does ASOIAF really belong in the fantasy genre?

[maarsen]

There are fantasy elements sure. But this series just doesn't feel like fantasy to me. Don't get me wrong, I love the series. I haven't really wrapped my head around why this series doesn't feel like fantasy to me, but let me put it this way. Fantasy is a window into a different world. But ASOIAF is more like a mirror being held up to our own. It's a dirty warped mirror, but a mirror nonetheless.

I think that's why the tv series is enjoying such success. I don't think it's the dire wolves and dragons. It's the politics and intrigue and warfare and human interactions. Take out the dragons and dire wolves, the series would still be insanely popular -- maybe even more so. Take out the political intrigue and leave the dragons, I think this series doesn't even get made.

So, it feels more like historical drama to me. A fake history sure, though so much of this is ripped from the pages of history, which is why it resonates so strongly I think.

Perhaps I'll feel differently as the series progresses and the fantasy quotient increases.

Are we waiting for women in chain mail bikinis to show up?

[peterbound]

Oh, cool. I'll have to check that out.

Doesn't "speculative fiction" have some negative connotations? I read that somewhere, or maybe I got confused with something else. Anyway, it's good to have a name that encompasses all that I think.

Yes, it does. Kind of like 'Magic Realism'. It's a term people use when they want to be taken serious as writers (or consumers), yet still write (or read) fantasy or sci fi.

This argument is fucking ridiculous, and the fact that it has 5 pages dedicated to it seems silly. The only element in the book that isn't effected by a fantasy guidebook is the politics. And even that is framed in a why that is effected by the fantastic elements happening around it. To say that it's not fantasy is a statement of fools. Say it's a good fantasy book, sure, but don't say that it's not belonging to the genre.

ETA: If anything, ASoIaF encompasses every trope typical fantasy has to offer. It's everything a fantasy novel should be. Hidden princes, magic swords, dragons, magic beasts, supernatural bad guys, poorly defined magic system, cruel witches, bumbling princes, knights, jousting, duels, damsels in distress, dwarves, psudo-elves, barbarians, sly assassins, wolf 'partners', scary castles, lack of gunpowder. How the fuck could you /not/ see it as a fantasy novel? Just because it's well done, and doesn't conform to your standards of the genre? Your argument is weak, misguided, and a little silly.

[Happy Ent]

See also http://alicorn.elcenia.com/stories/earthfic.shtml for a fictional inversion of many of the themes in this thread.

[polishgenius]

Does KJ Parker really belong in the fantasy genre?

[Seli]

There are fantasy elements sure. But this series just doesn't feel like fantasy to me. Don't get me wrong, I love the series. I haven't really wrapped my head around why this series doesn't feel like fantasy to me, but let me put it this way. Fantasy is a window into a different world. But ASOIAF is more like a mirror being held up to our own. It's a dirty warped mirror, but a mirror nonetheless.

...

That is manifestly wrong though. Fantasy, science fiction and other related parts of genre often are mirrors of our world and our (in)humanity. In my opinion even more often for the best of it.

[Ser-Arthur-Dayne]

Hmm

something I was thinking about a few days ago (as I was recommending it to someone) is if something like Lies of Locke Lamora should be considered "fantasy" or just simply fiction.

Edit: Ehh, I guess now that I think about it the inclusion of the bondmagi has to make it fantasy, but for some reason I still don't think of it as strongly "fantasy" :dunno:

[Seli]

Does KJ Parker really belong in the fantasy genre?

Clearly, either that or (for most books) science fiction proper :) Although I belief that there are magical aspects somewhere in Parker's world.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Hmm

something I was thinking about a few days ago (as I was recommending it to someone) is if something like Lies of Locke Lamora should be considered "fantasy" or just simply fiction.

Wraithstone, the Eldren's architecture, the completely fictional religion and culture? Yes, it's fantasy.

