[OscarCunningham]

I agree.

I think that the main difference between LotR and GoT is that LotR is told in a style similar to the actual legendary epics and epic sagas that we have from history. These stories (and in particular the written versions that survive for us) were about the nobility and for the nobility. Because of this many everyday details are assumed and skipped over, and unpleasant or ignoble facts are ignored or glossed over.

So for example LotR features half-orcs as creatures, and the text describes their creation as Saruman's most evil act. But it doesn't explicitly spell out that this likely involved rape of human women by male orcs. Whereas GoT directly describes Daenerys being raped from her own point of view.

This doesn't mean that LotR is less realistic. It describes a similar set of events as GoT, but they are presented in a different way.

I think this is what people are sensing when they say LotR is 'less realistic', even though GoT is actually the worse match to historical reality.

[optimalsolver]

Also, what happened to Elrond's wife is hinted at, but never directly spelled out, because Tolkien rightly assumes we don't need the explicit details to be horrified by it.

In GoT, it would be several pages/several minutes of screen time.

It's why I could never get into the latter. Just goes for the absolute, lowest common denominator every time, but apparently that's what makes "grown up, serious" fantasy.

[aldarion]

Tolkien was actually the master of fridge logic... and fridge horror. Martin describes everything in detail... with Tolkien, he only hints at things, but when you understand things he is hinting at... let's just say that Middle Earth has a lot in common with Cthulhu Mythos.

[PNewling]

Huh, I had never heard the term 'fridge logic'.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic

[BerislavLopac]

Trebali bismo na kavu iduci put kad sam u HR. ;)

[OscarCunningham]

There's one of Tolkien's notes that implies that elves could and would die in preference to being raped:

> But among all these evils there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force; for this was wholly against their nature, and one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos.

So I think this raises some doubts about whether Tolkien intended to imply rape in Celebrian's case rather than some other evil.

[optimalsolver]

Torment in the dungeons of the orcs, what else could that be? The fact she had to leave Middle-earth forever after the ordeal, strongly suggests what actually happened, as does the fact it so galvanized her sons.

[solardev]

After reading all the comments in this thread, I still have no idea what happened to his wife. Maybe Tolkien should just have spelled it out...

[cratermoon]

While crossing the Misty Mountains via Redhorn Pass, Celebrían was captured by orcs. She was held for some time, tortured and poisoned. Elrond and company eventually rescued her, but she was so traumatized that after a year she left Middle Earth. Elrond would not see her again for some 500 years.

[solardev]

Thanks!

That doesn't sound so dramatic, IMO. I wonder if there's a generational component there too...? Maybe in Tolkien's time, explicit gore and violence were less common. Then since modern video games and TV shows upped the ante, maybe RR Martin had to be more explicit to create the same emotional effect that Tolkien's subtle hinting used to have on his audience? I dunno.

[cratermoon]

Certainly Martin was writing for a different audience. I don't know that Tolkien's descriptions would have been read as 'subtle' by his audience at the time he wrote it. Generational implications come and go. What might sound horrific or lascivious in one era or culture would be tame to another.

[renewiltord]

I suppose it also has the benefit that the works are child-readable. Little me thought she was tortured by beating and such.

[dragonwriter]

> I think that the main difference between LotR and GoT is that LotR is told in a style similar to the actual legendary epics and epic sagas that we have from history.

Yeah, ASOIAF is very much a deliberate reaction against both the tropes (pure good vs. pure evil, characters whose morality or immorality is etched in stone disconnected from events and circumstances, etc.) and the romanticization in what is told and what is elided in the style that LotR deliberately leans into.

> This doesn't mean that LotR is less realistic

The tell vs. imply distinction isn’t a matter of realism, true, though other aspects of the difference, particularly around characterization, very much are, and those are deliberate stylistic choices on both sides.

[the_af]

I think ACOUP's point is that the grimmer tone of ASOIAF is not more realistic than LotR's romanticized tone, and that in many instances it's actually less so. And that while both are valid style choices, GRRM's insinuation that his choice leans towards realism is mistaken.

Examples being: kings believed in their own religion, they didn't randomly mistreat peasants, nobles and lowborn alike followed tradition, people weren't cynical about religion in private, and kings depended on their vassals to enforce their will, so mistreating vassals (at least, as the norm) was a no-go and everyone understood this. Other examples are about military logistics, the system of bannermen and what duties and obligations it entailed in both king and vassals, which are more realistic in LotR and less in ASOIAF (or so the blog claims).

I think ACOUP's main point is that GRRM is projecting modern sensibilities into his characters, which is valid but doesn't result in a less fairytale, more realistic depiction of medieval society, like GRRM claims was his intention!

[aldarion]

ASOIAF is a postmodernist cynical take on fantasy. But that does not mean it is realistic. In fact, it is less so than Lord of the Rings.