bad decisions, it is only because he has been relying on their advice, and they've been whispering lies to him. Corruption is removed when the true king is restored and the wicked lowborns eliminated.

[@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump]

There are bad kings in Tolkien's work. And monarchism is far from unique to the British.

[@balabanasireti]

It also may have to do with the fact that Tolkien wrote TLOTR as a mythology. In mythologies, most kings are great and there is always "a threat from the unknown."

[@nucleardragons]

LOTR is a kind of an epic story where things are shinny for a purpose, that's why Aragorn is faultless, but certainly not all kings Naiveté regarding royals is by no means limited to UK, you'll find people worshipping royals (or any other leaders, look at Trump supporters) everywhere

[@ninjablack4347]

@@nucleardragons I think that's what new readers of LOTR need to understand first about the story. It was inspired by mythology from the classics. Its a not a traditional story

[@brianhobaugh]

There’s literally a Civil War in Gondor in lotrs lore

[@SacredDaturaa]

So much slapfighting between Tolkien and Martin fans in the comments. The point of this conversation isn't Martin or the interviewer saying his work is objectively better than Tolkien's, but that the two authors are fascinated by different things and Martin expanding on why he focuses on the things he does. If all you got from the conversation was "GRRM says Tolkien bad, ooga booga" that says more about you and your caveman brain than GRRM or Tolkien, honestly.

[@JO-yq8fq]

This interviewer obviously isn't familiar with Tokien's work. That politics don't factor enormously into the earlier part of the Fellowship of the Ring, doesn't mean there isn't politics that Tolkien put into his fuller explanation of the Hobbits. There are different groupings of Hobbits, and there's some enmity between the Bucklanders and the Shirefolk. There's heapings of drama over Bilbo's party. There's something of a great prejudice for outsiders and ways of life that are different from the Shirefolk's. Maybe there isn't as much of Hobbit politics in the movies, but the Hobbit politics in the books are familial and municipal; they don't take the War of the Roses "fate of the nation" type of politics.

[@ashleyofnaath]

The piece about great Kings being loathsome people despite producing prosperity for their kingdoms screams Tywin Lannister to me. Obviously he wasn't king; but as Hand he had tremendous policy influence for the realm, and personal influence on the king. And while Tywin unquestionably did good for the realm, in my opinion he was an absolute POS as a man. This discussion also reminded me of Prince Rhaegar in terms of assuming a beloved and good man would also be a good King. Personally, I think he would've been a great king, though not without problems. Namely, taking a second wife and in so doing offending the Faith and alienating both Dorne and the North. Had he lived I would've been curious to see how he navigated that, similar to how George wanted to know how Aragorn navigated specific issues. Circling back to Rhaegar, it could be argued that part of Rhaegar's competence came from lessons demonstrated to him by Tywin while Tywin was Hand. In my mind, Tywin would have taught Rhaegar far more than King Aerys ever could've.

[@ashleyofnaath]

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I suspect the marriage to Lyanna started out as a means to protect her from his father, and feelings developed later. Obviously I have no proof of this, but if it were true then that could help Rhaegar navigate this problem he created for himself had he lived. In my mind Aerys could've found out Lyanna was the Knight of the Laughing Tree, and it wasn't enough for Rhaegar to lie about that and let her go (which I assume is what happened during the tourney at Harrenhal). So he married her to extend the greatest protection he could, and before they could tell anyone the rumor was told to Brandon and we know how things spiraled from there.

[@intergalactic92]

Rhaegar may not be the best metaphor as it is making assumptions based on a character we have only secondhand knowledge on. We also don’t know the full story with Rhaegar and Lyanna yet. We’ve seen the show's version of it and we all have our theories, but we may never get to learn all his true motives in the books. Whilst the perspective of Barriston Selma paint him as a good man, and that the kidnapping of Lyanna would be out of character, this is still only one outside perspective, and told to Dany which would impact on how it gets told, but the point is Lyanna Stark running away with him was not a politically correct thing for him to allow as it undermined any goodwill he may have had with half of the lords of the seven kingdoms so I think we can infer that although he may have been a nice guy he may not have been that great of a ruler.

[@lycaonpictus9662]

Robb Stark is an example in the series of "Good Man, Bad King." As a military commander he was superb and perhaps had no equal in the field, but he was very poor at statecraft. His reckless decision to follow his heart instead of his brain offended the Freys and led directly to his own death and the collapse of his faction. Ned Stark arguably had the same problem.

[@tankmh4468]

When were these interviews recorded?

[@Beregond1861]

On the island of Nunya.

[@Vorador075]

@@Beregond1861right next to the island of bissness

[@valleyscharping]

There are constantly political elements throughout LOTR. Ya'll haven't read it in awhile, I guess. The constant diplomacy and manuevering between elves and men, men and other men, ents and the hobbits. The betrayal of Saruman of the White Council. The conflict from the stewards and the actual heir of the king, and yes, the hobbits specifically have elections of governors and policemen, etc. in the first few chapters.

[@PointnShootMovies]

3:20 GRRM caught himself there lol

[@user-J.M.A.I]

I want to read LOTR part 4: "Return of Aragorns Tax Policies"

[@cursecuelebre5485]

Both writers Martin and Tolkien had a different view of their basis of story writing, Tolkien had taken a lot from his personal experiences which to us in today's world was history but to him wasn't, he lived through it, he witnessed horrible events like WW1 battle of Somme one the most horrible battles in the war. Though he based it on those lived experiences, but he based it on mythological and biblical aspect of things not history perse. Martin based his work on actual cultures and historical context like Rome and Egyptian, even based a lot of battles based upon ancient warfare of Alexander the Great I think. The point is they have different perspectives of writing which is oblivious since they write fantasy, but one has more politics and other based it more morally which shouldn't be compare. Martin loves Tolkien's work and took inspiration from him which that is very respectable in my book.

