Books you think are overated.

Yep. I didn't find the characters complex at all. Which isn't necessarily a problem, but this is one of the most revered series in the genre, and I'd heard great things about how Martin handles his characters. What this seemed to boil down to was an admittedly rare lack of ceremony in being willing to kill them off.

Perhaps (though perhaps not - I can't exactly quantify this) epic fantasy has a tendency to relegate characters to conduits of broad plot mechanics and are thus often broadly drawn themselves. Tolkien, for example, isn't renowned for his character development, but his milieu and mythos building was much richer than Martin's is, which helps substitute for this. On a more contemporary note, compare Martin to, say, Guy Gavriel Kay, and you see a vast difference in the intricacies of character development.

As I say, I didn't hate it. It's a good book; just nothing special in my eyes.

 

Well each to their own, though I honestly can't comprehend how one could call any of Martin's characters flat. Not the main ones at least. I can understand accusations of slow pace, of being too violent and grim, of the sex scenes being too gracious and the amount of POV's being too bloated. I don't agree with those things but I can see were the criticisms are coming from. I can't see where that criticism would come from. All the cast save for the E-lists are imo incredibly detailed. But as I said, each to their own.

 

Buh? What are you talking about? Tolkien is great with characters. He's especially good at making them realistic. Eowyn, for example, was written in a way that I identified with a lot -- her suicidal heroism is extremely realistic. Also, Theoden was a great crusty but kind king, Denethor was penetrating and mad, and Frodo was sympathetic and distant. Methinks perhaps Martin isn't as bad as you say...though I don't plan on reading his stuff.

 

There is no contradiction between describing characters in the way that you have (with which I don't disagree) whilst maintaining that their characters are somewhat lightly drawn.

Saying how one character behaves, ascribing that as their character, is merely an exercise of reductivism. Legolas is brave. Gimli is grumpy but redoubtable. Sauron and Saruman are evil. These are character traits, of course, but they constitute little more than broadly defined characterisation, and Tolkien very often provides little more than that (possibly out of necessity, considering the huge scope of his imagination and his overriding fascination for milieu and linguistics).

There are shades of complexity and motivation, especially with Gollum (by far the most complete and understandable character in The Lord of the Rings) but, in general, they're tropes. Tolkien gets away with it because, at least in what we now understand as epic fantasy, he was their originator, and because his wonderful focus often manifested in other areas.

I don't think it's heretical or even out of the ordinary to suggest his strengths lay elsewhere.

 

I do agree about Tolkien, apart from a few characters like Gollum and Boromir, they're all quite flat. Although I think they're not quite as bad as some people think. Afterall LOTR is the original modern fantasy, so if you've read some of the more modern stuff and then LOTR it will look worse than it actually is.

 

I think you people are crazy. It's bizarre and quite inaccurate to say that Eowyn is flat. She's developed very well, a very complex character whom I have never seen another author dare to create. In fact, the characterization is the thing I like best about Tolkien.

Sim...ugh. If all you get from Legolas is "brave", then there's a problem. Legolas is not merely brave (and that's not really the first thing that comes to mind about him in any case) he's distant, detached. The others trudge through snow, but Legolas walks over it. Aragorn and Gimli have to take rests on their way to find the captured hobbits, but Legolas can walk about in a zombie-like state, resting as he goes forward. And after all is over, he's not really reveling in victory as much as the rest, but is rather consumed by his recent obsession with sea gulls, and how they draw them to the sea. Therefore, if you must summarize Legolas with one word, let it be "separate".

Now, Sauron is purposefully left undeveloped because you're not supposed to know about him in great detail. He's supposed to be an enigma, and the source of evil. This is a great part of Saruman's characterization, because the reason for his madness was that he got too close to Sauron, thinking he could get the better of Mordor but in the end only being destroyed by what Sauron did to him.

So yeah. You can say what you like about Tolkien, but his characters are wonderful and have depth that apparently misses the both of you. Please excuse my ranting though, as I can get out of hand, but I've read the series again recently, and the things you say can't help but make me wonder when the last time you read it was.

 

Sorry, Legolas is brave... and distant. He can walk in a zombie-like state.

Well, that's me told.

 

I'll admit I'm in for a re-read and I admit some characters do have depths. But I certainly wouldn't put Tolkien's characterisation on a level with Martin's. Yes, shock horror I am putting another fantasy author above Tolkien. Remember that Tolkien was the first modern fantasy author, so while he'll always have a place in the heart of fantasy lovers, now people have had more time to experiment with tropes and narratives to (potentially.) make a better story. For me Martin has done that, though I still enjoy lotr immensely.

 

In a wish to be conciliatory, I would like to echo my enjoyment of Lord of the Rings. Perhaps for different reasons to Gonwossit above, or not quite to the same degree, but it's still an enjoyable and rich read.

I've read it through twice and that's enough for me to maintain my opinion of the broadness of the characters. Though Gonthingy is probably right (and not at all patronising): the intricacies of Tolkien's character are perhaps so nuanced that a dilettante reader such as myself couldn't possibly have the astute powers of observation necessary to see them. I am forever in your debt, Gonzo.

And, thanks to Protar's admirable, almost rabid D), defence of Martin, I'm going to give it another shot. It's been a few years.

There, you see? We can all be friends. Yay!

 

Hush up, Sim. I don't mean to insult you. Sorry, I did come across a bit strong there, I guess. It's just that I'm rather amazed at your observation.

