Tolkien comparisons

[Zarathustra]

I know it is inevitable that fantasy authors will be compared to Tolkien, but does this annoy anyone else out there? I can't stand it. It's insulting to either a) Tolkien or b) the author being compared to Tolkien. Just because JRRT came first doesn't mean that everyone has to copy him. Nor does it mean that it's a virtue if people do something different from him. A book should be judged on its own merits, and not in reference to this artificial standard. Critics like to call people the "modern Tolkien," as if a similarity is favorable. But at the same time, they praise authors for breaking this mold.

Specifically, in the Feast for Crows paperback, we get this praise from Time:

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

Several things bother me about this. First of all, it diminishes Tolkien's work. Sure, there was nothing ambiguous about Sauron's evil. But men were not unequivocally good. Anyone could be corrupted or tempted, even "innocent" Frodo at the end. Boromir wasn't exactly black and white, but a complex combination of too much pride mixed with honorable desire to protect a noble tradition. And the Elves weren't simply pretty faces embodying Good: they had their own struggles that went beyond their appearance, or moral absolutism. Bilbo was the prisoner of the Elfking in Mirkwood, after all. And Feanor was too rash and arrogant. The kinslaying was a horrific event that cast a shadow of sadness over the centuries. And the men of the First Age were also scarred with sadness and poor judgment. Turin's story is every bit as tragic and morally "complex" as, say, Jaime (in fact, a lot more so).

The next thing that bothers me is this praise for moral complexity as if it were something more sophisticated than Manichaeism in general. I do subscribe to relativism, myself, and I agree that it is more rational than absolutism. But what we have in ASOIAF isn't the same thing. We have a near total absence of standards (at least for those who don't cling to a religion just as stubbornly and unquestioningly as any Manichaean), rather than a system of standards which are chosen in defiance of artificial standards "written on stone tablets" and handed down from the gods (which was the distinction Nietzsche was trying to make: not an absence of values, but human-chosen values which are true to this world and this life).

Aside from the pious exceptions (Stannis, Damphair, Thoros, Melisandra [(edit) even more as this book goes on: the Sparrows, Lancel, the Elder Brother, Meribald) the people in ASOIAF do whatever the fuck they want (quite literally, in many cases). That's not moral complexity, it's mere childishness and selfishness. The reason this appears complex is just an author trick: he makes you think that the "good guys" are one set of people, so that you'll be set up to be surprised when the designated "bad guys" show some sympathetic characteristics. But Cersei is a selfish bitch with no redeeming qualities. Jon, on the other hand, is unambiguously good (despite the pseudo-oath breaking which caused him so much anguish). Stannis is unbending and strict. Jaime has developed a sense of guilt and regret . . . so he is showing change, but not ambiguity. I can't think of a single character who is morally complex. The good guys and bad guys are clearly drawn.

I like these books. But they're just a soap opera with magic. It's a very good soap opera, but it's no deeper than that.

[duchess of malfi]

I like these books. But they're just a soap opera with magic. It's a very good soap opera, but it's no deeper than that.

Unfortunately a rather common misperception, due I think to the fact that Martin always chooses to show rather than tell.

For example, there is quite an exploration of personal honor, through the actions and fates of Ned, Robb, and Jon.

There is quite an exploration of leadership in looking at the actions and character archs of the various kings and queens. And especially through the fate of the common people (as seen especially in the journeys of Arya and Brienne). One of the most scathing put-downs in the entire series is directed at Robb Stark, when one of the little people says "Lions and wolves. They are all the same" (or something like that) in ASOS. The good and bad are not really so clear cut when you read carefully. While people root for Robb, it is made quite clear that he was a bad king.

Who is a good leader? A drunken sot who cannot even accept the basic fact that his fiance voluntarily ran away with another man even decades after the fact? A young king who thinks what he does with his genitals is more important than his sworn word to important noble vassals? A queen who helps turn her elder son into a spoilt young sociopath? That young sociopath himself? A guy so wrapped up in poker-up-the-ass legality that he allows human sacrifice and other abominations to be made in his name? I can go on and on for quite some time about the various kings and queens. How about a would-be queen who wishes to forego war and conquest in favor of such basics as getting more food for her people? How does Asha and her goals stack up to Cersei or Dany or Margaery?

And a lot of times Martin explores such basic questions as honor and leadership in subtle details. When the Prince of Dorne imprisons his daughter, he gives her certain very specific books to read. What does that tell you about her? About him? About the responsibilities of leadership?

The entire series can actually be read as a turning of epic fantasy head over heels. An accounting of why a feudal system really sucks for the majority of people living under it - and how good feudal leaders are the extreme exception rather than the rule. An accounting of the dismal failure of chivalry (knights who do anything but live under knightly ideals). As the failure of a rigid code of personal honor, too. I cannot wait to see if he also undermines rigid hierarchal religion as well as the series goes on.