does ASOIAF really belong in the fantasy genre?

[Darth Richard II]

Martin is on record stating that the seasons would have a fantasy explanation, not a sci-fi explanation.

Yeah, I keep bringing this up, and the people who's arguments are completely destroyed by said interview just keep telling me to be less mean. :P

Edit: Uhhhh...The Master and Margarita is considered fantasy, or speculative fiction if you want be pickier(or sometimes realist fantasy I guess).

[The Evil Queen]

Since so many posters insist ASOIAF can’t be anything but fantasy simply because it contains fantasy elements, let me ask you this: where does Hamlet belong to then? With the ghost that triggers the story, is it ridiculous to consider Hamlet as anything other than fantasy?

Curious because I was wondering the same about Arthurian stories, what genre are they, and if you take away Merlin and all that (since that seems to be a theme in this thread) what genre is it then?

My point has been all along that many stories will fit into several categories, and they are not mutually exclusive, just because a story fits one genre doesn't mean it suddenly can't bee part of another genre as well. So asoiaf can be placed into other genres, but it still does fit in the fantasy genre as well. And in the end, no matter what everyone says, it is the individual reader that will decide which genre is most prominent for their own selves.

[Darth Richard II]

Depends on which Arthurian story. Usually they end up in mythology.

[sj4iy]

I may not have read or seen the interview where grrm said that it is fantasy, but I believe you that he said it. If I were him I would say the same. But we have to admit that his story really isn't one that deserves to be labelled as just some fantasy.

...but it is. It might be exceptionally good fantasy, but it's still fantasy. Just like "Dracula" may be exceptionally good horror, but it's still horror. And "Pride and Prejudice" may be an especially good rom-com, but it's still a rom-com. Genre means nothing in terms of quality...quality writing can be found in every genre, just as terrible writing can be found in every genre. Fantasy gets a bad rap, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad genre...it simply means that it has negative associations that may or may not be true.

[Miodrag]

Curious because I was wondering the same about Arthurian stories, what genre are they, and if you take away Merlin and all that (since that seems to be a theme in this thread) what genre is it then?

My point has been all along that many stories will fit into several categories, and they are not mutually exclusive, just because a story fits one genre doesn't mean it suddenly can't bee part of another genre as well. So asoiaf can be placed into other genres, but it still does fit in the fantasy genre as well. And in the end, no matter what everyone says, it is the individual reader that will decide which genre is most prominent for their own selves.

OK, so why not compare ASOIAF to those stories? Could be it's even better than stories of that kind usually are. Could be it's not as good. Could be Martin bit more than he can chew. Could be he delivered much more than promised on first glance. Those are all legitimate questions that can stem from trying to figure what genre/genres a work belongs to. That's hardly only way to analyze a fictional work, but it's completely valid and reasonable.

For the record, nobody said different genres are mutually exclusive. In fact, one of the rare things everyone here seems to agree on, is that ASOIAF is fantasy. Now, let's see if there's more to it.

[sj4iy]

Just a side question:

Would you consider Nausicäa fantasy or science fiction or what? Because it looks at first like fantasy, but it is actually scientifically explained...in a way. It shows a scenario on how the world might end up like. Yet it also has strong things with fantasy like prophecies.

It's fantasy. It has many more fantasy elements than sci-fi elements (large bug things, Nausicaa has an unexplained the power to bond with them, etc). Having an explanation for things doesn't necessarily mean it's science...it just means that the plot makes sense.

[The Evil Queen]

OK, so why not compare ASOIAF to those stories? Could be it's even better than stories of that kind usually are. Could be it's not as good. Could be Martin bit more than he can chew. Could be he delivered much more than promised on first glance. Those are all legitimate questions that can stem from trying to figure what genre/genres a work belongs to. That's hardly only way to analyze a fictional work, but it's completely valid and reasonable.

For the record, nobody said different genres are mutually exclusive. In fact, one of the rare things everyone here seems to agree on, is that ASOIAF is fantasy. Now, let's see if there's more to it.

Then why are people still arguing? If everyone agrees that it can fit more than one genre, and it IS fantasy as well, then what is the debate about now? As I said, the prominent genre is very much dependent on the individual reader. The genre shelf it is placed on is up to the author and publishers, but that doesn't mean the reader can't legitimately and correctly shelve it in a different genre on their goodreads list. For me asoiaf is more fantasy than anything else, but I can see why other people would shelve it as maybe historical fiction/fantasy, or political intrigue, or whatever else. I think it would be correct, from personal likes/dislikes, for someone to say that asoiaf is their favourite political intrigue series, whilst to someone else it would be their favourite fantasy series.

