GRRM is the hack here, D&D realized that there was no compelling ending. GRRM scammed them as well. The final books will never see the light of day because that will once and for all show that GRRM is a fraud.
If GRRM wrote LOTR, it would have been long forgotten about by everyone but a few literature historians who knew about these two books that were never concluded by the author writing the third one.
@@____REDACTED____ what? This doesn't even make sense... GRRM wrote the story and created the world YEARS ago... why would the game not be finished on account of George?
I think it’s more about how low class it is to criticize someone who can’t respond. GRRM should also consider that his own series will never be completed so it will never truly be a success like LotR. I would much prefer to see GRRM finish this series, any criticism he receives afterwards at least everyone will understand the accomplishment of writing such a series.
@@FreakyLynx How “low class it is” what are you even talking about,you’re acting like he’s crapping on tolkien because he knows he can’t reply even though that’s not really what he’s doing, he’s just giving his small opinion on what tiny mistake he made that’s it, don’t know why this is so controversial lol
@@sernoddicusthegallant6986 He completed LotR, his magnum opus, whereas Martin has yet to complete ASoIaF. The Silmarillion is a separate history of Middle Earth; how many histories of Westeros will Martin complete before his death?
Haha, right! It's too bad that something else George couldn't learn from his elders like Tolkien and Lewis was how to rein in and edit characters and subplots to tell cohesive, and complete, stories.
Johnnythefirst only “Gandalf” was revived who is more like an immortal angel than a human being, plus Gandalf the White is not the same person as Gandalf the Grey. Gandalf the White is Saruman The White “how he should have been”.
Maryam Dadar Yes, not to mention in the books there's not even a moment where he's dead. He falls, walks back all those steps to the top, collapses at the top and is taken by a great eagle to Rivendell, where he is given his new white robes. He's not even considered dead at any point.
@@stuv1996 It's really not that clear in the book when Gandalf explains what happened to Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli; but I think what he meant was that his physical body, the "vessel" of his appearence did die, since it was mortal flesh, after all. (Gandalf was taken to Lothlorien, not Rivendell, btw).
Luis Acosta Casanova from what I remember from the Silmarillion, that isn’t uncommon. Since the Maia are essentially angelic energies, even if their “human” host bodies were to be destroyed, the Maia itself cannot be.
That's essentially what happens to Elves when they die as well, but Tolkien is very explicit about this being death to them. Gandalf died just like Elves die and just like Men die, the difference is what happens to them afterwards. Whether that's true for normal Maiar is another question, but Gandalf and the other Istari were bound to their bodies in a way no other Maiar or Valar were - they couldn't just cast their bodies off like old clothes and put on new ones the way other Maiar could.
Amateresu When you have so many POV characters and their places in the world, including the time at which they’d realistically be able to travel from one place to the next for the timelines to remain consistent, all while keeping the story from slowing down to a halt, you’d be a slow writer too.
The Scouring of the Shire was Tolkien's way of appealing to tradition, conservation and a deep-seated desire that the English be free of the drudgery and ugliness of modern cities, industry and 'growth at all costs'. Tolkien was an English romantic, and a devout Catholic, so for him Gandalf's resurrection as powerful as his descent into the depths of Moria. He can say, "That's not how I would've done it", but that's because George isn't a romantic like Tolkien is.
@@uberdru True, this article goes into Tolkien's beliefs in greater detail. Suffice to say, he was someone with a great love for his people who would be dismayed, but not surprised at the state of his country today. nationalvanguard.org/2020/01/christopher-tolkien-obituary/
@@RantTheRetort that can also being said of Tolkien. I'm sure there are people who find lord of the rings boring. But does that make lotr a bad book or Tolkien a bad author? No. The same goes for George R R Martin. Just because *you* don't like asoiaf, that doesn't make the book series automatically bad.
Tolkien was consistent though. In Middle Earth, if you kill a Balrog, the Valar bring you back. Glorfindel was also brought back from the dead this way.
the silmarillion tales, the tales of the first age were the FIRST thing Tolkien wrote concerning middle-earth, with The Fall Of Gondolin being the very first, and he wrote it while he was still a young man in the middle of war. So by the time the hobbit and lotr were created the tales and myths of M.E already existed for years and years. He couldnt have wrote an entire mythology after the hobbit right on the spot like that, it takes so much time to do so. He offered his tales which already existed but the Publisher didnt accepted it, so Tolkien wrote tlotr as the final moments of the third age inside his old tales and got his shit together concerning the lore, the one ring and fixing everything (in the first version of the hobbit the ring was just a magic ring).
This is true, but it doesn't really change the point. He decided for Gandalf to meet a balrog in that cave so that he could die and come back. He could have had him meet some beast that would kill him and he'd stay dead.
@creepy truck driver Tolkien had been creating the mythology of Middle Earth before he even conceived The Hobbit. I repeat: Tolkien wrote the (original) Silmarillion before Lord of the Rings.
Gandalf’s death in terms of the story is impactful regardless of its temporary nature because of one major thing: his death removed him from being able to play any active role in Frodo’s quest. WE know that Gandalf returned, but Frodo never finds out until after the Ring is already destroyed.
It also allowed the group to splinter, as Boromir would never have pulled the shit he did, with Gandalf still in control and leading the group properly.
@@anon_148 I disagree on both counts. The Fellowship has literally one angelic being. If any of the other 8 die, they would stay dead. Just ask Boromir.
Tolkien was writing a myth and his characters were there to fill roles in that myth. Both he and Lewis were men of faith and their relationship was strained when Lewis began dating a divorced woman (Tolkien was a devout Catholic). He also felt Lewis should “leave theology to the theologians” (e.g. Mere Christianity) and didn’t like Lewis’ choice to make direct Christian allegories (Aslan is unquestionably Jesus). Even so, his faith unquestionably influences LOTR. GRRM is writing salacious, political novels with twists, turns, and difficult decisions that all exist in a fantasy world. Technically, they’re both fantasy writers, but their purpose for writing couldn’t be more different.
This. Tolkien wrote a mythology which followed certain archetypes and common mythological symbolism. GRRM was writing a fictional history that reflects real history.
What's interesting is that while Tolkien was devout Catholic, GRRM is a lapsed Catholic and an agnostic/atheist. So in terms of religion they are kinda the opposite. In think it is heavily shown in both of their writings.
@@xxlCortez you really do believe that one of his main POV characters will remain the rest of the saga as a glorified dog? I mean... It could be interesting, don't get me wrong... But is almost certain that Jon will be back in his own body by R'hllor like in the show. I just hope that Martin puts more consequences in to this, like Jon losing a part of himself in the process (like Berric and Catelyn).
@@adrianoalves5829 I doubt it. Where's Melisandre at this point? The book didn't make the stupid Shireen sacrifice just so Melisandre can go back. We'll see if Martin ever finishes that book.
@@xxlCortez I think she is in Castle Black (or in the North at least )and spent a lot of time with Jon in the books. She even told him about his assassination. It's more plausible that she will see something in the flames that tells her that Jon must be revived (even if not necessarily because he is the Azor Ahai) than one of the main characters spending the climax of the story as a wolf.
Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings were the only works he finished. He spent years fiddling with the Silmarillion and died before he could finish. His son published it years after his death
Wow, I never saw that comment before. Please keep doing it for every small criticism he makes. Martin is one of the biggest fans of The Lord of the Rings? "aT LeAsT x FiNiShED X". Shut up. I don't care if this is legitimate or a joke. Both are overused and stupid.
I definitely disagree about raising Gandalf. Martin talks about it as if it's random, like he is Tolkien's darling character he didn't want to give up. But really It has a huge role in the story itself and brings meaning. One of Tolkien's favourite themes is the disparity between hope and despair. the resurrection of Gandalf helps set up that disparity as a lot of despair comes later on. It also enforces Tolkien's theme of providence which is always in the background of his stories. Martin's universe is much more chaotic than Tolkien's on a basic level. Martin shouldn't fault Tolkien for being consistent with his world just because that world is different than Martin's.
@@lordbonney9779 It wasn't just that he killed a Balrog, but that outside of that he had done his job to a T in the forming of the Fellowship, denying the corruption at the hands of Saruman, actively working against the forces of Sauron, and aiding Eru's creations to the best of his abilities. He slew the Balrog at the cost of his earthly body, which shows how devoted even the meekest of the Maiar was to carrying out his lord's wishes.
For real. grrm has complimented tolkien a thousand times and also said that Tolkien IMPOSTERS made the good guy vs bad guy overused, he also said that he loves Tolkien and looks up to him
@@anonymousnate678 George was probably a bigger fan than you dude, he LOVED Tolkien’s books but instead you guys moan and cry thinking that he insulted Tolkien. If you can’t stand your favorite author taking criticism than you shouldn’t be on the internet
but i guess we can call grrm out on making a mistake too because he is human too and definetly did not understand the meaning of gandalfs resurrections
That's because she doesn't listens to the answers. If he said instead "One time Tolkien and me rode a tandem bike naked as a baboon in Japan. And he had this weird Pikachu tattoo above his ass crack. My question to Tolkien would be why would you murder Kennedy? " The interviewers response probably would be "okay, so the next question is from...."
@@has489 Well I don't blame her, english is probably not her first language and it's hard to concentrate on translating in your mind as someone keeps talking
@@TheEtherny "translating in her mind" lol, this is not how it works. Not trying to translate things is the first step to advance through the basics of a language, at intermediate level anyone is able to think in their second language. The practical knowledge that translation is not the same as meaning is one of the biggest reasons learning a third language turns much easier. (My first language is Portuguese, English is the second, and Japanese will be the third)
@@TheEtherny the dificulty of conversating on a second language comes from the lack of vocabulary and the alien fonnetics, not from some need to translate things.
@@kaneda7368 I knew this would be the reply i would get but i actually mean, it makes sense in a sense that its still good story telling. Think about it, the wizard story arc needed to have a purpose and for their god to bring one of them back seems likely within the original story. And he only got to stay until after his quest was done. So it almost felt like what we where seeing was Gandalfs ghost. It still was a huge shock seeing him die the first time and him coming back wont erase what you felt the first time. His death in the first one was the beginning of his "real" death.
@@kaneda7368 i Agree with you, but i dont think lotr would have handle deaths the same way to be good if its still interesting and cool. They are good in their own right. I FUCKING LOVE CHARACTER DEATHS IN GOT haha they are so badass and as you say usually change the story in a new direction. ive just never particulary missed that in lord of the rings. Boramir didnt come back and so didnt theoden among others. Butwith this said i do truly get where you are coming from. Atleast we had a fun little discussion!
I love RR's take. But I totally disagree. Having Gandalf arise not as he was but born anew, that was my introduction to what has come to be known as 'soft magic' systems, where there is some mystical truth that can't ever really be understood perfectly; some hint of the beyond which cannot be fathomed. Gandalf's return but not return was a triumph.
No. But he is wrong. Tolkien and Rothfuss are both lazy fat tubs of lard and are mediocre authors. Tolkien was a genius! Anyone that writes fantasy, myself included (unpublished) live in the long shadow of Tolkien.
@@crusader0074 no they can't...... that's why it's called an opinion. If I were to say I hate lord of the rings, it would be right to me but maybe not you. An opinion isn't a fact, it's a preference. (Note: I love lord of the rings, just using it as an example)
@@Meh2752 Alright, let’s test your theory (for arguments sake): In my opinion the sky is orange during the day, the Earth is flat, the moon is a hologram, and the USA is on the African continent. Are my opinions wrong?
Its not that he doesnt get the themes. Martin is a very different style author than Tolkien. Tolkien is a plot driven writer. Martin is character drive. When Tolkien killed off Gandalf he was already(probably) aware he was going to bring him back at some point. Martin likes let his characters develop the story based on their personality traits, conflicts and desires. So Martins really wondering "how would the fellowship of solve the problems that resurrected Gandalf fixes" And honestly that would be a great read too
Emily Savage I don’t know if this is what you are asking about but Gandalf was brought back because of the parallel of the life of Christ. Jesus has 3 roles of priest prophet and king. Each one of those characteristics is personified by Frodo as priest, Gandalf as prophet and Aragorn as king. Each one has a moment of death like Christ. Gandalf, duh, Aragon, when he falls off the cliff while dragged by the wolf and Frodo when he is on the mountain and flown off by the eagles.
@@unrelatedpopcornfire9823 who's point? The fuck u talking about? Have you read it? Cause I have. George Martin is a fat dickhead with a talent for writing sadistic fantasy stories with no moral point. Yet he feels he can criticise a legendary author who's leagues ahead of him. Lol
Tolkien told stories about specific quests within his world; quests with real end points. I like ASOIAF but it’s about a quest with no real ending. Someone assumes the iron throne, they die. Someone else assumes the throne, they die. A quest for a functionally everlasting prize with no main character doesn’t end until the author chooses to stop writing and by no other litmus.
Even though I disagree that Gandalf should have “stayed dead” I can see where he’s coming from, I read the books before the films were made and, I’d read The Hobbit and then started Fellowship of the Ring and was absolutely blown away when Gandalf fell in Moria, it was an incredibly powerful moment, I couldn’t comprehend how Gandalf could be gone, this was the character with the plan and all of the answers, the most powerful member of the fellowship and then he’s taken so suddenly, it definitely heightened the suspense for the rest of the book. No book before or since has ever shocked me the way Tolkien did when he “killed” Gandalf.
I agree with you, I definitely understand George's point of view, though I disagree with him since Galdalf's role is important throughout the rest of the story, Tolkien did bring him back just 'cause, there was a purpose in his return, and also Frodo didn't have his help. But yeah, the impact of the moment is lost when he comes back
Lot of people in the comments here talking about how Gandalf's resurrection makes logical sense so it's fine. Yes, it does make sense in setting, and yes it is fine, but what Martin is suggesting here is that there is more narrative weight if Gandalf remains dead, or that if he comes back there should be some sort of cost. The idea is that by bringing him back to life in Two Towers the weight of Gandalf's death in Fellowship is dramatically lessened. It's not about it being a plot hole, it's about it having more emotion if done differently. I still think Gandalf's resurrection is fine, but I can see where Martin is coming from. EDIT: I am not arguing Martin is right. I think he is wrong. I am just trying to make clear what the point in the video actually is since people to be ignoring/misunderstanding it.