[Darth Richard II]

Clearly anything that doesn't have elves or dwarves and isn't based on D&D can't be fantasy.

[Errant Bard]

See also http://alicorn.elcenia.com/stories/earthfic.shtml for a fictional inversion of many of the themes in this thread.

Nice story, though it feels a bit hamfisted about its message, I liked it.

ETA: The fact that it is a SF story is a nice bit of intentional irony, but there should have been a way to make it be told by the Fairy Ruby Blossom, daughter of the high king of Nirnaeband, or something like that.

[taem]

You know, speaking off the cuff like I am, I am confusing my own assertion with digressions that speak to something else entirely, and even staking out positions I don't really embrace. Like I don't actually believe, on reflection, that fantasy must be high fantasy.

I go back to what Gormenghast (the poster) said so pithily early in this thread: "the strength of the series lies in the mundane." That's the key point. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with everything I'm saying here. But consider how huge the tv series is. A fantasy doesn't get that huge. The HBO series transcends the genre and reaches a much broader audience. (Whether you think the tv series truly reflects the books is an entirely different question.)

That's what I'm aiming at, when I say ASOIAF doesn't feel like fantasy. It is very much about the mundane. Folks have pointed out, I'm talking about the game of thrones (lower case intended) which is only a part of the series, and the series itself is called ASOIAF. I've acknowledged that, and I even posted that same thought in the thread about who will win the game of thrones. But the game of thrones is what we have thus far; the presence of shadow magic and dragons and walkers doesn't change this. Of the 4000+ pages we have thus far, the vast majority of it is the game of thrones. And the game of thrones is nowhere near resolved; of the 2 or 3 books to come, a substantial chunk will have to be devoted to the game of thrones.

So my question is, for a work to be considered fantasy or speculative fiction or whatever term you want to use, doesn't the heart of it have to be about the fantastic or speculative? The phrase I used early on is a window into a different world. The motivations, the conflicts, the themes, have to be about the fantastic or speculative. Now, the characters and places in this series are imaginary, and in that sense speculative. But the same could be said of any novel. So it is not enough that a person place or thing in a book never actually existed.

Especially when we have something like ASOIAF where so much of it is ripped from actual history. That's not a denigration; much of TS Eliot's The Wasteland is actually lines written by others, that Eliot constructed into a poem. The composition makes it high art. Same could be said of GRRM. My point here is, the strong echoes of medieval english history in ASOIAF speaks to the series being about people places and events that actually existed -- the mundane. The motivations and actions of the characters in the series, again at least thus far, are real world concerns and motivations, not fantasy and speculation. That's why this tale resonates so strongly across a broad swathe of society and why the tv series is so huge.

Let me toss out one example to illustrate the difference between elements in a book that might speak to a certain genre, but the heart of the book being something entirely different. Never Let Me Go. That book is about clones being raised so their organs can be harvested for the medical needs of their genetic templates. That could very easily be science fiction or horror. But Never Let Me Go remains standard contemporary lit.

[Snowborn]

This reminds me of Tairy saying that he doesn't write fantasy, he writes novels about Important Human Themes.

[polishgenius]

A fantasy doesn't get that huge.

:laugh:

[1918me]

So my question is, for a work to be considered fantasy or speculative fiction or whatever term you want to use, doesn't the heart of it have to be about the fantastic or speculative? The phrase I used early on is a window into a different world. The motivations, the conflicts, the themes, have to be about the fantastic or speculative. Now, the characters and places in this series are imaginary, and in that sense speculative. But the same could be said of any novel. So it is not enough that a person place or thing in a book never actually existed.

I don't really see what you're getting at, here. You say the themes have to be about the fantastic or speculative, but what does that mean? Are you saying that fantasy where the characters have realistic motivations, where they act like real humans, is somehow impossible? Are you saying that you can't have fantasy that deals with human themes and conflicts? Because if you don't think that themes about justice, morality, free will, politics, love, life, death, war, coming-of-age, or the myriad of other real-life issues that fantasy novels deal with are acceptable fare for the genre, then that invalidates...pretty much every work of fantasy ever written.

