main
side
curve
  1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

Census The Books, Lord Of The Rings Or Games Of Thrones?

Discussion in 'Community' started by VadersLaMent , May 20, 2013.

?

Better books, Game Of Thrones or Lord Of The Rings

  1. LOTR

    43 vote(s)
    65.2%
  2. GOT

    23 vote(s)
    34.8%
  1. Merlin_Ambrosius69

    Merlin_Ambrosius69 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Disagree. It's subtle but it's there. The arc of the hobbits alone is enough to put any modern novel to shame in terms of depth and detail of characterization.
     
  2. Slowpokeking

    Slowpokeking Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Nah, Hobbit doesn't even give all the dwarves enough personality.

    LotR has similar problem, characters like Arwen has very little characterization, even Aragorn doesn't let people feel good enough as the king of Middle Earth.
     
  3. Emperor_Billy_Bob

    Emperor_Billy_Bob Jedi Grand Master star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 9, 2000
    Hobbit =/= LOTR
     
  4. Slowpokeking

    Slowpokeking Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Yeah, even Tolkien himself said the Hobbit is for kids.
     
  5. JangoMike

    JangoMike Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 13, 2003
    I cannot compare the two. Apples and Oranges.....
     
  6. Merlin_Ambrosius69

    Merlin_Ambrosius69 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 4, 2008
    I'll grant you the dwarves in The Hobbit, apart from Thorin and a handful of others, are under-developed. But as the Emperor has observed, we were discussing The Lord of the Rings.

    Arwen is a minor character. It wouldn't be a flaw if she were underdeveloped, but as it happens she's quite nicely fleshed out in a major short story found in the Appendices, indeed the highlight of that end-of-the-book material. And if you reply "I haven't read the Appendices," then you haven't read the entire book, and well, SlowPoke, you're not prepared for this discussion.
     
  7. Merlin_Ambrosius69

    Merlin_Ambrosius69 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Also, when I wrote "the arc of the hobbits" did you think I meant the book, The Hobbit? Because I didn't. I meant the four hobbits in LOTR have amazing character arcs.

    Is this where you tell me you haven't read "The Scouring of the Shire" because you thought the book was over when they destroyed the Ring? [face_shame_on_you]
     
  8. Slowpokeking

    Slowpokeking Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Then don't put the Hobbit.

    Well a good story should not use the Appendices to introduce characters, especially someone like the king's lady. Her story should be told in the story itself. Even in that tale, she still has little characterization beside Aragorn's lover, who loves Aragorn like hell.
     
  9. Slowpokeking

    Slowpokeking Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Yeah, I agree the Hobbits have the most personality in the trilogy, especially Gollum. But other characters aren't very well developed.
     
  10. Merlin_Ambrosius69

    Merlin_Ambrosius69 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 4, 2008
    I didn't "put the Hobbit". I wrote about "the arc of the hobbits". Look for clues such as capitalization and spelling. Here are some reading comprehension worksheets.

    All your "shoulds" and "should nots" are your own invention and have no bearing on a globally regarded literary masterpiece. Read the Appendices, they're part of the book. Arwen is a minor character.
     
  11. BootlegVader

    BootlegVader Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 3, 2004
    LOTR and other Middle Earth works have a stronger universe with their unique languages and societies, while aSoIaF has richer and more interesting characters.
     
  12. Slowpokeking

    Slowpokeking Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Yeah I replied with it.

    That's most of the authors do, they use the story itself to let people know the characters rather than add little tale to introduce the main story of this character. Overall, Arwen is still too vague as a character. The movie overall did a better portrayal of Arwen and Eowyn's characters, especially Eowyn.

    Yes.
     
  13. BootlegVader

    BootlegVader Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Arwen has a character in Book LOTR? Quite frankly, IIRC we see more of her in the appendix then the actual story.
     
  14. Slowpokeking

    Slowpokeking Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 21, 2012
    She had some minor appearance.

    Legolas also has little appearance in the books, especially if you compare it to the movies.
     
  15. Merlin_Ambrosius69

    Merlin_Ambrosius69 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 4, 2008
    I wrote nothing about "personality". We're discussing character development. And once again I must disagree. Each character's dialogue and actions are rife with character revelations, from Bormoir's motives for trying to take the Ring to Eowyn's loneliness in her dark bower to Faramir's nobility and poetry of soul, to Denethor's reasons for despair -- contrasted against Theoden's, which are similar but unique to each. I think you haven't looked closely enough at the material. Maybe you breezed through the books looking for action or trying to recreate the movies in your mind, I'm sure I don't know.
     
    MrZAP likes this.
  16. Merlin_Ambrosius69

    Merlin_Ambrosius69 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 4, 2008
    The Appendices are "the actual story".
     