It would only be a problem if Tolkien did this willy-nilly with other characters; instead, he does it one time with a character that holds logic in a narrative sense that was clearly thought out and adds to the story at large. Hearing this man criticize Tolkien in any fashion triggers me a little.
@@FishbowlPhenom for real tho. Tolkein was a genius. He built his works from the ground up, created the languages races and their historys in great detail on a level that Martin could only aspire to. Starting before the creation of the world all the way up to the events of the movies with so much stuff leading up to it it's unbelievable.
St1cKnGoJuGgAlO - Again, it’s about the thematic weight. Yes it would require a rewrite, or to have been written different entirely. But that’s the critique.
Everyone now knows that Gandalf is resurrected because the story is popularised. But if you'd never read the books, and you didn't know, Gandalf's return is as emotional a moment for the reader as it is for the characters.
Because it is a metaphor for Wisdom. To gain wisdom, you must first die. Gaining wisdom is to struggle and overcome darkness. Galdalf returned levelled up.
True! Knowing how Tolkien's books are inspired by Norse mythology, you could further connect this event to Odin sacrificing one eye in order to gain higher wisdom.
But regarding Endings, Tolkien sets us up for „bittersweet“ in a way that George really can‘t, George doesn‘t have some perfect place of innocence in his books like the Shire were nothing bad ever happens. George exposes the entire world as corrupt from the getgo, whereas in Tolkien corruption is a kind of outside force that they vanquish at the cost of their own purity. It George did that same thing, it would be either meaningless or way too depressing. I think creating any sort of closure at all in a world that you‘ve already shown to be corrupt is a whole other challenge than ending LotR, and probably much harder, which may arguably George‘s main underlying problem with finishing these books. How the hell do you give a satisfying resolution to a story like that without subverting your own themes?
The shire is comparable to Winterfell if u look at it and it's surprising how many similarities these two settings share both are refuges where the readers feel at peace, in Winterfell it's only once outside forces enter that aren't Starks where shit happens same as the sacking of the shire both places are torched and our protagonists always reminisce about times there whilst out in the cruel world, it's a place of respite and a haven stolen away, an innocence gone until eventually the protagonist come and reclaim it but once that's done... It's not the same, not really cox they've now come back with the filth of the world within and not even that place can cleanse them of it... So they must move on
The idea geroge is a nihilist is so backwards thinking and miss the point of the series. If geroge was truly a nihilist then the Northern would've forgotten about Robb stark and red wedding yet they haven't they still fight for starks because they loved how brave,honorable and good were the starks it inspires them. And the villains have forever destroyed their reputation due to their violation of sacred law such as guest right the lannisters,boltons and frays are have ruined their names but the stark name will live on and be worshipped for their bravery.
Yea a dream of spring is never coming out. Funny thing is even if it did there’s no way he’s gonna be able to wrap it up in 2 books unless he pulls a D&D and just starts going stupid
I love GRRM. But I have to say, I’m glad Gandalf returned after his fight with the balrog. I don’t think it lessens his death at all. Gandalf is one of the few characters in Middle-earth who is resurrected, so this was a very special circumstance. And the fact that the balrog actually damaged his body to death shows how tough balrogs actually were, seeing as it killed the most powerful member of the Fellowship. The stakes were high, in other words. Besides, the Fellowship did actually continue without him under a lot of strain-so we were able to actually see them struggle without his guidance. Frodo decided to go to Mordor on his own-a decision he wrestled with. And Strider was already making his way toward Theoden in a roundabout way when he ran into Gandalf the White. Either way, I disagree. Tolkien’s Catholic background seems to play a role in things like Gandalf dying and coming back, and the Maiar in general. Whatever the case, I enjoy it thoroughly, as I’ve enjoyed ASOIAF. Big fan of both series.
And think about the circumstances. He destroyed one of the last Balrogs. A heroic thing to do. Berric Dondarion was resurected because of "Why Not?" And that over and over again.
Gandalfs Death was demoralising and forced the characters to go on by themselves for quite a time. It caused the Fellowship to break up, especially Frodo and Sam heading for Mordor alone, and resulted in the capturing of Merry and Pippin. As a matter of fact, Aragorn&Co would have had to defeat Saruman the White on their own - a godlike being,that was corrupted by his strive for power. While at the same time, in order to replace Saruman, Gandalfs fall and death made perfect sense as a necessary ordeal. Also, it's a great message: Even as a wizard you have to transcend your limits, you need to imagine a greater self of yours in order to grow. Finally, from a story-telling point of view, Gandalfs return did not "undo" the consequences of his absense. He healed Theoden, he gathered the Rohirrim to save Helm's Deep, but Merry and Pippin got the Ents moving and Aragorn&Co did most of the hard work, despite losing not only Boromir, Gandalf, Frodo and Sam, but (supposedly) Merry and Pippin. Aragorn's time without Gamdalf truly challenged him as a leader. Nope, nothing wrong with Gandalf coming back. Edit: One could say that Gandalfs return lowers the suspense because it makes the reader think that every character can come back. 1) Gandalf delivers a very specific explanation for what happened, 2) Boromir and Theoden stay dead. You don't need to butcher your characters in order to create suspense.
Most of this is bullshit. His death and the continued belief in his death gave Frodo the drive to realise Gandalf's words. He believed Gandalf was dead until he saw him.
He didn't even die in the books. It says he makes his way back to the top from his fall with the Balrog and collapses at the top(which you can interpret as a death but isn't factually called a death) and is taken by a great eagle to Rivendell. No death, just defeat and a comeback.
@@stuv1996 You're right, I was just talking about his "death" as assumed by the reader and the Fellowship! Because the story went on as if he was dead - until he returned to explain what happened.
@@saeedvazirian Most of what is bullshit? What Joseph Schneider said was that Gandalf's (assumed) death was a serious set-back for the group and challenged all of them to make their own, hard decisions. It's not even about whether Gandalf is a Maiar or whatever, because for the average reader as well as the Fellowship Gandalf appeared as a mortal being with magic skills and tricks - not a demigod that could fight and defeat a fiery demon.
@Carnivorus Dany's dragons literally affect every aspect of Westeros from the north to the Asshai, the hatching of her dragons restored some of the magic that had weakened, that's why the white walkers, The Deep Ones, shadowbinders and potentially Kraken are being awakened, plus that her arrival in westeros with both dragons and the khalasar and unsullied will force Kings Landing and the rest of the northern part to fight war on several fronts with magic beings aswell as for power.
ASOIAF is NOT a realistic world lmao the difference is that Tolkien uses symbolic patterns that actually exist in reality whereas G does not, giving it one less dimension
"Gandalf should have stayed dead"- revives Catelyn Stark, a side character, and makes her even more irrelevant. Proably going to revive Jhon Snow like in the series..
Benjen Stark? Are you thinking he's Coldhands? George's editor asked him if he is and George confirmed that he's not. asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/123057-confirmed-coldhands-is-not-benjen/
A: Jon and Drogo have never been resurected B: Berric and Cat both came back at a price of them being broken shells for their former selves, whereas gandalf became even stronger
Yes all of those people did come back from the dead but they did it at a cost. Three of those four people that did come back we’re only shells of their former selves when they came back to life.By this proxy you can probably assume the same thing will happen to Jon Snow. When Gandolf comes back he just becomes more powerful making his death have a little consequence and seem almost like a good thing.
Why even compare LOTR with GOT? Like the reason Gandalf was brought back ties a lot into the whole mythology of Middle Earth, this is such a poser thing to do.
Lmao morons in this comment section actually think that Martin has no clue about lore reasons for Gandalf's revival. He was talking about completely other thing. It's really sad that fans of such complex writers as Tolkien and Martin can't grasp a simple critique of storytelling
JRR Tolkien was a master and did not allow a bunch of idiots to rush his story and milk it for the most amount of money before he got to tell it himself.
Carnivorus does Tolkien glorify war though? He does tend to shy away from the gritty dirty part of war but he doesn’t necessarily present it as some amazing thing. No one who fought in WWI would present war in a positive light.
this kinda rings hollow to me, tolkein wrote somewhere in the ball park of 705,356 words across the lord of the rings, silmarillion, and hobbit. GRRM has written 1.7 million words in the 5 books published so far not counting all the sample WOW chapter we've gotten so far. He's just telling a bigger story and has to actively work with HBO for all these fuckin spin-offs they've greenlit. If Tolkien was actively worrying about how his world would be depicted on screen while writing I bet it would have expanded the 12 years it took to write LOTR by a decent amount.
I have to disagree, Gandalf’s resurrection is an example of the powers and intentions behind the higher powers that sent him and the other wizards there in the first place.
I think it’s how he reads a story and what he wants from it. For me it’s the same, imagine now reading the books (watching the movie) that you don’t know Gandalf comes back. It’s pretty rash for the story but traumatic for the reader, Boromir and Gandalf are both dead and they’re already failing. It’s really up to the reader isn’t it. Like me personally, with A Song Of Ice And Fire, I don’t know why mance climbs the wall to see King Robert. Felt too convenient for the conversation he was having with Jon
Garrett I know but I’m saying, it’s still traumatic for the reader (plus we didn’t really know he was a Demi god till later) I think George being young when he read it, expected Gandalf to be dead and enjoyed the trauma the story influenced and the unpredictability it created from that moment. I think he feels it was better for the story that he stayed dead, and not that it doesn’t make sense that he comes back. It’s more down to the writers choice I think that George has a problem with.
Even then that concept/theme could be seen as a weak one. How much are the motives of the Valar further discussed? And even after that, it really just boils down to "yeah good 'gods' exist and they don't want Sauron to win". Not exactly groundbreaking literary work.
Throw Away The funny thing from all this is you and even GRRM are all wrong here. Gandalf DOES NOT DIE in the books. Only the movie. In the books he chases the balrog back up the stairs and defeats it, continues up the stairs and eventually collapses at the top(not dead) and is taken by a great eagle to Rivendell. Where he is given new cloaks and stuff. Never having actually died at all.
Ismail Hafeez Not to mention he didn't die right there at all. He fell and then walked back up the stairs, collapses, and is taken by a great eagle to Rivendell.
@@stuv1996 His mortal form--his physical body--died. He was sent back, whether by the Valar (Manwe or Varda) or by Illuvatar, doesn't matter. And he went to Lothlorien and was given new robes by Galadriel--he didn't go to Rivendell. When Tolkien said that Gandalf 'fell', it wasn't the literal definition of the word, like falling down the stairs. Multiple times in the book it is mentioned when someone fell, that it was a euphemism for dying.
Lmao morons in this comment section actually think that Martin has no clue about lore reasons for Gandalf's revival. He was talking about completely other thing. It's really sad that fans of such complex writers as Tolkien and Martin can't grasp a simple critique of storytelling
Well at least he finished his books. By the time asoiaf is finished, apes will have retaken the earth. I´m just joking though, I wish George the best and I´m excited to see that videogame he´s going to make with From Software.
It would be quite disappointing if Martin ends the book series on the same note as the show. I know the show deviated from the source material but I wonder just how different the paper ending will be.
Elden Ring might be the best of the decade. From software always makes amazing games, one thing they lack is story(sekiro had an ACTUAL story) and characters. Now imagine GRRM as one of the best writers living today. But then again both Elden Ring and Cyberpunk 2077 coming out in the same year. Both have GREAT potential.
@KesselRunHero definately at the rate he's going. I'm not convinced book 6 will ever come out let alone book 7. He said he was going to be totally focused on finishing it and wouldn't do anything else - then writes and releases Fire and Blood instead. Then to add insult to injury he's doing the software thing!
Can anyone imagine Homer starting his work like this?: Oh, muse, help me to remember the structure of the sewers of the divine Ilium, that of high walls... allow me, oh Muses, to describe the taxation system, be it on individuals or corporations, during Priam's rule...
Gandalf the Grey did die, ancient and vulnerable to the evil in certain ways. Gandalf the White was born, filling the maiar spirit the Saruman the White sacrificed in his pursuit of power, and he was born with the blessing of Illuvitar himself because he was the only wizard to remain true to the mission of staving off evil and Sauron. There’s so much more to Gandalf’s revival than just bringing back a beloved character. Better than Snow’s revival at least.
Jennifer Hewitt That would be hilarious. He dies and before that he is like by the way I never actually finished it. Then a long silence sets in the room.
To the people comparing Jon and Gandalf. I don't think it makes any sense, because Gandalf was the light for the whole quest, which made losing him felt like losing all hope.
The way I see it you’re correct they don’t really have similar personalities they are both their own people but at the same time Jon snow was like Gandalf in the sense that he always did what he felt was right and was for the greater good, he was the one to round up a great enough army to defeat the undead and bring everyone together and when he died before all of that it did feel the same as Gandalf because he was also the light for the majority of the quest to defeat the undead
If by light you mean he was the guy who knew more about the quest, than you are right. But in their journey after Gandalf was gone they all had Aragorn, he was the one who acted as the "light"/main character who would guide them and it fits because of his lineage and character. Jon being the guy who is trying to bend tradition and fight with the wildlings instead of fighting against them, seeing that there is a greater threat than them that is superhuman and will be more difficult to defeat, he comes to the conclusion that only together they might stand a chance. With Jon gone the only character left on the Wall is Melisandre and she doesnt seem like the character to lead the fight against the dead simply because she hasnt really had much time of development, sure she would help, but in all the hints George has been dropping about Azor Ahai Jon Snow fits the character best. Daenerys is also someone who could be Azor Ahai for sure, but she is at the other side of the world and knows nothing about the dead, so she cant take over either. Conclusion: This is all my opinion and I personally felt more shocked when Jon died than Gandalf. P.S: Not to say that I wasnt shocked or anything but in the end i knew Gandalf was going to pull some sick wizard shit and come back.
while yes, the tale of christ's resurrection probably influenced tolkien, and despite many other paralels to the bible, he did not set out to specifically make a religious allegory, and rather disliked people making those comparisons. While Gandalf's return is certainly very reminiscent of Jesus's, it's not a symbolism of it, and they are not at all similar past the surface level.
Tolkien hated allegory, but even he wouldn't be able to deny influences from his experience in the war. All his friends dying on him, and him holding mantle of his brothers' wishes to write fantasy fiction.
