5 ms·

What's pretty interesting about ACOUP is that when contrasting Tolkien's Middle Earth with George Martin's Game of Thrones, from a realism perspective... it's M

by the_af 3y ago

What's pretty interesting about ACOUP is that when contrasting Tolkien's Middle Earth with George Martin's Game of Thrones, from a realism perspective... it's Middle Earth that ends up winning. If you peruse the many articles of this blog on both works of fiction, you'll realize the author (a scholar on medieval history) thinks Lord of the Rings is more realistic (in scope, military logistics, scale of the armies and even tactics) than Game of Thrones. This was surprising to me, because GRRM "sells" Game of Thrones as a fantastic [1] but "more realistic" [2] take on the Middle Ages. ACOUP takes him to task, because almost every "realistic" detail in GoT is, according to him, wrong. This also includes the purported cruelty of nobles towards the populace, GRRM's take on religion, etc. Let me delve on that last point: ACOUP asserts that GoT's take on religion is wrong. In GoT -- especially in the TV show, but also in the books -- the take on religion of many major players is cynical. While some characters are fanatics or really believe, others are skeptical. Most of the Lannisters seem skeptical of any gods. Cersei goes so far as to blow out the Sept (cathedral), an act that in the real Middle Ages would see her hanged, burned or beheaded, and would lose her the support of her army. ACOUP makes the point that the nobility and kings of the Middle Ages really believed in their religion and gods! ---- [1] after all, it's a fantasy work with dragons and zombies. Then again, LotR has orcs, elves, ghosts and wizards and it manages to be more realistic! [2] George Martin: "I wanted my books to be strongly grounded in history and to show what medieval society was like, and I was also reacting to a lot of fantasy fiction. Most stories depict what I call the ‘Disneyland Middle Ages’—there are princes and princesses and knights in shining armor, but they didn’t want to show what those societies meant and how they functioned."

