Tolkien didn’t write or create the “Legindarium” for money or even publication as his primum mobile he did it because he felt the creative urge to do so. I suspect that Martin’s motivation was money and fame. Tolkien already had sufficient money and fame in his work and vocation at Oxford.
Tolkien was a very modest and unassuming man albeit with set views and opinions and belief but never forceful in them on others - a courteous man in my estimation. Unfortunately those in charge of has literary estate, perhaps not cynically!!, have concentrated more on the money and basking in the reflected glory of the author.
I do don’t mean it as cynical but I see how that could be interpreted. It’s so much better to talk in person where any misunderstanding or misinterpretation can be quickly put right. I know that the internet has many marvels to connect us with people who’s existence we are unaware of but one negative is that misunderstanding and misinterpretation can so quickly drive people apart. Thank you for being so considerate in your response to me so many times others have gone for the jugular as it were!
I really appreciate your work here. It's nice to see someone who seems to "get" what Martin meant by the tax policy question, rather than use it as a memetic cudgel.
I do wonder if you (and Dave) might be off about a satisfying ending. It's clear to me that Martin's story does contain a significant theme of re-enchantment. Unlike LotR, where magic is vanishing, ASOIAF is a story about magic reemerging. Martin may have more to say than just a critique of power politics.
In addition, Martin does delve heavily into why we believe what we believe. Chiefly, he seems to care deeply about how stories effect people. The whole Kingmaker Riddle really drives that theme home, and the story seems to believe that power resides in belief, not just raw violence.
I still agree that the world is definitely lacking in the meaning that Tolkien's has, and that it is a detriment to the story's survivability in the public consciousness.
I suppose the author might die before we ever found out, but I was also going to suggest that Martin's cynicism might be overstated when you look at the long-run character arcs in the series- the survivors and conquerors (notably Jon Snow) are never peerless saints but they might be more statistically honourable than average.
It reminds me of how the Soviet Union had to resort to nationalism and appeals to very earthy, old world concerns among the populace to motivate its war effort in the Second World War, or as they called it, “Great Patriotic War”.
When it comes down to it, you have to play nature’s game - you have to yield in some way to the traditional/natural in storytelling.
Thank you for this. I was already in the Army, and well past reading new fantasy novels, when "A Game of Thrones" was published. When it was, for a few years, culturally prominent as a TV show, I considered reading the books, but encountered enough reviews alluding to the points that you make here to avoid it.
I was similarly fortunate in regard to the trilogy referred to as "His Dark Materials," written by Phillip Putnam and published around the same time, and with an even more deliberately subversive intent. So when an acquaintance suggested that my son, who loves to read, might enjoy these books, I knew better than to buy them.
I think that we are culturally inclined to "miss the point" of myths, as you characterize Martin as having done. I would venture that this might have something to do with the interaction of the legacies Protestantism and Humanism, especially in the Anglophone context: not an original thought. When all time is profane, the time of origins is "just a bunch of stuff that happened," literally -- or it didn't. I am writing something on this myself, but it will likely take a few more weekends to bring it into a form suitable for posting.
Thank you for your work. I appreciate your tagline, "Waiting for a new hierophany." That's a little more explicit than my own; well done.
Thanks ever so much for your interesting comments. Yes, Pullman is even more blatant in his assaults on medievalism. I’ll give your stuff a look for sure.
I wouldn't dismiss Pullman's trilogy, for you or your children. The books are short and easily read, and are soaked in Christianity, Gnosticism and paganism; so opening opportunities for discussion with kids.
Fine work. Also appreciated b/c I never read Martin. If you have a taste for 60s rock, you might like my most serious discussion of Tolkien I've yet attempted, an essay centered around the early Tolkien n' Lewis-evoking Pink Floyd song "Matilda Mother." https://pomocon.substack.com/p/carls-rock-songbook-no-104-pink-floyd You also might like my comparison of Lucas and Tolkien in my unkind review of The Force Awakens. https://www.nationalreview.com/postmodern-conservative/tired-betrayal-force-awakens/
Tolkien didn’t write or create the “Legindarium” for money or even publication as his primum mobile he did it because he felt the creative urge to do so. I suspect that Martin’s motivation was money and fame. Tolkien already had sufficient money and fame in his work and vocation at Oxford.