Hi Daßer so you think Jon isn’t coming back? Haha I highly doubt the show took that many liberties that they would tell George RR Martin that regardless of his future plans that Jon is coming back. Come on you know as well as I do that the majority of what happened in the show will happen in the book. The big difference is I think George will execute better than the show did which rushed through everything. I think George will take his time and build to it properly.
Season 6 is said to roughly be what The Winds of Winter is going to be. Seasons 7 and 8... at this point, I wouldn’t be quick to say they’re what A Dream of Spring will roughly be. More of a gray area at this point. A few things that happened in Season 6, if I remember correctly, are definitely going to be in The Winds of Winter. Though truthfully, the only one I can remember is: Hold the door. I remember that from Inside The Episode: The Door.
Martin has developed a nasty habit in his books of saying a character has died only for it to later be revealed otherwise. The most notable examples are Davos and Mance.
I honestly think that the fact that Eru Ilúvatar decided that everything is fucked without Gandalf so chose to intervene directly to bring him back more powerful than ever, when directly intervening is something he so rarely did, is more impactful than leaving him dead and clearly shows how important Gandalf is. I love Game of Thrones but I’m glad it was Tolkien who wrote LOTR and not Martin.
Cause Martin never finished Tolkien works and probably focused only on LOTR trilogy. Eru set a path for his creation so in the end Sauron was always gonna fail, one way or another. Gandalf was important character but he was just a single piece of the puzzle. Its like when we were kids and we used to drop couple of puzzle pieces on the floor by accident. Later we found them and completed the picture. That's how I felt about Gandalf. He just returned where he belongs until the picture is completed. Cause Eru said to Melkor that even his own music is part of Erus plan and nothing he or anyone else can do to disturb the final outcome of his will. So the final result is always gonna be the same but the journey there is not set in stone. Also Tolkien understood human nature better then Martin when he decided to write about the story that's gonna end like many fables before and after. He knew that we love mystery, drama, killings, intense feelings but in the end we all desire for a happy end and he gave it to us. He wrote a trilogy that sends us a message far more powerful and impactful then Martin even could. Everyone would love to live in Shire. No one would want to live anywhere in GoT world. Enough said.
That may be true but ASOIAF is a much longer and much more ambitious book series that LOTR is. Now they both are incredibly difficult books to write but ASOIAF is going to take longer than LOTR did.
@@legogandalf5453 Depends on what you mean by depth, for example LotR has a far deeper lore that goes back to the beginning of its world thanks to the silmarillion, but Martin writes much deeper characters and explores the politics of the world in much more depth.
Lmao morons in this comment section actually think that Martin has no clue about lore reasons for Gandalf's revival. He was talking about completely other thing. It's really sad that fans of such complex writers as Tolkien and Martin can't grasp a simple critique of storytelling
@@satanamogila9251 intellect is not a common trait the reason. Why it attracts simpletons is because they look at a story for its surface overview without looking into the ideologies or in world comparisons or other ramifications of the story.
Tolkien was a catholic and be believed that the main forces in the world are good and evil his mythology reflects that grr Martin is very much unlike that he write his character not necessarily be good or evil. He writes them to have motivations that are common for most people. They don’t do things out of nobility or pure malice for all that is good but out of selfishness, fear and grief. I think that is ultimately why the lord of the rings can have a satisfactory ending that makes you feel fulfilled and a song of ice and fire can’t. Because Lotr was based of classic myths where there good people and bad people that you root for and want to see finally be happy at the end. There is a beginning there is a conflict against evil and a end where ultimately good unmistakably triumphs. Got is based on real life where there are no noble hero’s that defeat dark lords where one second people are hailed as hero the next vilified and there is no clear cut good and evil everything is muddled and confused. The characters can have no happy ending because even after the main conflict of there character arc is resolved they are still irreparably miserable people living miserable lives. Just like most people in real life. Why the hell did I write all this. If you read through this unadulterated rambling your a true madman and I hope to never meet you in a dark alleyway. Get a hobby or something geez
Listen both series are good, and it's your own tastes influence that story you prefer. Personally I prefer Tolkien but I don't dislike GRR Martin. I think GOT has a story more rooted in the kingdom and man's struggle for power and corruption whereas Tolkien was about battling evil, bring hope and justice, the light vs the dark. I think the Gandalf statement shows that. Gandalf died but was brought back to bring the people of middle earth hope and strength to face the unrelenting evil, whereas in GOT the evil isn't a figure, his books show that their are bad people who are bad because they think their right. Tolkien touches on that a bit but the story isn't about how or why evil does what it does rather that it must be stopped. The two series are amazing and I applaud the story and creativity. I think it is important to realize that just about every fantasy story now does draw at least some inspiration from Tolkien, and that's not a bad thing. These stories bring us together as a community, especially in dark times
consider the one rings temptation. It harkens back to Abrahamic myths like the Garden of Eve- Original Sin and Classical myths like the Story of Persephone. How at the very end, when the temptation and curiosity is at its peak, humans are inherently flawed and prone to fail. But we also have the free will and ability to do what's good, which is what gives our lives meaning. Tolkien had a philosophy that good doesn't always win, but often relies on evil to enact it's will, or evil is self destructive. Frodo gives into his temptation at the crack of mount doom (an evil), and it's his mercy for Gollum which acts as providence through Illuvatar (Tolkien referred to this as "Eucotrastophe") who makes gollum dance off the edge into the fires, destroying the one ring.
Idk if he will finish the books. But if he does I think it will rhyme with the shows but better. Jon not taking the throne will be bittersweet and leaving with the wildlings after killing dany. Arya leaving the west to go to the East prob never seeing her family again etc. it will be a more happy ending then we have seen from him (reason for the title a dream of spring) but it will have some sad moments like all endings do.
The power of the clickbait title. GRRM said a lot about the LoTR and talked about his and other peoples writing, but the comment section is just people talking about why Gandalf revival was justified. That last piece about honoring an author while he lives is great, but well.
If I ever become as successful a novelist as George R.R. Martin, I definitely won't be able to respond to every email but I would respond to every written letter. I send a lot of letters in my current job and I appreciate anyone who makes that kind of effort.
In Tolkien's world, Aragorn's genealogy mattered. He was the rightful king. Apparently, Jon Snow's lineage didn't matter to anyone anyway (including Jon Snow).
@@liamfoote7164 - Of course, the LOTR films were Peter Jackson's world; however, they were quite faithful to the spirit of JRR Tolkien -- and they were better for it.
@@shinluis He also offered him a really hot "wildling princess" (who isn't really actually a princess because the southron people don't get how wildlings work) name Val.
@@Wolfsgeist I suppose not. But I don't think that's why Jon decided to say no.If I remember right he said no because he felt he belonged more at Night's Watch than anywhere else.
As a writer myself hoping to get published both Tolken and Martin are huge inspirations for me in both how to build a world for the reader to enjoy and the complexity of the characters that are needed to keep the reader enticed upon the words on each page
Well, LOTR was much more focused on mythology, metaphores, philosophy and such, than entertainment. The resurrection of Gandalf was reference to hermetical-alchemical lore mostly (not to mention Christianity) specifically the transition from Negredo to Albedo. So Tolkien wanted to make a point with that. I think it tells a lot about Martin as a writer that he wants to cut it out mostly for simple entertainment purposes. PS. I like Martin, and I think that he is a masterful pulp writer, but surprise and excitement cannot be main motivation of plot development in every book.
What annoys me about Martin is this uber-cynical attitude to writing. I'm not expecting him to be some kind of highly sophisticated intellectual type or anything (like Tolkien was) but the way he talks about his work, like he openly admits where he was pulling names out of his ass just to fill blank spots on the world map, like he made the Wall so ginormous because he didn't bother to imagine the scale when he was putting it in... I don't know, isn't it a little... condenscending? Gets you views on YT I guess. He just strikes me as full of himself, that's all.
@Carnivorus "he is not masterful" having read both tolkien and grrm i can say in all honesty that both the world and the stories of grrm captured me more than tolkien. He may be stuffing less metaphors into his works, but his plotlines and characters are astonishing, something that tolkien always lacked. Tolkien created the genre, but at his time the genre was too inmature to be as entertaining as grrm's works are. He is a masterful writer, no other story i've ever read details it's characters and it's plot as much as his.
@Carnivorus so, le me unserstand, it's not enough fantasy for you so it's automatically bad???? Juat admit it's your opinion and not a fact and move on
@Carnivorus so a book is only valued by how many fantasy elements are stuffed in it? Asoiaf has zombies, dragons, mages, prophecies. How is it not fantasy? Does it need dwarfs and elves to be a good book???? Please stop embarassing yourself, if you don't like grrm's world it's your opinion and you have every right to dislike it, but don't act like it's an objective thing, cause it's not.
We don't know, that might very well be an idea from DnD because they didn't want to lose their poster boy. The books strongly suggest with his and Robb's death as well as the Varymir Sixskin chapter that Jon will warg into Ghost and become one with him. If he is brought back after that I'm pretty sure Jon will be changed and he won't be the Jon we know. Beric Dondarrion was brought back several times but each time lost some part of himself and he was resurrected immediately. My hope is still that Jon won't come back as a human. I think with all the expectations that Martin has built up, bringing Jon back won't do his type of story any good.
Yeah this is very much true, hes got the lord of light which serves him in conveniently bringing characters back when suitable, Tolkien wrote Gandalf as a Maiar (essentially like a primordial demi-god or like an angel almost). Gandalf was one of the 5 maiar sent into middle earth as one of the 5 Istari - wizards - to aid middle earth in their conquest against Sauron, when he died vanquishing the Balrog he was sent back by the Valar as a more powerful version of himself the most powerful Istari (Saruman) had actually been corrupted by Sauron and therefore middle earth needed Gandalf or they would have had no chance to overcome both Saruman and Sauron. I get GRRM's point and the outlook he has but I think LOTR was perfect the way it was for the most part.
@Souhaib El Haouzi His point isn't that people should never come back but that resurrections should be demoralising experiences. Where Gandalf came back stronger for having died, Cat and a Eric were broken by their deaths as Jon will be the same. That's his complaint.
Jon and Gandalf aren't the same though, Ned Stark was much more like Gandalf, they were both the shocking deaths at the end of the first book. When Jon comes back I doubt he will be the same, or more powerful.
You can't compare Gandalf's death to Jon Snow's. Gandalf is a paragon character, losing Jon Snow might be as losing the ace in your hand, but losing Gandalf is like losing 'the trump card if the card literally flipped the table over and shot the other player'.
Only Gandalf’s physical form died. He is a maiar (angelic demigod) the Valar brought him back to fulfill his purpose & allowed him to use more of his power to do accomplish it. Tolkien’s work was visionary & transformative in the fantasy genre, everyone else took notes from him...except George! xD
There is a certain amount of frustration when concerning resurrecting characters. It really undermines the threat that protagonists are facing or that the hero’s actions don’t have real consequences. It makes the victories feel more earned/ glorious when important characters have died/ suffered for the sake of protecting/saving to world. You appreciate the journey’s happier moments and somewhat happy ending. It all about balance though because if you go too grim and dark for the end the whole story seems pointless.
Wow, what he said about Frodo not being able to enjoy the world he built for others resonates a lot with Jon’s ending at the series. I did have serious doubts, as many do, but this makes it even clearer to me that what we saw was essentially his ending, which he probably is (at least subconsciously) trying change now that he saw the backlash. Drastically delaying the Winds of Winter and obviously A Dream of Spring
Tolkien was a devout Catholic. Though he refuted the notion of allegory in his works it is quite obvious that Gandalf is a symbol of Christ. He is even resurrected as Gandalf the White, just like Christians believe Jesus will come back in white If there is one death in fiction that was anything but "bringing him back because people like him" it was Gandalf. It was symbolic and had a deeper purpose. I know George is somewhat of a pessimist but he should understand and respect symbolism and allegory, if not then there is no deeper meaning in fiction at all, everything is supposed to be exactly what it seems
@@Aaarqhev tolkien’s work is much much deeper than that. if you are a christian or religious in any way and start to learn the deeper meanings tolkien creates in his books you will be blown away by the depth. a lot more to his stories than “good vs evil and good guys never die”
_Meanwhile, in the after life..._ *GRRM to Tolken* - "Why did you bring back Gandalf? He should have remained dead!" *Tolkien to GRRM* - "Remind me George... How did your book end...?"
There is no mistake. LOTR is a masterpiece. Despite being different from the usual novel structure and defying the norms of commercially successful novel writing , his books/book are extremely engaging , intriguing , aspiring and evergreen.
@@kianghorbanpor9988 There is an interview where literally brags about killing characters because people expect something else to happen. "I killed ned because everybody thinks he’s the hero ... sure, he’s going to get into trouble, but then he’ll somehow get out of it. The next predictable thing [someone] is going to rise up and avenge his [death] ... So immediately Robb became the next thing I had to do. He's not talking about the characters' motivations, or the ideas they represent, or their role in the story--he isn't laying out a well-structured plot, he's just killing them off for pure shock value.
at first i was like "how dare he besmirch the name of Tolkien!?" then I watched the rest of the interview. lol he poses a pretty big question that I wish Tolkien could have answered him in his own write. Theres definitely a reason he brought Gandalf back. My guess is that Gandalf could be brought back just as well as Sauron was. They were both the same of kin. To Tolkiens credit, he was one of the first fantasy writers with very little to look to for inspiration. Whereas GRRM grew up with a wellspring of various series. Tolkein created multiple languages, taught at a university, had a family, fought in WW1, and still managed to finish his series. I love the world GRRM built but it has gone out of control, not to mention he became complacent once HBO began its rendition of GOT. They literally finished the series before he could. Tolkien never had the luxury of franchising before he finished his stories.
