does ASOIAF really belong in the fantasy genre?

[polishgenius]

The Battle of Pellenor Fields and the Ride of the Rohirrim is directly based on the Siege of Vienna and Jan Sobieski's charge. Therefore, LotR is not fantasy!


Seriously, if you think these are things that set it apart from the rest of the fantasy genre, then you need to read more fantasy. Basing storylines in part or whole on real historical events is common.


But I do get the sense that your entire point of view comes from the simple fact of not having read much fantasy at all. If you have, then I'm truly amazed that you've come by it and continue to stand by it as vehemently as you are.

[Buckwheat]

Fair enough.

That's why I brought in that quote from the NYT review. For whatever that's worth. "If he succeeds..." The reviewer too, feels that the strangeness that he calls a hallmark of fantasy has not yet made it into the narrative proper.

I'm not a love novel fan either. And I don't know that Austen would have characterized her own works as love novels. But it is as a love novel that P&P has endured as one of the greatest love stories of all time. But that's not why I like it, that's not how I consume it. This is a good example you bring up, because how I feel about ASOIAF is very similar. I am not consuming it as a representative work of the fantasy genre, any more than I consume P&P as a love novel.

Well then I disagree both with you and the reviewer, because honestly I cannot see how any of you can claim what is "narrative proper", whatever that means, and what not. This is, IMO, neglecing half the storylines in order to prove a point.

I consume both as good literature that are pleasing to read. I still categorise them to make it easier to understand literature. That is all.

[taem]

I would think historical realism is what gives the feeling of pristine life in a certain period of history, even if it does not deal with important historical events. Like, it would describe a life of a peasant in the 1430s in a village some km southern from Paris or whatever. The peasant did not really exist, but he could have and his life could have been like described.

Historical accuracy would be citing actual historical facts and would be a trait of a history textbook.

At least I would understand those that way.

Ok I see how my comment about Hilary Mantel would have confused what I was saying, but i've explained further, pretty much saying what you are here. I assign historical accuracy to Mantel, not Martin; I say Martin seeks realism, not accuracy.

Nope, they are not the same.

Ok if you guys are talking about realism in the overtly lit crit sense of standing opposed to idealism, that's not what GRRM is talking about when he says he wants the realism of historical fiction. Again, look at his examples. He is speaking to authenticity. But if you guys are indeed using the Schiller sense of the term, GRRM is not that sort of realist. His characters are instrumental in purpose and/or lie outside the world he creates, they are not the realized outgrowths of the world they inhabit.

The Battle of Pellenor Fields and the Ride of the Rohirrim is directly based on the Siege of Vienna and Jan Sobieski's charge. Therefore, LotR is not fantasy!

Seriously, if you think these are things that set it apart from the rest of the fantasy genre, then you need to read more fantasy. Basing storylines in part or whole on real historical events is common.

Not like ASOIAF. I mean this, from start to what we have thus far, is largely ripped from actual history. Red Wedding, Red Banquet. Robb and Jeyne Westerling, Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, it just goes on and on. I likened it to Eliot's Wasteland, and I think that really does apply, GRRM's brilliance is compositional. When you combine that with his overt emphasis on historical realism, or perhaps I should take pains to say "the realism of historical fiction," this is qualitatively different from previous works that borrowed plot points from historical events. Even the dialogue; the heavy use of fuck, cunt, etc, the talk that actually did take place, that we still use today, versus inventing a new grammar, like "burn you!" and "flaming."

[Myshkin]

I'd be interested in hearing how you distinguish historical realism vs historical accuracy. In what I said, the use of the term accuracy was not definitional but as an example. Mantel can't simply be accurate as to places and dates and call it a day, her work, to be historical fiction, must also realistically portray the period as to its social mores, customs, etc etc, and her characters and events must be true to the period. You are suggesting this is not what historical realism is?

As to historical realism vs historical fiction, if historical fiction must feature historical realism, as I claim, then saying you want to bring in the realism of historical fiction ends up being the same thing, since the realism of historical fiction is historical realism. So I gather that your take is that historical fiction does not involve historical realism, but something else? Keep in mind what GRRM said. The examples he gave of the realism of historical fiction include the implications of the quasi-feudal setting, that a woman cannot refuse an arranged marriage, that a peasant cannot talk back to a lord.

As I said earlier, literary realism is something else entirely.