[@PyroBeef]

Brilliant video!!

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

"What was Aragorn's taxation policy?" Questions we desperately need to know but alas, can never have the answers to.

[@Ironworthstriking]

This is absolutely not the difference between Martin and Tolkien. The main difference is Tolkien’s focus on transcendence and Martin’s focus on the temporal.

[@roboticceltic2388]

You use Ni

[@laaaryify]

Well, they underrate Tolkien's understanding of politics and administration. He is very detailed concerning administration and especially military operations. A good and strong man tends to be a good king, there is a difference between a politician and a ruler. Being a good politician involves a lot of propaganda, good public speaking, networking and subtleties, being a good ruler is about law and administration, don't confuse ruler with politician. And politics look very different in a world without politicians as a career. We have to understand that politicians are a very recent phenomenon in history, as a profession, paid professionals to campaign and minimaly to rule. Ancient politicians in Greece and Rome were not paid, they were nobles, you had the "kings" like the consuls of Rome, the legislators(senators) and the judicial and other civil officers(pretors, ediles etc). In medieval Europe and barbaric ancient world, there were practicaly only monarchies, the structure is very different, power is inherited and people are bred to rule, there is a class of rulers, it has nothing to do with Jimmy Carter or contemporary politics. Tolkien was a monarchist and saw mundane politics as loathsome, he supports stratification in society(as I do), while Martin is a post-modernist democrat that believes eveyrone is corrupt and/or weak.

[@HebrewsElevenTwentyFive]

Brilliant and insightful. Thank you! 👌🏾

[@YamiSpyroX]

Is anyone here who's read Tolkien's 'The Story of Kullervo'? Man, man people say Tolkien doesn't write morally questionable characters but Kullervo's just loaded with dark characters! It was pretty much the Elric prototype which by proxy was Game of Thrones's grandaddy.

[@chrish4309]

That was just a rewrite of the Finnish story of Kullervo. He didn't "write" a morally questionable character. He just took someone else's.

[@YamiSpyroX]

@@chrish4309 That's not what I read from Christopher from what I remembered but okay.

[@chrish4309]

@@YamiSpyroX Tolkien himself admitted that his story of Turin was a result of rewriting Finnish Kullervo in his letters. If Christopher said otherwise, then he is contradicted by his own father's words.

[@chrish4309]

I'd add that Turin is not exactly morally questionable. The things he does are a result of the evil of Morgoth controlling major facets of his life, the curse of Morgoth that he cannot escape. In short, the things that happen to him happen are not entirely a result of his own doing, but of Morgoth. Hence why in the Dagor Dagorath (Tolkien's ragnorok essentially), Turin would be resurrected to exact vengeance. Morgoth, who is just plain ole evil, is the one who is the problem here. Not Turin.

[@YamiSpyroX]

@@chrish4309 I've read Tolkien's letter collection but didn't find or remember him saying that, but I believe it. Cristopher respected his dad more than anything but he has pointed out his failures (like him not finishing his 'Fall of Arthur' translation.) more often than we'd like.

[@Erik_Armando_123]

Thanks for the vid. I'd appreciate a link to the full interview, if you don't mind.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

I've not read Martin's books. One thing I've noted - is that People who are Combat Veterans - like Tokien - have a different level of knowledge about certain aspects of things but it depends on what they do with that knowledge. Thus you have both Tolkien and C. S. Lewis who were combat veterans from WWI but their works would seem to be very different. Another Veteran - was Elizabeth Moon who wrote the Paksenarrion novels. She had been an Officer in the Marine Corps and her knowledge about the details of serving in the field bring a level of authenticity to her writing. Martin was a Conscientious objector during the Vietnam War and performed alternative service as a Vista Volunteer for a Legal Assistance group. As such - while he has has a minor in History - his major was Journalism. The impression I have of the TV Series based on Martin's books - is that they are about Political People - not so much that I've noticed about the details of all that. One of the things that Moon did - was have some college students she worked with as Re-enactors - practice spear and shield wall tactics. There is some of that which is very well done but mostly GoT seems to keep it's warfare on the Strategic level. The tactical dispositions of the shows military units are at times monumentally stupid but I can't say as to whose fault that is. .

[@user-ui4bw2ch3e]

As someone who read the five books currently published, i might ne able to explain the last point. Tje most egregious examples of poor tactics from the show are likely the fault of the showrunners. Martin does not have the understanding of warfare a combat veteran would, and at times falls into the 'pop history ' perception of pre-modern warfare, but generally seems to have a badic understanding

[@QueenDaenerysTargaryen]

Excellent💯👍👏 video

[@maispourquoi2460]

Please, can you makes french subtitles ?

[@GollumFishy]

They tried i think! but the subtitles keep turning German

[@mustafaali3333-q1m]

No

[@asytippyy352]

"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations" - That's the difference. GRRM is far closer to Frank Herbert than JRR Tolkien; they're only popularly compared because of the setting.