[Miodrag]

I never understand these kinds of discussions, about what a character should have or could have done. it is a bizarre set of counterfactuals.

Since your wife is from the Balkans, are you familiar with a card game called preferans? It's very popular in this part of the world, and the beauty of it is not just the game itself, but even more so "what if" discussions that usually start after exciting rounds. If you're familiar with it, you'll probably understand why I enjoy discussions about what a character should have or could have done.

The same thing with chess. Analyzing hypothetical moves after the game is half the fun.

[The Reckoner]

@OP: Hi Terry Goodkind!

I absolutely believe that ASOIAF belongs in the fantasy genre. Aside from magic, Others and the children of the forest, it pays homage to a number of very big fantasy authors like Michael Moorcock, Robert Howard, and H.P. Lovecraft. There's probably more I'm missing, but I am most familiar with those three and recognized little winks and nods to their characters and series.

[Miodrag]

Then why are people still arguing? If everyone agrees that it can fit more than one genre, and it IS fantasy as well, then what is the debate about now? As I said, the prominent genre is very much dependent on the individual reader. The genre shelf it is placed on is up to the author and publishers, but that doesn't mean the reader can't legitimately and correctly shelve it in a different genre on their goodreads list. For me asoiaf is more fantasy than anything else, but I can see why other people would shelve it as maybe historical fiction/fantasy, or political intrigue, or whatever else. I think it would be correct, from personal likes/dislikes, for someone to say that asoiaf is their favourite political intrigue series, whilst to someone else it would be their favourite fantasy series.

Honestly, I don't get the impression everyone agrees it can fit more than one genre. In fact, some posters strictly claim it can't. Which is, like, a legitimate opinion. Not the one I agree with, of course, but it is an opinion I can debate against.

For me, ASOIAF is equal parts fantasy and realism. Setting and numerous elements that are instrumental for the plot are supernatural, so it's fantasy all the way. But, characters and societies and cultures are not a bit less crucial or essential for ASOIAF, and they are very realistic. I probably enjoy the latter (realism) somewhat more than the former, but, on the other hand, I do enjoy arcs like Bran's (deep into fantasy) as much as I enjoy political intrigue or social struggle. Both aspects enrich one another masterfully in my opinion.

[sj4iy]

@OP: Hi Terry Goodkind!

LMAO, absolutely perfect.

[Darth Richard II]

LMAO, absolutely perfect.

Yeah, I laughed at that one. It would explain a lot of things, too.

[taem]

I just want to say, the last 10 posts or so aim exactly at where I wanted this thread to go when I posted the OP.

Personally, I think that people are trying to elevate the status of ASoIaF by pretending it's something that it's not. It may have elements of other genres in it, like medieval historical fiction), but it very clearly has fantastical elements that don't exist in the natural world and have no explanation for being. Personally, I don't see how it could be any other genre BUT fantasy...which one would it fit into if it weren't?

So if you knew a novel has dragons in it, and that's all you know about the novel, you can declare definitively that the novel is a fantasy? Or would you want to know more?

Oi.... You really don't get my point at all. Ned was making numerous mistakes since he set foot in King's Landing as Hand. While Miodrag says he saw everyone for who they were, he didn't act with that awareness. He spoke with Varys and Littlefinger quite regularly about the politics taking place and his own investigation of Jon Arryn's death and the Lannister brats. He should not have done this. At all. While it would have been almost impossible to keep Varys from learning about it anyway (secret passages with accoustic architectural tricks, naturally), Littlefinger he could have at least kept away farther than arm's reach. He had his sworn men moving around too obviously as well (as pointed out to him by Varys). Ned had all the subtlety of a wounded elephant in a department store.

Now, even if we limit ourselves to that small time frame while Robert's out hunting, Ned completely blows it by meeting with Cersei. Completely BLOWS IT! Instead of meeting with her, he should have gotten (as suggested by other posters) his kids OUT OF THERE and set up events where he could get custody of at least one of the Lannister kids. Perhaps have Myrcella invited over to play a game with Sansa or something. Robert wasn't dead yet, so the time to set things up was optimal. Acting with subtlety is not dishonorable (otherwise feints in melee would be frowned upon). But no, Ned just brazenly flaunts what he knows and expects everything to work out.

Sufficed to say, Ned acted stupidly.