Take a look at Westeros and take a look at Britain. Take a look at where the Starks are and the role they play in Westerosi history and google the Percy earls of Northumberland. Or how about this: as the conflict between Henvy VI and the Duke of York began to boil, Henry VI summoned his most loyal lord, the Earl of Northumberland, of the House of Percy once known as the "Kings in the North", to the south. There, the Earl was assassinated by the Duke of York in the first blow of the War of the Roses in an act of treachery against all custom. The Earl's son, now Earl, called the banners and marched south where he won a series of smashing victories against the Yorkists before falling in battle. Does that sound familiar at all?

First of all let me state flat out that historical fiction DOES NOT need to feature historical realism. You are now just making up definitions based on erroneous assumptions, and I suspect you're doing so for no other reason than to bolster your argument. Please stop. That is if you wish to be taken seriously.

To your question: historical accuracy is portraying history accurately (not putting Napoleon in the same time frame as Franz Ferdinand); historical realism is portraying history in the Realist mode (not Romanticized). Historically accurate fiction can be, and very often has been, written in the Romantic style.

Realism and Romanticism are literary terms, used to describe a style. Jose Samarago was a Realist, even if the entire Iberian Peninsula breaking off and floating into the middle of the Atlantic is not realistically possible. Tolkien was a Romantic, even if we hardly see any male/female interaction in LotR.

You are still confusing the term "Realism". You seem to think it is analogous with "accurate". It is not.

[Miodrag]

Jose Samarago was a Realist, even if the entire Iberian Peninsula breaking off and floating into the middle of the Atlantic is not realistically possible.

Out of curiosity: why wouldn't the same logic apply to GRRM as well? To be clear, I agree Saramago's a realist, but why GRRM can't also be one? I'm not clear whether you think GRRM can or can't be, but if you think he actually isn't a realist, I'd be interested to find out why.

[polishgenius]

Not like ASOIAF. I mean this, from start to what we have thus far, is largely ripped from actual history. Red Wedding, Red Banquet.

I'm starting to question if you know as much about the history you claim it's based on, since I know bog all and don't know what you're referring to by 'Red Banquet' but I do know that the Red Wedding is based on the Black Dinner of Clan Douglas. Also that Robb Stark was brutally murdered specifically because of Jayne Westerling, while Edward IV lived for a long time after marrying Elizabeth Woodville.

But, of more relevance to the argument perhaps is that there are several fantasies that lean directly on historical events just as much or far more than aSoIaF does. I already mentioned Guy Gavriel Kay, most obviously Under Heaven (and presumably River of Stars which I've not yet read) but, to one extent or another, most of what he's written since Tigana. There's also R Scott Bakker, who's Prince of Nothing trilogy is based around a campaign that's lifted directly from the First Crusade. aSoIaF is really not that unique in this sense.

[Miodrag]

But, of more relevance to the argument perhaps is that there are several fantasies that lean directly on historical events just as much or far more than aSoIaF does. I already mentioned Guy Gavriel Kay, most obviously Under Heaven (and presumably River of Stars which I've not yet read) but, to one extent or another, most of what he's written since Tigana.

I'd say Kay is not that good in characterization, which is a very serious flaw for a writer's realism. He's a generally talented writer and his prose is good to excellent, and his plots are reasonable and interesting enough, but he's not nearly as good as far as creating and developing characters go. And, if "The Sarantine Mosaic" is an indication, it's all downhill after "Tigana", which wasn't exactly brilliant in terms of characterization. What I want to say is that, regardless of the influence and of the research put into, a novel can hardly be considered realistic if characters are rather underdeveloped and flat. Not all of Kay's characters are like that, but some are, and, between "Tigana" and "Mosaic", I can't think of a single character that is actually brilliant, e.g. that it'd be possible to write an essay on him/her. There are interesting characters in those novels (much more in "Tigana"), but, for comparison sake, not a single one is a match to ASOIAF's "usual suspects".

In my eyes, characterization is possibly the most important thing for the realistic feel of the story. If characters aren't fully developed and multilayered, the story can be great if it works around it, but it can hardly be realistic. And it works the other way around: if a writer is good enough to come up with characters that are captivating and realistic, he/she probably isn't going to use them in some cheap plot that goes for the shock value first and foremost.

