3 ms·

I disagree, because I think you can't have it both ways. I love Sci-Fi, but I generally don't like Fantasy as a genre. As soon as magic, wizards, dragons, orcs

I disagree, because I think you can't have it both ways. I love Sci-Fi, but I generally don't like Fantasy as a genre. As soon as magic, wizards, dragons, orcs or elves enter the picture, I check out. We can debate the logical consistency of my specific preferences (e.g. "Star Wars is more Fantasy than Sci Fi. The force is just magic!"), but I feel how I feel. Game of Thrones was the first fantasy book(s) and show that I enjoyed in spite of the fantastical elements, and I grew to embrace them nonetheless. I'm not the only one. The reason why the books and show became such a massive cultural phenomenon is BECAUSE it was loved by people who normally don't like fantasy because the "medieval politics" of it all were beloved regardless of any fantasy backdrop. I have to imagine this was by design. The tone was consistent, and George RR knew what he was doing. He created a world grounded in reality that forgot about magic, then brought it back in (remember, at the start of the series, all the characters except a few regard dragons and magic and zombies as myth and legend because they've been gone for so long) So I think it's entirely valid to criticize the internal consistency and realism of his works and hold them to a realism bar.

the_af 4y ago
I don't know why you disagree, because I think we're actually in agreement! It's perfectly fine to judge the internal consistency of a work of fictional world-building. I think AGoT is fairly consistent, give or take. It's not an accurate depiction of medieval warfare -- the blog's author argues it's actually a better match for the Thirty Years War, with its large professional armies and its loss of human life -- but then it doesn't claim to be. Judging the vassal system ("bannermen") and how it differs from medieval history is interesting, but it's unfair to consider the fictional world "shallow" or "ridiculous" simply because in real medieval history, vassal armies and levies were much smaller. All things considered, the Wars of the Roses inspired political infighting and feuds that resulted in shocking betrayals and murders are pretty "truthy". Way more than say, how Lord of the Rings depicts aristocracy and the behavior of "rightful" kings ;)

the_af 4y ago

I don't know why you disagree, because I think we're actually in agreement! It's perfectly fine to judge the internal consistency of a work of fictional world-building. I think AGoT is fairly consistent, give or take. It's not an accurate depiction of medieval warfare -- the blog's author argues it's actually a better match for the Thirty Years War, with its large professional armies and its loss of human life -- but then it doesn't claim to be. Judging the vassal system ("bannermen") and how it differs from medieval history is interesting, but it's unfair to consider the fictional world "shallow" or "ridiculous" simply because in real medieval history, vassal armies and levies were much smaller. All things considered, the Wars of the Roses inspired political infighting and feuds that resulted in shocking betrayals and murders are pretty "truthy". Way more than say, how Lord of the Rings depicts aristocracy and the behavior of "rightful" kings ;)