No I understand perfectly what you're saying, and why you're saying it -- it all went oh so wrong for Ned, and it's coloring your perceptions of the events that led up to it. Miodrag has it exactly right, Ned never trusted any of these guys. He doesn't approach Varys and LF seeking to enlist them as allies; they keep knocking on his door for friendly "chats" where they give him hints, hints he needs to begin unraveling the meaning of the book Arryn was studying and why he said "the seed is strong." He does not take these hints at face value, he marches there himself to see with his own eyes, to draw his own conclusions. Subtlety or lack thereof has got nothing to do with it. He doesn't trust anybody. To gather evidence, he must go himself or he must send one of his Winterfell men, and KL being what it is, he can't shit without everyone knowing what he had for breakfast. There's no way around that unless he wants to spend the next 200 years digging secret tunnels. For him to act subtly, and to make moves without everyone knowing, would involve asking for help from... Varys or Littlefinger. The same two men you're saying he was so stupid to trust. (When in fact he didn't.)

It's only at the very end, that he asks LF to arrange for the Goldcloaks to support him. And he had absolutely no choice in that matter.

As for confronting Cersei, if you don't see why he would feel such a keen need to give her a chance to escape with her kids, you've missed the point of Ned's character. And the confrontation had to happen. Ned has no proof, all he has is a theory. Until he hears her say it, he can't even be 100% sure he's right. I've already addressed the issue of getting his kids out -- until Robert dies, staying in the Tower of the Hand protected by Winterfell men is the safest place for them outside of Riverrun or Winterfell or the Eyrie (or so Ned would have assumed when it comes to the Eyrie). Thanks to Catelyn abducting Tyrion, there are Lannisters all over the place, that would have been idiotic to risk sending his kids out with the paltry escort he could have given them.

And kidnap Myrcella or Tommen? Again, if you don't understand Ned's particular motivations about children being caught up in the game of thrones because of their parentage, you've missed the point of his character. The point is to give them a chance to flee. If taking them into custody were the goal, he could have done that with Renly the moment Robert dies, he didn't need to act beforehand. But bottom line -- until Robert dies, there is no need for him to do any of the things you're talking about. And when Robert does die, he does not dawdle, he's in a frenzy to act.

[Kojiro]

As for confronting Cersei, if you don't see why he would feel such a keen need to give her a chance to escape with her kids, you've missed the point of Ned's character.

No, I grasped it quite well. He's naive. Foolish. And stupid. While involving Varys and Littlefinger may have been inevitable on some levels, confronting Cersei at that moment cemented him in my mind as an idiot. No threat would have budged her from King's Landing and that should have been obvious to anyone. The fact that he suspected her of trying to kill Bran and that her brother is the freaking Kingslayer should have been enough to tell him that she'd resort to cutthroat tactics to stay. Only an idiot can justify confronting Cersei because it's an idiot move.

Furthermore, Ned doesn't have to harm the Lannister kids, the threat is enough. It kept Balon Greyjoy in line concerning Theon. And the Lannisters weren't at sea, so his idea of sending his daughters back north that way was one of the smarter ideas he had, he just didn't do it when he should have.

[sj4iy]

So if you knew a novel has dragons in it, and that's all you know about the novel, you can declare definitively that the novel is a fantasy? Or would you want to know more?

Fantasy doesn't have to be stereotypical. I would say that ASoIaF is fantasy with elements of medieval historical fiction which grounds it in reality somewhat. But I wouldn't say that it is Medieval Historical Fiction with fantasy elements, because really, the fantasy is much heavier in the story than any other genre that it touches upon.

[taem]

No, I grasped it quite well. He's naive. Foolish. And stupid. While involving Varys and Littlefinger may have been inevitable on some levels, confronting Cersei at that moment cemented him in my mind as an idiot. No threat would have budged her from King's Landing and that should have been obvious to anyone. The fact that he suspected her of trying to kill Bran and that her brother is the freaking Kingslayer should have been enough to tell him that she'd resort to cutthroat tactics to stay. Only an idiot can justify confronting Cersei because it's an idiot move.

Let's take a step back for a moment: you do understand Jon Snow is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna? That the defining moment of Ned's life is finding his sister dying in a bed of blood, and promising to keep her son safe? And what he has sacrificed to keep that promise, such as letting his beloved wife and the whole world believe he dishonored her? If you feel, after all that, that Ned should not have given Cersei a chance to flee with her children, you are saying Ned is stupid for not being a different person.

Also, after he confronts Cersei, does she act against him? No. Again, he and his kids are safe so long as Robert is alive. Also, Cersei did not try to kill Bran. In fact she berated Jaime for what he did. Cersei never acts against Ned at all until he tries to dethrone Joffrey. In fact they have some touching conversations and Ned feels a great deal of sympathy towards her. Recall the scene when Robert hits her, or the scene when she tells him about how Robert murmured "Lyanna..." on their wedding night. edit to add, in fact, if Cersei's children had been Robert's, she and Ned could have become friends I think; she is not Jaime, or Tywin. Also Littlefinger felt Ned could have worked with Cersei and come to an accommodation and I think he was right to think so.