[taem]

First of all let me state flat out that historical fiction DOES NOT need to feature historical realism. You are now just making up definitions based on erroneous assumptions, and I suspect you're doing so for no other reason than to bolster your argument. Please stop. That is if you wish to be taken seriously.

To your question: historical accuracy is portraying history accurately (not putting Napoleon in the same time frame as Franz Ferdinand); historical realism is portraying history in the Realist mode (not Romanticized). Historically accurate fiction can be, and very often has been, written in the Romantic style.

Realism and Romanticism are literary terms, used to describe a style. Jose Samarago was a Realist, even if the entire Iberian Peninsula breaking off and floating into the middle of the Atlantic is not realistically possible. Tolkien was a Romantic, even if we hardly see any male/female interaction in LotR.

You are still confusing the term "Realism". You seem to think it is analogous with "accurate". It is not.

I'm not even sure we disagree on some of that. Earlier I talked about the realism in Tad Williams. So how can I possibly think realism is analogous with "accurate"? You're just making way too much of something I happened to say about Hilary Mantel, not GRRM, and ignoring everything else that might inform what I meant.

One issue where we might disagree is what constitutes historical fiction. Let me ask you this: would you consider Memoirs of a Geisha, or Girl with a Pearl Earring, as historical fiction? Because I would not. Those are simply fictional works set in the past. Geisha, Pearl Earring, belong in contemporary fiction.

Another problem here is that you are applying "realism" in the overtly academic stylistic sense to the "realism" GRRM speaks of. But that is not what he means. I quoted an extended except from one of his interviews speaking to this earlier. He gives specific examples of what he means by the "realism of historical fiction." And it is not a matter of style. He is using the term in a generic lower case sense of merely being authentic to what we know of the time period in question. "Historical realism" does not mean, as you seem to be suggesting, the literary concept of Realism in some sort of history-related sense. The two are completely distinct. There actually was a Historical Realism school of thought, it posited that history exists independently of what historians say. It is a defunct school, and the term is now used in lower case to mean what GRRM says, as speaking to authenticity, not style.

As to why I, and many others I should add, consider historical realism (lower case) as a necessary requirement of historical fiction, it is because without that delineation, the mere passage of time can render contemporary fiction into historical fiction, with the only point of distinction being the birth date of the author. Great Gatsby was conceived, written, and received as contemporary fiction. If the same work were written today? Would that make it historical fiction? By your definition it might.

I'm starting to question if you know as much about the history you claim it's based on, since I know bog all and don't know what you're referring to by 'Red Banquet' but I do know that the Red Wedding is based on the Black Dinner of Clan Douglas. Also that Robb Stark was brutally murdered specifically because of Jayne Westerling, while Edward IV lived for a long time after marrying Elizabeth Woodville.

It's also called the Red Banquet in some Scottish sources, because it was the Red Douglases, with the Stuarts, who carried out the killings. And the Jeyne Westerling/Elizabeth Woodville connection is this, a rash marriage for love that broke the alliance with Walder Frey/Warwick Kingmaker.

How about this. Edward IV was a dashing, handsome young hero of a man who won his throne on the battlefield. But when he became king, he fell into a debauched life of boozing and whoring, and he keeled over dead at the age of 40, of "excessive good living" as one chronicler primly noted. His brother George was a feckless, disloyal ne'erdowell, but he was loved by all. George rebelled against Edward. The other brother, Richard, was all solemn duty and he served Edward faithfully. But when Richard and George married the two daughters of Warwick Kingmaker, law said the Warwick estate splits equally between the daughters' husbands. But Edward gave the whole thing to George. When Edward died, Richard declared his nephews illegitimate and claimed the throne over the active objections of Edward's wife's family. It just goes on and on, you seem to have an interest in history, you know all this. The sheer pervasiveness of the historical examples gives it a qualitatively different feel to anything else.

[Myshkin]

Out of curiosity: why wouldn't the same logic apply to GRRM as well? To be clear, I agree Saramago's a realist, but why GRRM can't also be one? I'm not clear whether you think GRRM can or can't be, but if you think he actually isn't a realist, I'd be interested to find out why.

Not only do I believe that GRRM can be a realist, my whole point is that he is a realist, and that Realism and fantasy are not mutually exclusive.