What, to you, would be an acceptable theme for a work of fantasy, that isn't rooted in real life?

[1918me]

:laugh:

:agree:

Taem, have you have heard of Harry Potter? Lord of the Rings? Fuck, even Twilight?

[red snow]

to the OP "Do you look down on Fantasy?"

If your answer is "yes/maybe or no, but" then I can see why you don't want it to be in the fantasy genre.

If your answer is "no" then then of course it is fantasy.

Your question seems more about your attitude towards the genre. Fantasy is a bit rubbish so if it's good it isn't fantasy. The TV show is probably referred to by many as a "drama" because they don't want to admit it's a fantasy show and I'm sure there are millions out there by water coolers on a Monday saying "it's not really a fantasy because it's good".

If you like a book it shouldn't really matter what genre it's in. Just because I agree with those saying this incessant labeling thing is ridiculous and more of a marketing handle.

Don't mean to have a go at the OP at all. I suffer from similar problems when I claim to dislike period dramas and have to make excuses for why "deadwood", "rome", "Ripper Street" and "the americans" aren't period dramas :) Same with "community" and sitcoms.

[Seli]

....

Let me toss out one example to illustrate the difference between elements in a book that might speak to a certain genre, but the heart of the book being something entirely different. Never Let Me Go. That book is about clones being raised so their organs can be harvested for the medical needs of their genetic templates. That could very easily be science fiction or horror. But Never Let Me Go remains standard contemporary lit.

Boys from Brazil by Ira Levin isn't usually considered SF either, that doesn't mean it isn't though. Just because it ended up being sold in a different category, does not make it stand outside the field.

(I am really, really inclusive :p)

[red snow]

plus you must be an adrenaline junky to find the game of thrones aspect "mundane" :P . The first 100 pages of Fellowship of the ring is mundane.

Boys from Brazil by Ira Levin isn't usually considered SF either, that doesn't mean it isn't though. Just because it ended up being sold in a different category, does not make it stand outside the field.

(I am really, really inclusive :P)

Exactly. Sensible folks would throw it in both sections of a shop/online store to mazimise sales. They probably put different covers on them too.

The same shit happened with "gravity" with people desperately trying to say it wasn't sci-fi because it was Oscar worthy and because it seemed like something that could happen now.

[Buckwheat]

I go back to what Gormenghast (the poster) said so pithily early in this thread: "the strength of the series lies in the mundane." That's the key point. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with everything I'm saying here. But consider how huge the tv series is. A fantasy doesn't get that huge. The HBO series transcends the genre and reaches a much broader audience. (Whether you think the tv series truly reflects the books is an entirely different question.)

That's what I'm aiming at, when I say ASOIAF doesn't feel like fantasy. It is very much about the mundane. Folks have pointed out, I'm talking about the game of thrones (lower case intended) which is only a part of the series, and the series itself is called ASOIAF. I've acknowledged that, and I even posted that same thought in the thread about who will win the game of thrones. But the game of thrones is what we have thus far; the presence of shadow magic and dragons and walkers doesn't change this. Of the 4000+ pages we have thus far, the vast majority of it is the game of thrones. And the game of thrones is nowhere near resolved; of the 2 or 3 books to come, a substantial chunk will have to be devoted to the game of thrones.

So my question is, for a work to be considered fantasy or speculative fiction or whatever term you want to use, doesn't the heart of it have to be about the fantastic or speculative? The phrase I used early on is a window into a different world. The motivations, the conflicts, the themes, have to be about the fantastic or speculative. Now, the characters and places in this series are imaginary, and in that sense speculative. But the same could be said of any novel. So it is not enough that a person place or thing in a book never actually existed.

