Would ASOIAF without magic, dragons and the others been better?

[Jamie Smith]

Recently saw this question on the TV show thread. Would the series have been better, the same or worse if it purely stuck to political intrigue, realism and human conflict? Some of the highlights of the series come from these aspects in my opinion rather than the magic, dragons, Others etc. I also feel like the lack of importance of the Others in the early books and the speed of writing for the later books shows that George is better at writing about politics and conflict rather than the fantasy aspect of the series.  Or is the magic, dragons and threat of the Others imperative to the story?

[Lady Blizzardborn]

I wouldn't put it in terms of what is or is not imperative to the story. Removing any aspect would make a change large enough that it unbalances the whole thing. The story works because of all of the elements and how they are woven in and out to create the whole.

Without magic there's no massive threat that's being ignored while people are busy politicking and struggling for power. It would make the consequences of the nobles being so petty a lot less potentially catastrophic. 

GRRM wrote the first chapter, Bran's first chapter, before anything else. The Others are mentioned in that chapter. It's part of the culture of the North. It would be a totally different story without them. 

[Whitering]

Might as well just watch Spartacus then.

As far as the books, it would not have the same level of readership. Also, George bases a lot of these events on history, I for one while not thrilled with the Red Wedding, well, I've seen that and worse in all the history I've read. Okay, not as explicit, but still. So, I for one don't think I'd be as interested in it.

[falcotron]

I don't think no magic was an option (there is no market for non-fantasy non-real-world history, and an experienced genre writer like GRRM knows that). But a much lower-magic setting, sure—but I don't think it would have been better.

The story is consciously structured as modern epic fantasy, and gets much of its strength from the contrast between the grubby politics and gritty everyday life vs. the expectations that epic fantasy brings. If you, say, replace the Others with human invaders with technological superiority, that contrast is weakened, even if the plot is nearly identical, so the story isn't as compelling.

Also, the story relies heavily on prophecies coming true. Sure, Shakespeare did the same thing without having to write fantasy, but a modern reader isn't going to accept it in a modern story as anything but magic (or alien super-science).

Finally, the only really interesting differences between his world and ours are magic. For example, the fact that Westeros is as big as a continent instead of just an island like Britain—he didn't really do anything with that (and in fact it often gets in the way). What makes Westeros interesting is the magic: its original inhabitants were magical elf creatures instead of just another stone-age tribe, it was defended against an army of zombies instead of a rabble of Pictish raiders, it has historical records going back thousands of years, etc. Even the social/political structure that's the backdrop for all the stuff everyone enjoys in the books, that comes out of GRRM's exploration of "what if William's superiority were dragons instead of castles?"

[Elisabetta Duò]

On 31 agosto 2017 at 2:15 PM, Jamie Smith said:

Recently saw this question on the TV show thread. Would the series have been better, the same or worse if it purely stuck to political intrigue, realism and human conflict? Some of the highlights of the series come from these aspects in my opinion rather than the magic, dragons, Others etc. I also feel like the lack of importance of the Others in the early books and the speed of writing for the later books shows that George is better at writing about politics and conflict rather than the fantasy aspect of the series.  Or is the magic, dragons and threat of the Others imperative to the story?

Personally I don't care in the slightest about the magical elements, that's probably why Daenerys is the character I never connected with and I don't care much about Bran or Jon either.

What had me hooked was the historical novel, with complex characters, political intrigues and a realistic way of dealing with the major problems of ruling (noble houses fighting each other, church vs. state, political marriages, the role of women within society, etc.).

[Lady Blizzardborn]

5 hours ago, falcotron said:

I don't think no magic was an option (there is no market for non-fantasy non-real-world history, and an experienced genre writer like GRRM knows that). But a much lower-magic setting, sure—but I don't think it would have been better.

<snip

There is, but it's not a hugely lucrative one. GRRM has always been into sci-fi, horror, and fantasy. If he wanted to write an invented history, he could have, but that's not really his thing. Not saying he can't branch out, but it helps to be writing in a genre where you already know some editors.

[Curled Finger]

This is great.   I hated this story the 1st time I read it, mostly due to the violence and backstabbing.   I read fantasy to escape, not deal with every day crap!   For the love of God, corrupt knights? Bah! I ended up only marginally liking and being interested in Varys.   Yep, no Ned for King cheering here.  What ultimately led me to read again was a particularly persuasive friend and the VS swords.   Now swords I can get my head around.   Magic swords made this whole tale a lot more palatable.  Once I identified some real magic I could enjoy all the politics and mystery.   I wouldn't give you 2 cents for a story about the Lannisters or Baratheons, it is the Starks and Targaryans that keep me coming back for more.    

[Tyrion1991]

On 31/08/2017 at 1:15 PM, Jamie Smith said:

Recently saw this question on the TV show thread. Would the series have been better, the same or worse if it purely stuck to political intrigue, realism and human conflict? Some of the highlights of the series come from these aspects in my opinion rather than the magic, dragons, Others etc. I also feel like the lack of importance of the Others in the early books and the speed of writing for the later books shows that George is better at writing about politics and conflict rather than the fantasy aspect of the series.  Or is the magic, dragons and threat of the Others imperative to the story?