Nah, Protar, I don't think Tolkien is necessarily the best, I just think if you're going to critique him on anything, it shouldn't be characters. Possibly on some confusing narrative, or the insertion of a bizarre person like Tom Bombadil. He doesn't really fit the story. And I haven't read Martin, so maybe he is better at characters. I don't know.

 

No problem. As for the name thing (Sim-ugh-acra, Gonzo), you can tell by the way I definitely didn't rise to the bait (on three separate occasions) that it didn't faze me whatsoever. Oh yes, I kept my cool there, no question about that

Anyway, I like it when people get passionate about their, er, passions. Hey, it's all opinions, right?

What I should say, as some kind of qualifying (re: backtracking, cowardly) addendum, is that I like the characters in the LoTR, I just find them a little broad. But it's very difficult to go into intricacies when you're dealing with such a panoramic story. I connected more to Tolkien's mythos and milieu than to his characters (though I do love Gollum; I think he's fantastic), but I don't see that as a failing of the book.

And, true, it may be that I need to go back and read it with different eyes. I might be pleasantly surprised (though I reserve the right to keep any potential epiphanies that undermine my original statements undisclosed).

 

Well I'm glad we can all get along , and I admit I'm a rabid Martin fan. Just look at my signature (not that anyone other than a rabid Martin fan would understand it.)

 

Dude, if you have a problem with me calling you "Sim" then just say so. Don't be like that. I'm just saying that as a shortening. Like "Jim" or something. And also, I have no clue what you're talking about "bait". Completely lost.

Anyway, yes, the story is pretty panoramic. What made the characters good is their adherence to reality. It's like he treats the thing like it's history -- which people may or may not like.

 

Oh, I see! I have got the wrong end of the stick :facepalm:. I thought 'Sim...ugh' was a slight on my nametag. But now I see the 'ugh' was for my overall opinion (which is much worse ). Hence my puerile Gonwossit/Gonthingy/Gonzo (three separate occasions - rising to the bait) retorts.

Once again, grand delusions of paranoia send me completely down the wrong path.

Apologies.

 

Umm despite being a writer of almost epic fantasy (it's set in modern times) I can't stand Lord of the Rings and GRRMartin holds no interest for me, so I have never read it (despite my work usually being compared to his because of the whole tons of subplots and millions of characters).

LOTR for me is just boring - the world dominates the story too much.

 

Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. It's not only silly and preposterous, but it's also disturbingly sexist. And it's ugly. I threw it across the room when I finished it and immediately felt like I needed a shower.

 

How do you know you don't like something if you've never tried it? Not just pertaining to Martin but the world in general.

 

Eh, once people get to certain ages, they can already tell what they don't like, probably through subconscious means.

 

I said it held no interest - I didn't say I disliked it. My only reason for considering Martin is my storytelling appears to have things in common with his. Kind of like reading John Barrowman's fantasy book because it had a blue-eyed bird of prey on the front. (My fantasy features a blue-eyed bird of prey heavily). My life is too short and I have too many other things to do at this stage to read stories that don't interest me a lot.

The LOTR I know I dislike it remains one of the few books I have put down. The Hobbit I read because I had to for school, but it would have joined LOTR on the reject pile otherwise.

 

I didn't think Ender's Game was a bad book, but I can't see how it got so popular. The author (can't remember who wrote it) did a lot more telling than showing, and it was way too short to convey much complexity- especially considering how ambitious (though poorly executed) the world was. That's probably because the premise would have gotten very boring if it had lasted longer, given that there was little character depth or interesting plot development.

 

I noticed that. I didn't think The Lord of the Rings was bad, but I'd have preferred if Tolkein had spent more time focused on the characters rather than on flowery dialogue and (even more flowery) descriptions of scenery. There's art, and then there's distracting. I think Tolkein tried to go for art with the dialogue, and crossed over too far into distracting.

 

I read the original short story when it was published in Analog in the early 70s. It wasn't bad. Preposterous, but not bad (lots of science fiction is that way). But in stretching to novel length, Card included an absurd subplot about Ender's older brother trying to take over the world by posting on internet forums (it wasn't really the internet back then, but so what?). It was simply idiotic. People sometimes ask, on this forum, how to stretch a story to novel length, and everyone says, "Add a subplot!" Ender's Game is Exhibit A in the case against adding subplots. Ugh. Exasperating. Infuriating.

 

I'm probably going to get lambasted but I think "On The Road" was over-rated. I felt that it served to glorify aimless slackers ( and that is saying a lot coming from me!) I didn't feel that the prose was particularly outstanding. Thoughts?

 

I read way to much so of course I wanted to weigh in. I like Twilight but I am not crazy. I actually get annoyed with the hype surrounding it. People compare it to Harry Potter all the time....Twilight is not even in the same league as Harry Potter IMO. To whoever mentioned House of Night by PC Cast...you guys want to talk about teen trash....at one point the main character has like three boyfriends. I stopped reading after I think book 4 or 5. The writing isn't all that impressive either. I am also glad that people mentioned Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Jodi Picoult. I couldn't read either. I didn't like the writing style.

 

Hunger Games saga... Are the rocks coming yet? The story is ok... I liked it a lot at first -- I even talked about it in my wordpress, but then it's not like I loooved it with all my strength and would read it again. Hell, I didn't even finish the last book... And I read the other two in 2/3 days.