4 ms·
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 plain
by 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 agoDid you miss the dash of pure and utter fantasy?
- Lazare 6y agoIn 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 agoI 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 agoThat 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 agoI 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 agoThis 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 agoI 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.