OscarCunningham 3y ago
I agree. I think that the main difference between LotR and GoT is that LotR is told in a style similar to the actual legendary epics and epic sagas that we have from history. These stories (and in particular the written versions that survive for us) were about the nobility and for the nobility. Because of this many everyday details are assumed and skipped over, and unpleasant or ignoble facts are ignored or glossed over. So for example LotR features half-orcs as creatures, and the text describes their creation as Saruman's most evil act. But it doesn't explicitly spell out that this likely involved rape of human women by male orcs. Whereas GoT directly describes Daenerys being raped from her own point of view. This doesn't mean that LotR is less realistic. It describes a similar set of events as GoT, but they are presented in a different way. I think this is what people are sensing when they say LotR is 'less realistic', even though GoT is actually the worse match to historical reality.
- optimalsolver 3y ago
  Also, what happened to Elrond's wife is hinted at, but never directly spelled out, because Tolkien rightly assumes we don't need the explicit details to be horrified by it. In GoT, it would be several pages/several minutes of screen time. It's why I could never get into the latter. Just goes for the absolute, lowest common denominator every time, but apparently that's what makes "grown up, serious" fantasy.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    I suppose it also has the benefit that the works are child-readable. Little me thought she was tortured by beating and such.
  - aldarion 3y ago
    Tolkien was actually the master of fridge logic... and fridge horror. Martin describes everything in detail... with Tolkien, he only hints at things, but when you understand things he is hinting at... let's just say that Middle Earth has a lot in common with Cthulhu Mythos.
    - PNewling 3y ago
      Huh, I had never heard the term 'fridge logic'. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic
    - BerislavLopac 3y ago
      Trebali bismo na kavu iduci put kad sam u HR. ;)
  - OscarCunningham 3y ago
    There's one of Tolkien's notes that implies that elves could and would die in preference to being raped: > But among all these evils there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force; for this was wholly against their nature, and one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos. So I think this raises some doubts about whether Tolkien intended to imply rape in Celebrian's case rather than some other evil.
bee_rider 3y ago
It is totally predictable that a professor of historical languages would have a more accurate perspective on history than someone like Martin, right? ACOUP points out that Martin’s worldbuilding is better grounded in historical stereotypes than actual history… Of course Lord of the Rings is fantasy, and sanitized (At least it doesn’t lie about it). If we’re starting at Lord of the Rings and adding elements to get more realism, I’ve always thought Monty Python’s Holy Grail would be a better pickup than GoT. Everything is covered in shit in both, which is something Lord of the Rings really lacks, but the people in Game of Thrones are too clever and able to keep together these grand schemes. Python adds the stupid that defines us.
msh 3y ago
I think your take on Cersai would only happen in a period of the Middle Ages, with week kings and a strong church. Right before the Middle Ages there are many examples like it, for example Charlemagne and his line. If they and the pope disagreed it was the pope that got the short end of the stick. There was also many example of viking kings and warlords converting to christianity and back again. Right after the Middle Ages Henry the eight is another example.
- the_af 3y ago
  A couple of points of clarification are needed: It's not "my take", it's ACOUP's (though, to be fair, I'm convinced by it): https://acoup.blog/2019/06/04/new-acquisitions-how-it-wasnt-game-of-thrones-and-the-middle-ages-part-ii/ https://acoup.blog/2019/06/04/new-acquisitions-how-it-wasnt-... Second, GoT seems to fit within the Late Middle Ages / Early Modern period. In fact, ACOUP points up that the armor worn on the TV show at times looks to be Early Modern / Renaissance! If this was Early Middle Ages, there would have to be a lot more chainmail and far less plate mail. The Early Modern period (not the Middle Ages) would make more sense for acts of sacrilege shown in GoT because it also saw the rise of professional armies who didn't act because of deference to neither church nor king, but because of pay. But besides Bronn and the mercenary companies outside Westeros, most of the armies within Westeros proper seem to be motivated by allegiances to noble houses, and so they must defer to tradition and religion. Third, ACOUP is talking of religion in general. There are some characters in GoT that believe in their religion (possibly some of the Starks and their "Old Gods", Melissandre and her Lord of Light) but most of the world of Westeros is skeptical of any religions at all, not just the mainstream one. But as ACOUP points out: > "This is the mistake my students make – they don’t believe medieval Catholicism or Roman paganism, and so they weakly assume that no one (or at least, none of the ‘really smart’ people) at the time really did either. Of course this is wrong: People in the past believed their own religion." The vikings before converting to Christianity had their own gods, and they truly believed in them. In contrast, most of the nobles of Westeros don't believe in any gods, pagan or otherwise. Which a serious historical mistake if one is trying to reflect -- albeit with fantasy divergences -- "real medieval society". I bet you Charlemagne truly believed there was a god judging him.