It is not just that. Tolkien belived that all myths and subsequently fantasy reflect the Truth. That supernatural things in fantasy point to supernatural things in our world. He belived that at the end Good will triumph over Evil in an eucatastrophe. As Tolkien was a devout Catholic Gandalf's story is also a reflection on Christ's death (catastrophe) and resurrection (eucatastrophe). If one's cries and is shocked when Gandalf dies one should also be shocked and weep for joy when he comes back. This is the essence of fairy-stories for Tolkien. Frodo, Aragorn and Gandalf reflect Christ in certain, non-allegorical ways. It all makes sense within lore but also outside it. On the other hand Martin does not belive in the myths/fairy-stories. For him fantasy is just world virtually empty of gods and Providence with just some magic and dragons thrown in to make it more interesting. It's all random, that is why he is know for just killing of characters. He is lapsed Catholic and an agnostic/atheist. So he does not belive Good will Triumph over Evil, or that those things can be even said to be real, same with cosmogony and God. His works are steeped in postmodernism. Beacuse of thet his works are considered nowadays to be more "realistic". Personally I disagree since I share large part of Tolkien's worldview. I think Eucatastrophe is more realistic than no happy ending. And Middle Earth with Eru Illuvatar is more realistic than Westeros when we don't even know if there are any gods.
@@TheGeneralGrievous19Westeros does actually have god's in the form of the old gods and the lord of light, although they don't tend to be as humanised as the gods in lotr, who are known to clearly have thoughts, motivations and take actions. The gods of westeros are more like forces of nature, completely unpredictable and out of human reach. Well written comment though
@eralGrievous19 I am not sure Gandalf was supposed to be a Jesus allegory given Tolkien's criticism of C.S. Lewis. Also, spirituality is kept intentionally vague in Martin's story. There are hints of spirituality being a real thing in ASOIAF.
'a blip in pop culture' like the man isn't one of the best selling and most influential fantasy authors of all time. Martin is here to stay just as Tolkien is, as Sanderson is, and as Jordan is. Stop being defensive that jirt is finally getting some criticism
@@greg_mca If something sells well, it does not neccesarily make it of lasting literary significance. Which has greater cultural value: Handel's "Messiah", or Beiber's "Baby"? Just because something sells greater than something else at the time, does not make it better or greater.
Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White aren’t the same character. They’re quite different, though they have the same memories. They’re both derived from Olorin.
They are the same person or being, but manifested in different ways. The White is closer to what Olorin must have been before becoming Gandalf the Grey.
4 года назад
@@mfcabrini No, Gandalf the White is Gandalf the Grey being upraded to Saruman's level since Saruman failed in his mission.
"I don't really like the cliched ending where everything is resolved, the good guy wins and bad guy loses" Guess he really hated the TV ending then. John is 'banished' to the only place he truly felt himself, with people that respected him for who he was not what he was; Tyrion finally had the respective he deserves; Westeros was once again ruled by a Stark, who's first act was to grant the north got their independence; all the baddies are defeated; the Dothraki and Unsullied conveniently piss off back home...
@@ravendeafening192 1. I didn't like my own comment, I'll like it now to prove that. 2. You were an idiot two months ago and you are an idiot today. It doesn't matter who wrote the TV ending, GRRM can still hate it for the same reasons he hated LotR's ending. which is what my original comment was about you pillock.
Gandalf came back because the story needed him to come back, and because Gandalf needed to play an important role in the war. The role of guide, beacon of hope and courage. It's really not that hard to figure out, you don't even need to read the books. A better question is to your showrunners why they killed off Littlefinger and many others for no reason. Characters should be killed off because the story demands it, not because he/she is not important anymore or because you want to make the readers feel uneasy or shocked.
I agree with your statement for the most part. Obviously it would change from genre to genre. Personally, I like stories with small and detailed casts. So when someone gets killed off it has maximum impact.
He should and he will, through Ghost probably. If Jon stays dead then there will be no point in him being a Targaryen and the whole story after the rebellion
@@jacobseed2123 Yes, he is. Possibly 50% of the hints in the books involve Jon's lineage and him being Rhaegar's son. 1. *Ned Stark* : It doesnt fit Ned's character to just father a bastard being the honourable man that he is, plus he never calls Jon his son when talking about him, only when talking to him(hint). 2. *Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar Targaryen* : After everything people say about Rhaegar and the way they talk about him its also out of character for him to one day go down the street and sing a pretty song, give money to peasants and then the next abduct Lyanna and rape her to DEATH. The vision Ned has about her in the book being in a bed of blood is because she just gave birth. 3. *The Kingsguard* : After Rhaegar dies his Kingsguard stays at the tower of joy. It would be weird for them to just sit with Lyanna they are the KINGSguard after all, so there is a hint. We see Ser Arthur Dayne and the rest say that the White Knights serve for life, when they are about to fight Ned and his party. Why would they say that and be there? To me, it seems like there are two options for them: A) either leave and go search for and protect little prince Viserys or B) stay where your previous prince set you and guard his son, your future king
@@datguygiannis6587 It certainly is possible, but it isn't official. Jon might be a Targaryen, but he's still dead, and bringing him back goes directly against what Martin is saying here.
A commercial medieval soap opera writer criticises the greatest fantasy writer of all time. Gandalf returning reflects a standard pattern seen in many legends/myths where a hero must prove themselves truly worthy of their status or of divine intervention by traversing death itself, sometimes represented as a journey underground or through the underworld, which is actually sort of what Gandalf did. The Greeks called it "katabasis", and we see it in Odysseus' journey, in Odin hanging himself, even in Christianity where the idea of self sacrifice as a means of betterment and proof of worth is evident. It even happens in Harry Potter, and Tolkien's inclusion of this just further strengthens the telling of his own mythology in reflecting and paying homage to the mythologies and sagas of the real world.
What's George's biggest mistake? Trusting D&D.
Haha yes
2nd biggest mistake:
Taking too damn long!
dont refer to them as D&D, you besmirch Dungeons and Dragons.
Agreed. The series can never be compared to the books,
GRRM is the hack here, D&D realized that there was no compelling ending. GRRM scammed them as well. The final books will never see the light of day because that will once and for all show that GRRM is a fraud.
If GRRM wrote LOTR he probably would have run out of characters before Helms Deep.
Lmao
He would just keep adding more B and C list characters we have to use a spreadsheet to keep up with.
If GRRM wrote LOTR, it would have been long forgotten about by everyone but a few literature historians who knew about these two books that were never concluded by the author writing the third one.
Actually he would have spent five books getting there
If GRRM wrote LOTR we never would have gotten Return of The King
At this point there's a better chance of Tolkien finishing The Winds Of Winter...
Lol 😂
Lol same with elden ring
I don't think Tolkien was ever up to a Sharknado cameo.
@@____REDACTED____ what? This doesn't even make sense...
GRRM wrote the story and created the world YEARS ago... why would the game not be finished on account of George?
@@____REDACTED____ it's out!
Note to self after reading comments: never criticize Tolkien
Ikr grrm loves the shit out of Tolkien, honestly I think it’s the uploaded fault for the title of the vid making grrm sound bad
@@ravendeafening192 Yeah,the channel is reuploading scenes from these interviews and slapping these clickbaity titles.
I think it’s more about how low class it is to criticize someone who can’t respond. GRRM should also consider that his own series will never be completed so it will never truly be a success like LotR.
I would much prefer to see GRRM finish this series, any criticism he receives afterwards at least everyone will understand the accomplishment of writing such a series.
@@FreakyLynx How “low class it is” what are you even talking about,you’re acting like he’s crapping on tolkien because he knows he can’t reply even though that’s not really what he’s doing, he’s just giving his small opinion on what tiny mistake he made that’s it, don’t know why this is so controversial lol
Especially an inferior writer who owes Tolkien blind loyalty at the penalty of the sword =]
* Tolkien laughs in complete books
*and then coughs in silmarillion*
@@sernoddicusthegallant6986 He completed LotR, his magnum opus, whereas Martin has yet to complete ASoIaF. The Silmarillion is a separate history of Middle Earth; how many histories of Westeros will Martin complete before his death?
Haha, right! It's too bad that something else George couldn't learn from his elders like Tolkien and Lewis was how to rein in and edit characters and subplots to tell cohesive, and complete, stories.
SerNoddicusTheGallant ironic, considering you have a damn Puck pfp
@Green Gobby So?
Martin forgot that Eru Ilúvatar resurrected Gandalf so his “task could be completed”
Boromir most definitely stayed dead.
Just like the king and heir of Rohan, Theoden and Theodred.
Martin doesn't know the lure that well apparently.. he's quite short sighted and I don't think we have D&D to fully blame for a crap ending anymore.
And those were the only people of any importance that died in the whole series. He has a point. :p
Johnnythefirst only “Gandalf” was revived who is more like an immortal angel than a human being, plus Gandalf the White is not the same person as Gandalf the Grey. Gandalf the White is Saruman The White “how he should have been”.
Johnnythefirst plus in the books way more people of import died like multiple lords of Rohan and Gondor.
My Silmarillion skills are rusty, but from what I recall: Gandalf was a Maia, an angel of sorts, and therefore could not truly die. Right??
Absolutely right.
Maryam Dadar Yes, not to mention in the books there's not even a moment where he's dead. He falls, walks back all those steps to the top, collapses at the top and is taken by a great eagle to Rivendell, where he is given his new white robes. He's not even considered dead at any point.
@@stuv1996 It's really not that clear in the book when Gandalf explains what happened to Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli; but I think what he meant was that his physical body, the "vessel" of his appearence did die, since it was mortal flesh, after all.
(Gandalf was taken to Lothlorien, not Rivendell, btw).
Luis Acosta Casanova from what I remember from the Silmarillion, that isn’t uncommon. Since the Maia are essentially angelic energies, even if their “human” host bodies were to be destroyed, the Maia itself cannot be.
Just like Sauron wasn't really destroyed, but just banished from Middle Earth.
"His body was broken, and his soul fled back to Valinor, were the Vala were commanded to send him back to fulfill his mission."
Never said he died.
It’s basically saying he died
@@ravendeafening192 The Vala are Immortal. The body is just a vehicle for them. It may take a long time, but they can get new bodies.
@@canundrumsixnine6830 yeah but that’s still to mortals considered dying somewhat no?
@@ravendeafening192 I really don't think that any inhabitant of Middle Earth really sees death and dying in the same way us outside onlookers do.
That's essentially what happens to Elves when they die as well, but Tolkien is very explicit about this being death to them. Gandalf died just like Elves die and just like Men die, the difference is what happens to them afterwards.
Whether that's true for normal Maiar is another question, but Gandalf and the other Istari were bound to their bodies in a way no other Maiar or Valar were - they couldn't just cast their bodies off like old clothes and put on new ones the way other Maiar could.
Killing his own characters clearly isnt enough anymore lol
Hmm
You don't get the point why he kills his characters
@@IperialAndroid you don't get the joke
@@sairamts just saying in case it's not a joke. A lot of people thinks George kills his characters only for fun and shock value
JK Rowling makes everybody’s characters gay, and then George RR Martin kills them
He never brought him back for Frodo tho. Guy had to complete the quest without ever knowing Gandalf came back.
Oh good point
Plus, Gandalf coming back was him getting a promotion since the white wizard betrayed the council, so Gandalf became the new white wizard.
@@JosephSmith-lm4ri Oh you mean Saruman, right?
@@ThaMobstarr yes. I was just afraid of typing it wrong (not bad at english, as it's my first language, I just don't always type stuff right).
Holly shit. Never thought of that actually.
At least Tolkien can finish a story in less than 20 years.
utubrGaming no he can’t, The Silmarillion being a prime example
dick
hes right though lets be honest George is a very slow writer
Amateresu When you have so many POV characters and their places in the world, including the time at which they’d realistically be able to travel from one place to the next for the timelines to remain consistent, all while keeping the story from slowing down to a halt, you’d be a slow writer too.
@@theatheistbear3117 yah but that's not the point, Tolkien wouldn't.
GRRM imagines a story, then build a world to contain it
Tolkien imagines a world, then told one of the stories within it
1000% correct
I personally prefer the first one.
Tolkien imagined a family of languages and then build a world to contain it and then told stories about it.
Ftfy
That's absolutely NOT how GRR Martin writes, he's a worldbuilder as well. You are describing Terry Goodkind's writing process.
Absolutely spot on comment.
The Scouring of the Shire was Tolkien's way of appealing to tradition, conservation and a deep-seated desire that the English be free of the drudgery and ugliness of modern cities, industry and 'growth at all costs'. Tolkien was an English romantic, and a devout Catholic, so for him Gandalf's resurrection as powerful as his descent into the depths of Moria.
He can say, "That's not how I would've done it", but that's because George isn't a romantic like Tolkien is.
Martin aslo isn't as good a writer. I started reading his books and they were so BORING.
spot on. his position is actually anti-capitalist, or at least, anti-industrialization.
@@uberdru True, this article goes into Tolkien's beliefs in greater detail. Suffice to say, he was someone with a great love for his people who would be dismayed, but not surprised at the state of his country today.
nationalvanguard.org/2020/01/christopher-tolkien-obituary/
@@RantTheRetort that can also being said of Tolkien. I'm sure there are people who find lord of the rings boring. But does that make lotr a bad book or Tolkien a bad author? No. The same goes for George R R Martin. Just because *you* don't like asoiaf, that doesn't make the book series automatically bad.
@@cerostymc That's fair. I guess we shouldn't judge it too harshly until it's done 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Tolkien was consistent though. In Middle Earth, if you kill a Balrog, the Valar bring you back. Glorfindel was also brought back from the dead this way.
the silmarillion tales, the tales of the first age were the FIRST thing Tolkien wrote concerning middle-earth, with The Fall Of Gondolin being the very first, and he wrote it while he was still a young man in the middle of war. So by the time the hobbit and lotr were created the tales and myths of M.E already existed for years and years. He couldnt have wrote an entire mythology after the hobbit right on the spot like that, it takes so much time to do so. He offered his tales which already existed but the Publisher didnt accepted it, so Tolkien wrote tlotr as the final moments of the third age inside his old tales and got his shit together concerning the lore, the one ring and fixing everything (in the first version of the hobbit the ring was just a magic ring).
This is true, but it doesn't really change the point. He decided for Gandalf to meet a balrog in that cave so that he could die and come back. He could have had him meet some beast that would kill him and he'd stay dead.
@creepy truck driver Tolkien had been creating the mythology of Middle Earth before he even conceived The Hobbit. I repeat: Tolkien wrote the (original) Silmarillion before Lord of the Rings.
Glorfindel is such a cool character
Different Glorfindel. Not the same person.
Gandalf’s death in terms of the story is impactful regardless of its temporary nature because of one major thing: his death removed him from being able to play any active role in Frodo’s quest. WE know that Gandalf returned, but Frodo never finds out until after the Ring is already destroyed.