[@countravid3768]

If you want politics read the Simmirallion, I am shocked that George who is a massive Tolkien fan, doesn't bring up a million things, Tolkiens works had alot of politics in it. He must have read the other books I mean the greatest Dragon in his world Balerion the black dread, got its name from the sunken content Beleriand. doesn't mention the kin strife, or the fall of Numenor, or The Kinslaying, and many other events, Middle earth is filled with history, of good and bad kings, with tough policies. The Return of the king also gives a brief description of the kings of Men, Dwarves and elves. The stories are written by characters in that world, after many years have passed since the main journey was finished.

[@wserthmar8908]

Silmarillion is really dope but the politics still are better in Martin’s series

[@countravid3768]

@@wserthmar8908 is it the tax policies?

[@otissupreme7918]

The Silmarillion was Tolkien's work but if I recall correctly it was published after his death? George R. R. Martin has published and written his lore books and his main series (though it is not yet finished) as opposed to Tolkien who just had notes and drafts before he died.

[@countravid3768]

​@@otissupreme7918 True Martin Published his own lore books, and Tolkien's son released the notes he had. How does that make Martin a better writer?

[@otissupreme7918]

@@countravid3768 @Count Ravid I never argued Martin was better. I love all of Tolkien's work and own a copy of each, most of them two. I also love George R. R. Martin. I'm just saying all of these people's only criticism is that Martin isn't done with his book series, but he's still alive and writing books in the asoiaf universe, along with his extended lore; I'm saying I don't think it's a valid criticism. And, the reason I brought up Tolkien's works being published after his death was just me guessing that maybe Martin isn't referencing the extended lore, but just Tolkien's original work compared to the main ASOIAF books, his own extended lore excluded as well. (judging by the fact that this interview was likely before Fire and Blood, possibly WOIAF as well)

[@wesleychrobak]

As tony soprano himself says: All due respect, you got no fuckin' idea what it's like to be Number One. Every decision you make affects every facet of every other fuckin' thing. It's too much to deal with almost. And in the end you're completely alone with it all.

[@jamesfetcho6315]

Great video. 👍😁👍

[@anthonyt1t5]

Tolkien is classic tale of good vs evil. Martin explores the wickedness of man and how gray the world is even when the presence of evil rises in the shadows.

[@galaxybounce1002]

Tolkien knows how to finish a series

[@Popepaladin]

Ah yes Tolkien, the author whose last book was called "Unfinished Tales".

[@Popepaladin]

@Joe Dirt Ah yes Tolkien, the author so known for finishing his stories that his son finished Silmarillion for him.

[@doesnotreallymatterr]

@Joe Dirt I mean guy dramatizes a bit, but he got a point, Legendarium had a lot of plot holes and Christopher actually more or less did a good job on getting everything together.

[@reefa2931]

@@doesnotreallymatterr No he doesn't have a point. Tolkien literally finished his main body of work. Everything else was just to flesh out the world of Middle Earth. You can read the Hobbit and LotR and receive a complete and satisfying reading experience, without having to consult any other material. George has yet to finish his main body of work and has actually completed supplementary material to it. If you read ASOIAF without any supplementary works guess what you have? An incomplete story. And let's face it, unless he hauls ass to churn out the final two entries, it will remain unfinished until he dies.

[@cattycorner8]

Everything Martin does he owes to Tolkien

[@siddharthbirdi]

The biggest difference is that Tolkien finishes his books on the other hand......

[@Beregond1861]

Oh wow guys look, what an original and not at all contextually unapplicable joke...

[@siddharthbirdi]

@@Beregond1861 Thanks brah

[@juun9401]

one thing i notice when someone uploads a video of martin talking about Tolkien, is the tolkien fans always flock over to that video just to say tolkien is better. they also get mad and continue to argue with you if you say asoiaf is better like it’s something called preferences like i prefer the dollar cookies at walmart than oreos big deal 😐. like can we all agree that both are unique and great and amazing in their own way like omfg lotr fans sounds like babies sometimes

[@peterbaelish]

I think they are mad that another fantasy series became mainstrem and influential and more complex than what LOTR is. I see these Tolkien fanboys bashing Harry Potter too. It's funny how hateful they are.

[@cattycorner8]

ASOIAF LOL You talking about those sugar cookies with the pink icing and sprinkles? I love those!

[@juun9401]

@@cattycorner8 yes they are amazing idk why everyone calls them nasty 🙄

[@wserthmar8908]

@@peterbaelish, yes, that’s about their resentment and fury for LoTR not being as popular as they want it to be (lmao my ass just rewrote your precise comment)

[@someguy-bv3il]

Exactly they come across as emotionally unstable fanboys whose head is about to explode when anyone dares to criticize Tolkien or his work

[@lipingrahman6648]

Tolkien finished his masterpiece while George will never. And given the ending to the show it’s not worth finishing.

[@JohnMoore-qv4vn]

Interesting snippet. Some biblio info would be nice.

[@sigurdkaputnik7022]

What happened to the orcs after Sauron's fall ? Luckily for us, "Rings of Power" answered that question: They all went back to their families and continued making little ugly orc-babies.

[@playermartin286]

LOTR gives me hope, ASOIAF not so much :)

[@yondupoppins268]

Is your profile picture Roland Deschain from the dark tower??

[@alokreigns4056]

It is what it is.if asoiaf doesn't give you hope,it's not grrm's problem,it's yours.asoiaf is far more realistic than lotr

[@balabanasireti]

A lot of people portray ASOIAF as grimdark but I don't agree. I'm hopeful while reading a novel because I know that despite all this pain and sadness, beauty and happiness still exist.

[@cerostymc]

I think that's one of the reasons why ASOIAF is so good.