It does if you read it so. For other readers, the supernatural part is what is more important and what draws them into the story. The whole story is made of both elements, the "political" and the supernatural, and I do not think one can objectively claim that one part is more important than the other. Both are parts of the same story, and both are equally important. Frankly, I have a hard time thinking of a storyline with completely no supernatural elements in it.

Yeah ... no.

This just makes me wonder whether you have read the whole northern storyline (everything from Jon and Bran), anything about Melisandre, and anything about Dany.

What percentage of the total word count fantasy elements add up to is not at all important. What is important is that they are there (and I also think you are underestimating their quantity).

I cannot think what themes you mean by that. Questions like "what is magic" and "are there really ghosts around"? That would not make for such important reads than "human hearts in conflict with itself", as GRRM says.

Let me toss out one example to illustrate the difference between elements in a book that might speak to a certain genre, but the heart of the book being something entirely different. Never Let Me Go. That book is about clones being raised so their organs can be harvested for the medical needs of their genetic templates. That could very easily be science fiction or horror. But Never Let Me Go remains standard contemporary lit.

I think this is the root of the problem here ... you seem to think that once you tag something as genre literature, it can no longer be considered "standard contemporary literature":

Taem, have you have heard of Harry Potter? Lord of the Rings? Fuck, even Twilight?

Hey, I was just about to use the exact same examples! Great minds and all that. :cheers:

[taem]

Harry Potter is juvenile/young adult lit. Twilight is romance. (Twilight actually speaks to what I'm saying here I think, it's got vampires, but that's not what it's about.) LotR is LotR, and succeeded as a huge budget special effects movie. The box office charts are dominated by big budget special effects movies, cutting across genres. (And a few children's movies.)

Or let's put it this way. What swords and sorcery series is there that could succeed in capturing the kind of gigantic audience GoT on HBO has? Afaik until GoT, WoT is the biggest, best selling franchise around. No way folks who aren't already fans of the genre embrace WoT. Didn't they try to make a tv series out of Goodkind? I'm not a fan, but there was a time that series was huge, but the tv series flopped miserably. Consider RA Salvatore. Again, not a fan. But again, there was a time when he was huge. But never to folks who aren't fans of the genre.

I don't really see what you're getting at, here. You say the themes have to be about the fantastic or speculative, but what does that mean? Are you saying that fantasy where the characters have realistic motivations, where they act like real humans, is somehow impossible? Are you saying that you can't have fantasy that deals with human themes and conflicts? Because if you don't think that themes about justice, morality, free will, politics, love, life, death, war, coming-of-age, or the myriad of other real-life issues that fantasy novels deal with are acceptable fare for the genre, then that invalidates...pretty much every work of fantasy ever written.

What, to you, would be an acceptable theme for a work of fantasy, that isn't rooted in real life?

Consider Rand al Thor. He is the reincarnation of a dread figure from myth, destined to go mad and break the world. There is no real world historical parallel to that, it does not speak to the motivations and concerns that everyday people have or are familiar with. Yes you're going to have universal themes like love, and friendship, and betrayal. But with Rand it all revolves around his fantastic destiny. How does he embrace a romantic relationship, when he knows he is the reincarnation of the man who went mad and slaughtered his own wife and children? So that theme of being the Dragon Reborn drives Rand throughout, his motivations, his actions.

But consider Dany. Yes she has dragons and yes she has magical immunity to fire (to some degree). But what is she? She is the exiled last scion of a toppled dynasty who seeks to raise an army so she can sail across the sea to reclaim her family's throne. If you want to read about the motivations and actions of someone in that position, just go get a bio of Henry Tudor.

To raise a slightly different issue, political intrigue exists in WoT. Take Daes Daemar in Cairhien. The Game of Houses never plays a big role in WoT. It exists, is mentioned, as a means to enrich the world. That's very different from GoT where the Game of Thrones is explored so thoroughly and is a large part (the great part, so far) of the story.