Jump to content

does ASOIAF really belong in the fantasy genre?


taem

Recommended Posts

wow. some of you people are aaaaaangry.

i think it's a valid question in some ways. i'd be even up for a discussion as to why we feel a need to label shit in general. or why we use really broad labels to categorize complex fiction.

Well, there's talking about genre labels, and then there's the ASoIaF can't be fantasy because its good argument, which is really just a not so subtle way for people to shit on SFF fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there's talking about genre labels, and then there's the ASoIaF can't be fantasy because its good argument, which is really just a not so subtle way for people to shit on SFF fans.

i dont feel anyone is shitting on anyone. and ive been a d&d playing sci fi reading fantasy nerd since i was 10. but thats just me. however i do feel we can not be so negative towards one another and actually discuss instead of slur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantasy is a window into a different world. But ASOIAF is more like a mirror being held up to our own.

ASOIAF may comment on our own society, in some way, but it really is a windows into a different world all the same. Considering one of the intended objectives of ASOIAF (according to Daniel Abraham) is to subvert usual Fantasy elements, it has to stay in the same genre anyway.

Anyway, if each story that supposedly "holds a mirror to our own world" while recounting a fantastical story in a fantasy world, with magic, dragons and stuff, was not Fantasy, what would be Fantasy? LOTR? Nope. Abercrombie? Nope. Malazan? Nope. Goodkind? Nope. Murakami? Nope. Wolfe? Nope. Okorafor? Nope. Bakker? Nope. And so on.

Essentially, your argument is that if something is more than just mindless, dumb, entertainment then it's not to be classified in genre fiction. Yeah, no, fuck that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny you should mention Donaldson, I was just contemplating grabbing the first Covenant trilogy on kindle earlier. Haven't read those in forever. I would characterize this series as pure fantasy. Despite the fact that main character is from our own present day world, and whatever could be said about Covenant's spiritual journey, that series is driven by a fantasy world and fantasy themes.

1. Setting =/= story. Politics and intrigue and warfare and human interactions are story elements. Put them on a spaceship and you've got a sci-fi. Put them in the Old West and you've got a western. Put them in a town overrun with vampires and werewolves, you've got an urban fantasy.

2. Not being well-read in the fantasy literature. Political intrigue and war are extremely prevalent across the genre of high fantasy, especially in recent years. These factors certainly don't make ASOIAF unique.

I think you're assigning too high a value to how a setting determines genre. But let me put it this way, using Gormenghast's excellent assignment of "mundane" to what I'm talking about. Take the fantastic out of Wheel of Time and leave the mundane. You no longer have the Wheel of Time. Take the fantastic out of ASOIAF and leave the mundane. You still have the heart of the series, what people love about it.

So uh, fantasy can't have stories? That's what I'm getting out of this.

You're not getting that from me. I think you're totally misreading what I said about porn, my point there was asking out loud if the mere presence of fantastical elements makes a book a fantasy. What I said in no way suggested that fantasies can't have stories.

Here let me be more in character.

Fuck you, lit snob.

Seriously?

SURPRISE! Fantasy can actually be pretty damn deep when the writer is good at what he does. Let me guess, A Song of Ice and Fire is the first fantasy you've read?

Well, there's talking about genre labels, and then there's the ASoIaF can't be fantasy because its good argument, which is really just a not so subtle way for people to shit on SFF fans.

It's odd that my line of thought here is being viewed as an attack on the fantasy genre or GRRM. But in answer to your question, no, this is not in fact the first fantasy I've read. And depth has nothing to do with the discussion, there is no way you can view anything I've written here as suggesting that the fantasy genre cannot be deep.

And who on earth said a book can't be fantasy if it's good? No one in this thread, certainly not me, ever said that. You know what's an awesome series, one I prefer to ASOIAF (at least until the author died and left the completion to a lesser writer)? Wheel of Time. That's pure fantasy. ASOIAF is third on fantasy series reads for me. My second, after WoT, is Tad Williams' Memory Sorrow and Thorn. Again, pure fantasy. Jiriki and the elves of that series, to me, is more evocative of something unearthly than anything else I've seen in the genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're assigning too high a value to how a setting determines genre. But let me put it this way, using Gormenghast's excellent assignment of "mundane" to what I'm talking about. Take the fantastic out of Wheel of Time and leave the mundane. You no longer have the Wheel of Time. Take the fantastic out of ASOIAF and leave the mundane. You still have the heart of the series, what people love about it.