[polishgenius]

I'd say Kay is not that good in characterization, which is a very serious flaw for a writer's realism. He's a generally talented writer and his prose is good to excellent, and his plots are reasonable and interesting enough, but he's not nearly as good as far as creating and developing characters go. And, if "The Sarantine Mosaic" is an indication, it's all downhill after "Tigana", which wasn't exactly brilliant in terms of characterization. What I want to say is that, regardless of the influence and of the research put into, a novel can hardly be considered realistic if characters are rather underdeveloped and flat. Not all of Kay's characters are like that, but some are, and, between "Tigana" and "Mosaic", I can't think of a single character that is actually brilliant, e.g. that it'd be possible to write an essay on him/her. There are interesting characters in those novels (much more in "Tigana"), but, for comparison sake, not a single one is a match to ASOIAF's "usual suspects".

In my eyes, characterization is possibly the most important thing for the realistic feel of the story. If characters aren't fully developed and multilayered, the story can be great if it works around it, but it can hardly be realistic. And it works the other way around: if a writer is good enough to come up with characters that are captivating and realistic, he/she probably isn't going to use them in some cheap plot that goes for the shock value first and foremost.

This is all perfectly valid argument (though I like Kay's characters for the most part), and I'd go so far to say as Kay isn't particularly aiming at realism in the way he tells his stories - there's a great theatricality in a lot of at his work, and for me that's what he's best at.

But none of that does anything to disprove the notion that taem's argument that GRRM lifting plots and plot points sets him apart from other fantasists is misinformed at best.

[Myshkin]

@Taem

You are completely misinformed if you believe that historical fiction must be written in a realist style. You cannot simply substitute your own private definitions for the commonly accepted definition and expect people to know what you're talking about.

You've also once again moved the goalposts as concerns your realism argument. Making a story "authentic" to life is Realism, in the literary sense.

But all of this is beside the point; you have still failed to demonstrate how exactly GRRM's use of realism, historical or otherwise, disqualifies his works from the fantasy genre. Please, please answer that.

[polishgenius]

I'm starting to think we're being had here. There's far too much expertise in the way this chappy's repeatedly grasping just enough of the points anyone is making to be able to build a convoluted argument that looks at first glance like it relates to the original point but actually doesn't at all.

[sj4iy]

I guess that means that Donaldson's stuff isn't fantasy either, since Covenant is less about magic rings and dark lords, and more about self-discovery and the nature of power.

But really these types of discussions are best left to Goodkind fans.

I would argue that Goodkind doesn't even belong in the world of 'literature'.

[Miodrag]

Not only do I believe that GRRM can be a realist, my whole point is that he is a realist, and that Realism and fantasy are not mutually exclusive.

We're completely on the same page in that regard, then.

This is all perfectly valid argument (though I like Kay's characters for the most part), and I'd go so far to say as Kay isn't particularly aiming at realism in the way he tells his stories - there's a great theatricality in a lot of at his work, and for me that's what he's best at.

Agree on Kay. And, by the way, his best character in my eyes is the mother of the prince in "Tigana": she appears only in one scene, as far as I remember, but the way she chastises him for not fulfilling his mission is something one can't easily forget.

About GRRM's characterization, I think that is what sets him apart from great many other writers in general, fantasy or otherwise. In that regard, he really is a force of nature. Dostoevsky is my favorite author of all time, precisely because of the insanely good characterization in his novels, but even he had trouble with creating great female characters (they're often clearly inferior to his male characters). Faulkner is perhaps the closest one to Dostoevsky out of classical authors, but even he used his female protagonists somewhat sparely. But GRRM produces great female protagonists almost effortlessly. You name it, he already created it. Males, too. I honestly think that the legion of great characters he created in ASOIAF is possibly unparalleled. (People tell me Jonathan Franzen could give GRRM a run for his money, but I'm yet to read Franzen.)

[taem]

@Taem

You are completely misinformed if you believe that historical fiction must be written in a realist style. You cannot simply substitute your own private definitions for the commonly accepted definition and expect people to know what you're talking about.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the requirement of historical realism (lower case) in historical fiction has nothing at all to do with the academic Realism (capital R) you bring up. It is not a stylistic issue, it's merely a question of being authentic to the time period.

You've also once again moved the goalposts as concerns your realism argument. Making a story "authentic" to life is Realism, in the literary sense.

