does ASOIAF really belong in the fantasy genre?

[Errant Bard]

Taem, you went on for like 15 pages never clarifying what people visibly "did not understand" and never addressing directly the most contrary comments you got. You're not in court: it's not because you "never said" something that you said the opposite of it and that you did not repeatedly imply that something.

You want to be understood, maybe you should explain early on, be precise, respond directly to criticism and stick to your guns.

I never had to "admit" that LotR is fantasy because I never claimed it wasn't.

He's obviously saying that you indeed did recognize that LotR was Fantasy and popular while you keep trying to imply ASOIAF is more than Fantasy because it's popular.

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.

About Tolkien, that success was achieved over time and it was never at any point in its history a hot cultural phenomenon like HBO's GoT is today. (Talking about the books, not the movies.)

At what point in history did LotR ever capture the imagination of such a large segment of society at one moment in time to such an extent? I don't think that ever happened.

I never said ASOIAF can't be fantasy because it's popular

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?

[...]

Let me put it this way -- I don't know anyone who isn't a fan of fantasy that likes, or has even read, LotR. I know a metric ton of people who don't like fantasy who love GoT, even the books. Oh and edit to add, Jackson was not the first to bring LotR to the screen. Bakshi tried, and that effort failed.

I never even said ASOIAF can't be fantasy.

Seriously?

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

Also title of the thread: "does ASOIAF really belong in the fantasy genre?"

I think you're assigning too high a value to how a setting determines genre.

[...]my point there was asking out loud if the mere presence of fantastical elements makes a book a fantasy.

Take the fantastic out of ASOIAF and leave the mundane. You still have the heart of the series

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?

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.

You have tried to use GoT's popularity as proof that ASOIAF transcended Fantasy. If you are willing to link ASOIAF to GoT that way, of course you are implying that GoT's popularity is ASOIAF's popularity, don't be absurd.

[taem]

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.

Well that would make browsing through aisles or Amazon depts an interesting experience. Just search for "novel"? In my youth I would go to the bookstore and browse the fantasy and sci fi aisle and grab books on a hunch. The "coolness" of the cover was very important in this process. More recently I ended up with David Drake and Steven Erikson from browsing Fantasy on Amazon. I actually picked up Game of Thrones from browsing the fantasy aisle, knew nothing about it, just seemed like it might be ok. I do find genre classification useful, and sub-genre classifications would help even more.

You'll have to expand on what you mean by genre vs mode. I have a hunch you're speaking a little bit to what I've been saying.

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

You do know that Dragons are fictional, yes?

Yes. But let me ask you this. Farley Mowat's Never Cry Wolf. Let's say he wrote of dragons, and not wolves. Otherwise it's the same book -- just substitute dragon for wolf, his observations about social hierarchy and eating habits and relationship to the environment is all imaginary, but he writes as if he were talking about real animals, in the same style as Never Cry Wolf. What kind of book would that be?

But you were saying -- yes I know dragons are fictional.

Just stay away from the Constance Garnett translation.

Interesting. In my time in college annotated Garnett was seen as the standard by the comp lit profs I had. Not that I had many, wasn't my major; in fact it was just the one prof in the one class. But because of that Garnett is the translation I've continued to pick up if available. I will say, one advantage of going with Garnett, she has translated basically everything you'd want to read -- Tolstoy, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Turgenev. Other than Lermontov who else would you want? (edit, oh I forgot about Pushkin) So you get used to her style and each successive read gets easier (these are dense works for the most part) and you have more of a basis for comparison.

If you're going to dip your toes in Russian lit though I would so go Gogol before the rest. Start with The Overcoat which is always published with a bunch of other short stories.

Taem, you went on for like 15 pages never clarifying what people visibly "did not understand" and never addressing directly the most contrary comments you got. You're not in court: it's not because you "never said" something that you said the opposite of it and that you did not repeatedly imply that something...

Ok I looked at that list, initially I thought I had made a typo when I wrote "...HBO's GoT (talking about the books not the movies)" which plain makes no sense but then I realized the parenthetical explains that I am comparing LotR the books rather than the movies to the HBO GoT series.

As for the rest, I stand by what I said to Richard. None of that says what he claimed I said. I never said ASOIAF is more popular than LotR. I never said if something is popular, it can't be fantasy. I never said ASOIAF is not fantasy.