[@jolkm8133]

@@alokreigns4056 they weren't complaining or anything lmao

[@Longshanks1690]

Tolkien finished his books?* * The main books of the series that he needed to write but did not manage to capture the vast depths of the lore he had before he died.

[@adumsundler4397]

He didn't.

[@Longshanks1690]

@@adumsundler4397 No, he just finished his main story, the prequel, the major background lore book and a huge amount of supporting works including invented languages, histories and genealogies. What a hack.

[@nothisispatrick6528]

He finished the main series but he had a bunch of other books set in middle earth he didn’t finish.

[@Longshanks1690]

@@nothisispatrick6528 So the complete opposite of George? 😂

[@adumsundler4397]

@@Longshanks1690 Tolkien's lore was the main story it was not necessarily the Lord of the rings.

[@suba7320]

Well, George, it might sound like a good idea exploring these issues, and you tried doing that in Feast for Crows and Dance with Dragons, but you haven't written a book of actual prose since. All it did was add several layers of needless complexity that you don't know how to work yourself out of, and now we might never get to hear the full story because you don't know, or aren't able to, complete it.

[@sanchayansarkar2953]

Tolkien wanted to create mythology. Have you read ancient epics ? No epic has taxation politics, etc.

[@charlesajones77]

I'd be curious to know if George RR Martin has ever seen the Epic Rap Battles of History between himself a JRR Tolkien. And if so, what did he think of it?

[@jonkravis5791]

Tolkien was all about the trials of good battling evil. Martin is literally a game of thrones.

[@stigkenobi7525]

Except it is actually about the end of the world...not who sits on the throne. The throne is a distraction.

[@jakobrygh3793]

The Hobbits are isolationists, that is a kind of politics, even if we don't learn about Hobbit government

[@kidgay3730]

LOTR will forever be my favorite. At least in middle earth there are good people that survive.

[@someguy-bv3il]

Sam tarly : am I a joke to you?

[@kidgay3730]

@@someguy-bv3il In a way, yes. Yes he is. Also LOTR fans want to watch the film adaptation more than once

[@chrish4309]

@@kidgay3730 "adaptation" you mean the gutted films, that bear little to no resemblance to the book at all, which Christopher Tolkien despised for ruining the thematic material of LotR? LotR is my favorite book in the world. But frankly, its unnuanced views of evil and good, informed by Tolkien's Augustinian Catholic views of evil, are exceptionally boring after a while. I read the book every year, and every year I find new things which are just particularly unnuanced and bad, and I'm glad fantasy authors are finally outgrowing Tolkien.

[@kidgay3730]

@@chrish4309 Dude, in the original comment was talking about the books. I love the books, and yes they werent a great adaptation of the books but they were great films. Ive read the silmarillion multiple times. I dont see what the problem is.

[@j-dubb614]

Who died and made him king? Technically Denathor.

[@magmafang]

Denethor*

[@thombendtsen399]

Write what you know means write about ethics that you know write about politics, sex, drugs, rock and roll. And dragons…

[@CruderQuotient1]

Tolkien is mythology. Martin is Historical Fiction/ fantasy

[@pedrobrito2158]

It's impossible not to disagree with Martin when he says literature is about the heart or the guts when you consider that Dostoievski, probably the greatest writer of all times, wrote about ideas. If being about the heart or the guts mean about what goes on your heart or guts, including ideas, then we can agree.

[@HolyknightVader999]

GRRM blasted Tolkien for having a naive "medieval mindset." Here are some of his quotes about Tolkien, with my own answers. "Ruling is hard. [A Song of Ice and Fire] 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." Much as I admire GRRM, he forgets the reason why the new king was a ranger: Aragorn is as practical as he is good. Aragorn was basically a ranger-a guy who knew how to survive in the wild, how people thought and operated, and how things are for the peasants who populate the bottom of the realm. Tolkien didn't just pick some random ranger to be the model of a good king for shits and giggles-he did it because he thought the best king would be the one who knows what the real world looks like, and how it operates outside the palace. Tolkien saw the cruelty of the world, and based it on Mordor. Therefore, he chose a king who had intimate knowledge of that cruelty and disparity. It reminds me of the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II, the "Peasant Emperor" of Austria who would disguise himself as a peasant and see how his kingdom is running with his own two eyes. That's the kind of king Tolkien elevated. Not just some ponce who ruled well because he was "good." "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?" Aragorn came to power at the end of the story. Perhaps we could have found out what Aragorn's policies are towards tax policies, armies, floods and famines, if Tolkien continued the story. Also, Tolkien was clear on the Orcs' fate: people just ignored them because they steadily lost power and direction, essentially becoming a nuisance, until they eventually died out in the years to come. Also, there are no baby orcs. They were either corrupted men or elves, or they were artificially created from mud. I also see some flaws in GRRM's writing. There's plot holes here and there, like how he wanted to pin the War of the Five Kings on Petyr Baelish when Petyr was so obviously campaigning for peace in the first season, telling Ned to make peace with the Lannisters. If he wanted a war, he would have told Ned to take a stand against the Lannisters, then betray him to the Lannisters. Instead, he was trying to advise Ned to keep the realm from going to war and go for peace instead. Another plot hole is how the other kings (Stannis, Robb, Renly) didn't gang up on Joffrey first. If I was writing the story, the three kings would side together against Joffrey, then have Robb run back up North when he has Sansa back while Stannis and Renly wage a civil war over the throne. All of them hated Joffrey, so it would be logical for them to set aside their differences while fighting him, and only fight each other once the common threat is gone. His depiction of Cersei is every ice queen I've seen before, mixed in with some penis envy. I've watched no shortage of soap operas with bitchy girls who are exactly like Book Cersei running around. All they do is act like bitches then cry about their problems when confronted. Whereas I can look at TV Cersei and be somewhat sympathetic towards her while at the same time still despising her. That's actually more complex. Book Cersei sounds like every ice queen I've seen in contemporary TV for over the past 20 years. My biggest gripe is that he might not be able to finish the story in time. He takes really long breaks in between the books, perhaps he's struggling with how to give a satisfying conclusion. Given how grimdark he made the series into, far darker than even real-life Medieval Europe, it's hard to make a good ending. If the "good guys" win, then the grimdark fans bitch about how much of a cop-out it was. If the ending is grimdark, then people lose investment in the characters because the story is practically torture porn already, and more bad things happening isn't going to change the views of the audience.

