Is GRRM interested in geographical, economic or demographic accuracy?

[The Don Dadda]

So is there a general consensus then that when talking about, for example, the debt that Littlefinger has landed the realm in, the debate shouldn't really be conducted in terms of technical economic mechanisms? Or that trying to sketch out a working model of the way credit works in Westeros and Essos is a waste of time? Because that is mostly what those threads consist of I think.

[Light a wight tonight]

Martin's not a numbers guy, apparently. I think it would have required a pack train to haul Sandor's winnings from the Hand's Tourney away when he deserts KL during or after the battle. Does it matter to the plot? Not at all.

[Tommens Cat]

I think if he were writing historical fiction, the inaccuracies would be glaring. However it's fantasy set in a world that doesn't exist. I think, for the most part, he remains consistent with how things work in that world and because it's consistent in that world, it's more or less accurate.

I agree. The system, the universe, the whole scope of things is relative to Planetos, not Earth.

I was watching a Top Gear, and the guys were in India. Traffic in the bigger cities in India is not structured like, say the U.S. or U.K. or other places. Well the boys were driving through this 'chaos' and James May, bring the intellectual that he is, remarked that driving wasn't real bad there because everyone knew, and understood there was no strict structure. So the 'chaos' was actually quite orderly, only compared to U.K. traffic laws do things break down.

Economics and everything else in ASOIAF, are systems developed from an origin much unlike ours. So by comparing to our views on the matter, we create the inaccuracies. Not GRRM.

[Morienthar]

No.

[Mad Monkey]

When were we told this? Personally I quite like the idea of key events happening 8000 years ago.

Well, there was Samwell Tarly's research:

"The Others." Sam licked his lips. "They are mentioned in the annals, though not as often as I would have thought. The annals I've found and looked at, that is. There's more I haven't found, I know. Some of the older books are falling to pieces. The pages crumble when I try and turn them. And the really old books... either they have crumbled all away or they are buried somewhere that I haven't looked yet or . . . well, it could be that there are no such books, and never were. The oldest histories we have were written after the Andals came to Westeros. The First Men only left us runes on rocks, so everything we think we know about the Age of Heroes and the Dawn Age and the Long Night comes from accounts set down by septons thousands of years later. There are archmaesters at the Citadel who question all of it. Those old histories are full of kings who reigned for hundreds of years, and knights riding around a thousand years before there were knights. You know the tales, Brandon the Builder, Symeon Star-Eyes, Night's King... we say that you're the nine hundred and ninety-eighth Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, but the oldest list I've found shows six hundred seventy-four commanders, which suggests that it was written during--."

This suggests that much of Westeros's history is intentionally implausible, since they don't even know how many Lord Commanders the NW has had, and some of the kings lived for almost an entire millennium (compare that to Joffrey, who was what, fourteen?)

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Partially. GRRM doesn't write a thesis on Planetos economy or warfare or whatever, but most of it fits with a bit of wedging. He uses no endless spawnpoints or soldiers that march without food or boots, like far to many fantasy writers do.

Apparently he researched a couple rules of thumb and uses them to make the series feel realistic, but of course it won't hold up to a scientist's observation.

When were we told this? Personally I quite like the idea of key events happening 8000 years ago.

Often, by pretty much any scientifically interested guy and some not so interested. Samwell Tarly, Maester Aemon, Maester Luwin, Rodrik Harlaw the Reader, Leo Tyrell and even Godric Borell talk about it. Not a complete list.

Furthermore, the description of ships indicate technological progress, Jaime points out architectual development in Raventree Hall, Winterfell's structure features several phases of building with different technology and the Myrish lenses seem to be a rather modern invention.

Most people in the books just lack the big picture, especially time-wise. From a lack of archaelogical research, available museums and proper history books, I presume.

[Winter's Breath]

Well, I don't really care about the economy or history or the stagnant technology. I think the most glaring thing is percentage of the population that can fight. Like for example how Stannis rounded up three thousand men of the mountain tribes in the northern north. If there were that many men in the northern most north, than there would be tens of thousands in the rest of the north. After all, it is the same size as the rest of the continent. And that would mean that not only was the 20,000 men that marched with Rob Stark a very small number that actually could go, but that if they marched 50,000 men south (which they would have been able to based on the number of mountain men) than they probably would not have lost the war.

Another example is how the iron islands had enough men on the small rocky islands to man the oars of several thousand ships. They were not all massive battle ships, but I'm sure it still would have taken tens of thousands of men, which is not demographically possible on rocks that barley support grass. There society is based on the Vikings, and there were only several hundred Vikings.

Or what about how 30,000 men could live north of the wall where it was too cold for farming, and then could live all together for months as they gathered and marched. The forests would be hunted out.

Or what about the size of the Esterosi armies? The 500,000 that marched against Valaria or the 10,000 ships that sailed to Dorn are the kind of numbers you'd expect if a land mass that size assembled. Persia supposedly marshaled a quarter of a million men against ancient Greece. Dany's 8,000 unsuilied would be like the Spartans. They'd be great, except that they'd be utterly overwhelmed in a long war.