I'm surprised to hear you say that. If you were to say "authenticity" and "realism" (lower case r) can be equated, sure. But I'm not sure authenticity and Realism (capital R) has the same relationship, and I would have thought you'd make a distinction. I have to think through that.

Not only do I believe that GRRM can be a realist, my whole point is that he is a realist, and that Realism and fantasy are not mutually exclusive.

Yup. Again, way back in this thread I distinguished literary Realism and noted it in Tad Williams. So we agree here. But that is not the "realism" that GRRM talks about, or the NYT review means when it says "Martin's books, however, have been praised for their realism." It's lower case realim in both those instances.

But all of this is beside the point; you have still failed to demonstrate how exactly GRRM's use of realism, historical or otherwise, disqualifies his works from the fantasy genre. Please, please answer that.

I already acknowledged that giving the impression that I consider ASOIAF as technically disqualified from status as a work of fantasy was a big mistake on my part. If you go back to my first several posts, that's not what I was talking about. Look at the thread title -- the use of the word "really" is something that was very deliberate. It's sort of like when Whoopi Goldberg got into trouble when she said "Ok Roman Polanski raped that little girl, but i wasn't rape-rape." That was sort of the concept. "Yes it's fantasy; but is it fantasy-fantasy"? One example I considered bringing up was steampunk. That's got magic. It features tech, but it's not sci fi in that the tech is dated (from our perspective). Why does steampunk get a specific sub-genre classification? Might not ASOIAF, with its heavy use of historical parallels and emphasis on the mundane get similar treatment as a distinct sub-genre?

I would argue that Goodkind doesn't even belong in the world of 'literature'.

Lol that's so harsh. I don't disagree, but that's harsh. Have you seen a picture of Goodkind? He's all solemn and very intent. I got burned badly by this series, someone said to me, "its the best fantasy ever" and he wasn't an idiot so I just ordered the first 3 books on faith. And no I didn't make it very far. Still -- that's harsh lol. Wonder what you'd say about Salvatore.

[Gertrude]

So taem - you've clarified your statement to say that a SOIAF is fantasy. So what are you debating now? That it's a different kind of fantasy? Is that a bad thing or a good thing or what? Sorry, I guess I am not following what you are trying to say here. I think that we've all agreed here that there are different sub-genres of fantasy. SOIAF is different than a lot of typical fantasy, but not unique. (by typical, I mean how the person off the street would describe it - Elves and ogres and magic, oh my!)

[polishgenius]

About GRRM's characterization, I think that is what sets him apart from great many other writers in general, fantasy or otherwise. In that regard, he really is a force of nature. Dostoevsky is my favorite author of all time, precisely because of the insanely good characterization in his novels, but even he had trouble with creating great female characters (they're often clearly inferior to his male characters). Faulkner is perhaps the closest one to Dostoevsky out of classical authors, but even he used his female protagonists somewhat sparely. But GRRM produces great female protagonists almost effortlessly. You name it, he already created it. Males, too. I honestly think that the legion of great characters he created in ASOIAF is possibly unparalleled. (People tell me Jonathan Franzen could give GRRM a run for his money, but I'm yet to read Franzen.)

I can't comment much on Faulkner or Dostoevsky- I've read no Faulkner and the half-or-so I read of The Idiot bored me to tears (someone recommend me a good translation please?) but I do think you're overrating GRRM's characterisation just a touch. His individuals are often very interesting, yeah, and he excels at building a certain iconic quality into them, but they don't bounce off each other very well for me. Just within fantasy, as an obvious example, I find Pratchett's characters much more compelling...

That's all personal preference though. aSoIaF, while I obviously enjoy it, has never ranked all that highly in my lists of even best fantasy, let alone best literature overall (although I haven't read nearly as much non-fantasy literature as I probably should).

[Gertrude]

It's sort of like when Whoopi Goldberg got into trouble when she said "Ok Roman Polanski raped that little girl, but i wasn't rape-rape." That was sort of the concept. "Yes it's fantasy; but is it fantasy-fantasy"?

Uh, no. That's a bad analogy. Rape is rape, fantasy is fantasy. Whoopi deservedly got raked over the coals for it, and so are you.

Wow that's a bad analogy.

[Tywin]

To be succinct... It's fantasy without the blatant motifs of the genre smeared in ones face.

[sologdin]

am not detecting any influence by flaubert or mary ann evans or any other literary realist on asoiaf.