JackFr 3y ago
I don't know. I find both Tolkien and GRRM excellent, but very different. I think it's easy to sell hating on GRRM as a smart take because of the popularity and spectacle of the TV show, but the books were very popular before the show came out. GRRM cut his teeth as a TV writer and (because of that | despite that) he understands story very well. At least through the first four books his plotting was impeccable, his characters had meaningful arcs, he built excellent tension and resolution and his use of dramatic irony was perfect. His writing was never clumsy and lacked the purple quality that's prevalent in most fantasy. Is his world building perfect? No, but its top 1% compared to the other garbage fantasy being sold. Tolkien was after all an academic medievalist, and so it's unsurprising that he gets a lot of stuff right (but he also leaves a lot of bits off stage.) I'll say it's comparing apples and oranges and I like them both.
- civilitty 3y ago
  Brett is very clear that he’s evaluating Game of Thrones based on Martin’s explicit claims of historical accuracy, nothing more. He isn’t reviewing Game of Thrones for its artistic qualities and I don’t know why lots of people need to jump to GoT’s defense every time his blog posts come up. Everything you just mentioned is irrelevant to whether or not GoT is historically accurate like GRR claims.
- the_af 3y ago
  > I think it's easy to sell hating on GRRM I'm not selling that, and neither is ACOUP. He's merely evaluating historical realism according to the claims of the respective pieces of work. GRRM claims he set up to write a fictional version and a more "realistic" take on "medieval society"; and claims other depictions are like "Disneyland Middle Ages" -- his words! However, his take is actually less realistic than romantic epics like Lord of the Rings. Other than that, I really enjoy both. It's a critique, not hatred :)
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  > At least through the first four books his plotting was impeccable… I mean, it was supposed to be three books, so I think the pacing must have gone awry somewhere. Can he tell compelling stories? Yes, but he is like a developer who only wants to work on greenfield projects. As soon as the plot gets messy, introduce a completely new character +setting elsewhere.
hospitalJail 3y ago
When Stannis didn't maintain his supply lines, but he was the only experienced general, I was like: Wtf this is nonsense. I'm not even a general, and I know to maintain my supply lines. I lost a lot of interest after that happened. Seemed quite nonsensical.
cooperadymas 3y ago
That's fascinating and I'll have to read it. The thing that stood out to me in my most recent reread of LOTR is the complete and utter lack of farms. Outside of Farmer Maggot in the shire, the main characters almost never encounter random, normal people living outside of the main city centers. It feels like an empty world waiting to be explored, not one that has been heavily populated for thousands of years.
- Tyr42 3y ago
  So, interesting you would say that. Acoup does point out that the pelenore (sp? The ones outside Minis Tirith) fields in the book has farms and small towns, but the movies just make them flat nothings. Though true, the characters don't I retract with said farmers, who have mostly evacuated at this point.
- DoughnutHole 3y ago
  To be fair most of the books take place in either total wastelands or areas ravaged by war once you leave the Shire. - The civilisation of men east of Isengard apart from the Shire was more or less destroyed by the Witch King of Angmar before the books. - Frodo and Sam spend books 2 and 3 wandering swamps, desolate mountains, and eventually Mordor (specifically avoiding roads and civilisation to avoid being caught). - The rest of the fellowship spends book 2 in Rohan - most of their economy seems to be rearing horses on pasture rather than growing crops (not an uncommon situation in the pre-modern past) - They then spend book 3 in and around the front lines of the war between Gondor and Mordor. Gondor is also explicitly depopulated - it had been ravaged by plague in the years beforehand. That’s why Gondor is so weak. Tolkien’s world probably could have contained more of a realistic agricultural economy, but it does seem that the reason the world outside of the Shire feels so desolate is that Middle Earth is more or less in the process of total societal collapse. Also Elves are weird and it’s not entirely clear what they eat or how they maintain their civilisation in the forests…
  - OscarCunningham 3y ago
    The ones who's food source is a real mystery are the goblins in the Misty Mountains.
aldarion 3y ago
Tolkien was not a medieval historian himself, but he was the next best thing to it: he was a professional linguist. And lingistics require knowing and understanding historical context in which languages had developed. Add to this Tolkien's own experience in the First World War, and it is not very surprising that his world is very realistic and internally coherent. GRRM was... a script writer. He manages to get some of the details correct, but once you scratch below the surface, his worldbuilding largely falls apart.

