This is as hilarious at is possible for anything to be given that in the original thread you mentioned you only read the Hobbit in 4th grade and never got to LotR (to say nothing of Sil, Lost Tales, etc), where all the best prose is. (I suppose that could have changed in the intervening years.) Meanwhile Martin ... he does have his poetic, beautiful moments but god are they few and far between -- as they should be, in a setting like that. If the sentences are textured and elegant while the subject matter is repulsive, harsh, etc, reading them just produces too much cognitive dissonance. Tolkien was quite clearly taking forgotten, wonderful ground and rebreaking it in the context of two world wars, protestantism/Catholicism, industrialization, etc.GRRM is double the writer Tolkien ever was.
Look up some John Bauer and recognize that Tolkien was riffing on the gestalt, not busting into new ground.
Which isn't to say I didn't try. Sounds like someone is shooting for a thoughtcrime tribunal. I didn't say you had to like GRRM. What I said, which you disagree with categorically, is that Tolkien was just a writer. Meanwhile you seem to think it takes some sort of brilliance to slap some symbolism for industrialization in the midst of death-of-Empires UK. Once again - I'm not saying Tolkien was a shit writer. I'm saying he's not worth the lavish praise people such as yourself view as only his due - while raining scorn like fatwahs on all those who would disagree. Was he influential? Sure. Was he one of the great writers of the 20th century? No. Was he a standout amongst fantasy writers? Talk about a back-handed compliment! And sure. You can "disagree" with everything I say. But that's a long damn way from disproving my criticisms. So if you feel like pissing all over a civil discussion that was dead and buried three years ago, come correct.never got to LotR (to say nothing of Sil, Lost Tales, etc), where all the best prose is
If the sentences are textured and elegant while the subject matter is repulsive, harsh, etc, reading them just produces too much cognitive dissonance.
For the record: My criticism was that people don't view Tolkien's work as books, they view it as some unassailable brilliance that is utterly beyond reproach. Your response was to reject any statement of Tolkien's work as books because they are unassailable brilliance that is utterly beyond reproach. Whether you meant to or not, you proved my point. Three years back, mk and I were having a convivial discussion about Tolkien worship. Your move was to summon me, kick sand in my face, and say I was full of shit. They're just books. And Tolkien was just an author. Sorry that makes you sad, but you're better than this.