Really, New York Times ? You couldn’t review the book without insulting the rest of the genre? Again? nytimes.com…
Also, not every good fantasy needs to be named “Better than Tolkien.” That’s like starting Broadway reviews with “Better than Shakespeare!”
It’s been fifty years since Tolkien. GRRM’s good; your reason he’s better is like putting a Lexus over a classic Packard because the Lexus has GPS.
Okay, rant over. In better news, I’m on the plane. Only what…four hours late? Off to Toronto.
Martin > Tolkien
I certainly don’t mind if people enjoy Martin more than Tolkien. There are good arguments there.
The thing is, it’s not a fair comparison for a number of reasons.
I love RJ, your own books and GRRM’s, as well as many, MANY other fantasies. I hated Lord of the Rings , and I would never suggest them.
I prefer WoT to Tolkien too—but the thing is, we all owe a lot to the early pioneers in the genre.
The problem is the tone of the article, as if implying that Tolkien was a cheap hack and GRRM is the first REAL fantasy worth reading.
Just a quick reply to a lot of the tweets I’m getting about the GRRM/Tolkien posts I made earlier.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with preferring to read GRRM over Tolkien. I, personally, would generally rather read WOT than Lord of the Rings .
But a comparison must take into account that we wouldn’t have WoT or A Song of Ice and Fire without Tolkien. That’s why the tone of the review was off to me.
What?!? I have lost all faith in you, preferring WOT over Lord of the Rings ! :P
Ha. Well, I recognize Tolkien’s genius now, but couldn’t get into it as a kid. Too tough for me, I think. Didn’t read until college.
If you are viewing this on github.io, you can see that this site is open source. Please do not try to improve this page. It is auto-generated by a python script. If you have suggestions for improvements, please start a discussion on the github repo or the Discord.