[@polyman6859]

Well informed comment, thank you mister Vader.

[@HolyknightVader999]

@@polyman6859 No problemo.

[@polyman6859]

@@HolyknightVader999 Any thoughts on Lucas' mythology (1-6)? Recently I've come to reexamine how he presented the optimistic alternative of the Greek gods killing their fathers. Luke redeemed Anakin, but with Episode 3 there are implications that Palpatine is Anakin's father through the force. Beta scripts of Episode 3 outright confirm this. I prefer the final version where its an implication lol. Watching episode 6 with this in mind has Lucas validate the classic Greek myths with Anakin killing his potential father while presenting a great alternative in redemption for his son. You don't have to share your thoughts on this specifically but I am curious on what you make of Lucas' monomyth in general.

[@Manwendlil]

tolkien and g.r.r.m have both a very fecund imagination (HPL as well or stephen king) but each uses this in their own, unique way. both are not perfect in their writing or flawless in it. both where born in different times and circumstances and enviroments (the late victorian era vs the post wwII era) which does influence their writing and outlook on live, both are equally fascinating to read and may serve as inspiration for other authors, who want to write in the same grandious style as tolkien and G.R.R.M. this debate of whom was better or worse is quite childish and inmature.

[@Michaelkaydee]

"The Cleansing Of The Orcs" 😄 ... Hmm... 🤔

[@pinegulf]

*Salty* Well, one actually finished their books. */Salty*

[@DimitriVHefley]

Tolkien is the superior writer and I'd say has superior politics.

[@aishaf.5331]

Tell this guy to stop interrupting George when he's speaking... we're here for him not for you

[@eodico]

So true and unfortunately so common in these interviews.

[@robertbrunner8015]

"whats his tax policy"

[@lemerdeposteur]

DO NOT INTERRUPT GEORGE R R MARTIN

[@MRJTD99]

Difference #1: Tolkien actually manged to finish his main series.

[@Chu9947]

1 is dead & the other isn't

[@kaliciusername]

funny.

[@balabanasireti]

And yet Tolkien had so many unfinished works that he published a collection called Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-earth and didn't finish The Silmarillion. Also, always making comparisons is stupid and write something original next time.

[@chrish4309]

The Silmarillion was a part of his main series. In fact, it is arguably the most important book of his series that all the rest are highly indebted to. And it was never finished by him. So, no he didn't. Stop pretending.

[@Despondencymusic]

The myth of the "good man equals a good king" is King Viserys III Targaryen.

[@DrCruel]

Tolkien is the guy who writes the history well after the war is over, and makes it all sound reasonable.

[@valleyscharping]

Bad take.

[@DrCruel]

@@valleyscharping More like redoing history to plaster over the unsightly cracks. It's an old game, used to sell history books to the sort of people who buy them. Billy Shakespeare's plays are an excellent example. Then there's the more sensationalist angle, whom George "Rowdy Roddy" Martin and Titus Petronius represent. It is what it is, kid. Don't be hating the playas.

[@MoonwalkerWorshiper]

The point of the war was to end the corruption of Sauron once and for all.

[@maxp123abc8]

Tolkien finished his main series!

[@jaojao1768]

Well to him Silmarillion was the main series

[@kaliciusername]

SHUT UP

[@balabanasireti]

I mean, that's because Tolkien cared more about mythology, history and worldbuilding, while Martin cares more about story, characters and pacing. Tolkien never finished some works about his mythology because he took too long and cared more about it than his main books.

[@chrish4309]

The Silmarillion begs to differ.

[@kelman727]

GRRM is a realist at heart and Tolkien wasn’t.

[@TheBayzent]

But what was Robert's taxation policies? How did Geoffrey or Danereys acted in famines?

[@lycaonpictus9662]

We don't get a glimpse of every policy of those rulers but we do see plenty of politicking from all three. That we don't know what their tax policies or famine response would be does not counter Martin's point that LoTR has the "Good Man, Good King" trope.

[@chrish4309]

@@lycaonpictus9662 no but the reality is that Tolkien did have politics and had politics quite frequently, especially within The Silmarillion.

[@Legendaryium]

@@chrish4309 yea thats not at all what was said.

[@someguy-bv3il]

Are you actually trying to say that grrm didn't portray dany's policies and leadership? Half of the fifth book is just dany ruling and administration her kingdom.

[@cannon26ify]

Do not forget that Tolkien also finished his stories as opposed to GRRM.

[@wserthmar8908]

Well, the published material has lesser words than Martin’s

[@cannon26ify]

@@wserthmar8908 Doesn't matter, no story no matter how long should take someone over 23 years to finish. Especially when that specific series is what catapulted you to fame.

