does ASOIAF really belong in the fantasy genre?

[taem]

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!)

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

My impression is that ASOIAF is not viewed as sub-genre material, but as residing squarely within the mainstream conventions of high fantasy. The NYT review I've discussed quite a bit for example, places ASOIAF as an heir to Tolkien and the other greats.

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

He names Tad Williams as a major influence so that's where the Realism (capital R) might come in.

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.

You do understand I'm not making a rape vs rape-rape distinction?

[Miodrag]

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).

Dostoevsky: I'd advise to start with Notes from Underground, a novella that is possibly the best introduction to his world. Then Crime and Punishment, which is a pretty interesting read, aside from being one of the greatest books ever written. And then of course Brothers Karamazov, quite possibly the best novel ever.

About ASOIAF characters, I don't think I'm overrating them at all. Just look at his secondary characters like Sandor, Stannis, Aemon, Tywin, or Cersei before AFFC, Ygritte (aside from "You know nothing Jon Snow" which, honestly, always annoyed me), Qhorin, Lysa, Bronn, Littlefinger... Not to mention POV ones. Vast majority of them has much more than just a certain iconic quality, I'd say. They're so well founded and developed and deep that, from my experience, discussions about ASOIAF unfortunately often end in character studies, even though there's possibly more to this story than that. There are characters with certain iconic quality, like Davos or Sam (or Victarion, for that matter), but even they are very believable and interesting. As for the rest, they're way richer than "certain iconic quality".

[Miodrag]

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

If we're talking 19th century realists, you're probably right, no direct influence there. But, early 20th century American literature - Fitzgerald and Faulkner, specifically - did influence GRRM greatly, and they themselves were influenced by 19th century realists, so there you have it.

[Gertrude]

You do understand I'm not making a rape vs rape-rape distinction?

I understand that and didn't think that was a statement condoning any type of rape.

I still think it's a WOW bad analogy for a couple of reasons. One is the obvious - it is something that can easily derail a thread in record time just because of the nature of it and the internet. They don't mix well.

It's also bad because it hurts your argument. Is there a distinction between rape and rape-rape? No. Is there a distinction between fantasy and fantasy-fantasy? No again. Whoopi got opposition, you're getting opposition. Perhaps you should re-think why that is.

I think you're having trouble communicating your exact feelings and point, and because of that we get a 15 page thread that goes 14 pages before you clarify exactly what you are asking. It was obvious in the first few pages that people were under the impression you were looking for a yes/no answer. Several people asked you to clarify and yet it didn't happen until late in this thread. If the way you phrase things is causing this much confusion already, I don't think throwing a rape analogy in the mix is going to help. Long story short, choose your words better and stick to the point you are trying to make.

[The Evil Queen]

Does asoiaf belong in the fantasy genre? Yes.

Does/can asoiaf fit into other genres? Yes.

Is it more fantasy than those other genres? Impossible to answer, it depends on the reader as to which genre they will see as defining for the series. For some of us it is fantasy first, other stuff second. For you Taem it is obviously other stuff first and fantasy second (or last). But that doesn't mean it does not belong in the fantasy genre. The fact that GRRM calls it fantasy before he calls it anything else, and that in shops it is placed in the fantasy section means that the general consensus is that it is fantasy before all else.

[Zorral]

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.

:agree: Many, manyl fantasy writers do this, for pete's sake. They brag, upon encountering a juicy fact even when they are entirely ignorant of the historical context, "ooooo, I'm totally stealing that!"

ASOIAF uses far more from other fantasy novels than it does so-called real history, for that matter. They incorporate huge elements from other fantasy authors from Tolkien to Hobb, and everyone in-between. If a writer was successful GRRM studied him or her carefully.

[sj4iy]

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.

Well, I got to about page 60 in "The Sword of Truth" when I just couldn't take it any longer. It was every fantasy cliché written at a 3rd grade level and with characters who were flatter than the sheet of paper they were printed on. I've read better fan fiction...and I hate fan fiction.

I've never read Salvatore, but in general, I prefer reading the cream of the crop in every genre rather than wade deep down into the muck in just one.