@Than Empire thank god, couldn't agree more.
It also allowed the group to splinter, as Boromir would never have pulled the shit he did, with Gandalf still in control and leading the group properly.
Thanks, I knew this was true, just never processed it in that light.
Still kills any stakes the story had, the plot in LOTR is really not it's strong point.
@@anon_148 I disagree on both counts. The Fellowship has literally one angelic being. If any of the other 8 die, they would stay dead. Just ask Boromir.
Tolkien was writing a myth and his characters were there to fill roles in that myth. Both he and Lewis were men of faith and their relationship was strained when Lewis began dating a divorced woman (Tolkien was a devout Catholic). He also felt Lewis should “leave theology to the theologians” (e.g. Mere Christianity) and didn’t like Lewis’ choice to make direct Christian allegories (Aslan is unquestionably Jesus). Even so, his faith unquestionably influences LOTR.
GRRM is writing salacious, political novels with twists, turns, and difficult decisions that all exist in a fantasy world.
Technically, they’re both fantasy writers, but their purpose for writing couldn’t be more different.
This. Tolkien wrote a mythology which followed certain archetypes and common mythological symbolism. GRRM was writing a fictional history that reflects real history.
What's interesting is that while Tolkien was devout Catholic, GRRM is a lapsed Catholic and an agnostic/atheist. So in terms of religion they are kinda the opposite. In think it is heavily shown in both of their writings.
@@TheGeneralGrievous19 I didn't know that about GRRM, but it does fit.
This is a great way to put it. In addition, I think it's naive and simplistic to say Gandalf should have stayed dead, considering he was a Maiar.
He acts like he’s not gonna bring Jon back in the books
Ikr
Probably not as D&D did. It was implied that Jon wargs into Ghost which would be a far better way than the show version.
@@xxlCortez you really do believe that one of his main POV characters will remain the rest of the saga as a glorified dog? I mean... It could be interesting, don't get me wrong... But is almost certain that Jon will be back in his own body by R'hllor like in the show. I just hope that Martin puts more consequences in to this, like Jon losing a part of himself in the process (like Berric and Catelyn).
@@adrianoalves5829 I doubt it. Where's Melisandre at this point? The book didn't make the stupid Shireen sacrifice just so Melisandre can go back. We'll see if Martin ever finishes that book.
@@xxlCortez I think she is in Castle Black (or in the North at least )and spent a lot of time with Jon in the books. She even told him about his assassination. It's more plausible that she will see something in the flames that tells her that Jon must be revived (even if not necessarily because he is the Azor Ahai) than one of the main characters spending the climax of the story as a wolf.
Tolkien's greatest mistake was finishing Lord of the Rings before dying obviously.
@Spellcaster86 he did finish lord of the rings. All the rest us the legendarium but lotr is done
Shots fired...but they didn't miss
Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings were the only works he finished. He spent years fiddling with the Silmarillion and died before he could finish. His son published it years after his death
Wow, I never saw that comment before. Please keep doing it for every small criticism he makes. Martin is one of the biggest fans of The Lord of the Rings? "aT LeAsT x FiNiShED X".
Shut up. I don't care if this is legitimate or a joke. Both are overused and stupid.
Your comment makes no sense
I definitely disagree about raising Gandalf. Martin talks about it as if it's random, like he is Tolkien's darling character he didn't want to give up. But really It has a huge role in the story itself and brings meaning. One of Tolkien's favourite themes is the disparity between hope and despair. the resurrection of Gandalf helps set up that disparity as a lot of despair comes later on. It also enforces Tolkien's theme of providence which is always in the background of his stories. Martin's universe is much more chaotic than Tolkien's on a basic level. Martin shouldn't fault Tolkien for being consistent with his world just because that world is different than Martin's.
Watch the full video, he doesn’t hate tolkien at all the title just makes it sound that way
The lore dictates that Gandalf had to live as he killed a balrog
@@lordbonney9779
It wasn't just that he killed a Balrog, but that outside of that he had done his job to a T in the forming of the Fellowship, denying the corruption at the hands of Saruman, actively working against the forces of Sauron, and aiding Eru's creations to the best of his abilities.
He slew the Balrog at the cost of his earthly body, which shows how devoted even the meekest of the Maiar was to carrying out his lord's wishes.
@@ravendeafening192 he still wrote a series of books to subvert Tolkien's work. And now he can't even finish it.
@@maisuchan6209 he didn’t write it to subvert tolkien he loves tolkien lol
Ah so this why George loves to kill.
He's getting back at Tolkien
Gandalf´s ressurection had a deeper meaning. He should know it.
It really didn't.
Passione Nera then you haven’t read the books
@@harleyokeefe5193 Gandalf is basically Jesus, we got it.
And what exactly is this "deeper meaning"?
Primetime if you don’t know the early history of middle earth and it’s gods, it would take hours to explain
I knew what this would be before clicking. George HATES Gandalf's comeback. He mentions it so often lol.
I dont think George got the idea of Middle Earth having Gods and Gandalf basically being a divine creation like an Angel.
@@Themadhorse George is an LOTR fanboy, he knows all of it. He just didnt agree with the choice, thats all....
And now George R.R. Martin has trouble committing to keeping characters dead in the Song of Ice and Fire books. He’s come full circle.
sparrowcfc9 Lady Stoneheart anybody?
@@Akaya7777 Like Jon stays dead in his universe, right? #not
“His biggest mistake was finishing the books.” -George RR Martin.
Not sure what Peter's excuse for the Hobbit is though
@@vespasiancloscan7077 Peter Jackson didn’t write the Hobbit.
@@theopinson3851 you think I'm talking about the book?
@@vespasiancloscan7077
What do Peter Jackson’s films have to do with this? They aren’t canon.
@@sam5tue577 just poking fun at PJ
This comment section is saltier than the Dead Sea, damn.
I just kan't disagree with you on that one
Bruh fr can't we just celebrate the differences in literature?
For real. grrm has complimented tolkien a thousand times and also said that Tolkien IMPOSTERS made the good guy vs bad guy overused, he also said that he loves Tolkien and looks up to him
@@anonymousnate678 George was probably a bigger fan than you dude, he LOVED Tolkien’s books but instead you guys moan and cry thinking that he insulted Tolkien. If you can’t stand your favorite author taking criticism than you shouldn’t be on the internet
but i guess we can call grrm out on making a mistake too because he is human too and definetly did not understand the meaning of gandalfs resurrections
I just love how the lady keeps trying to bring up the next question like "okay" but he keeps talking, killing characters is his sweet spot lol
That's because she doesn't listens to the answers. If he said instead "One time Tolkien and me rode a tandem bike naked as a baboon in Japan. And he had this weird Pikachu tattoo above his ass crack. My question to Tolkien would be why would you murder Kennedy? "
The interviewers response probably would be "okay, so the next question is from...."
@@has489 Well I don't blame her, english is probably not her first language and it's hard to concentrate on translating in your mind as someone keeps talking
@@TheEtherny "translating in her mind" lol, this is not how it works. Not trying to translate things is the first step to advance through the basics of a language, at intermediate level anyone is able to think in their second language.
The practical knowledge that translation is not the same as meaning is one of the biggest reasons learning a third language turns much easier.
(My first language is Portuguese, English is the second, and Japanese will be the third)
@@TheEtherny the dificulty of conversating on a second language comes from the lack of vocabulary and the alien fonnetics, not from some need to translate things.
@@erikadasilva507 Do you know her? No. So shush.
The fact that Gandalf came back makes perfect sense in the lore
Kaneda Gandalf is like a god in lotr lore, so shut up next time
@@kaneda7368 I knew this would be the reply i would get but i actually mean, it makes sense in a sense that its still good story telling. Think about it, the wizard story arc needed to have a purpose and for their god to bring one of them back seems likely within the original story. And he only got to stay until after his quest was done. So it almost felt like what we where seeing was Gandalfs ghost.
It still was a huge shock seeing him die the first time and him coming back wont erase what you felt the first time.
His death in the first one was the beginning of his "real" death.
@@kaneda7368 i Agree with you, but i dont think lotr would have handle deaths the same way to be good if its still interesting and cool. They are good in their own right.
I FUCKING LOVE CHARACTER DEATHS IN GOT haha they are so badass and as you say usually change the story in a new direction.
ive just never particulary missed that in lord of the rings. Boramir didnt come back and so didnt theoden among others.
Butwith this said i do truly get where you are coming from. Atleast we had a fun little discussion!
@@kaneda7368 Multiple characters come back from the dead in GoT. Waaay more than LoTR.
Gandalf was just too great a character to kill off
I love RR's take. But I totally disagree. Having Gandalf arise not as he was but born anew, that was my introduction to what has come to be known as 'soft magic' systems, where there is some mystical truth that can't ever really be understood perfectly; some hint of the beyond which cannot be fathomed. Gandalf's return but not return was a triumph.
Which RR's take?
One could say Gandalf regained more of his original being as Maiar. Istari and Valar are somewhat like angels.
Tolkein probably needed Gandalf for his skills and exposition value. The story would have been hard to wind up without Gandalf's return.
Nah, it was pointless.
That seems like hard magic to me not soft magic. Gandalf can just never die. That’s OP as hell
“Gandalf should have stayed dead.” Says the man who will be resurrecting his MAIN CHARACTER!
Jon snow?
@@holeinthehat shh don’t tel him Jon Snow wasn’t resurrected in the books
@@ravendeafening192 you mean to tell uss jon motherfucking snow won't be brought back
@@sufnskanne469 we can only find out
@@ravendeafening192 we wont find our shit martins done with the books
I'm just glad George also loved the lord of the rings. Him stating his small gripe doesn't mean he hates Tolkien's work
No. But he is wrong. Tolkien and Rothfuss are both lazy fat tubs of lard and are mediocre authors. Tolkien was a genius! Anyone that writes fantasy, myself included (unpublished) live in the long shadow of Tolkien.
@@crusader0074 It's an opinion, you can't really be wrong.
@@JumSalsa
Opinions can be wrong, not always, but they can be.
@@crusader0074 no they can't...... that's why it's called an opinion. If I were to say I hate lord of the rings, it would be right to me but maybe not you. An opinion isn't a fact, it's a preference.
(Note: I love lord of the rings, just using it as an example)
@@Meh2752
Alright, let’s test your theory (for arguments sake): In my opinion the sky is orange during the day, the Earth is flat, the moon is a hologram, and the USA is on the African continent. Are my opinions wrong?
George not really 'getting' Tolkien's themes actually explains a lot about the way he writes his stories.
Yeah, but it's nice that we have two series of fantasy books that show both perspectives.
What does it explain? I'm curious
Its not that he doesnt get the themes. Martin is a very different style author than Tolkien. Tolkien is a plot driven writer. Martin is character drive. When Tolkien killed off Gandalf he was already(probably) aware he was going to bring him back at some point. Martin likes let his characters develop the story based on their personality traits, conflicts and desires. So Martins really wondering "how would the fellowship of solve the problems that resurrected Gandalf fixes"
And honestly that would be a great read too
Caleb Silvergleid I know right? Why do you have to choose which one is better. They’re both amazing authors
Emily Savage I don’t know if this is what you are asking about but Gandalf was brought back because of the parallel of the life of Christ. Jesus has 3 roles of priest prophet and king. Each one of those characteristics is personified by Frodo as priest, Gandalf as prophet and Aragorn as king. Each one has a moment of death like Christ. Gandalf, duh, Aragon, when he falls off the cliff while dragged by the wolf and Frodo when he is on the mountain and flown off by the eagles.
Gandalf was immortal, he can't really die, he just manifests in different forms. Gandalf the white was a very different being.
Yeah, he only vaguely remembered Aragorn and the others, even his own name need them to jog his memory.
All of the Wizards were technically immortal. Even Saruman. GRRM clearly hasn't read Silmarilion.
@@stockbridgeworks and yet sauruman didnt return to middle earth and you're missing his point completely.
@@unrelatedpopcornfire9823 who's point? The fuck u talking about? Have you read it? Cause I have. George Martin is a fat dickhead with a talent for writing sadistic fantasy stories with no moral point. Yet he feels he can criticise a legendary author who's leagues ahead of him. Lol
@@unrelatedpopcornfire9823 he never came back to middle earth because he wasn't allowed to.
Tolkien told stories about specific quests within his world; quests with real end points. I like ASOIAF but it’s about a quest with no real ending. Someone assumes the iron throne, they die. Someone else assumes the throne, they die. A quest for a functionally everlasting prize with no main character doesn’t end until the author chooses to stop writing and by no other litmus.
That’s not true the others and wight walkers and the azora high prophecy all give it a very clear ending that can be reached
Even though I disagree that Gandalf should have “stayed dead” I can see where he’s coming from, I read the books before the films were made and, I’d read The Hobbit and then started Fellowship of the Ring and was absolutely blown away when Gandalf fell in Moria, it was an incredibly powerful moment, I couldn’t comprehend how Gandalf could be gone, this was the character with the plan and all of the answers, the most powerful member of the fellowship and then he’s taken so suddenly, it definitely heightened the suspense for the rest of the book.
No book before or since has ever shocked me the way Tolkien did when he “killed” Gandalf.
I agree with you, I definitely understand George's point of view, though I disagree with him since Galdalf's role is important throughout the rest of the story, Tolkien did bring him back just 'cause, there was a purpose in his return, and also Frodo didn't have his help. But yeah, the impact of the moment is lost when he comes back
Yea. I agree. Better if gandalf stayed dead
Lot of people in the comments here talking about how Gandalf's resurrection makes logical sense so it's fine. Yes, it does make sense in setting, and yes it is fine, but what Martin is suggesting here is that there is more narrative weight if Gandalf remains dead, or that if he comes back there should be some sort of cost. The idea is that by bringing him back to life in Two Towers the weight of Gandalf's death in Fellowship is dramatically lessened. It's not about it being a plot hole, it's about it having more emotion if done differently. I still think Gandalf's resurrection is fine, but I can see where Martin is coming from.
EDIT: I am not arguing Martin is right. I think he is wrong. I am just trying to make clear what the point in the video actually is since people to be ignoring/misunderstanding it.
I'm mean he would have to re-write gandalfs origins or the whole deity system and history of the entire universe to keep him dead...