[@chrish4309]

The Silmarillion begs to differ It took Tolkien 60 years, and he never finished it. Also it took Tolkien 17 years to write Lord of the Rings and published it (started in 1937 and published in 1954). George has been at this 10 years since A Dance With Dragons. So... Tolkien loses this exchange again. Btw, if you don't think it should take people that long, then how about you go ahead and write a series as well researched and massive as Martin's, with the same word count. Let's see if you can produce something on his scale and greatness in less than 23 years.

[@someguy-bv3il]

@@cannon26ify lol did you know it took Tolkien 40 years to finish his story? (From hobbit to silmarillion) and he technically never finished it

[@chrish4309]

@@someguy-bv3il Actually over 50. The Silmarillion was started in the 1910's during WWI.

[@biropgrules]

I'd say any story where nations goes to war is pretty damn political. Not to mention gondor/arnor/numenors interpolitical bickering that is the stuff of legends.

[@patrickthomas2119]

Biggest difference; Tolkien actually knows how to complete a story. Martin is a classic case of someone's ambition exceeding their ability. Sure he has some talent with writing but he is far less clever then he thinks he is and his 'subverting' of expectations combined with his "gardener' approach to writing has left him will a 'tangled up christmas tree lights' of a mess that he cannot sort out. Then he is being a total douche about it; not only not asking for help to finish (or admitting defeat) but also there are claims he won't give up the rights after he is dead for anyone else to finish either. He strings the fans along and at the same time insults us for a simple request "finish the damn books you started'. he sold an incomplete story with the promise the end would come and he is not delivering. He isn't a tenth of the writer than Tolkien was.

[@2ndMess]

Wait, he's asking for help?

[@HebrewsElevenTwentyFive]

Your point seems to come from a place of passion for the books. I love the books too. However, that passion is clouding something important: *Art isn't a democracy.* As much as those words may be of slight irritation, If you are creating a masterpiece, no one has a right to complete it or add to it when you die. Unless that is your wish of course and in this case, it isn't George's wish. All we can do is hope for him to finish. Anything more doesn't speed up the writing process. He has said on his blog that he writes. Every. Single. Day. Let us content ourselves with that.

[@salimbhai1319]

You are talking as though ASIOAF is a one dimensional story. This isn't fucking Asterix. Martin needs to fill a lot to meet ASIOAF'S ends. There's a thousand prophechies, so many foreshadowing, a million characters and a million plots. It's George who's written the thing until now, and only he can finish it. Also, he doesn't fucking owe you or anybody anything. Lool ambition exceeding ability????

[@patrickthomas2119]

@@HebrewsElevenTwentyFive A masterpiece is only a masterpiece if it is finished. I am not talking about this from an 'artisitic' perspective but a business/product perspective. Martin sold the series/story in such a way to suggest a ending was guaranteed. People invested because of that guarantee and the seller is failing to meet his obligation. Tolkien only ever sold a finished product which is why Silmarilion and book of unfinished tales was published after his death; he would not sell/publish an incomplete story; but that is what Martin has done. He isn't going to finish; I think we have accept that. Based on his personality and his 'reactions' to the questions he gets I think he is trolling everyone. He isn't writing anything I don't think. I could be wrong but at this point it is too late for me. The combination of the shows ending and him dragging his feet on finishing book 6 have made me loss all interest in this series.

[@patrickthomas2119]

@@salimbhai1319 "he doesn't fucking owe you or anybody anything" Wrong. Martin sold the series/story in such a way to suggest a ending was guaranteed. People invested because of that guarantee and the seller is failing to meet his obligation. In business and transaction there are certain unspoken contract obligations. Martin promised something he is not going to deliver. Of course there is no 'legal' standing for wrong doing but in terms of honest business/selling he was not. The series is a mess. all those prophecies, foreshadowing, characters and plots were all 'mystery boxes' with no real solutions. He conned us all. I fell for it for years. I am over it now. I accept that I was sold a shit incomplete product and moved on and am no longer a fan. simple. Stop kidding yourself, he is not going to finish this series; I'll be shocked if he actually ever even releases part 6 but we will never get the last book. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. I hope he proves me wrong. But I seriously doubt it.

[@ceorgeglooney190]

It's very ignorant and dismissive to say that Tolkien doesn't have politics. The world itself is steeped with it. Local politics though and especially intrigue is just not (really) a topic in itself (big exception is the scouring, as GRR Martin rightfully interjects). The subtext of the story is _very_ political: it's about the horrors of war (specifically WWI in which Tolkien served in active duty as an officer. And it's about the tragedy of such a monstrous mechanism, set in motion by unscrupulous people with only power and greed in mind. With no eye to the well being of the world they live in and the people that inhabit it. And no, Tolkien isn't necessarily naive while Martin would be more realistic (I saw that in the comments), it's just that Tolkien is a child of his age (and one of the last) where storytelling, particularly fairy tales and myths, are an integral part of the world he lived in. Martin is much more a child of the cynical, godless current age. Ice and Fire is about power, personal ambitions, desire and the (court) intrigue and conflict that causes. LOTR is about the evil that men do, of people who follow false leaders, out of fear or equal lust of power. Such is thwarted by the selfless acts and sacrifice of individual people of good moral fiber. Of which Tolkien likely has seen plenty in WWI, as mentioned.