by the_af 3y ago

OscarCunningham 3y ago

I agree. I think that the main difference between LotR and GoT is that LotR is told in a style similar to the actual legendary epics and epic sagas that we have from history. These stories (and in particular the written versions that survive for us) were about the nobility and for the nobility. Because of this many everyday details are assumed and skipped over, and unpleasant or ignoble facts are ignored or glossed over. So for example LotR features half-orcs as creatures, and the text describes their creation as Saruman's most evil act. But it doesn't explicitly spell out that this likely involved rape of human women by male orcs. Whereas GoT directly describes Daenerys being raped from her own point of view. This doesn't mean that LotR is less realistic. It describes a similar set of events as GoT, but they are presented in a different way. I think this is what people are sensing when they say LotR is 'less realistic', even though GoT is actually the worse match to historical reality.

optimalsolver 3y ago
Also, what happened to Elrond's wife is hinted at, but never directly spelled out, because Tolkien rightly assumes we don't need the explicit details to be horrified by it. In GoT, it would be several pages/several minutes of screen time. It's why I could never get into the latter. Just goes for the absolute, lowest common denominator every time, but apparently that's what makes "grown up, serious" fantasy.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  I suppose it also has the benefit that the works are child-readable. Little me thought she was tortured by beating and such.
- aldarion 3y ago
  Tolkien was actually the master of fridge logic... and fridge horror. Martin describes everything in detail... with Tolkien, he only hints at things, but when you understand things he is hinting at... let's just say that Middle Earth has a lot in common with Cthulhu Mythos.
  - PNewling 3y ago
    Huh, I had never heard the term 'fridge logic'. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic
  - BerislavLopac 3y ago
    Trebali bismo na kavu iduci put kad sam u HR. ;)
- OscarCunningham 3y ago
  There's one of Tolkien's notes that implies that elves could and would die in preference to being raped: > But among all these evils there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force; for this was wholly against their nature, and one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos. So I think this raises some doubts about whether Tolkien intended to imply rape in Celebrian's case rather than some other evil.

bee_rider 3y ago

It is totally predictable that a professor of historical languages would have a more accurate perspective on history than someone like Martin, right? ACOUP points out that Martin’s worldbuilding is better grounded in historical stereotypes than actual history… Of course Lord of the Rings is fantasy, and sanitized (At least it doesn’t lie about it). If we’re starting at Lord of the Rings and adding elements to get more realism, I’ve always thought Monty Python’s Holy Grail would be a better pickup than GoT. Everything is covered in shit in both, which is something Lord of the Rings really lacks, but the people in Game of Thrones are too clever and able to keep together these grand schemes. Python adds the stupid that defines us.

msh 3y ago

I think your take on Cersai would only happen in a period of the Middle Ages, with week kings and a strong church. Right before the Middle Ages there are many examples like it, for example Charlemagne and his line. If they and the pope disagreed it was the pope that got the short end of the stick. There was also many example of viking kings and warlords converting to christianity and back again. Right after the Middle Ages Henry the eight is another example.

the_af 3y ago
A couple of points of clarification are needed: It's not "my take", it's ACOUP's (though, to be fair, I'm convinced by it): https://acoup.blog/2019/06/04/new-acquisitions-how-it-wasnt-game-of-thrones-and-the-middle-ages-part-ii/ https://acoup.blog/2019/06/04/new-acquisitions-how-it-wasnt-... Second, GoT seems to fit within the Late Middle Ages / Early Modern period. In fact, ACOUP points up that the armor worn on the TV show at times looks to be Early Modern / Renaissance! If this was Early Middle Ages, there would have to be a lot more chainmail and far less plate mail. The Early Modern period (not the Middle Ages) would make more sense for acts of sacrilege shown in GoT because it also saw the rise of professional armies who didn't act because of deference to neither church nor king, but because of pay. But besides Bronn and the mercenary companies outside Westeros, most of the armies within Westeros proper seem to be motivated by allegiances to noble houses, and so they must defer to tradition and religion. Third, ACOUP is talking of religion in general. There are some characters in GoT that believe in their religion (possibly some of the Starks and their "Old Gods", Melissandre and her Lord of Light) but most of the world of Westeros is skeptical of any religions at all, not just the mainstream one. But as ACOUP points out: > "This is the mistake my students make – they don’t believe medieval Catholicism or Roman paganism, and so they weakly assume that no one (or at least, none of the ‘really smart’ people) at the time really did either. Of course this is wrong: People in the past believed their own religion." The vikings before converting to Christianity had their own gods, and they truly believed in them. In contrast, most of the nobles of Westeros don't believe in any gods, pagan or otherwise. Which a serious historical mistake if one is trying to reflect -- albeit with fantasy divergences -- "real medieval society". I bet you Charlemagne truly believed there was a god judging him.