[taem]

I still think it's a WOW bad analogy for a couple of reasons. One is the obvious - it is something that can easily derail a thread in record time just because of the nature of it and the internet. They don't mix well.

It's also bad because it hurts your argument. Is there a distinction between rape and rape-rape? No. Is there a distinction between fantasy and fantasy-fantasy? No again. Whoopi got opposition, you're getting opposition. Perhaps you should re-think why that is.

I think you're letting the emotional content of that word, rape, get in the way of the analogy I was making. And I don't think you need a red flag term like rape to derail a thread or cause vitriol on the internet - I think like the 3rd or 4th reply on this thread was someone telling me to "fuck off". Lol. But I hear what you're saying. It did speak to what I meant though, the analogy itself is quite appropos, not only in the distinction being made, but in the reaction to it, because like Whoopi, where I go wrong perhaps is that I am applying a dated conception most no longer subscribe to. In fact one of the early replies spoke to that, that there has been a shift in high fantasy over the past 15 years, so that what I was saying might have applied in the 80s and early to mid 90s, but no longer.

I think you're having trouble communicating your exact feelings and point, and because of that we get a 15 page thread that goes 14 pages before you clarify exactly what you are asking. It was obvious in the first few pages that people were under the impression you were looking for a yes/no answer. Several people asked you to clarify and yet it didn't happen until late in this thread. If the way you phrase things is causing this much confusion already, I don't think throwing a rape analogy in the mix is going to help. Long story short, choose your words better and stick to the point you are trying to make.

Hmm. I ordinarily do not like to discuss the thread itself in a thread rather than the subject of the thread, but I do want to say something here. Be fair: one of the very first replies understood exactly what I was saying -- "the strength of the series lies in the mundane." Shortly after, someone posted something similar, that the key emotional moments in the series thus far do not involve fantasy elements. They did disagree that this gives ASOIAF a non-fantasy feel. But they understood clearly what I meant. And frankly, some of the replies in the thread had nothing to do with me. Like another of the first replies said, heatedly, "oh, so if it's good it can't be fantasy?" Wherever they got that, it wasn't anything I said.

Where I must accept blame is this impression that I said ASOIAF is not fantasy. I never said that, at any point in this thread. I was saying things like, "you could strip out all the fantasy elements and still have the heart of the series" and the fantasy quotient in the narrative is quite low." But at no point was there any assertion that ASOIAF is not fantasy. But obviously I gave that impression since many folks thought that. So I should have clarified that early on. You're right about that.

But, all of that relates to only a small portion of this thread. Much of it has nothing to do with any of that, but rather is about tangential issues and completely unrelated issues. That's why it's however many pages, the actual original point of the thread and the attendant discussion would fill what, like 2 pages? Lol. But I'm actually glad there was confusion and it meandered. I'm enjoying this, just generally chatting about fantasy lit. I could keep going here, or in another thread, just talking out loud freeform about fantasy and going down whatever path we feel like. I have hardly any friends who read fantasy lit so this is nice for me, can't do this in RL.

[AverageGuy]

The reviewer too, feels that the strangeness that he calls a hallmark of fantasy has not yet made it into the narrative proper.

I disagree with the reviewer and am somewhat curious how they came to that conclusion. The series is called "A Song of Ice and Fire," the ice and fire in this case apparently referring to Others and dragons. These fantastical creatures have been part of the story since A Game of Thrones. If someone's managed to make it through that book along with the next four and not realize all this is leading toward a showdown in Westeros proper with dragonfire and ice elves, then I can only assume they haven't been paying attention.

Yes, the Jon/Sam and Dany plots so far have been sidelined to the Westeros plot. However, this is still a work of fiction, not a history, and as such it has a certain narrative structure. That means a significant amount of time is not spent on a plotline unless it comes into play later. Otherwise, there is no reason for us to have read about these storylines as anything but rumors of far-off lands. Moreover, while these plotlines are currently peripheral, once they get unleashed on Westeros, they will not be. They cannot be. These larger threats will demand reactions from other characters, and even if they are defeated, it's practically guaranteed to change the political and social landscape of the continent. In the meantime, all the "game of thrones" politicking does is weaken Westeros for what is coming.