[@crossignal3126]

👌

[@torrey88]

George one of the two dozen americans who didnt vote for Reagan

[@aesir1ases64]

Its amazing how much George is a product of the his generation and how much he was influenced by the left wing wave on young people at his time, he would vote for Joffrey before voting for a republican lmao

[@torrey88]

@@aesir1ases64 ignorance is bliss, makes no sense why someone who’s had so much self-made success would vote Democrat, but whatever...

[@zachgravatt5571]

@@torrey88 maybe because he comes from a tough background he understands that not everyone is lucky enough to get the opportunity to drag themselves out of poverty, and wants everyone who come from his background to live a good life?

[@TheBayzent]

@@aesir1ases64 Boomers gonna boomer. He voted for Carter for God's sake...

[@TheBayzent]

@@zachgravatt5571 Yet nobody in the Democratic Party has ever been about that, since it's inception. Closest one was Kennedy and he got shot.

[@SuperSherry22]

Very dishonest of Martin and the interviewer to compare LOTR with GOT based on themes like "tax policy" or "Aragorns orc policy", ffs. Tolkien never wanted to make political themes like this a central part of his work; instead Tolkien focused instead on eternal themes like hope in the face of death, the power of sacrifice and the nature of evil. Martin is subtly suggesting that his books wrestle with more serious issues than LOTR, this isnt the first time he's done this and it's a cheap shot at Tolkien who obviously can't defend his work; motivated, in my opinion, by Martins totally and completely 100% reasonable, correct, fair, accurate and justified sense of inferiority to Tolkien. Comparing the two is a non starter anyway; the only similarity between LOTR and GOT is that the characters in both wear swords and armor- thats where the similarities end - oh and the fact that Martin cleverly and cynically robbed the unique style of Tolkiens initials presumably to catch the eye of fantasy readers. Its surprising that the take away you get after reading all of GOT is " WOW these are some nasty and (admittedly) clever characters who have found gruesome and inventive ways to F#*k each other over, again and again and again! Must go sit in a dark room and sob for a while". Actually the more i see interviews with Martin the less surprising it is. The art reflects the artist. This is why LOTR is so great.

[@danielbutchers998]

The shire dose have politics, even at the beginning, Wtf lord of the rings suggest “good man” creates a good king? Gandalf one of the most “good man” in the hole book comments on what a terrible ruler he would be. There is “politics” throughout Tolkien work the difference is he dose not concentrate on the small details of politics because he is telling an epic not a story about court intrigue, it is that court intrigue I love about a song of ice and fire but having that in lord of the rings would destroy what lord of the rings is

[@cattycorner8]

Daniel Butchers YES, thank you! LOTR is a true EPIC. There would be no G R R Martin without J R R Tolkien.

[@michaellasumiso3462]

GRR’s views on American politics are laughable

[@chuckbass7276]

George RR martin doesnt reach the tip of Tolkiens toes. Tolkien is the greatest of all time, George RR martin is a fat political thinker with some story xd

[@frodofraggins]

Tolkien finished his series so there's that.

[@chrish4309]

LoTR was mean to be published with The Silmarillion. The Silmarillion was never finished. Neither was The Children of Hurin, or any other work. Tolkien only finished The Hobbit and LotR, and both of those he had to severely redact in later editions.

[@frodofraggins]

@@chrish4309 um no - the silmarillion was NEVER meant to be published with LOTR. He just wrote background stuff but didn't have a plan to publish it in any specific form.

[@cheekoandtheman]

Tolkein was a victim of the trenches of WW1 and suffered from post traumatic stress disorder, George is a baby boomer who had it easy.

[@ciandryl]

What’s the relevance of it?

[@AbiShoukathAliA]

martin opposed vietnam war and dedicated his life to write stories about horrors of war

[@jakehopkins6989]

And that somehow makes Tolkien superior, you think?

[@Sokratis.88]

And, do you think tolkien supported war, no, if you think that because he was a vet makes him superior, then i pitty you, Martin opposed to the vietnam war, because US had nothing to do with vietnam, it was all political, also tolkien was forced to fight in that war.

[@cattycorner8]

chheoandtheman Yeah baby. You hit the nail on the head.

[@finchharper4647]

GRR has buried himself in too much detail. Tolkien was not interested in this. GRR has bogged himself down to the point of stagnation. GRR please stop attacking Tolkien.

[@bearforfun]

I attack grrm and he attack Tolkien it is normal

[@matthewmarshall7590]

“In Am-ER-ica.” - George R.R. Matin.

[@anonymousman1282]

Haven't read anything except A game of thrones. Watched LoTR movie and felt that the story is very cliché and simple. Of all the movies and shows I've seen, only GoT when it was good i.e. ASoIaF has a good story. Is there anything other than that, that has an amazing story (any genre) because i have no clue what to read.

[@jaimeruiz7837]

It’s simple, Tolkien fought in wars and knows true pain. So his story for me was him telling us the audience that good exists and people will stand against evil. Martin did what? Ohh he watched and judged from the sidelines. Makes sense why he only focuses on the bad. I prefer my escapism with hope.

[@poggerz6567]

And what do you do huh? Why are you so keen on disrespecting him 😂 calm down my guy

[@MisterChenzy]

Did he just say that Aragorn ruled wisely for a thousand years? Seems like this great author doesn't know dogs*** about LotR because that's just totally wong, but sometimes I enjoy ASoIaF more since it appears to be way more diverse and I'm just fed up with the old germanic-based stories in Fantasy. They're also present in ASoIaF but with many more beliefs and cultures that are... not white or european. And that's quite refreshing even if most of these cultures are not shown that much in GoT or HotD. Also the comparison of Aragorn / good Kings or Rulers with Jimmy Carter is just so weird and irrational and so US-American. Kings are not elected, Kings in medieval times had to deal with about 1 % of the issues modern leaders have to deal with. TO DEAL WITH is actually quite nice here since they don't have to solve issues themselves, they mostly MAKE DEALS using money from state funds to handle issues. Really strange comparison to me personally.

