4 ms·

I think it's pretty hard to answer this question because what Tolkein is good at and what he is bad at are two sides of the same coin. Tolkein presents an extr

I think it's pretty hard to answer this question because what Tolkein is good at and what he is bad at are two sides of the same coin. Tolkein presents an extremely fantastical view of the world and ascribes to what I call "cosmic morality." There is obvious, pure good and pure evil, and in a way the Universe intervenes to make sure that pure good will win out in the end. I don't mean this in a Deus Ex Machina way, by the way, as cosmic morality is justified within Tolkein's universe. I think Breaking Bad is a good example of this as well -- the Universe has passed its judgment on the characters it deems necessary to pass judgment on, and it works within its story without detracting from it or seeming like a Deus Ex Machina. So much of the criticism of Tolkein in the modern day, to me, surrounds this concept where he ascribes to the idea that the Universe will eventually judge sinners and saints. That being said, it does not and should not detract from the sheer magnitude of his creative work, as well as his linguistic ability. George RR Martin, is, I think, an obvious counterpoint and much of his writing is driven by a distaste for this amount of cosmic morality. If we were to harken back to amazing TV, GRRM is more like The Wire -- they choose to present the world in a way they deem "factual". But in doing so they lose some of the higher fantasy elements that Tolkein's world building is known for. So I think when you ask the question of who is a better world-builder I think you need to start with asking whether or not you want a cynically real depiction (ala GRRM) or you want a story that justifies it's heroic deeds (ala Tolkein) first. Because, in my opinion, they are hard to compare.

Annatar 8y ago
"There is obvious, pure good and pure evil, and in a way the Universe intervenes to make sure that pure good will win out in the end." There is no such thing in either the Silmarillion or the Lord of the Rings: in the Silmarillion, Melkor is taken beyond into a different dimension, yet there is so much damage that this is hardly more than partial damage control; and stopping The Enemy causes an even greater tragedy, that of everything wrought with the Three Rings to fail and fade, resulting in elves having to once again leave Middleearth, that place where they awoke and hold so dear. Hardly can this be called "good versus evil" or either side winning, and if so, it's a phyrric victory for both. Nobody wins in the end; the inevitable is just prolonged yet again through the rise of men at the expense of everyone else. The way Melkor set the stage, Ainur played it, and Sauron finished it, there could never be any victor, good or evil. It was a perfectly balanced system. It was never about Black-White and especially it isn't about good winning in the end, since the victory causes even more tragedy.
- victoriasun 8y ago
  I had hoped that the Breaking Bad reference made more clear what I meant by cosmic good/evil. It has nothing to do with the idea that the One Ring is good or evil, but rather that the Universe has morality ascribed to each character. We leave LOTR feeling for the most part satisfied by the story. I suspect A Song of Ice and Fire will not have the same satisfaction. But this is, once again, my own subjective opinion and theory. I don't even think there's anything inherently wrong with cosmic good! In general, I wish media would be more willing to take a stand when they choose to display violent acts on television.
  - Annatar 8y ago
    "We leave LOTR feeling for the most part satisfied by the story." I leave LotR feeling terrible pain, loss, and sadness: the main protagonists are forced into exile to another world (planet), Valinor; they can never come back; the fate of the mortal ones (Bilbo, Frodo) will forever remain unknown, they have to forever part with their friends and family, and Middleearth remains behind bereft of elves, their beauty, grace, and intellect. How this is a satisfactory story I am incapable of fathoming, not because any one side won, but because the ending raises even more questions than it answers.
- jpfed 8y ago
  Wouldn't the Eru's resurrection of Gandalf count as a pretty clear example of the Universe intervening to make sure that pure good will win out in the end?
  - Annatar 8y ago
    Neither Gandalf nor the Balrog could really be killed, in spite of Gandalf implying it, because they are both Maiar, the powers of the world, and their existence is bound to that of Arda. To kill them, Arda would have to be destroyed. Same goes for Sauron, even after destroying the One Ring. They're all indestructible in the same way that a planet is destructible. Gandalf being sent back ("I was sent back") is an act of keeping the events in balance, not Eru intervening so that good would win, because in the end, even with him doing as much as he did, everybody loses. Gandalf knew this full well, and that is why he did not want to go to Middleearth. He was afraid. He did not want to go stop Sauron. Manwe ordered him and the other four Istari to go anyway and the other Valar backed him up in his decision. Even if you take the position that Eru intervened, there is always that moment when Eru Illuvatar tells Melkor "know that nothing you do will ever be without my will and intent of you doing it".

Annatar 8y ago

"There is obvious, pure good and pure evil, and in a way the Universe intervenes to make sure that pure good will win out in the end." There is no such thing in either the Silmarillion or the Lord of the Rings: in the Silmarillion, Melkor is taken beyond into a different dimension, yet there is so much damage that this is hardly more than partial damage control; and stopping The Enemy causes an even greater tragedy, that of everything wrought with the Three Rings to fail and fade, resulting in elves having to once again leave Middleearth, that place where they awoke and hold so dear. Hardly can this be called "good versus evil" or either side winning, and if so, it's a phyrric victory for both. Nobody wins in the end; the inevitable is just prolonged yet again through the rise of men at the expense of everyone else. The way Melkor set the stage, Ainur played it, and Sauron finished it, there could never be any victor, good or evil. It was a perfectly balanced system. It was never about Black-White and especially it isn't about good winning in the end, since the victory causes even more tragedy.

victoriasun 8y ago
I had hoped that the Breaking Bad reference made more clear what I meant by cosmic good/evil. It has nothing to do with the idea that the One Ring is good or evil, but rather that the Universe has morality ascribed to each character. We leave LOTR feeling for the most part satisfied by the story. I suspect A Song of Ice and Fire will not have the same satisfaction. But this is, once again, my own subjective opinion and theory. I don't even think there's anything inherently wrong with cosmic good! In general, I wish media would be more willing to take a stand when they choose to display violent acts on television.
- Annatar 8y ago
  "We leave LOTR feeling for the most part satisfied by the story." I leave LotR feeling terrible pain, loss, and sadness: the main protagonists are forced into exile to another world (planet), Valinor; they can never come back; the fate of the mortal ones (Bilbo, Frodo) will forever remain unknown, they have to forever part with their friends and family, and Middleearth remains behind bereft of elves, their beauty, grace, and intellect. How this is a satisfactory story I am incapable of fathoming, not because any one side won, but because the ending raises even more questions than it answers.
jpfed 8y ago
Wouldn't the Eru's resurrection of Gandalf count as a pretty clear example of the Universe intervening to make sure that pure good will win out in the end?
- Annatar 8y ago
  Neither Gandalf nor the Balrog could really be killed, in spite of Gandalf implying it, because they are both Maiar, the powers of the world, and their existence is bound to that of Arda. To kill them, Arda would have to be destroyed. Same goes for Sauron, even after destroying the One Ring. They're all indestructible in the same way that a planet is destructible. Gandalf being sent back ("I was sent back") is an act of keeping the events in balance, not Eru intervening so that good would win, because in the end, even with him doing as much as he did, everybody loses. Gandalf knew this full well, and that is why he did not want to go to Middleearth. He was afraid. He did not want to go stop Sauron. Manwe ordered him and the other four Istari to go anyway and the other Valar backed him up in his decision. Even if you take the position that Eru intervened, there is always that moment when Eru Illuvatar tells Melkor "know that nothing you do will ever be without my will and intent of you doing it".