Tolkien: and then the Good King came and cast out the Evil Stewards who were corrupt because they ruled without the correct bloodline. Everything was peaceful after that and there was no more evil. There are two women in this story. Monarchy is good. The actual singular God who created everything wants you to be ruled by a 300 year old nobleman. The End.
GRRM: Feudalism is inherently destructive. Even the Noble Good Guys cause unimaginable suffering due to the structures of the system they operate within. Women are no more than brood mares under Feudalism. There is a Good King whose father was deposed. This Good King has spent his life living amongst the common people in order to become a good ruler. He is being manipulated by cynical actors and will bring devastation to the world when he begins his conquest. Thirty years ago the Hero of Prophecy acted to save the world from the Great Evil. He unleashed devastation on the land, died, and destroyed his own dynasty, possibly dooming the world. There are no gods, only powerful forces beyond our understanding that operate through the power of blood. Once upon a time there was a Good King who ruled justly. He brought peace to the land and improved the common folks' lot tremendously. Due the nature of Feudalism, the succession crisis that succeeded his reign led to the most bloodshed in 300 years. No one who wants war understands its cost.
People who dislike things because they're popular: Wow these are exactly the same!
A hill I will die on: the LotR books aren't reactionary (not revolutionary either). The movies aren't either but I'll admit that there are some reactionaries who pick up on some "defend the west" type shit that you could extrapolate from the movies but not the books.
Everyone wants to read allegory into LotR. Everyone wants to think Tolkien is trying to "say something" or that his sociopolitical views just bleed through the pages. Sure, there's some inherent bias in his work - he's a white dude who grew up in the first half of the 20th century, of course there's biases at play. But Tolkien tried (and succeeded, I think) to create a mythology free of allegory. The point is the story and the world he built, not "the ring of power is just an allegory for trying to do political things".
I don't think the LotR books ever intended to be politically charged or motivated (politics and political analysis of the author and the work are still inevitable, that said), but because shots were fired about how Tolkien's work was politically pro-feudalistic and supposedly GRRM's work is (in far more flattering portrayal) politically different and apparently superior for leftist consumption, the controversy in this thread began.
Ah, I see, yeah I have no familiarity at all with GRRM or his books at all so