That is giving more weight than I like to the original premise, that "strangeness" has not made it into the narrative proper. I count 31 Dany chapters, 42 Jon, 10 Samwell, 21 Bran, at least 5 for Arya with the Faceless Men from AFFC on, so 110 chapters dealing with the more fantastical plotlines. Not counting appendices, there are 337 chapters, so that's roughly a third. Besides those, we also have zombies Beric and Cat, Quentyn chapters, prophecies from Maggie the Frog and a child of the forest at Oldstones and whatever's going on with Patchface, references to spells in King's Landing working better in Tyrion chapters (the fire ladder and the wildfire), references to Euron's magic in certain of the Iron Islands chapters, and the fact that Tyrion's storyline is beginning to converge with Dany's. So easily more than a third of the series in total. To me, that seems like a not-insignificant portion, and it's hard to reconcile that as not being part of the "real" narrative. Still, even if you can discount that as not playing a major part yet, or say that as of now these parts can be read as symbolic and replaced by generic outside powers, you can't avoid that greater changes are coming, that fantasy will be playing a greater role by the end of the series. If there was any doubt, Westerosi nobility beginning to gather around Daenerys is somewhat obviously a precursor to it.

[taem]

I disagree with the reviewer and am somewhat curious how they came to that conclusion. The series is called "A Song of Ice and Fire," the ice and fire in this case apparently referring to Others and dragons. These fantastical creatures have been part of the story since A Game of Thrones. If someone's managed to make it through that book along with the next four and not realize all this is leading toward a showdown in Westeros proper with dragonfire and ice elves, then I can only assume they haven't been paying attention...

Moreover, while these plotlines are currently peripheral, once they get unleashed on Westeros, they will not be.

Doesn't it feel like it's taking an awfully long time to develop that though? We keep getting hints; and more hints; but it really hasn't moved all that much imho. The very first pages of the series featurs a wight. 4500 pages later, where has that gone? I don't really mind, other than Dany's travels, which I'm not so keen on, I love the game of thrones aspect, so it has remained a gripping read for me throughout. But we are through 5 books of an intended 7, and the main plotlines remain peripheral as you say. That's an awfully long time, and a really long distance into the length of the book, for the main plotlines to remain peripheral.

[Darth Richard II]

Holy shit. Every time this guy is proved wrong(objectively too) on something he changes tack, he's either a really, really great troll, or a fucking moron.

I like when he admits that LotR is fantasy and more popular than ASoIaF but then says that ASoIaF can;t be fantasy because its popular.

And oh, hey, rape as a metaphor? Surprised this hasn't been mod locked yet.

[KalibakCruel]

So we're doing this are we? I thought we concluded that fantasy was an illusion created by corporations to suck the wallets dry of many a fool.

[taem]

I like when he admits that LotR is fantasy and more popular than ASoIaF but then says that ASoIaF can;t be fantasy because its popular.

I never had to "admit" that LotR is fantasy because I never claimed it wasn't. I never had to "admit" that LotR is more popular than ASOIAF because I actually said LotR is more famous and has sold way more books. I never said ASOIAF can't be fantasy because it's popular, I never even said ASOIAF can't be fantasy. I don't think I ever even said ASOIAF is popular because I have no idea if it is. HBO's GoT is; and I have talked about that. I really don't know why you are claiming I said any of those things. Even if I had, I don't get why that would get you so hot and bothered.

[Gertrude]

I admit I was taken aback by the analogy at first (well, still am). It's still bad for the reasons I listed. The first might be emotional (but I don't think I am wrong that they are a bad mix) The second point isn't emotional. She got flack and most people thought she was wrong. That fact that something IS a thing doesn't mean different classifications of a thing are not that thing. Yet you bring it up to bolster your position - it boggles my mind,

Yes, this thread drifted into tangentials and without clarification for too long. There were a few people who commented on the things you were trying to say, but the majority were obviously misunderstanding you. You engaged with the ones who were on your wavelength and didn't really bother with the ones who were puzzled by your question until the voices became much louder. Yeah, a more focused topic might have helped with that

I do think there was some unwarranted hostility towards you, but ... internet. Whatcha gonna do? Hope I haven't given that impression because if so, it wasn't intended. I think there is a lot of frustration because we answered the question (what we thought was the question) and all we were getting from you were your feelings and examples that derailed the discussion further.