It would only be a problem if Tolkien did this willy-nilly with other characters; instead, he does it one time with a character that holds logic in a narrative sense that was clearly thought out and adds to the story at large. Hearing this man criticize Tolkien in any fashion triggers me a little.
@@FishbowlPhenom for real tho. Tolkein was a genius. He built his works from the ground up, created the languages races and their historys in great detail on a level that Martin could only aspire to. Starting before the creation of the world all the way up to the events of the movies with so much stuff leading up to it it's unbelievable.
St1cKnGoJuGgAlO - Again, it’s about the thematic weight. Yes it would require a rewrite, or to have been written different entirely. But that’s the critique.
Beric Dandarion, Lady Stoneheart, and John Snow.
Martin resurrected more characters in 5 years then Tolkien in 3 ages(what, like 5,000 years or so).
Everyone now knows that Gandalf is resurrected because the story is popularised. But if you'd never read the books, and you didn't know, Gandalf's return is as emotional a moment for the reader as it is for the characters.
He's probably going to say that Tolkien's biggest mistake was finishing The Lord of the Rings.
Because it is a metaphor for Wisdom. To gain wisdom, you must first die. Gaining wisdom is to struggle and overcome darkness. Galdalf returned levelled up.
Can it go any cheaper?
True! Knowing how Tolkien's books are inspired by Norse mythology, you could further connect this event to Odin sacrificing one eye in order to gain higher wisdom.
Nah that's just mental gymnastics to justify poor writing.
@@brenobonfim5749 exactly
@@brenobonfim5749 killing a balrog resurects you, as per LotR lore, so no bad writing there, actually its consistent writing
But regarding Endings, Tolkien sets us up for „bittersweet“ in a way that George really can‘t, George doesn‘t have some perfect place of innocence in his books like the Shire were nothing bad ever happens. George exposes the entire world as corrupt from the getgo, whereas in Tolkien corruption is a kind of outside force that they vanquish at the cost of their own purity.
It George did that same thing, it would be either meaningless or way too depressing.
I think creating any sort of closure at all in a world that you‘ve already shown to be corrupt is a whole other challenge than ending LotR, and probably much harder, which may arguably George‘s main underlying problem with finishing these books. How the hell do you give a satisfying resolution to a story like that without subverting your own themes?
@Morgan Freeman that's exactly his point, dude. They had to sacrifice Shire's innocence in order to get rid of greater corruptons.
The shire is comparable to Winterfell if u look at it and it's surprising how many similarities these two settings share both are refuges where the readers feel at peace, in Winterfell it's only once outside forces enter that aren't Starks where shit happens same as the sacking of the shire both places are torched and our protagonists always reminisce about times there whilst out in the cruel world, it's a place of respite and a haven stolen away, an innocence gone until eventually the protagonist come and reclaim it but once that's done... It's not the same, not really cox they've now come back with the filth of the world within and not even that place can cleanse them of it... So they must move on
Sometimes the best resolution for a story isn't satisfying.
"Ice falls everyone dies"
The idea geroge is a nihilist is so backwards thinking and miss the point of the series. If geroge was truly a nihilist then the Northern would've forgotten about Robb stark and red wedding yet they haven't they still fight for starks because they loved how brave,honorable and good were the starks it inspires them. And the villains have forever destroyed their reputation due to their violation of sacred law such as guest right the lannisters,boltons and frays are have ruined their names but the stark name will live on and be worshipped for their bravery.
This man needs to go home and write 2 books
Underrated
Yea a dream of spring is never coming out. Funny thing is even if it did there’s no way he’s gonna be able to wrap it up in 2 books unless he pulls a D&D and just starts going stupid
I love GRRM. But I have to say, I’m glad Gandalf returned after his fight with the balrog. I don’t think it lessens his death at all. Gandalf is one of the few characters in Middle-earth who is resurrected, so this was a very special circumstance. And the fact that the balrog actually damaged his body to death shows how tough balrogs actually were, seeing as it killed the most powerful member of the Fellowship. The stakes were high, in other words.
Besides, the Fellowship did actually continue without him under a lot of strain-so we were able to actually see them struggle without his guidance. Frodo decided to go to Mordor on his own-a decision he wrestled with. And Strider was already making his way toward Theoden in a roundabout way when he ran into Gandalf the White. Either way, I disagree.
Tolkien’s Catholic background seems to play a role in things like Gandalf dying and coming back, and the Maiar in general. Whatever the case, I enjoy it thoroughly, as I’ve enjoyed ASOIAF. Big fan of both series.
And think about the circumstances.
He destroyed one of the last Balrogs. A heroic thing to do. Berric Dondarion was resurected because of "Why Not?" And that over and over again.
Gandalfs Death was demoralising and forced the characters to go on by themselves for quite a time. It caused the Fellowship to break up, especially Frodo and Sam heading for Mordor alone, and resulted in the capturing of Merry and Pippin.
As a matter of fact, Aragorn&Co would have had to defeat Saruman the White on their own - a godlike being,that was corrupted by his strive for power. While at the same time, in order to replace Saruman, Gandalfs fall and death made perfect sense as a necessary ordeal. Also, it's a great message: Even as a wizard you have to transcend your limits, you need to imagine a greater self of yours in order to grow.
Finally, from a story-telling point of view, Gandalfs return did not "undo" the consequences of his absense. He healed Theoden, he gathered the Rohirrim to save Helm's Deep, but Merry and Pippin got the Ents moving and Aragorn&Co did most of the hard work, despite losing not only Boromir, Gandalf, Frodo and Sam, but (supposedly) Merry and Pippin. Aragorn's time without Gamdalf truly challenged him as a leader.
Nope, nothing wrong with Gandalf coming back.
Edit: One could say that Gandalfs return lowers the suspense because it makes the reader think that every character can come back. 1) Gandalf delivers a very specific explanation for what happened, 2) Boromir and Theoden stay dead.
You don't need to butcher your characters in order to create suspense.
Totally agree dude..
Most of this is bullshit. His death and the continued belief in his death gave Frodo the drive to realise Gandalf's words. He believed Gandalf was dead until he saw him.
He didn't even die in the books. It says he makes his way back to the top from his fall with the Balrog and collapses at the top(which you can interpret as a death but isn't factually called a death) and is taken by a great eagle to Rivendell. No death, just defeat and a comeback.
@@stuv1996 You're right, I was just talking about his "death" as assumed by the reader and the Fellowship! Because the story went on as if he was dead - until he returned to explain what happened.
@@saeedvazirian Most of what is bullshit? What Joseph Schneider said was that Gandalf's (assumed) death was a serious set-back for the group and challenged all of them to make their own, hard decisions. It's not even about whether Gandalf is a Maiar or whatever, because for the average reader as well as the Fellowship Gandalf appeared as a mortal being with magic skills and tricks - not a demigod that could fight and defeat a fiery demon.
Then he brings Jon Snow back from the dead.
At least Gandalf was a Maiar.
He didnt bring back Jon from the dead. The show did.
@@paultokjian7915 True, but I think it's extremely likely he'll bring him back in the books.
He did bring back Catelyn and Beric about 15 times.
@@temetnosce2099 cat and beric both lost a part of themselves (cat is a different person really)
@@temetnosce2099 Beric is dead bro
@@RedpillRetreat Yeah after he was brought back a dozen times. And he's only dead because Lady Stoneheart took his place...when she was brought back.
Tolkien wrote classic fantasy. ASOIAF is a realistic world with fantasy elements. They are both fantasy but in different classes.
@Carnivorus Except that Daenerys achieves 99% of things through her dragons, which wouldn't exist in a non-fantasy world...
Carnivorus by the end of the series, Dany will have a big effect on westeros
@Carnivorus Dany's dragons literally affect every aspect of Westeros from the north to the Asshai, the hatching of her dragons restored some of the magic that had weakened, that's why the white walkers, The Deep Ones, shadowbinders and potentially Kraken are being awakened, plus that her arrival in westeros with both dragons and the khalasar and unsullied will force Kings Landing and the rest of the northern part to fight war on several fronts with magic beings aswell as for power.
ASOIAF is NOT a realistic world lmao the difference is that Tolkien uses symbolic patterns that actually exist in reality whereas G does not, giving it one less dimension
@Carnivorus The fantasy elements let him publish his historical novel as a fantasy, although they get more important as the story grows.
"Gandalf should have stayed dead"- revives Catelyn Stark, a side character, and makes her even more irrelevant. Proably going to revive Jhon Snow like in the series..
Berric Dondarrion.
Catelyn Stark.
Jon Snow.
Khal Drogo.
Benjen Stark? Are you thinking he's Coldhands? George's editor asked him if he is and George confirmed that he's not.
asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/123057-confirmed-coldhands-is-not-benjen/
B Gill oh shit, I never knew that, thanks for stopping misinformation.
Khal Drogo?
A: Jon and Drogo have never been resurected
B: Berric and Cat both came back at a price of them being broken shells for their former selves, whereas gandalf became even stronger
Yes all of those people did come back from the dead but they did it at a cost. Three of those four people that did come back we’re only shells of their former selves when they came back to life.By this proxy you can probably assume the same thing will happen to Jon Snow. When Gandolf comes back he just becomes more powerful making his death have a little consequence and seem almost like a good thing.
Why even compare LOTR with GOT? Like the reason Gandalf was brought back ties a lot into the whole mythology of Middle Earth, this is such a poser thing to do.
Indeed
Hello Ulmo, I'm a big fan lol
@@fullcircle2340 cheers mortal :D
Lmao morons in this comment section actually think that Martin has no clue about lore reasons for Gandalf's revival. He was talking about completely other thing.
It's really sad that fans of such complex writers as Tolkien and Martin can't grasp a simple critique of storytelling
@@satanamogila9251 yeah he thinks that because he kills his characters he is doing something revolutionary never seen before. So who is moron now?
JRR Tolkien was a master and did not allow a bunch of idiots to rush his story and milk it for the most amount of money before he got to tell it himself.
Big diff is Tolkien has a lot of real life experiences, He was at the first world war as well.. GRR Martin is a smart nerd..
Carnivorus does Tolkien glorify war though? He does tend to shy away from the gritty dirty part of war but he doesn’t necessarily present it as some amazing thing. No one who fought in WWI would present war in a positive light.
Lol at rush his story. He has zero desire to ever complete the damn story. People can’t wait forever for you to get a single book done
What a retarded comment that makes no sense whatsoever
Have you watch the Hobbit movies?
*Tolkien laughs in finished story from afterlife*
*coughs a speck of mythopoetic universe on the carpet in the process*
this kinda rings hollow to me, tolkein wrote somewhere in the ball park of 705,356 words across the lord of the rings, silmarillion, and hobbit. GRRM has written 1.7 million words in the 5 books published so far not counting all the sample WOW chapter we've gotten so far. He's just telling a bigger story and has to actively work with HBO for all these fuckin spin-offs they've greenlit. If Tolkien was actively worrying about how his world would be depicted on screen while writing I bet it would have expanded the 12 years it took to write LOTR by a decent amount.
I have to disagree, Gandalf’s resurrection is an example of the powers and intentions behind the higher powers that sent him and the other wizards there in the first place.
I think it’s how he reads a story and what he wants from it. For me it’s the same, imagine now reading the books (watching the movie) that you don’t know Gandalf comes back. It’s pretty rash for the story but traumatic for the reader, Boromir and Gandalf are both dead and they’re already failing. It’s really up to the reader isn’t it.
Like me personally, with A Song Of Ice And Fire, I don’t know why mance climbs the wall to see King Robert. Felt too convenient for the conversation he was having with Jon
@@TheArsenalgunner28 Boromir is a human. Gandalf is an immortal demigod.
Garrett I know but I’m saying, it’s still traumatic for the reader (plus we didn’t really know he was a Demi god till later)
I think George being young when he read it, expected Gandalf to be dead and enjoyed the trauma the story influenced and the unpredictability it created from that moment. I think he feels it was better for the story that he stayed dead, and not that it doesn’t make sense that he comes back.
It’s more down to the writers choice I think that George has a problem with.
Even then that concept/theme could be seen as a weak one. How much are the motives of the Valar further discussed? And even after that, it really just boils down to "yeah good 'gods' exist and they don't want Sauron to win". Not exactly groundbreaking literary work.
Throw Away The funny thing from all this is you and even GRRM are all wrong here. Gandalf DOES NOT DIE in the books. Only the movie. In the books he chases the balrog back up the stairs and defeats it, continues up the stairs and eventually collapses at the top(not dead) and is taken by a great eagle to Rivendell. Where he is given new cloaks and stuff. Never having actually died at all.
Dude Gandalf's a Maia. He's immortal
Ismail Hafeez Not to mention he didn't die right there at all. He fell and then walked back up the stairs, collapses, and is taken by a great eagle to Rivendell.
No he absolutely did die. Tolkien even states so in his letters.
@@stuv1996 His mortal form--his physical body--died. He was sent back, whether by the Valar (Manwe or Varda) or by Illuvatar, doesn't matter. And he went to Lothlorien and was given new robes by Galadriel--he didn't go to Rivendell.
When Tolkien said that Gandalf 'fell', it wasn't the literal definition of the word, like falling down the stairs. Multiple times in the book it is mentioned when someone fell, that it was a euphemism for dying.
Lmao morons in this comment section actually think that Martin has no clue about lore reasons for Gandalf's revival. He was talking about completely other thing.
It's really sad that fans of such complex writers as Tolkien and Martin can't grasp a simple critique of storytelling
Sauron was a maia and very much died
Well at least he finished his books. By the time asoiaf is finished, apes will have retaken the earth.
I´m just joking though, I wish George the best and I´m excited to see that videogame he´s going to make with From Software.
It would be quite disappointing if Martin ends the book series on the same note as the show. I know the show deviated from the source material but I wonder just how different the paper ending will be.
Alex Lion I thought he said that the ending of the show will be similar to that of the books
@@torakka2ow640 but not rushed and Will make sense
Elden Ring might be the best of the decade. From software always makes amazing games, one thing they lack is story(sekiro had an ACTUAL story) and characters. Now imagine GRRM as one of the best writers living today. But then again both Elden Ring and Cyberpunk 2077 coming out in the same year. Both have GREAT potential.