[Howdyphillip]

Yes

[polishgenius]

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.

Cheers guv!

I just went with an opportunistic download last time I tried it, and the translation is woeful. I can't say that I'll ever think it's as good as a lot of people do, though we'll see, but every quibble I might had was amplified by how stilted it was.

I couldn't help but feel that, as far as writing a 'perfectly beautiful man', goes, though, Terry Pratchett did it better with Carrot. :P

*flees*

I notice that TC has been carefully ignoring mine (and others) more obviously unarguable points. I'd still like to know if he's ever read GGK.

[taem]

I notice that TC has been carefully ignoring mine (and others) more obviously unarguable points. I'd still like to know if he's ever read GGK.

I'm not deliberately ignoring anyone or trying to avoid anything. There's just a ton to reply too and I'm just commenting where a thought is immediately at hand when I read the post.

If you mean Guy Gavriel Kay, yeah, I adore Tigana. But I read it a long time ago, junior high. I remember nothing about it, vague recollection of superficial similarities to Lion Witch and Wardrobe as the series begins, but I remember I loved it. I really need to reread it. Edit wait I'm getting confused between fionavar and Tigana. The one I'm talking about is the trilogy. Like I said my recollection is dim here.

[Myshkin]

Cheers guv!

I just went with an opportunistic download last time I tried it, and the translation is woeful. I can't say that I'll ever think it's as good as a lot of people do, though we'll see, but every quibble I might had was amplified by how stilted it was.

The problem is that all the cheap and/or free downloads of Russian classics are gonna be Garnett translations since they're in the public domain.

[AverageGuy]

If you mean Guy Gavriel Kay, yeah, I adore Tigana. But I read it a long time ago, junior high. I remember nothing about it, vague recollection of superficial similarities to Lion Witch and Wardrobe as the series begins, but I remember I loved it. I really need to reread it. Edit wait I'm getting confused between fionavar and Tigana. The one I'm talking about is the trilogy. Like I said my recollection is dim here.

Tigana and Fionavar were Kay's earliest works (well, they and his work on the The Silmarillion), with both having a lot of magic, and Fionavar in particular being something the author's mentioned as getting Tolkien out of his system. Most of the other books he's written -- A Song for Arbonne, The Lions of al-Rassan, The Sarantine Mosaic duology, Under Heaven, A River of Stars -- have even less magic than ASOIAF but are still classified as fantasy. Each is also heavily influenced by historical events, though going by Myshkin's definition they're more Romantic than Realist. Kay and "Frodo Lives!" graffiti were heavily on my mind as I was reading through the thread, though others eventually got to them. I'd recommend checking out one of Kay's standalones, Lions or Under Heaven, as I'd be interested in seeing how they affect your thoughts on the topic.

[sologdin]

mio--

fitzgerald and faulkner are modernists, with their own romanticist influences, though, no?

taem--

browsing through aisles or Amazon depts. an interesting experience

that was kinda the point. the designations fantasy, true crime, romance, &c. are made by the publisher on the basis of marketing information, which is not normally useful.

[Miodrag]

sologdin,

they were modernists (probably, because the definition of "modernism" is always elusive), but they were also heavily influenced by 19th century realists, especially Russians: Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Gogol... To be honest, I'm certain Faulkner was (by Dostoevsky most of all), while for Fitzgerald I think he does have a lot of Tolstoy in his prose, I'd say. Also, Hemingway was a great admirer of Gogol, and Hemingway was a friend of both Fitzgerald and Faulkner, so it's not a stretch to presume they also read (and possibly liked) Gogol. Undoubtedly, they were probably influenced by French realists, just like Russians themselves were, but, unfortunately, I'm not nearly as familiar with French as I am with Russians.

Anyway, 19th century is the golden age for realism in literature, so I guess any writer who's inclined to some sort of realism has to be influenced by those guys, even indirectly. And Martin is inclined, very much so.

[taem]

taem--

browsing through aisles or Amazon depts. an interesting experience

that was kinda the point. the designations fantasy, true crime, romance, &c. are made by the publisher on the basis of marketing information, which is not normally useful.

I guess I disagree that it's not normally useful. Grain of salt and all that, yes, but I don't question the usefulness as a general proposition. I really don't view subject matter classification in strictly marketing terms, in fact I view it as more of a functional tool in retail vending.