How would you classify fantasy, in that case? Outside of the setting, what, in your opinion, makes fantasy what it is? Because personally, I'm drawing a blank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're assigning too high a value to how a setting determines genre. But let me put it this way, using Gormenghast's excellent assignment of "mundane" to what I'm talking about. Take the fantastic out of Wheel of Time and leave the mundane. You no longer have the Wheel of Time. Take the fantastic out of ASOIAF and leave the mundane. You still have the heart of the series, what people love about it.

No you don't. Stripping the story of its fantastic elements means making it historical fiction, since a secondary world set in alternate middle ages is a fantastic element in itself, so you lose the characters, the setting, and the story.

So anyway, I gather that you would not qualify what KJ Parker writes as Fantasy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on. There's no way you can argue ASoIaF doesn't depend on the fantastic for it to be what it is. What of Daenerys' "new" found power? The story's big showdown will be fought in two fronts: who'll take the Iron Throne and how the threat that pose the Others will be dealt with. Are the Others not fantasy?



Also, you can't take elements away from a story and pretend it's the same story.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantasy has sub genres too, its not all one thing... aSoIaF fits several sub genres within fantasy, including, but not limited to, historical fantasy (or parallel history) and political intrigue fantasy.



Fantasy encompasses so many things, it just needs a fantastical, un-real element to the main storyline or main characters. You say you can take out the fantastical stuff from asoiaf and you still have the same story? but that is not true at all, don't go confusing Game of Thrones with A Song of Ice and Fire, one is named for the political intrigue the other is named for the battle between (we assume) dragons and the Others, both fantastical creatures. Take out the fantastical and you take away the entire Song, leaving only the Game. Not all of us love asoiaf for the Game, some of us love the Song, or love both equally. take either one way and you have only half a story.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're assigning too high a value to how a setting determines genre. But let me put it this way, using Gormenghast's excellent assignment of "mundane" to what I'm talking about. Take the fantastic out of Wheel of Time and leave the mundane. You no longer have the Wheel of Time. Take the fantastic out of ASOIAF and leave the mundane. You still have the heart of the series, what people love about it.

Uh, yeah.... show me where Westeros is on a map. And considering that Dany's dragons and the Others beyond the Wall are important pieces of the plot, what would you replace them with after the "fantasy elements" are removed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys woudln't agree that the fantasy quotient of ASOIAF is rather skimpy? We've had five books, of a planned seven. (Which almost certainly has to go to at least eight I'm guessing.) What has the series been about, to this point? I acknowledged earlier that my thinking on this might change as we venture deeper into the impending supernatural crisis. But let's take what we have thus far. Yes there are fantastical elements. But what is this story about, thus far, where does the appeal lie? I'm saying it's the mundane, it's Tyrion at court, its Robb at war, etc. I don't think that's a controversial stance. We haven't really gotten to the fantastic at all, we've had hints, little flourishes, but that's about all.

And we're pretty deep in, more than half way. And there is a lot of the mundane left to be resolved. When all is said and done, the lion's share of the word count in this series will be about political intrigue and war which has nothing to do with the fantastic. Thus far, virtually all of it is political intrigue and war. Can you name another fantasy series that's like this? In Wheel of Time you have Myrdraal and Trollocs and Aes Sedai flinging balls of fire, and Warders in the color shifting cloaks -- all in the first 100 pages.

And the series is hugely enjoyable, hugely popular. It is reaching audiences that are not ordinarily receptive to fantasy, to the point of being the second most successful show in HBO history, second only to the Sopranos. I know so many people who could not stand to read Tolkien or Jordan, but who are reading this series. So do you all.

How would you classify fantasy, in that case? Outside of the setting, what, in your opinion, makes fantasy what it is? Because personally, I'm drawing a blank.

I don't have an answer to that. That's what I'm asking, that's why my thread is posed as a question rather than a statement. This just does not feel like fantasy to me, as I experience that term from other fantasy books I've read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up on high fantasy - mysterious wizards in robes performing miracles, formidable monsters and the farm boys that fate chose to slay them. aSoIaF is a different beast. Writing trends evolve and grow. What we see more of now are the gritty fantasy and less of the high epic quests. The Audience's tastes change and the writers give us what we want (or sometimes change the playing field and create those wants). It's all fantasy, it's just changing with the times.