@KesselRunHero definately at the rate he's going. I'm not convinced book 6 will ever come out let alone book 7. He said he was going to be totally focused on finishing it and wouldn't do anything else - then writes and releases Fire and Blood instead. Then to add insult to injury he's doing the software thing!
Can anyone imagine Homer starting his work like this?: Oh, muse, help me to remember the structure of the sewers of the divine Ilium, that of high walls... allow me, oh Muses, to describe the taxation system, be it on individuals or corporations, during Priam's rule...
Gandalf the Grey did die, ancient and vulnerable to the evil in certain ways. Gandalf the White was born, filling the maiar spirit the Saruman the White sacrificed in his pursuit of power, and he was born with the blessing of Illuvitar himself because he was the only wizard to remain true to the mission of staving off evil and Sauron. There’s so much more to Gandalf’s revival than just bringing back a beloved character. Better than Snow’s revival at least.
Yeeup
The bittersweet ending is that he will never ever finish a song of ice and fire.
Jennifer Hewitt That would be hilarious. He dies and before that he is like by the way I never actually finished it. Then a long silence sets in the room.
I dont get the "sweet" part of that bittersweet
asoiaf fans: REALLY GEORGE?
To the people comparing Jon and Gandalf. I don't think it makes any sense, because Gandalf was the light for the whole quest, which made losing him felt like losing all hope.
The way I see it you’re correct they don’t really have similar personalities they are both their own people but at the same time Jon snow was like Gandalf in the sense that he always did what he felt was right and was for the greater good, he was the one to round up a great enough army to defeat the undead and bring everyone together and when he died before all of that it did feel the same as Gandalf because he was also the light for the majority of the quest to defeat the undead
So yeah they’re pretty likeminded individuals with different personalities and one is wiser than the other who started out knowing nothing 😂😭
If by light you mean he was the guy who knew more about the quest, than you are right.
But in their journey after Gandalf was gone they all had Aragorn, he was the one who acted as the "light"/main character who would guide them and it fits because of his lineage and character.
Jon being the guy who is trying to bend tradition and fight with the wildlings instead of fighting against them, seeing that there is a greater threat than them that is superhuman and will be more difficult to defeat, he comes to the conclusion that only together they might stand a chance.
With Jon gone the only character left on the Wall is Melisandre and she doesnt seem like the character to lead the fight against the dead simply because she hasnt really had much time of development, sure she would help, but in all the hints George has been dropping about Azor Ahai Jon Snow fits the character best.
Daenerys is also someone who could be Azor Ahai for sure, but she is at the other side of the world and knows nothing about the dead, so she cant take over either.
Conclusion: This is all my opinion and I personally felt more shocked when Jon died than Gandalf.
P.S: Not to say that I wasnt shocked or anything but in the end i knew Gandalf was going to pull some sick wizard shit and come back.
Jon Snow is the same thing. He's the hero that is destined to save everybody
Real comparison is Gandalf and Eddard Stark.
Both were the father/mentor, both was the light in the darkness...
But only one of them returned...
When last I looked, Tolkien not Martin, was the author of Lord Of The Rings.
Yeah, but the question was asked to George.
Tolkien was Catholic. Gandalf's return from death symbolises the Resurrection of Christ.
Same thing with the lion Azlan, in C.S. Lewis' Narnia.
while yes, the tale of christ's resurrection probably influenced tolkien, and despite many other paralels to the bible, he did not set out to specifically make a religious allegory, and rather disliked people making those comparisons. While Gandalf's return is certainly very reminiscent of Jesus's, it's not a symbolism of it, and they are not at all similar past the surface level.
It can't be a symbolism as tolkien had it placed, since Gandalf is an angel therefore imortal by his own nature.
*Aslan
That’s cool lol
Tolkien hated allegory, but even he wouldn't be able to deny influences from his experience in the war. All his friends dying on him, and him holding mantle of his brothers' wishes to write fantasy fiction.
At least Tolkien finished his story, and both his books and his adaptations had absolutely brilliant endings.
MrJedabak you liked the Hobbit movies?
Ismael San Antonio I did.
MrJedabak ok, I guess I won’t judge.
Tolkien's trilogy was ~1200 pages long, with a cast of what, 10? Martin's trilogy is on pace to be 6000 words and has a cast of thousands.
Michael Warren so you only count the main cast of lotr but you include every character in ASOIAF? Ok
George: Gandalf should have stayed dead!
Also George: *brings back Jon Snow*
Craig Gahan did he? From what I know that part was not mentioned in the books
Hi Daßer so you think Jon isn’t coming back? Haha I highly doubt the show took that many liberties that they would tell George RR Martin that regardless of his future plans that Jon is coming back. Come on you know as well as I do that the majority of what happened in the show will happen in the book. The big difference is I think George will execute better than the show did which rushed through everything. I think George will take his time and build to it properly.
Also Catelyn......
Also The Mountain.......
Season 6 is said to roughly be what The Winds of Winter is going to be. Seasons 7 and 8... at this point, I wouldn’t be quick to say they’re what A Dream of Spring will roughly be. More of a gray area at this point.
A few things that happened in Season 6, if I remember correctly, are definitely going to be in The Winds of Winter. Though truthfully, the only one I can remember is:
Hold the door.
I remember that from Inside The Episode: The Door.
Martin has developed a nasty habit in his books of saying a character has died only for it to later be revealed otherwise. The most notable examples are Davos and Mance.
I honestly think that the fact that Eru Ilúvatar decided that everything is fucked without Gandalf so chose to intervene directly to bring him back more powerful than ever, when directly intervening is something he so rarely did, is more impactful than leaving him dead and clearly shows how important Gandalf is. I love Game of Thrones but I’m glad it was Tolkien who wrote LOTR and not Martin.
Cause Martin never finished Tolkien works and probably focused only on LOTR trilogy. Eru set a path for his creation so in the end Sauron was always gonna fail, one way or another. Gandalf was important character but he was just a single piece of the puzzle. Its like when we were kids and we used to drop couple of puzzle pieces on the floor by accident. Later we found them and completed the picture. That's how I felt about Gandalf. He just returned where he belongs until the picture is completed. Cause Eru said to Melkor that even his own music is part of Erus plan and nothing he or anyone else can do to disturb the final outcome of his will. So the final result is always gonna be the same but the journey there is not set in stone. Also Tolkien understood human nature better then Martin when he decided to write about the story that's gonna end like many fables before and after. He knew that we love mystery, drama, killings, intense feelings but in the end we all desire for a happy end and he gave it to us. He wrote a trilogy that sends us a message far more powerful and impactful then Martin even could. Everyone would love to live in Shire. No one would want to live anywhere in GoT world. Enough said.
At least he got the damn book finished george
That may be true but ASOIAF is a much longer and much more ambitious book series that LOTR is. Now they both are incredibly difficult books to write but ASOIAF is going to take longer than LOTR did.
Finn Conroy more like his son finished them.
@@generalawesome7279 asoiaf is much wider, but much less deep imo
@@legogandalf5453 how tf is it less deep?
@@legogandalf5453 Depends on what you mean by depth, for example LotR has a far deeper lore that goes back to the beginning of its world thanks to the silmarillion, but Martin writes much deeper characters and explores the politics of the world in much more depth.
Tolkien believed in ressurection. And Gandalf was a kind of angel, anyway. George is just cynical.
Lmao morons in this comment section actually think that Martin has no clue about lore reasons for Gandalf's revival. He was talking about completely other thing.
It's really sad that fans of such complex writers as Tolkien and Martin can't grasp a simple critique of storytelling
@@satanamogila9251 intellect is not a common trait the reason. Why it attracts simpletons is because they look at a story for its surface overview without looking into the ideologies or in world comparisons or other ramifications of the story.
Tolkien was a catholic and be believed that the main forces in the world are good and evil his mythology reflects that grr Martin is very much unlike that he write his character not necessarily be good or evil. He writes them to have motivations that are common for most people. They don’t do things out of nobility or pure malice for all that is good but out of selfishness, fear and grief. I think that is ultimately why the lord of the rings can have a satisfactory ending that makes you feel fulfilled and a song of ice and fire can’t. Because Lotr was based of classic myths where there good people and bad people that you root for and want to see finally be happy at the end. There is a beginning there is a conflict against evil and a end where ultimately good unmistakably triumphs. Got is based on real life where there are no noble hero’s that defeat dark lords where one second people are hailed as hero the next vilified and there is no clear cut good and evil everything is muddled and confused. The characters can have no happy ending because even after the main conflict of there character arc is resolved they are still irreparably miserable people living miserable lives. Just like most people in real life. Why the hell did I write all this. If you read through this unadulterated rambling your a true madman and I hope to never meet you in a dark alleyway. Get a hobby or something geez
I think Gandalf’s death and rebirth is an important part of the story, and not a mistake at all.
I cried so much as a kid when Gandalf died in the movies! I relate with his sentiment
Listen both series are good, and it's your own tastes influence that story you prefer. Personally I prefer Tolkien but I don't dislike GRR Martin. I think GOT has a story more rooted in the kingdom and man's struggle for power and corruption whereas Tolkien was about battling evil, bring hope and justice, the light vs the dark. I think the Gandalf statement shows that. Gandalf died but was brought back to bring the people of middle earth hope and strength to face the unrelenting evil, whereas in GOT the evil isn't a figure, his books show that their are bad people who are bad because they think their right. Tolkien touches on that a bit but the story isn't about how or why evil does what it does rather that it must be stopped. The two series are amazing and I applaud the story and creativity. I think it is important to realize that just about every fantasy story now does draw at least some inspiration from Tolkien, and that's not a bad thing. These stories bring us together as a community, especially in dark times
Thank you for being seemingly the only comment in this entire section that dosent give into the tribalistic fan war
consider the one rings temptation. It harkens back to Abrahamic myths like the Garden of Eve- Original Sin and Classical myths like the Story of Persephone. How at the very end, when the temptation and curiosity is at its peak, humans are inherently flawed and prone to fail. But we also have the free will and ability to do what's good, which is what gives our lives meaning. Tolkien had a philosophy that good doesn't always win, but often relies on evil to enact it's will, or evil is self destructive. Frodo gives into his temptation at the crack of mount doom (an evil), and it's his mercy for Gollum which acts as providence through Illuvatar (Tolkien referred to this as "Eucotrastophe") who makes gollum dance off the edge into the fires, destroying the one ring.
Omg George you clever, clever man. "well it might be happy for some poeple. for OTHERS it might not be so happy"
Akgezenler rip mi yani reyiz
@@mesutkacmaz - Meh?
Idk if he will finish the books. But if he does I think it will rhyme with the shows but better. Jon not taking the throne will be bittersweet and leaving with the wildlings after killing dany. Arya leaving the west to go to the East prob never seeing her family again etc. it will be a more happy ending then we have seen from him (reason for the title a dream of spring) but it will have some sad moments like all endings do.
The power of the clickbait title. GRRM said a lot about the LoTR and talked about his and other peoples writing, but the comment section is just people talking about why Gandalf revival was justified.
That last piece about honoring an author while he lives is great, but well.
Martin: *Questions Gandalf's return*
Also Martin: *Beric Dondarrion*
If I ever become as successful a novelist as George R.R. Martin, I definitely won't be able to respond to every email but I would respond to every written letter. I send a lot of letters in my current job and I appreciate anyone who makes that kind of effort.
principally those with wax seals.
In Tolkien's world, Aragorn's genealogy mattered. He was the rightful king. Apparently, Jon Snow's lineage didn't matter to anyone anyway (including Jon Snow).
Game of Thrones is not GRRM's world, A Song of Ice and Fire is.
@@liamfoote7164 - Of course, the LOTR films were Peter Jackson's world; however, they were quite faithful to the spirit of JRR Tolkien -- and they were better for it.
@@ccchhhrrriiisss100 i don't think many people are arguing that Game would not be better if it were more faithful.
@@liamfoote7164 GoT is canon now, because this fat fuck won't finish the story himself.
Tolkien to GRRM: You better make Jon a King!
Stannis already offered Jon legitimate reign over the north as Jon Stark and Jon was like 'nah bruh im good"
@@shinluis He also offered him a really hot "wildling princess" (who isn't really actually a princess because the southron people don't get how wildlings work) name Val.
@@shinluis He was still part of the Night's Watch then. The northern lords wouldn't have accepted a deserter and oathbreaker as king.
@@Wolfsgeist I suppose not. But I don't think that's why Jon decided to say no.If I remember right he said no because he felt he belonged more at Night's Watch than anywhere else.
@@huyochita5386 that is the stupidest thing the show ever did
As a writer myself hoping to get published both Tolken and Martin are huge inspirations for me in both how to build a world for the reader to enjoy and the complexity of the characters that are needed to keep the reader enticed upon the words on each page
You should watch Apollonian Germ's video about George RR Martin.
Well, LOTR was much more focused on mythology, metaphores, philosophy and such, than entertainment. The resurrection of Gandalf was reference to hermetical-alchemical lore mostly (not to mention Christianity) specifically the transition from Negredo to Albedo. So Tolkien wanted to make a point with that. I think it tells a lot about Martin as a writer that he wants to cut it out mostly for simple entertainment purposes.
PS. I like Martin, and I think that he is a masterful pulp writer, but surprise and excitement cannot be main motivation of plot development in every book.
What annoys me about Martin is this uber-cynical attitude to writing. I'm not expecting him to be some kind of highly sophisticated intellectual type or anything (like Tolkien was) but the way he talks about his work, like he openly admits where he was pulling names out of his ass just to fill blank spots on the world map, like he made the Wall so ginormous because he didn't bother to imagine the scale when he was putting it in...
I don't know, isn't it a little... condenscending? Gets you views on YT I guess. He just strikes me as full of himself, that's all.
@Carnivorus "he is not masterful" having read both tolkien and grrm i can say in all honesty that both the world and the stories of grrm captured me more than tolkien. He may be stuffing less metaphors into his works, but his plotlines and characters are astonishing, something that tolkien always lacked. Tolkien created the genre, but at his time the genre was too inmature to be as entertaining as grrm's works are. He is a masterful writer, no other story i've ever read details it's characters and it's plot as much as his.
