5 ms·

The supposed reality of the series is with regards to the personality of the characters. It's not about the setting.

Lazare 6y ago
That would be a strong defence, but I believe GRRM disagrees with you. :) > The Dothraki were actually fashioned as an amalgam of a number of steppe and plains cultures… Mongols and Huns, certainly, but also Alans, Sioux, Cheyenne, and various other Amerindian tribes… seasoned with a dash of pure fantasy That's a direct quote from Martin. It seems quite clear to me he's not talking about their personality. He has also, more generally, made many claims about historical accuracy particularly when it comes to patterns of violence, economics, and more. Somewhat famously, he criticised Tolkien with a dig about Aragorn's tax policy. I don't believe tax policy, in this context, is an element of Aragorn's personality.
- xwdv 6y ago
  Did you miss the dash of pure and utter fantasy?
  - Lazare 6y ago
    In my view, the linked article, and the series it is a part of, utterly demolishes the argument that the Dothraki are based on real cultures with a dash of fantasy. If it doesn't convince you, I suspect nothing will.
    - Angostura 6y ago
      I look forward to your critique of dragon biology. It never even occurred to me reading the books that they were anything other than fantasy.
      - Mauricebranagh 6y ago
        That was my though and when I read the original books, I thought ok these are inside baseball books for trufans and not for civilians. By that I mean some one widely read in the relevant cannon ie not just read the hobbit LOTR, HP etc, You had read Dunsany, Mort De Authur, Homer
      - Lazare 6y ago
        I don't know anyone who has a problem with books that contain a dash of fantasy, or indeed, nothing but fantasy. A fantasy book with dragons is enjoyable. A book that claimed that dragons really existed historically and were instrumental in William the Conqueror's victory at the Battle of Hastings is not enjoyable, it's just weird. ASoIaF (and Martin) is quite clear that his dragons are fantasy, so they're unobjectionable. The problem is that Martin has been equally clear that he intends some other elements of the world to have been historically accurate.
- orange_tee 6y ago
  This is funny. Because I am positive if you poll the fans they would not say that GMMR's worldbuilding (and historicity is part of that) is his strong point. Maybe he feels that way. But I got the general feeling that fans, me included, where more attracted by his very elaborate and seemingly realistic (though maybe it just appeals to cynics like me) character building.
  - watwut 6y ago
    I have seen multiple people argue repeatedly that GoT represents middle age as it really was. Including at hacker news. Sometimes as response to criticism of books or series, sometimes for no reason in particular. So clearly there are people who think GoT is "how it really was" + dragons and bit of magic.
inglor_cz 6y ago
Still ... the setting should not be absurd. Even before I discovered the acoup.blog which analyzes everything into historical details, the way of life of the Dothraki rubbed me the wrong way. Nomad cultures, eking out life on the steppe, cannot have the sheer numbers of population that a sedentary agricultural community has, and therefore cannot engage in the kind of reckless, life-has-no-value-here warfare that GRRM describes. Or at least not for a long time. They would just cease to exist. And, on the other hand, it is precisely the nomads who have enough time and energy for fancying up their clothes. No nomad culture ever wore drab, boring clothing, especially not their leaders. This felt off to me instantly.

That would be a strong defence, but I believe GRRM disagrees with you. :) > The Dothraki were actually fashioned as an amalgam of a number of steppe and plains cultures… Mongols and Huns, certainly, but also Alans, Sioux, Cheyenne, and various other Amerindian tribes… seasoned with a dash of pure fantasy That's a direct quote from Martin. It seems quite clear to me he's not talking about their personality. He has also, more generally, made many claims about historical accuracy particularly when it comes to patterns of violence, economics, and more. Somewhat famously, he criticised Tolkien with a dig about Aragorn's tax policy. I don't believe tax policy, in this context, is an element of Aragorn's personality.

xwdv 6y ago
Did you miss the dash of pure and utter fantasy?
- Lazare 6y ago
  In my view, the linked article, and the series it is a part of, utterly demolishes the argument that the Dothraki are based on real cultures with a dash of fantasy. If it doesn't convince you, I suspect nothing will.
  - Angostura 6y ago
    I look forward to your critique of dragon biology. It never even occurred to me reading the books that they were anything other than fantasy.
    - Mauricebranagh 6y ago
      That was my though and when I read the original books, I thought ok these are inside baseball books for trufans and not for civilians. By that I mean some one widely read in the relevant cannon ie not just read the hobbit LOTR, HP etc, You had read Dunsany, Mort De Authur, Homer
    - Lazare 6y ago
      I don't know anyone who has a problem with books that contain a dash of fantasy, or indeed, nothing but fantasy. A fantasy book with dragons is enjoyable. A book that claimed that dragons really existed historically and were instrumental in William the Conqueror's victory at the Battle of Hastings is not enjoyable, it's just weird. ASoIaF (and Martin) is quite clear that his dragons are fantasy, so they're unobjectionable. The problem is that Martin has been equally clear that he intends some other elements of the world to have been historically accurate.
orange_tee 6y ago
This is funny. Because I am positive if you poll the fans they would not say that GMMR's worldbuilding (and historicity is part of that) is his strong point. Maybe he feels that way. But I got the general feeling that fans, me included, where more attracted by his very elaborate and seemingly realistic (though maybe it just appeals to cynics like me) character building.
- watwut 6y ago
  I have seen multiple people argue repeatedly that GoT represents middle age as it really was. Including at hacker news. Sometimes as response to criticism of books or series, sometimes for no reason in particular. So clearly there are people who think GoT is "how it really was" + dragons and bit of magic.

inglor_cz 6y ago

Still ... the setting should not be absurd. Even before I discovered the acoup.blog which analyzes everything into historical details, the way of life of the Dothraki rubbed me the wrong way. Nomad cultures, eking out life on the steppe, cannot have the sheer numbers of population that a sedentary agricultural community has, and therefore cannot engage in the kind of reckless, life-has-no-value-here warfare that GRRM describes. Or at least not for a long time. They would just cease to exist. And, on the other hand, it is precisely the nomads who have enough time and energy for fancying up their clothes. No nomad culture ever wore drab, boring clothing, especially not their leaders. This felt off to me instantly.