JackFr 3y ago

I don't know. I find both Tolkien and GRRM excellent, but very different. I think it's easy to sell hating on GRRM as a smart take because of the popularity and spectacle of the TV show, but the books were very popular before the show came out. GRRM cut his teeth as a TV writer and (because of that | despite that) he understands story very well. At least through the first four books his plotting was impeccable, his characters had meaningful arcs, he built excellent tension and resolution and his use of dramatic irony was perfect. His writing was never clumsy and lacked the purple quality that's prevalent in most fantasy. Is his world building perfect? No, but its top 1% compared to the other garbage fantasy being sold. Tolkien was after all an academic medievalist, and so it's unsurprising that he gets a lot of stuff right (but he also leaves a lot of bits off stage.) I'll say it's comparing apples and oranges and I like them both.

civilitty 3y ago
Brett is very clear that he’s evaluating Game of Thrones based on Martin’s explicit claims of historical accuracy, nothing more. He isn’t reviewing Game of Thrones for its artistic qualities and I don’t know why lots of people need to jump to GoT’s defense every time his blog posts come up. Everything you just mentioned is irrelevant to whether or not GoT is historically accurate like GRR claims.
the_af 3y ago
> I think it's easy to sell hating on GRRM I'm not selling that, and neither is ACOUP. He's merely evaluating historical realism according to the claims of the respective pieces of work. GRRM claims he set up to write a fictional version and a more "realistic" take on "medieval society"; and claims other depictions are like "Disneyland Middle Ages" -- his words! However, his take is actually less realistic than romantic epics like Lord of the Rings. Other than that, I really enjoy both. It's a critique, not hatred :)
0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
> At least through the first four books his plotting was impeccable… I mean, it was supposed to be three books, so I think the pacing must have gone awry somewhere. Can he tell compelling stories? Yes, but he is like a developer who only wants to work on greenfield projects. As soon as the plot gets messy, introduce a completely new character +setting elsewhere.

hospitalJail 3y ago

When Stannis didn't maintain his supply lines, but he was the only experienced general, I was like: Wtf this is nonsense. I'm not even a general, and I know to maintain my supply lines. I lost a lot of interest after that happened. Seemed quite nonsensical.

cooperadymas 3y ago

That's fascinating and I'll have to read it. The thing that stood out to me in my most recent reread of LOTR is the complete and utter lack of farms. Outside of Farmer Maggot in the shire, the main characters almost never encounter random, normal people living outside of the main city centers. It feels like an empty world waiting to be explored, not one that has been heavily populated for thousands of years.

Tyr42 3y ago
So, interesting you would say that. Acoup does point out that the pelenore (sp? The ones outside Minis Tirith) fields in the book has farms and small towns, but the movies just make them flat nothings. Though true, the characters don't I retract with said farmers, who have mostly evacuated at this point.
DoughnutHole 3y ago
To be fair most of the books take place in either total wastelands or areas ravaged by war once you leave the Shire. - The civilisation of men east of Isengard apart from the Shire was more or less destroyed by the Witch King of Angmar before the books. - Frodo and Sam spend books 2 and 3 wandering swamps, desolate mountains, and eventually Mordor (specifically avoiding roads and civilisation to avoid being caught). - The rest of the fellowship spends book 2 in Rohan - most of their economy seems to be rearing horses on pasture rather than growing crops (not an uncommon situation in the pre-modern past) - They then spend book 3 in and around the front lines of the war between Gondor and Mordor. Gondor is also explicitly depopulated - it had been ravaged by plague in the years beforehand. That’s why Gondor is so weak. Tolkien’s world probably could have contained more of a realistic agricultural economy, but it does seem that the reason the world outside of the Shire feels so desolate is that Middle Earth is more or less in the process of total societal collapse. Also Elves are weird and it’s not entirely clear what they eat or how they maintain their civilisation in the forests…
- OscarCunningham 3y ago
  The ones who's food source is a real mystery are the goblins in the Misty Mountains.

aldarion 3y ago

Tolkien was not a medieval historian himself, but he was the next best thing to it: he was a professional linguist. And lingistics require knowing and understanding historical context in which languages had developed. Add to this Tolkien's own experience in the First World War, and it is not very surprising that his world is very realistic and internally coherent. GRRM was... a script writer. He manages to get some of the details correct, but once you scratch below the surface, his worldbuilding largely falls apart.