You even said yourself that you might feel different once the series is finished. When thinking about that, it does seem kind of silly that we're trying to 'classify' a series as a whole before it's even finished.

[AverageGuy]

Doesn't it feel like it's taking an awfully long time to develop that though? We keep getting hints; and more hints; but it really hasn't moved all that much imho. The very first pages of the series featurs a wight. 4500 pages later, where has that gone?

The story grew. Who knows, it may even grow beyond seven books.

I'm not aware of how familiar you are with ASOIAF's publishing history. In its totality, the series was originally planned as a trilogy. The Red Wedding? Meant to happen in book 1. Martin's one book's worth of story turned into three, without real detriment. However, when he finally got to the end of what was originally book 1, he still planned on writing the original books 2 and 3, A Dance With Dragons and The Winds of Winter, relatively unchanged, bringing the series length to 5. At the end of my copy of ASOS, Martin's author bio says something like, "Martin lives in New Mexico. He is currently working on the fourth book in the A Song of Ice and Fire series, A Dance with Dragons." The original plan was a five-year-gap between books 3 and 4, allowing the child characters to age. ADWD would then kick off with Dany's invasion of Westeros (since we're dealing with what ifs, if the five-year gap had worked, we'd already have seen the shift from peripheral plot to central). However, because there was some "story that needed to be told," some character who apparently did something major in those five years that couldn't be effectively related in flashbacks, the decision was made to scrap the five years later plan completely and write a gap book, A Feast for Crows. Five books became six. The wait between books was growing, though, and Martin couldn't make the book work the way he wanted to, largely because of a "Meereeneese knot." So the gap book was split along POV geographic lines, and book 4 became books 4 and 5, with the troublesome Dany chapters deferred to book 5. The series now stood at what Martin hoped would be 6 books but probably 7, tentatively A Time for Wolves. That has since turned into definitely 7, the title now being A Dream of Spring. During all this, Martin has said that while details have changed, his general goal hasn't, so peripheral plot or not, that means we can still guess the shape of the story. Of course that's putting aside how it doesn't make sense to tell a story which includes these running Others and Dragons plotlines for no reason, and presumably the various plotlines converge.

[Darth Richard II]

Buddy, if you think this is me hot and bothered, you must be new to the internet.

[taem]

The story grew. Who knows, it may even grow beyond seven books... The series now stood at what Martin hoped would be 6 books but probably 7, tentatively A Time for Wolves. That has since turned into definitely 7, the title now being A Dream of Spring.

7 isn't enough, pacing would be ruined. Even if he did the 5 year gap proper pacing would call for more than 7 books, because imho he would have to divulge what happened during the missing years the way he has been divulging what happened in the recent past, drip by drip. A sudden deluge of exposition covering the events of the gap would be so jarring given the manner of transmission of information we've had thus far.

Buddy, if you think this is me hot and bothered, you must be new to the internet.

So that's you calm and reflective? Lol. I'm almost curious to see a thread somewhere where you get in a flame war.

[sologdin]

the fantastic is probably less a genre than a mode. modern marketing practice cuts books into silly alleged subgenres, but the only categories that we need recognize are those based on formal rather than substantial characteristics: lyric, epic, drama, novel, &c.

[Darth Richard II]

You know I think we maybe need to establish some basic concepts first here.

You do know that Dragons are fictional, yes?

[Myshkin]

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?)

Since there's really nothing better to do in this thread than discuss translations of Russian classics I will happily give you a recommendation. My favorite translation of The Idiot is the Henry and Olga Carlisle translation. The Magarshack and Pever/Volokhonsky translations are also very good (when in doubt go with the P/V translation of anything). Just stay away from the Constance Garnett translation.