 

Magic and Dragons is fine because these things are firmly rooted with our human characters and factions. Melisandre manipulating Stannis in his war. Danny's dragons becoming weapons of destiny in her bid to reclaim the throne. They are easily integrated into a story about politics and human drama.

 

The Others and Undead are not. The Apocalypse and Doomsday scenario against this monolithic enemy fundamentally changes the tone and context of the story. It means that instead of normal war and politics with magical elements alongside it; the story becomes about the magic. It eclipses the Game and makes the Game unworkable. It effects human decision making and impacts how the audience views characters. Actions that might be seen as nuanced and human in a realistic medieval world (not sending aid to a lord) become abhorrent and monstrous in another (we need to unite or undead kill us). Personally I just ignore all the stuff with the Others because it hasn't mattered at all and Iam not looking forward to when it dominates the story. 

[Jon Snow is a loser]

LOL.... another of those "would X-Files be better if it was just about Monster of the Week & No Myth Arc" kinda topic. 

 

The thing is, just like X-Files attracted both viewers interested in MotW & MA, ASOIAF has reader who are interested more in magic fantasy as well as readers who are more into politics. Take one of these away & it wouldn't be the same. 

 

Personally I would love low magic fantasy where the magic elements like magic swords, magic martial arts, magic castle/tower, dragon, kraken etc just as tools & doesn't define the story in & of itself. I am not a fan of the ice zombie apocalypse & prophecies in ASOIAF but I can accept that they would eventually take centre stage. However I am not satisfied in that  the importance of the Others as driving force of the story is not felt so far. I think Martin is using the "Bigger Bad" trope (referring to villain who is currently not the immediate threat but implied to be one eventually) however he used the trope very poorly. A more skillful usage of the trope would serve the story better. 

[Joey Crows]

On 9/1/2017 at 2:27 PM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I wouldn't put it in terms of what is or is not imperative to the story. Removing any aspect would make a change large enough that it unbalances the whole thing. The story works because of all of the elements and how they are woven in and out to create the whole.

Without magic there's no massive threat that's being ignored while people are busy politicking and struggling for power. It would make the consequences of the nobles being so petty a lot less potentially catastrophic. 

GRRM wrote the first chapter, Bran's first chapter, before anything else. The Others are mentioned in that chapter. It's part of the culture of the North. It would be a totally different story without them. 

Well said. 

I love historical fiction and was therefore drawn to the political intrigue and aspects of the series that didn't necessarily involve magic and whatnot. But the depth of this story is a major reason I find it so enjoyable. The world building, the attention to in world history, etc. And magic and prophecy, along with the other more fantastical elements are just as important to the land, the people, and philosophy as any of the more "realistic" aspects.

Without all of these facets to live and play off of each other the story would not be what it is. 

 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

Would ASOIAF without magic, dragons and the others been better?  No.  The books would be boring to read without the dragons.  The primary protagonists is the Dragon Queen and those dragons are an important part of her story.

[Tyrion1991]

9 hours ago, Jon Snow is a loser said:

LOL.... another of those "would X-Files be better if it was just about Monster of the Week & No Myth Arc" kinda topic. 

 

The thing is, just like X-Files attracted both viewers interested in MotW & MA, ASOIAF has reader who are interested more in magic fantasy as well as readers who are more into politics. Take one of these away & it wouldn't be the same. 

 

Personally I would love low magic fantasy where the magic elements like magic swords, magic martial arts, magic castle/tower, dragon, kraken etc just as tools & doesn't define the story in & of itself. I am not a fan of the ice zombie apocalypse & prophecies in ASOIAF but I can accept that they would eventually take centre stage. However I am not satisfied in that  the importance of the Others as driving force of the story is not felt so far. I think Martin is using the "Bigger Bad" trope (referring to villain who is currently not the immediate threat but implied to be one eventually) however he used the trope very poorly. A more skillful usage of the trope would serve the story better. 

 

Its because GRRM wanted the series to be a trilogy and not be pushing 7-10 novels. So he has had to push back the looming threat to a point where it's easy to forget about them. There's a ton of bloat in AFFC and ADWD that's going to have to be glossed over in the final two novels. 

[Ser Petyr Parker]

Since I first took an interest in Game of Thrones before graduating to the books, I'd say it was originally the politics that held my interest, but it's the fantasy that obsesses me. I'd be much less interested if all the mysteries were purely political.

[Dragonsbone]

If I want to read something purely about politics and feudal systems  (which I do), I would read something different then ASOIAF. There are dozens, if not hundred, of authors who write better in this particular genre. ASOIAF is an epic fantasy book, and as a such, it needs magic. 

[The Sunland Lord]

Many political moves wouldn't have been able to be done without the magic.

So my answer is no.