One of my favorite books is Lions of Al-Rassan by Kay - some don't even classify it as fantasy, but it does have some small elements of magic. Mostly though, it has the feel of a romantic and epic tale. I have no problem classifying it as fantasy despite the lack of dragons and overt magic. It's a wide field that can accommodate many forms and it overlaps here and there with other genres. Why can't a book be alternate history and fantasy (or why can't it just exist as a thing on it's own?)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm truly baffled by this question. It seems to me that either you've read very, very little of it so far (you've only mentioned Jordan and Tolkien) or that you're dismissive of the genre as a whole.



What other books that you classify as fantasy have you read? Would you say Joe Abercrombie's books are fantasy? Do you classify the dragons' birth as some particularly large and dangerous birds' birth? Do you think that the Wall storyline is a rather insignificant part of the series and that what people have experienced there so far are just glimpses of the supernatural?



This just does not feel like fantasy to me, as I experience that term from other fantasy books I've read.


:dunno:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys woudln't agree that the fantasy quotient of ASOIAF is rather skimpy? We've had five books, of a planned seven. (Which almost certainly has to go to at least eight I'm guessing.) What has the series been about, to this point? I acknowledged earlier that my thinking on this might change as we venture deeper into the impending supernatural crisis. But let's take what we have thus far. Yes there are fantastical elements. But what is this story about, thus far, where does the appeal lie? I'm saying it's the mundane, it's Tyrion at court, its Robb at war, etc. I don't think that's a controversial stance. We haven't really gotten to the fantastic at all, we've had hints, little flourishes, but that's about all.

Why does it matter? It's not quantity that matters, but that they exist at all. I don't think you can argue that aSoIaF is fantasy objectively. You can prefer other types of fantasy to this, but it is still fantasy. Give me grim-dark over happy high elves any day - that's my preference. Your statement that SoIaF doesn't 'feel' like fantasy is valid because it's your own perception based on your experience and preferences. I have no problem with that, but I would take issue with trying to squeeze Martin out of the fantasy category because of those preferences.

eta: and I wouldn't say the fantasy/magic quota is skimpy. I would say it's more subtle and not in your face, but not skimpy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys woudln't agree that the fantasy quotient of ASOIAF is rather skimpy?

Indeed I wouldn't. The fantasy quontient is actually quite high, albeit subtle.

One) Westeros doesn't exist. That fact right there is enough to classify it as fantasy.

Two) The seasons are years long each and their entire economy is based on preparing for the long winters.

Three) Beric Dondarrion's Kenny-syndrome. In real, mundane quality life, dead is dead. So Beric's status as a major player wouldn't last for long.

Four) The entire freaking WALL storyline. That in itself is a sizeable chunk of the word count with magical horns and zombies and ice fairies and shit.

Five) Melisandre and her shadow baby assassins. Renly's death and the fall of Storm's End wouldn't have been possible without them. Instead we'd have King Renly undoubtedly sitting on the Iron Throne by now.

Six) Daenerys and her dragons. Another big part of the story. Everyone's talking about them, everyone wants to see them. Many travel miles and miles and grant gifts just because of them. The dragons are also significant to how Westeros and its Iron Throne will be retaken.

Seven) Psychic dreams connecting into the minds of dire wolves. Loads of pages are dedicated to that as well, so it seems to be rather significant too. There's even a term for it too, "wargs."

Honestly, I wonder at this point if you have even actually read the books or are simply watching the show on HBO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could also argue that Daenerys, one of the main characters, would've been killed or would've died of starvation after Drogo's death if her dragons hadn't been born. Farewell, Essos storyline and Targaryen's claim to the throne. Talking about Targs, they would never have gotten the Iron Throne, and Westeros would never have existed as a realm if it wasn't for their dragons.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I'm implicitly arguing that fantasy is high fantasy and we might invent another term for what falls outside of the conventions of high fantasy. I did consider mentioning the likes of Glen Cook and Steven Erikson as other fantasy writers that are somewhat in the same category as GRRM in terms of what I'm talking about here. Because yeah, the genre does seem to be moving away from the 80s 90s heyday of high fantasy toward a more gritty, street level feel. But where is the fantasy? If you write about a mercenary company making its way in the world, and it's largely based on how mercenary companies made their way in the world historically, only, instead of historic Venice you created an imaginary city-state that never actually existed but it's based on historic Venice and -- what exactly is the fantasy element here? What distinguishes fantasy from other works of literature where imagination is employed, but does not feature swords? Are swords even necessary in fantasy? If so why? If we can lose the magic, why can't we lose the swords? If someone created an imaginary medieval setting that's purely about political intrigue and romance, is that fantasy?