I wouldn’t accuse Martin of doing it cynically, I think he does love writing and believes in what he’s doing.
Tolkien was a very modest and unassuming man albeit with set views and opinions and belief but never forceful in them on others - a courteous man in my estimation. Unfortunately those in charge of has literary estate, perhaps not cynically!!, have concentrated more on the money and basking in the reflected glory of the author.
I do don’t mean it as cynical but I see how that could be interpreted. It’s so much better to talk in person where any misunderstanding or misinterpretation can be quickly put right. I know that the internet has many marvels to connect us with people who’s existence we are unaware of but one negative is that misunderstanding and misinterpretation can so quickly drive people apart. Thank you for being so considerate in your response to me so many times others have gone for the jugular as it were!
I really appreciate your work here. It's nice to see someone who seems to "get" what Martin meant by the tax policy question, rather than use it as a memetic cudgel.
I do wonder if you (and Dave) might be off about a satisfying ending. It's clear to me that Martin's story does contain a significant theme of re-enchantment. Unlike LotR, where magic is vanishing, ASOIAF is a story about magic reemerging. Martin may have more to say than just a critique of power politics.
In addition, Martin does delve heavily into why we believe what we believe. Chiefly, he seems to care deeply about how stories effect people. The whole Kingmaker Riddle really drives that theme home, and the story seems to believe that power resides in belief, not just raw violence.
I still agree that the world is definitely lacking in the meaning that Tolkien's has, and that it is a detriment to the story's survivability in the public consciousness.
Very interesting points - thank you. I suppose we'll have to wait and see about the ending!
I suppose the author might die before we ever found out, but I was also going to suggest that Martin's cynicism might be overstated when you look at the long-run character arcs in the series- the survivors and conquerors (notably Jon Snow) are never peerless saints but they might be more statistically honourable than average.
I think it’s interesting that he has to pay a kind of lip service to this in order to have a narrative that human beings will connect with at all
It reminds me of how the Soviet Union had to resort to nationalism and appeals to very earthy, old world concerns among the populace to motivate its war effort in the Second World War, or as they called it, “Great Patriotic War”.
When it comes down to it, you have to play nature’s game - you have to yield in some way to the traditional/natural in storytelling.
Thank you for this. I was already in the Army, and well past reading new fantasy novels, when "A Game of Thrones" was published. When it was, for a few years, culturally prominent as a TV show, I considered reading the books, but encountered enough reviews alluding to the points that you make here to avoid it.
I was similarly fortunate in regard to the trilogy referred to as "His Dark Materials," written by Phillip Putnam and published around the same time, and with an even more deliberately subversive intent. So when an acquaintance suggested that my son, who loves to read, might enjoy these books, I knew better than to buy them.
I think that we are culturally inclined to "miss the point" of myths, as you characterize Martin as having done. I would venture that this might have something to do with the interaction of the legacies Protestantism and Humanism, especially in the Anglophone context: not an original thought. When all time is profane, the time of origins is "just a bunch of stuff that happened," literally -- or it didn't. I am writing something on this myself, but it will likely take a few more weekends to bring it into a form suitable for posting.
Thank you for your work. I appreciate your tagline, "Waiting for a new hierophany." That's a little more explicit than my own; well done.
Thanks ever so much for your interesting comments. Yes, Pullman is even more blatant in his assaults on medievalism. I’ll give your stuff a look for sure.
I wouldn't dismiss Pullman's trilogy, for you or your children. The books are short and easily read, and are soaked in Christianity, Gnosticism and paganism; so opening opportunities for discussion with kids.