@Carnivorus so, le me unserstand, it's not enough fantasy for you so it's automatically bad???? Juat admit it's your opinion and not a fact and move on
@Carnivorus so a book is only valued by how many fantasy elements are stuffed in it? Asoiaf has zombies, dragons, mages, prophecies. How is it not fantasy? Does it need dwarfs and elves to be a good book???? Please stop embarassing yourself, if you don't like grrm's world it's your opinion and you have every right to dislike it, but don't act like it's an objective thing, cause it's not.
@Carnivorus is a fantasy book bad because it has less fantasy elements? get out of here
I mean that's all good but... isn't he also bringing Jon Snow back?!
We don't know, that might very well be an idea from DnD because they didn't want to lose their poster boy. The books strongly suggest with his and Robb's death as well as the Varymir Sixskin chapter that Jon will warg into Ghost and become one with him. If he is brought back after that I'm pretty sure Jon will be changed and he won't be the Jon we know. Beric Dondarrion was brought back several times but each time lost some part of himself and he was resurrected immediately.
My hope is still that Jon won't come back as a human. I think with all the expectations that Martin has built up, bringing Jon back won't do his type of story any good.
Yeah this is very much true, hes got the lord of light which serves him in conveniently bringing characters back when suitable, Tolkien wrote Gandalf as a Maiar (essentially like a primordial demi-god or like an angel almost). Gandalf was one of the 5 maiar sent into middle earth as one of the 5 Istari - wizards - to aid middle earth in their conquest against Sauron, when he died vanquishing the Balrog he was sent back by the Valar as a more powerful version of himself the most powerful Istari (Saruman) had actually been corrupted by Sauron and therefore middle earth needed Gandalf or they would have had no chance to overcome both Saruman and Sauron. I get GRRM's point and the outlook he has but I think LOTR was perfect the way it was for the most part.
@Souhaib El Haouzi
His point isn't that people should never come back but that resurrections should be demoralising experiences.
Where Gandalf came back stronger for having died, Cat and a Eric were broken by their deaths as Jon will be the same.
That's his complaint.
Jon and Gandalf aren't the same though, Ned Stark was much more like Gandalf, they were both the shocking deaths at the end of the first book. When Jon comes back I doubt he will be the same, or more powerful.
Importance to there stories a side Gandalf was way more important in Middle Earth than Jon is to his land.
You can't compare Gandalf's death to Jon Snow's. Gandalf is a paragon character, losing Jon Snow might be as losing the ace in your hand, but losing Gandalf is like losing 'the trump card if the card literally flipped the table over and shot the other player'.
Wait, are we talking about ASOIAF, LOTR or DBZA?
yes
George Martin's biggest mistake: starting something he can't finish. That HBO ending must make him proud.
Only Gandalf’s physical form died. He is a maiar (angelic demigod) the Valar brought him back to fulfill his purpose & allowed him to use more of his power to do accomplish it. Tolkien’s work was visionary & transformative in the fantasy genre, everyone else took notes from him...except George! xD
What the hell are you talking about? George has spoken fondly of Tolkien many times.
Gandalf the White wasn't exactly the same person though, I think most people prefer Gandalf the Grey
Exactly I agree 100% and same as with Jon we did get to see a more serious and less forgiving side of him when he came back
There is a certain amount of frustration when concerning resurrecting characters.
It really undermines the threat that protagonists are facing or that the hero’s actions don’t have real consequences.
It makes the victories feel more earned/ glorious when important characters have died/ suffered for the sake of protecting/saving to world. You appreciate the journey’s happier moments and somewhat happy ending.
It all about balance though because if you go too grim and dark for the end the whole story seems pointless.
Wow, what he said about Frodo not being able to enjoy the world he built for others resonates a lot with Jon’s ending at the series. I did have serious doubts, as many do, but this makes it even clearer to me that what we saw was essentially his ending, which he probably is (at least subconsciously) trying change now that he saw the backlash. Drastically delaying the Winds of Winter and obviously A Dream of Spring
Tolkien was a devout Catholic. Though he refuted the notion of allegory in his works it is quite obvious that Gandalf is a symbol of Christ. He is even resurrected as Gandalf the White, just like Christians believe Jesus will come back in white
If there is one death in fiction that was anything but "bringing him back because people like him" it was Gandalf. It was symbolic and had a deeper purpose. I know George is somewhat of a pessimist but he should understand and respect symbolism and allegory, if not then there is no deeper meaning in fiction at all, everything is supposed to be exactly what it seems
So did Gandalf die for the Fellowships sins LOL?. Even for RUclips that’s a sstttrrreetttcchh. No wonder Tolkein mocked this idea
You're good, George... But you're not Tolkien good.
@Terror hahahaha I like your humour
As a fan and reader of both, I gotta finally admit to myself, Martin's work is better, at least to me
@@fredcarmichael5544 me too cause his work is not typical good vs evil and good guys never dies
@@Aaarqhev tolkien’s work is much much deeper than that. if you are a christian or religious in any way and start to learn the deeper meanings tolkien creates in his books you will be blown away by the depth. a lot more to his stories than “good vs evil and good guys never die”
Nah hes much, much better than Tolkein
_Meanwhile, in the after life..._
*GRRM to Tolken* - "Why did you bring back Gandalf? He should have remained dead!"
*Tolkien to GRRM* - "Remind me George... How did your book end...?"
Gandalf coming back just reinforces the fact he's a Maiar. He's essentially an angel. Of course he can come back to life.
There is no mistake. LOTR is a masterpiece. Despite being different from the usual novel structure and defying the norms of commercially successful novel writing , his books/book are extremely engaging , intriguing , aspiring and evergreen.
The more time passes, the more I think George RR Martin was more obsessed with the element of surprise even at the risk of character development.
how? just explain it please. cause i don't know if we are talking about the same story
If he was only interested in surprising people he wouldnt bother with foreshadowing.
EXACTLY!!!!!!
@@kianghorbanpor9988 There is an interview where literally brags about killing characters because people expect something else to happen.
"I killed ned because everybody thinks he’s the hero ... sure, he’s going to get into trouble, but then he’ll somehow get out of it. The next predictable thing [someone] is going to rise up and avenge his [death] ... So immediately Robb became the next thing I had to do.
He's not talking about the characters' motivations, or the ideas they represent, or their role in the story--he isn't laying out a well-structured plot, he's just killing them off for pure shock value.
@@Wintermute-- Sounds Like George RR Martin is a Call of duty writer.
I just LOVE listening to this man talking. I hope he lives forever ♾
SPOILER ALERT!
He won't.
I bet he has a deal with God that he lives as long as his books aren't finished. That is why he lives so long and books aren't finished yet.
I wish it so
....but karma will not allow it.
Why would you wish that on someone?
And Catelyn Stark as Lady Stoneheart
“You have no power here”
Almost literally the apprentice calling out the genius professor..
By this point in his career, I would consider them colleagues rather than teacher and student now.
He spent more time rereading the entire LOTR series than writing his next book 🤣
at first i was like "how dare he besmirch the name of Tolkien!?" then I watched the rest of the interview. lol he poses a pretty big question that I wish Tolkien could have answered him in his own write. Theres definitely a reason he brought Gandalf back. My guess is that Gandalf could be brought back just as well as Sauron was. They were both the same of kin. To Tolkiens credit, he was one of the first fantasy writers with very little to look to for inspiration. Whereas GRRM grew up with a wellspring of various series. Tolkein created multiple languages, taught at a university, had a family, fought in WW1, and still managed to finish his series. I love the world GRRM built but it has gone out of control, not to mention he became complacent once HBO began its rendition of GOT. They literally finished the series before he could. Tolkien never had the luxury of franchising before he finished his stories.
It is not just that. Tolkien belived that all myths and subsequently fantasy reflect the Truth. That supernatural things in fantasy point to supernatural things in our world. He belived that at the end Good will triumph over Evil in an eucatastrophe. As Tolkien was a devout Catholic Gandalf's story is also a reflection on Christ's death (catastrophe) and resurrection (eucatastrophe). If one's cries and is shocked when Gandalf dies one should also be shocked and weep for joy when he comes back. This is the essence of fairy-stories for Tolkien. Frodo, Aragorn and Gandalf reflect Christ in certain, non-allegorical ways. It all makes sense within lore but also outside it.
On the other hand Martin does not belive in the myths/fairy-stories. For him fantasy is just world virtually empty of gods and Providence with just some magic and dragons thrown in to make it more interesting. It's all random, that is why he is know for just killing of characters. He is lapsed Catholic and an agnostic/atheist. So he does not belive Good will Triumph over Evil, or that those things can be even said to be real, same with cosmogony and God. His works are steeped in postmodernism.
Beacuse of thet his works are considered nowadays to be more "realistic". Personally I disagree since I share large part of Tolkien's worldview. I think Eucatastrophe is more realistic than no happy ending. And Middle Earth with Eru Illuvatar is more realistic than Westeros when we don't even know if there are any gods.
@@TheGeneralGrievous19Westeros does actually have god's in the form of the old gods and the lord of light, although they don't tend to be as humanised as the gods in lotr, who are known to clearly have thoughts, motivations and take actions. The gods of westeros are more like forces of nature, completely unpredictable and out of human reach. Well written comment though
@eralGrievous19 I am not sure Gandalf was supposed to be a Jesus allegory given Tolkien's criticism of C.S. Lewis. Also, spirituality is kept intentionally vague in Martin's story. There are hints of spirituality being a real thing in ASOIAF.
GRRM should finish his books instead of wasting time on these shows.
Martin is a blip in pop culture, Tolkien will be remembered as long as western society survives
Exactly. Some people just don't get it.
Deep comments. Maybe I should give Tolkien a read.
@@lukeappleberry827 I'd highly recommend you do!
'a blip in pop culture' like the man isn't one of the best selling and most influential fantasy authors of all time. Martin is here to stay just as Tolkien is, as Sanderson is, and as Jordan is. Stop being defensive that jirt is finally getting some criticism
@@greg_mca If something sells well, it does not neccesarily make it of lasting literary significance.
Which has greater cultural value: Handel's "Messiah", or Beiber's "Baby"? Just because something sells greater than something else at the time, does not make it better or greater.
Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White aren’t the same character. They’re quite different, though they have the same memories. They’re both derived from Olorin.
They are the same person or being, but manifested in different ways. The White is closer to what Olorin must have been before becoming Gandalf the Grey.
@@mfcabrini No, Gandalf the White is Gandalf the Grey being upraded to Saruman's level since Saruman failed in his mission.
"I don't really like the cliched ending where everything is resolved, the good guy wins and bad guy loses"
Guess he really hated the TV ending then.
John is 'banished' to the only place he truly felt himself, with people that respected him for who he was not what he was; Tyrion finally had the respective he deserves; Westeros was once again ruled by a Stark, who's first act was to grant the north got their independence; all the baddies are defeated; the Dothraki and Unsullied conveniently piss off back home...
No he didn’t like the TV ending
You do know that season 8 was written by D&D right?
@@ravendeafening192 Yes, of course.
Which changes nothing with my assertion that GRRM probably hated their hack job.
@@CynicalOldDwarf it was still written by D&D so you’re comment makes no sense, also stop liking ya own comment
@@ravendeafening192
1. I didn't like my own comment, I'll like it now to prove that.
2. You were an idiot two months ago and you are an idiot today.
It doesn't matter who wrote the TV ending, GRRM can still hate it for the same reasons he hated LotR's ending. which is what my original comment was about you pillock.
Tolkein was a philosophical (and philological) genius who wove a genius modern mythology (that critiqued modernism). Martin not so much.
I wouldn't go that far. He wrote some good fantasy books. Not sure where you get "philosophical genius" from.
Typical fanboy comeback.
Idk I really really like the world building in ASOIAF a lot more than LOTR
They both are.
Gandalf came back because the story needed him to come back, and because Gandalf needed to play an important role in the war. The role of guide, beacon of hope and courage. It's really not that hard to figure out, you don't even need to read the books. A better question is to your showrunners why they killed off Littlefinger and many others for no reason.
Characters should be killed off because the story demands it, not because he/she is not important anymore or because you want to make the readers feel uneasy or shocked.
I agree with your statement for the most part. Obviously it would change from genre to genre.
Personally, I like stories with small and detailed casts. So when someone gets killed off it has maximum impact.
It's just that Martin does not like hope.
This dude better not be bringing Jon Snow back next book
He should and he will, through Ghost probably. If Jon stays dead then there will be no point in him being a Targaryen and the whole story after the rebellion
@@datguygiannis6587 Jon isn't a Targaryen in the books
@@jacobseed2123 brah...
@@jacobseed2123 Yes, he is. Possibly 50% of the hints in the books involve Jon's lineage and him being Rhaegar's son.
1. *Ned Stark* : It doesnt fit Ned's character to just father a bastard being the honourable man that he is, plus he never calls Jon his son when talking about him, only when talking to him(hint).
2. *Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar Targaryen* : After everything people say about Rhaegar and the way they talk about him its also out of character for him to one day go down the street and sing a pretty song, give money to peasants and then the next abduct Lyanna and rape her to DEATH. The vision Ned has about her in the book being in a bed of blood is because
she just gave birth.
3. *The Kingsguard* : After Rhaegar dies his Kingsguard stays at the tower of joy. It would be weird for them to just sit with Lyanna they are the KINGSguard after all, so there is a hint. We see Ser Arthur Dayne and the rest say that the White Knights serve for life, when they are about to fight Ned and his party. Why would they say that and be there? To me, it seems like there are two options for them: A) either leave and go search for and protect little prince Viserys or B) stay where your previous prince set you and guard his son, your future king
@@datguygiannis6587 It certainly is possible, but it isn't official. Jon might be a Targaryen, but he's still dead, and bringing him back goes directly against what Martin is saying here.
A commercial medieval soap opera writer criticises the greatest fantasy writer of all time. Gandalf returning reflects a standard pattern seen in many legends/myths where a hero must prove themselves truly worthy of their status or of divine intervention by traversing death itself, sometimes represented as a journey underground or through the underworld, which is actually sort of what Gandalf did. The Greeks called it "katabasis", and we see it in Odysseus' journey, in Odin hanging himself, even in Christianity where the idea of self sacrifice as a means of betterment and proof of worth is evident. It even happens in Harry Potter, and Tolkien's inclusion of this just further strengthens the telling of his own mythology in reflecting and paying homage to the mythologies and sagas of the real world.
George seems to forget that he brings important characters back from the dead too.