Good vs Great Authors

Everybody has their favorite genres and will compare authors in different genres to determine which ones are the best. Well, there's two things to consider here - first, different genres require different styles of writing and second, social mores determine how freely authors could write.

It is best to compare authors within the same genre and, if possible, within the same time era. But a truly great author will bypass time and be applicable to any period simply because the story has great characters and a well developed plot.

But first we should look at what makes a writer great.

An average writer will have average characters, none will really stand out and few readers will feel strongly about any of the characters. The plot will be easily anticipated and the story can often be classified as typical. Average writers will sell some books and might have a following of casual readers. They write the books that are easy to put down at any time.

A good writer will have characters you like or love and characters you dislike or hate. There will be unexpected plot twists and you'll want to read on to see what is happening. It might be a bit harder to lay the book down but it can be done.

A great writer will have characters you love, characters you hate, characters you love to hate, and characters you hate to love. The plot will have so many twists and turns and often have a few subplots running along as well that you need something to help keep the story straight. These are the books that are almost impossible to set down.

Being an avid reader, I have a high standard for writers to reach. There are multitudes of average writers. There are a good group of good writers. But there are only a handful of great writers. Part of the problem is that I've read so much that I can figure out a plot line quickly. I can look at where I'd put in twists and see if the author is better than me. If I can picture in my head the characters, the locations, and the action than an author gets my seal of approval.

It's a balancing act that few people master. As an author, you need to have strong characters, an intriguing plot, and a rich, vibrant world as the backdrop. Too much description and the reader loses interest. Too little and the reader can't clearly see the location or people. Language is also important - too much common slang and people in other time periods won't understand. Words that are in common usage can change their meanings over time but authors have no control on that.

Let's look at two of today;s best known authors in the fantasy genre. J.R.R. Tolkien and George R.R. Martin. Both have written long epics with multiple main characters that the story flows between. There is the main plot and multiple subplots. Both have characters that people love and hate. Both have enough plot twists and turns to make a labyrinth appear to be a straight corridor.

The major difference between the two writers is that Tolkien wrote of an epic quest while Martin writes of a realm and the struggle for someone to rule it. But Tolkien wrote in a time period where sex scenes were taboo and cursing was considered uncouth and coarse. So he had to pick a subject where he could describe his world and play out his king-making story without going into all the politics that Martin writes about.

The other difference between the two authors is that Martin has characters that people hate to love. Tolkien's characters are all clear-cut. They are on the side of good or on the side of evil. Sometimes they might be doing bad things for good reasons or because they've been mislead by someone they trusted but you can pretty much say if they are on the side of light or darkness.

Martin's characters are generally clear cut as well. But he slips in a few that leave you wondering if they are good or bad. They do bad things but they also do good things. Just as you think "Aha, a villain" the character does something heroic in nature. Martin writes those rare characters, the ones you hate to love.

The other major difference between the two is the amount of description they write. Tolkien believed in describing details perhaps to a fault. While most of his descriptions were good, he would occasionally spend too much time describing a place and the people in it. Martin gives a basic description of a new location then uses the actions occurring in that area to bring out details.

Martin has the advantage over Tolkien in that he writes in a period where an author can write in sex scenes and coarse language and not have a fuss raised about it or his books banned. But Martin does not write gratuitous sex scenes. Sure, some really aren't necessary to the plot lines but they show the interactions between characters and relate to how the motives of certain characters are affected. Take out the scenes and it will have little effect on the story.

But that means that Martin was able to write about the power plays of people trying to claim the throne. Tolkien wasn't able to write that type of story, not if he wanted his book published. I would have liked to see what Tolkien could have done if he lived in today's society.

Taking all that into consideration though, my analysis of the two authors is that Martin is the better writer of the two. Not by much though. Mostly it's because his characters are more complex and not so clearly defined as being good or evil. They're more human.