Once I almost go into an argument about George R.R. Martin and J.R.R. Tolkien. Were the work of the two truly opposites? I do not think so. If one were to watch the film adaptations one would be tempted to think so … but if one were to read the books one would discover that they are different but not opposite.
If you have not read the Lord of the Rings the following paragraph may contain spoilers:
In the Lord of the Rings not all characters were black or white and not every hero ended with a Happy Ever After. Saruman and Denethor were not totally evil. Even Sauron was corrupted by a greater being, Morgoth. Frodo for all his sacrifices ended up anyhinh but acclaimed in the Shire. The Glory, local, went to Pippin, Merry and Sam. The Shire itself was not spared from the War, turned – albeit briefly – into a small Isengard and Mordor by Sharky. Who turns out to be Saruman and is killed by Wormtongue at Bag End. Even the death of Saruman and Sauron itself is wrapped in melancholy as their shadowy forms as they leave their body and gets their final blow looking towards Valinor, The Western Lands , only to be spurned away by a gust of winds banishing them to oblivion. This was what was lost in translation when they adapted the book to film. Perhaps that is wjy I have mixed feelings about the adaptation of the Hobbit. Then again there are still the written work of Tolkien to turn back to.
As for Martin. My favorite work of his a short story called The Sandkings. In another world the story ‘s protagonist finds out cost and folly of pride and obsession. The said story was supposedly inspired by a certain aquarium fish kept by Martin’s friend years ago. The story was adapted into several forms including a graphic novel and an episode on Outer Limits.
And that is my favorite George R.R. Martin.