I'd recommend checking out one of Kay's standalones, Lions or Under Heaven, as I'd be interested in seeing how they affect your thoughts on the topic.

Virtually all fantasy I've read are series. That's something I look for specifically. In fact I can't recall a single standalone work of fantasy I've ever read. Anyone else do this?

Btw, to add to my comment about not remembering anything about Fionavar (I think that's what it was; isn't Tigana a standalone?) except the fact that I loved it. Several folks here have asserted that I can't have read much fantasy at all to hold the opinions I do. I've actually read a lot of fantasy. Maybe not as much as some here; but I definitely classify as a hardcore enthusiast of the genre I think.

Off the top of my head, Katherine Kerr, liked those a lot. Williams MS&T -- a favorite. Zimmer. Zimmer Bradley. Eddings. Drake. Erikson. Anthony. Feist. Leiber (love). Moorcock (love). Donaldson (love). A few pages of Goodkind. A few pages of Salvatore. Some series about a woman knight named Pax (?). Vance. Weis and Hickman. The Deryni books. The Mary Stewart Arthurian series. GG Kay. The Amber series. I don't know if the Pern series belong here but it had dragons. Earthsea. Melanie Rawn. Modesitt. Mercedes Lackey. Shannara. That's just off the top of my head. I've read a ton more. And I don't include some works others might, like Gormenghast, Gaiman, HP, Clarke.

But I read pretty much all of these in grade school/junior high. Very little since. WoT because it took two decades. ASOIAF, I was in NYC visiting my sister on 9/11 and then I was stuck there for a while and I wanted an escape so I grabbed it at random, I think the thickness of the book had as much to do with picking it up as anything else, that and Jordan's endorsement.

And here's the thing. Junior high wasn't that long ago, it's not like I'm a senior citizen, but dam me if I can't remember much of anything about these books I once loved so much. I do remember whether I liked a series or not, and the degree. So I can say my top 5 fantasy series would be WoT, MS&T, Fionavar, ASOIAF, Covenant. But don't ask me to provide even a skeletal outline of the series I've read.

The oddest things stick with me though. Istvan Divega is still vivid for me, I thought he was the coolest guy ever. And I remember a scene in that series where a prince is sexually serviced by a woman who scoops up his sperm and shoves it into her vagina in a bid to get pregnant. I remember Allanon fighting the jachyra. The Bloodguard fighting the sand gorgon in the second chronicles of covenant, rooting so hard for them to win and then the despair when the gorgon smashes the kneecap of the bloodguard who was getting in some hits. Miriam allowing herself to be used by that scumbag on the boat, that was like a punch in the gut, I was at an age when life was full of the agony of crushing on girls who were steady with someone else, and I understood so well Simon's pain when she tells him she wasn't forced, she wanted it too. I even vividly recall one of the fight scenes in the series about that woman knight, where Pax is fighting in the river. And I didn't like that series, I don't think I finished them. I suppose some of the sexual stuff stands out given my age at the time. But it's odd to me, some of the things that I recall so well.

[polishgenius]

The problem is that all the cheap and/or free downloads of Russian classics are gonna be Garnett translations since they're in the public domain.

The one I tried was in fact by someone called Eva Martin. But yeah, I'm deffo not going the free download route again.

[Kojiro]

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.

I tried pointing this out earlier in the thread, that the supernatural elements compose a significant chunk of the text, and then what we got was replied nonsense from Taem about giants and mammoths being part of "conventional warfare." Sufficed to say, following that rape comparison earlier, I'm inclined to suspect that the OP is a troll (thus why the goalposts are repeatedly getting shifted around--first it's not fantasy, then it is fantasy but not like most fantasy and the claim that he never said it wasn't fantasy despite the evidence to the contrary and arguments about popularity and so forth). So frankly, I suggest people stop feeding it.

[Myshkin]

The one I tried was in fact by someone called Eva Martin. But yeah, I'm deffo not going the free download route again.

Never tried the Eva Martin translation, and probably won't now, but since it was done in 1915 it's also probably in the public domain. Yup, you just gotta shell out the cash for one of the better translations.

[taem]

I tried pointing this out earlier in the thread, that the supernatural elements compose a significant chunk of the text, and then what we got was replied nonsense from Taem about giants and mammoths being part of "conventional warfare."