One) Westeros doesn't exist. That fact right there is enough to classify it as fantasy.

Take a look at a map of the British Isles. Take a look at where the Starks are, and what purpose they serve, and read about the Percy earls of Northumberland.

With your other examples, one, given the 4000 pages or so we've had thus far, I still think the supernatural appearances are few and far between, and rarely serve an instrumental purpose. You could just as well sub in more prosaic alternatives and advance the plot along the same path. Renly need not be killed by a shadow, he could simply be assassinated, for example. And you would still largely retain what makes the series what it is, which to me remains the things like Tyrion at Court, the Red Wedding, etc. Consider the dragons. What have they done so far? They're spoken of largely in terms of the military-technological advantage they confer. And the wall... this is just GRRM's version of the Scottish border. What's happened there so far, in 4000 pages? We had one attack by two zombies, a conventional military attack that was defeated by conventional military means, and the rest has been life in a garrison. In 4000 pages that's what we've gotten about the Wall so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wall itself is literally magic. 700 feet tall and repels magical boogy-men, check. Built by a mythic hero and no one alive today can match it. check. Secret tunnel guarded by a sentient door that only opens for a select brotherhood, check. The 'conventional' military attack was comprised of giants and mammoths - I don't think you can call that conventional. There is even a Giant living among them post-attack.



Would it be better if it were a shimmering forcefield rather than ice that men have to do real work to maintain? Just because the fantasy elements are dressed down doesn't mean the characters aren't living with magic everyday and having it impact their lives in a very real way. I get what you are saying - if the wall was not magic it wouldn't effect the story much, I just disagree.



You used WoT as an example. If we stripped the magic from that, there is still a story to be told. The rise of a young man with noble blood who was raised in obscurity rises to the challenge to save the world. Sure, a lot of stuff would have to be changed, but that is true of SoIaF as well. You still have the political intrigue of the Aes Sedai (who are powerful for another reason now, not magic). A dramatic kidnapping and the rescue attempt, A villain and his lieutenants plot to foil the good guys, The Hero invents/finds a new weapon to use in their fight. I don't disagree that WoT would have to have a lot more revisions, but there is a mundane story beneath all those trappings as well. Some people might say that magical trappings can be used as a crutch and if the story falls apart without them, then it wasn't a very good story to begin with. Don't get me wrong, I love the trappings of fantasy, it's what makes it fun - but the bottom line is I want a good story, period.



There is no need to create a new term for this type of fantasy, it's just fantasy.We already do talk about them in sub-classes, high fantasy being just one of them. I get the feeling that you're trying to get us to agree that high fantasy is the only true fantasy and everything else is inferior (not that the stories are inferior, just that the 'fantasticalness; of them is inferior) That's gonna be a hard sell, my friend.




eta:



If someone created an imaginary medieval setting that's purely about political intrigue and romance, is that fantasy?





It would depend, I guess. My earlier example of the Lions of Al-Rassan is a good example. I absolutely consider it fantasy despite only having a bit of magic by way of visions. The time period helps, but mostly it's about the feel of it - to me it feels like an epic poem or saga because of the language and the conflicts. I can understand why others wouldn't consider it fantasy, but that's how it's categorized by booksellers and libraries. Part of it is probably because other works by that author are more fantastical, and probably partly from the author himself and what he intended it to be.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I'm implicitly arguing that fantasy is high fantasy and we might invent another term for what falls outside of the conventions of high fantasy. I did consider mentioning the likes of Glen Cook and Steven Erikson as other fantasy writers that are somewhat in the same category as GRRM in terms of what I'm talking about here.

:lol:

Now you're just trolling. Or you're talking about another author you haven't read if you think Erikson is anything but "high fantasy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastical doesn't necessarily equate to magical. ASOIAF is secondary world fantasy. Is it modelled off stuff in the real world? Of course. ASOIAF is arguably what you get if you cross The War of the Roses with I, Claudius. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Westeros is not our world, and makes no pretence that it is our world (the seasons being a case in point). In other words, it's fantasy.



(Similarly, Peake's Gormenghast is fantasy without any supernatural elements whatsoever. It's still fantasy).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...