In that case, Daenerys and the Targaryens generally, Stannis, all the Stark children, and Jon Snow, who is most likely supported by all kinds of magic abilities the above mentioned people have combined, would need a different story.

What is the alternative of those stories? 

 

 

[chrisdaw]

ASOIAF is at the heart character arcs, and magic is intrinsically linked to the destination of those arcs. Becoming a dragon rider will turn Tyrion's fortunes in an instant, and again when it is lost, testing the depths of his resolve. It is the magical power of her dragons that allows Dany the option of taking the throne through brutal subjugation or to reject such means. Magic allows the question of if one bastard child is worth sacrificing to save a realm of lives to become fully realised, a question that will be the culmination of Jon's and Dany's arcs. And her magic ability to become whoever she wants whenever she wants allows Arya a true choice to either become and do her duty as Arya Stark, for her House, for the head of her House, for justice and the realm, or to abandon duty for her own love and freedom. And Bran obviously.

It is basically an invalid question, the trajectory of these characters doesn't work without magic, and they're the heart and soul of the work.

[Lord Varys]

I remember, when reading this series for the first time I asked myself - why should I care who of those pricks ends up sitting on that stupid throne? I don't care. And I still don't. I care about the real story, and that one has nothing to do with politics.

[Ghost+Nymeria4Eva]

On 8/31/2017 at 5:45 PM, Jamie Smith said:

Recently saw this question on the TV show thread. Would the series have been better, the same or worse if it purely stuck to political intrigue, realism and human conflict? Some of the highlights of the series come from these aspects in my opinion rather than the magic, dragons, Others etc. I also feel like the lack of importance of the Others in the early books and the speed of writing for the later books shows that George is better at writing about politics and conflict rather than the fantasy aspect of the series.  Or is the magic, dragons and threat of the Others imperative to the story?

GRRM has said that originally the story was without actual dragons. He was planning to make dragons some type of mummer's dragon type things that Targs make to fool people. Then a friend told him to add real dragons. Then voila, we have ASOIAF. I don't know if the Others and magic were completely absent from the story. 

If there was no magic here, then GRRM would have had to write historical fiction, like Philipa Gregory. It would have still have an appeal for a certain audience. If he invented a fictional history for a fantasy realm without magic, then he would need to introduce major intrigues, a mystery of sorts. Right now, the story is kind of like that. Magic and dragons are in the background. The major intrigues are still political. I think it would have worked, but GRRM would have had to make the intrigue a lot more compelling. Royal court drama do tend to be predictable. 

The story wouldn't work without the Others. If you take them out, the center sort of falls apart. GRRM could have come up with invaders or something to replace the others, but then he risks dehumanizing the enemy. That probably won't work with a modern audience. And if he made the Scots or some other people to be the Others, it would risk offending modern Scots or Scandinavians or whomever. It happened with Kushiel's Dart, where the the made up invader ethnicity looked a lot like old Norwegians (or something) and some modern Norwegians took offense to that. 

The fake history would have worked for a novel, but not for a TV show. The dragons are what makes the TV show special. And we don't see that much magic in it either. Also, the Others are sort of zombie overlords in the show so they don't really matter like in the book either. But the dragons, you know! 

[Nihlus]

I would keep the Others, but otherwise yeah. If you cut out all the Essos POV chapters (Daenerys and a few others) then I'd say you'd have fixed the majority of the issues in the books, from ridiculous scenes that always get mocked here to general pointless bloating. The quality of worldbuilding and characters in Essos really is quite terrible, and the "return of the Targ" subplot doesn't fit the tone of the books or what they do well.

ASOIAF is at its best when the main backdrop is shifty nobles backstabbing each other for the throne and leading armies against one another. When I think about Daenerys, I see the plot twisting in unnatural ways in order to justify her importance and set up the idea that she has some epic destiny to reconquer Westeros and be queen in the name of the Targaryens and dragons and stuff, and that's so at odds with the realpolitik that characterizes everything else in the plot that it feels very inappropriate. Characters can be chosen ones or have epic destinies or what have you, but what sets Daenerys apart from, say, Aragorn, is that Aragorn's destiny isn't contrived, but something that flows naturally from the setting. It just feels weird for this series about the brutal realities of feudal politics and a kinslaying war for the throne to pause every so often to cut away to a magical silver-haired teenage dragon princess from the east fulfilling prophecies and slaying incompetent 100% evil cardboard cutout bad guys.

Daenerys, her dragons, the common witches and mystics she encounters, the slavers, the Targaryens in general- they're refugees from another genre that don't belong here, a genre GRRM isn't particularly good at writing.

[falcotron]

17 hours ago, Jon Snow is a loser said:

Personally I would love low magic fantasy where the magic elements like magic swords, magic martial arts, magic castle/tower, dragon, kraken etc just as tools & doesn't define the story in & of itself

Ironically, that seems to be more common in super-high-magic settings than in low-magic fantasy. When everyone has a magic sword, a magic sword isn't a big deal. (Of course it's by no means true of all high-magic settings.)