The discussion wasn't about whether there are supernatural elements in the book. Of course there are. It's about the role that these supernatural elements play in the series thus far. Yes we have giants and mammoths; but what do they do? What do they signify? The giant is a battering ram; the mammoth is no different from the elephants Hannibal used against the Romans. Even the dragons, thus far the role they play is that of a thing of enormous value Dany can convert into slave soldiers, and Barristan and Jorah consistently speak of them as the technological-military advantage she needs to conquer Westeros. That's what I mean by conventional. But this all makes sense when you read GRRM interviews about the nature of magic, and the realist style he employs. This isn't going to be a series where wizards fling balls of fire and giants play a supernatural role on the battlefield; they're just huge dudes who are enormously strong and tough to kill.

At the battle of the Wall, what does the giant do? He wrenches the door open, and leads the assault team down the tunnel, where they are met by Donal's defenders, there is a pitched fight, everyone including the giant dies. Replace the giant with a battering ram. What has changed?

All of this is partly why that NYT review I keep bringing up said what it did: that while fantasy is the literature of strangeness, Martin's books are generally praised for their realism, and while fantastic elements exist in the books, Martin has yet to incorporate them into the narrative we have thus far so that a literature of strangeness results.

We all know that will change once the wights finally make their move and the prophecies begin falling into place. But in terms of what we have thus far, the presence of supernatural elements doesn't mean that the narrative is about the supernatural. Of course, I think some here would dispute that fantasy is in fact the literature of strangeness, that supernatural elements written in a realist style playing conventional roles is enough even without that sense of strangeness.

[Kojiro]

The discussion wasn't about whether there are supernatural elements in the book. Of course there are. It's about the role that these supernatural elements play in the series thus far. Yes we have giants and mammoths; but what do they do? What do they signify? The giant is a battering ram; the mammoth is no different from the elephants Hannibal used against the Romans. Even the dragons, thus far the role they play is that of a thing of enormous value Dany can convert into slave soldiers, and Barristan and Jorah consistently speak of them as the technological-military advantage she needs to conquer Westeros. That's what I mean by conventional. But this all makes sense when you read GRRM interviews about the nature of magic, and the realist style he employs. This isn't going to be a series where wizards fling balls of fire and giants play a supernatural role on the battlefield; they're just huge dudes who are enormously strong and tough to kill.

At the battle of the Wall, what does the giant do? He wrenches the door open, and leads the assault team down the tunnel, where they are met by Donal's defenders, there is a pitched fight, everyone including the giant dies. Replace the giant with a battering ram. What has changed?

Donal Noye is still alive, because a battering ram can't crawl into a tunnel and kill people.

Honestly, your internal logic continues to completely baffle me.

[Darth Richard II]

Purple Monkey Dishwasher.

[taem]

Donal Noye is still alive, because a battering ram can't crawl into a tunnel and kill people.

Honestly, your internal logic continues to completely baffle me.

Now who's trolling?

But in all seriousness my discussion here has been well intentioned and I've been enjoying it. Hope it goes on and we talk about the original issue more, or something else. Because there isn't a catchall thread of just stuff. Maybe someone should make one, just a freeform thread of some sort where we just follow trains of thought around the general topic of ASOIAF and issues arising from it.

[Kojiro]

Now who's trolling?

Still you. And that's honestly my kindest estimation of your posts.

[Spockydog]

The discussion wasn't about whether there are supernatural elements in the book. Of course there are. It's about the role that these supernatural elements play in the series thus far. Yes we have giants and mammoths; but what do they do? What do they signify? The giant is a battering ram; the mammoth is no different from the elephants Hannibal used against the Romans. Even the dragons, thus far the role they play is that of a thing of enormous value Dany can convert into slave soldiers, and Barristan and Jorah consistently speak of them as the technological-military advantage she needs to conquer Westeros. That's what I mean by conventional. But this all makes sense when you read GRRM interviews about the nature of magic, and the realist style he employs. This isn't going to be a series where wizards fling balls of fire and giants play a supernatural role on the battlefield; they're just huge dudes who are enormously strong and tough to kill.

What about the smoke-monster crawling out of Melisandre's fanny? What does that signify?

[Darth Richard II]

What about the smoke-monster crawling out of Melisandre's fanny? What does that signify?

Dude, that thing did not come out her FANNY. o.O

Still you. And that's honestly my kindest estimation of your posts.

Ha, I know right.