[@docvaliant721]

Tolkien finished his books.

[@balabanasireti]

And yet Tolkien had so many unfinished works that he published a collection called Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-earth and didn't finish The Silmarillion. Also, always making comparisons is stupid and write something original next time.

[@renaigh]

a very small series by comparison.

[@seansorice722]

To me, it always seemed that Tolkien’s world far exceeded the size of Martin’s but Martin’s story far exceeded the size of Tolkien’s, thus, making it much harder to finish and this also goes to show how a lot of Tolkien’s lore was never completed in writing. There was just too much for too little time. I hope Martin finishes his books.

[@chrish4309]

@@renaigh tell that to the fact that Christopher Tolkien was editing his father's work since the 70's and even after he died we are still just about to get *another* book of completely *unseen and new* material from Middle Earth this year. While the published series is smaller, Tolkien's world and writing are comparably more vast. Lastly, Tolkien also never finished his work. Hence why there is an entire book of his writings called The Unfinished Tales. @Passione Nero, yes. comparisons are idiotic completely. People who feel the need to "compare" authors based on how much work they write are childish, immature, and have nothing intellectually stimulating to offer. If you are going to compare authors, compare them on things that matter... like the representation of women as characters. Which Martin is far superior at in every single way.

[@cattycorner8]

Without Tolkien, there would be no Martin. Period.T. lol

[@cerostymc]

...and without the mother of the grandfather of the uncle of the son of the cousin of the parents of Tolkien, there wouldn't be a J.R.R. Tolkien. What's your point?

[@creativeideas5985]

exactly he created the genre so many storys and games are based upon these days. Ofcause its easy to work with something that was already established. Tolkien during his life would have never allowed something like got s8 to happen. Martin ignored what was happening to his series and giving funny interviews. Why did he made a deal to begin with, i wonder.

[@cerostymc]

@@creativeideas5985 I mean it's right that his work had a great influence on literature and many movies, games etc. are based on his story. But an important thing that I should also mention is that although people like Martin didn't invent a whole new genre, their aprroach on writing fantasy is very diffrent than Tolkien's and they brought new ideas and concepts into the genre which heavily changed its direction. Also, though Tolkien is seen from many as THE inventor of the fantasy genre, that's not entierely true. The genre existed long before him, hundrets of years, he just had a diffrent approach on writing fantasy than the authors before him and changed the genre in a way what we call modern fantasy today. He made the genre popular and created a story which the world hadn't seen in that form before. With GRRMs work it's similar. His series doesn't have an impact as huge as Tolkien's one yet and he definitely didn't reinvent an entire genre, but asoiaf also is a book series that the world hasn't seen before in such a way.

[@lycaonpictus9662]

@@creativeideas5985 Tolkien didn't create the fantasy genre. That is a misconception that gets repeated often because most Tolkien fans haven't read anything older than The Hobbit, or haven't spent 5 minutes reading a biography of the man. The first modern fantasy novel was published in 1872, twenty years before Tolkien was even born. He cited as influences people who were writing in the genre before him, including at least one who was publishing while he was still a boy. The influences for the fantasy genre also go back much farther than the 19th Century. The tales surrounding King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table for example include many fantasy elements, like the wizard Merlin, the Lady in the Lake and Excalibur, as well as all the magical stuff that occurs during the quest for the Holy Grail or with Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. The Green Knight by the way, is not a man but a mysterious creature. Beowulf is another example, with the hero performing superhuman feats and spending much of the tale battling fantastical monsters. Incidentally, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (which is being adapted into a modern fantasy movie called The Green Knight) and Beowulf were also huge influences for Tolkien. The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings greatly increased the popularity of the genre and inspired legions of imitators, but contrary to popular belief they did not create it.

[@creativeideas5985]

@@lycaonpictus9662 we all know that tolkien took inspiration from that. Its not new. The point is that grrm is highly overrated and didnt bring anything new too the table, his books are depressing and edgy so people can say "its differen" i saw grmm in interviews , his answers are slow and have no flow, he doesnt know how to end the books either, so basically started a story he didnt think through

[@bakthihapuarachchi3447]

I acknowledge the monumental service Tolkien did for the series but Martin is simply better

[@Longshanks1690]

😂😂😂😂🤣🤣. No. Tolkien, by George’s own admission, is the man who redefined fantasy as a genre. George’s works just take place within that genre.

[@Chu9947]

facts. asoiaf is just miles better. with all due respect to tolkien. without tolkien/lotr we might not have ever had martin/asoiaf. but if we just compare the books .. lotr does not come close to asoiaf.

[@Longshanks1690]

@@Chu9947 Literally how? How is ASOIAF superior to LOTR as a piece of fiction in any significant way?

[@bakthihapuarachchi3447]

@@Longshanks1690 Tolkien made the fantasy genre as we know it. But that doesn't mean LOTR is better than any fantasy book that was written after it. If we take them as isolated cases ASOIAF is simply much better

[@timrosswood4259]

Asoif is great, i really like it, but i prefer tolkien's work. His world is a lot deeper than Martin's.