These numbers are the kind of things that do effect the plot. I mean, If Lannisport could pull together the thousands that met at Oxcross then KL would be able to also, or at least more than the 6000 strong city watch, (especially as a bigger city with a bigger population desperate and looking for work) and it would have stood a chance against Stannis with out Tywins aid. It would have taken away the build up, and the suspense of book two. So really, I think there is little regard to real demographics and just information for the better story.

[Brother Walfrid]

I've never been comfortable with the 500,000 population of Kings Landing. The city would have to be huge (cersei certainly wouldn't be able to walk naked from one side to the other in a couple of hours)

City I live in has a similar population, but we have high rises and multi storey flats

[Morienthar]

I've never been comfortable with the 500,000 population of Kings Landing. The city would have to be huge (cersei certainly wouldn't be able to walk naked from one side to the other in a couple of hours)

City I live in has a similar population, but we have high rises and multi storey flats

Rome at it's height had a Million odd people.

I live in a city with a 1.2 million people and we really don't have many high rises,I guess it just has to do with the size of the city.

[Eating My Wings]

It doesn't bug me much. Fortunately, he devotes most of his time to the plot and characters, instead of insanely detailed world building.

[TOCR815]

The geography of Westeros tends to irk me a little since I'm a cartographer. The green fork just cannot rise in a swamp like the neck and the mander stretches back almost to the opposite side of the continent, its headwaters near the mouth of the blackwater rush. I know it's fantasy but GRRM didn't give it too much thought imo.

[Jon of the Dead]

In my humble opinion, I like my fiction to be detailed and somewhat accurate, but not if it comes at the expense of the plot. I feel like aFfC and aDwD suffered a lot in terms of pacing because the details and world building overwhelmed the plot in several instances, and even GRRM himself has said that he deliberately left things like distances vague to avoid nitpicking by fans, and even went as far as saying that he got very stressed out trying to keep all this date straight in his head.

Personally, I think we fans shouldn't obssess over world-building details if we see that the author is somewhat struggling with it and if we see that the books are starting to feel overstuffed with details and meager of plot. That's why we have The LoIaF, to discuss this kind of things, but we should try to keep them a little bit separately to avoid hurting the books with too much information.

Just my 2 cents

[binga]

Well, there was Samwell Tarly's research:

This suggests that much of Westeros's history is intentionally implausible, since they don't even know how many Lord Commanders the NW has had, and some of the kings lived for almost an entire millennium (compare that to Joffrey, who was what, fourteen?)

That doesn't necessarily mean that the timescale is shorter. For all we know it could be longer than 8000 years. A certain character living for a thousand years, could just be an amalgamation of famous heroes over that time period. Brandon Stark could be a composite of his brothers and sons who may have all built the wall together. It was just easier to attribute everything to Brandon. At the very least it suggests the time scale was on thousands of years. I think George has even said as much correct? It may not end up being 8000, there you do have a point. It could be 4000 years or it could even be 12,000 years. Or I suppose we could just butcher math and logic and use Samwell's number of 647 vs. 998 lord commanders and say the Wall has only been up for about 5000-6000 years.

[Errant Bard]

GRRM tends to leaves things vague when he does not know, but it's true that his world orbits around nobles, and is rather bland outside the political and military. He is no KJ Parker, but then again in Fantasy few are, it's just not important to dwell on economy or things like it.

The geography of Westeros tends to irk me a little since I'm a cartographer. The green fork just cannot rise in a swamp like the neck and the mander stretches back almost to the opposite side of the continent, its headwaters near the mouth of the blackwater rush. I know it's fantasy but GRRM didn't give it too much thought imo.

I suppose he wanted to have some sort of scottish map feel there, only he forgot the highlands. Speaking of this, what are your thoughts on the Rhoyne? I feels weird looking at it, with all its tributaries taking their source like 50 kilometers from the north coast and then crossing the whole continent to the south, and it also felt weird to have Tyrion be able to reach it like it was a walk in the park from pentos, yet, maybe it can make sense, after all the Danube (for example) does cross a lot of land without going to the sea (mostly because of the huge ass alpine moutain range in the way, though, I suppose.)

[TalalOfDorne]

Its not that he doesnt put effort in it, its just that he doesnt spend time trying to perfect it because in the end its the plot and characters who move the story. Even then I think Martin is a decent world builder. He is somewhat consistent even if there are some small inaccuracies.

[Røyksopp]

Earth =/= Planetos

Besides, the technicalities are not important to Martin I am thinking, and anyway, if Earth is inequivalent to Planetos, then for all I know water can flow uphill without the presence of significant pressure. And like Errant Bard said, Martin is usually quiet about things he is unsure of, which is a decent course of action.

But to be sure, I love hearing about these technicalities all the same, and if a story was all wrong about these things and such things were actually important to the story - it really bothers me. See though, I love the subjective/limited third-person narration because if I am in a character's head, and the author fumbles and accidentally says X has blue eyes, when they are actually green - I just chalk it up to the character misremembering. If that was the intention, then cheers all around.

Though these kind of things bother me if the narration is written to be omniscient.