    MrZAP and DarkEagle like this.
  17. Slowpokeking

    Slowpokeking Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Bormoir is fine, but Eowyn's characterization is handled much better in the movies. In the book yeah she told us she wants to go to the battlefield, but still didn't join the battle in Helm's Deep. then in the Battle of Minas Tirith she suddenly turned from a woman who never went on the battlefield to some fearless Valkyrie like character before the fearsome Witch King, taunting and laughing at him, that's quite rushed and unrealistic. Her romance with Fararmir is also quite rushed, they never even met each other and fall in love in a few days. In the movies she was in the cave to protect women and children during the battle of Helm's Deep, that's a nice change and makes sense of her being in the battlefield later. In the Battle of Minas Tirith she also had fear on her face when she faced the Witch King, didn't say those brave words but still willing to defend her uncle. That makes her much more realistic. The romance, of course, is still vague.
     
  18. tom

    tom Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Mar 14, 2004
    changing a character from the source material isn't "doing a better job of portraying the character". that's absurd. yeah, "tolkien didn't get his own characters right. thank god peter jackson came along to fix them." and anyway, eowyn's actions on the pelennor fields didn't come from some instant badassery as you suggest, but rather from a complete and utter sense of despair. that much is pretty clear if you read the books.
     
  19. AmazingB

    AmazingB Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jan 12, 2001
    I voted for the one that's finished. Maybe in 2029 when Brandon Sanderson finishes writing A Song of Ice and Fire (it's not called Game of Thrones, dammit!) I will vote different.

    Someone set a calendar reminder for me.

    Amazing.
     
    Coruscant likes this.
  20. Slowpokeking

    Slowpokeking Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Eowyn's action came from the love of her uncle, that let her be able to stand before the Witch King. But she was a women who never fought on the battlefield before. It clear makes more sense that she stood out, but still with fear on her face rather than laugh and taunting the Witchking, who was the harbinger of fear and affected most of the elite Rohan soldiers.
     
  21. Merlin_Ambrosius69

    Merlin_Ambrosius69 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 4, 2008
    So far you've agreed that Boromir, Gollum and the four hobbits have good development/arcs/characterizations. That's six of the ten or so major characters. Eowyn is wonderful, but she isn't a major character. Call her perhaps the 11th or 12th protagonist. Any time spent with her is a bonus apart from the main drive of the narrative; any revelations as to her character and persona must -- in a single, 1000-page novel -- be succinct.

    You call it "rushed", I call it succinct. In your assessment of her you're neglecting Eowyn's despair when Aragorn is on the Paths of the Dead, and her concern for her uncle both in his dotage under Saruman's spell and later, on the battlefield. Her military spirit is made clear the moment she takes on the disguise of Dernhelm. We don't know precisely how much training she's had with a sword, but she's grown up in a martial culture surrounded by armies and fighting men. Shield maidens were a not uncommon facet of the Anglo-Saxon culture from which Tolkien is drawing here. And again, her actions make it plain that she can handle a weapon; do we really need a separate sentence or paragraph belaboring the point? The author is telling us she's learned to handle a weapon by showing her to us handling a weapon. You find it "unrealistic", but for a minor character in a complex narrative Eowyn receives a bounteous fleshing out, that you seem to have blinked and missed.
     
  22. Slowpokeking

    Slowpokeking Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 21, 2012
    There are many other ones, plus the antagonist, Sauron has nearly 0 characterization in the trilogy, he's more like a symbol rather than a character, same with most of the other villains. Only Saruman is "ok" but he still had too little appearance. Also except Gollum, the "good characterized" characters are still not good enough compare to something like A Song of Ice and Fire's characters.

    Spirit does not make you all powerful and fearless before the harbinger of fear in a few seconds. I'm not talking about her handling a weapon, she was able to stand before the Witch King without a bit of fear, when the elite soldiers of Rohan, who survived the Battle of Helm's Deep, could not resist the Witch King's power.
     
  23. Merlin_Ambrosius69

    Merlin_Ambrosius69 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 4, 2008
    I will absolutely concede that Martin's characters in ASOIAF are rich, wonderful, infuriating, comprehensible, unpredictable and -- very important -- fully formed adult human beings, in a way that Tolkien does not explore. Not that there aren't hints of such things in LOTR, but they're fleeting. Tolkien is unconcerned with the two "x" words, sex or excrement, whereas Martin practically revels in them.

    That's an exaggeration, but you see what I mean. Martin's people have a gritty, foul aspect to them which all real human beings share, and with talk of chamber pots and Myrian swamps and all matter of effluvia, it becomes easy even to picture Sansa having secret parts that aren't normally discussed in fantasy literature. Whereas it's difficult to imagine, for example, Arwen taking a poop.

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg! I use effluvia only as a catchall metaphor for the, ahem, depths to which Martin takes his characters. Tolkien's, on the other hand, are or can be nuanced, multi-faceted, and unpredictable... but none of them except the villains are morally reprehensible.

    As to Eowyn on the battlefield, I've said my piece and you remain unconvinced. C'est la vie.
     
  24. timmoishere

    timmoishere Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Having recently reread LOTR, I can tell you that ASOIAF has a much richer story, richer characters, and a more exciting narrative. I can appreciate LOTR for what it is, but it is just so....tame compared to Martin's work.
     
  25. tom

    tom Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Mar 14, 2004
    that's because she no longer valued her own life. if there is anything she wanted it was a brave death in battle. this point is pretty well hammered home.