And incidentally you are missing the most important argument in favor of Ned being foolish -- it is his own investigation, and Cersei's awareness that he knows, that leads to Cersei trying to kill Robert in the first place. But Ned was fated to kill Robert, and die himself as a result -- remember the mother dire wolf at the very start of the series? But recall the manner of Robert's death and how iffy that whole scheme was. The odds were in Ned's favor. 99% chance Robert comes back from the hunt safe and sound and Ned tells him what's what, and that's that. Cersei drew to an inside straight flush to beat Ned's full house. This doesn't make Ned stupid.

And the Lannisters weren't at sea, so his idea of sending his daughters back north that way was one of the smarter ideas he had, he just didn't do it when he should have.

Again, until Robert dies, there is no need to send his kids away. And remember that when Ned sailed from the Vale to travel to Winterfell at the start of Robert's Rebellion, he almost died in a shipwreck. While Robert is alive, why on earth should he send his kids away from a place where they are perfectly safe to take a ship somewhere when things like that can happen? You keep arguing that Ned should have done things he had no reason to do at that time because of things that happened later than Ned had no reason to believe would happen.

[Gertrude]

Honestly, I don't get the impression everyone agrees it can fit more than one genre. In fact, some posters strictly claim it can't. Which is, like, a legitimate opinion. Not the one I agree with, of course, but it is an opinion I can debate against.

For me, ASOIAF is equal parts fantasy and realism. Setting and numerous elements that are instrumental for the plot are supernatural, so it's fantasy all the way. But, characters and societies and cultures are not a bit less crucial or essential for ASOIAF, and they are very realistic. I probably enjoy the latter (realism) somewhat more than the former, but, on the other hand, I do enjoy arcs like Bran's (deep into fantasy) as much as I enjoy political intrigue or social struggle. Both aspects enrich one another masterfully in my opinion.

I don't recall which posters are saying it is only fantasy. Honestly, this whole thread is a mess and confusing as hell.

Is realism a genre? I would call it a style, it's a descriptor. No one would try to classify animals based on fur color - a black cat and a black bear are both black, but you wouldn't put them in the same cage in the zoo. (ok, silly analogy - work with me here).

[Gertrude]

nm

[taem]

Fantasy doesn't have to be stereotypical. I would say that ASoIaF is fantasy with elements of medieval historical fiction which grounds it in reality somewhat. But I wouldn't say that it is Medieval Historical Fiction with fantasy elements, because really, the fantasy is much heavier in the story than any other genre that it touches upon.

Hmm. I disagree there. The game of thrones is prelude to the song of ice (winter) and fire (dragons), and neither Winter nor dragons have even reached Westeros. They remain beyond the wall, or across the sea. There are portents -- the shadow magic that kills Renly, the undying Beric. But they remain portents. This is why I have said in this thread, ASOIAF is not ASOIAF yet.

Be that as it may, whatever quantity you assign to the fantasy portion of ASOIAF, you seem to be implicitly agreeing that the mere fact of dragons or whatever without more isn't what makes a book a fantasy, it's what the book is about. Is that a fair assessment?

No one is even saying this. You absolutely are not listening to what people are trying to say to you and just hear what you want. We KNOW Ned has a soft spot for the children. We know and accept this as part of his character. What I (and others) have a problem with is the timing and preparation for his confrontation with Cersei - not the actual confrontation itself (which, to be fair, wasn't the best move, but it was quintessentially Ned).

You're ignoring the other part of my reply on this point. The confrontation in and of itself posed no danger to Ned. Does Cersei move against Ned because he confronted her? No.

[Kojiro]

Let's take a step back for a moment: you do understand Jon Snow is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna? That the defining moment of Ned's life is finding his sister dying in a bed of blood, and promising to keep her son safe? And what he has sacrificed to keep that promise, such as letting his beloved wife and the whole world believe he dishonored her? If you feel, after all that, that Ned should not have given Cersei a chance to flee with her children, you are saying Ned is stupid for not being a different person.

Also, after he confronts Cersei, does she act against him? No. Again, he and his kids are safe so long as Robert is alive. Also, Cersei did not try to kill Bran. In fact she berated Jaime for what he did. Cersei never acts against Ned at all until he tries to dethrone Joffrey. In fact they have some touching conversations and Ned feels a great deal of sympathy towards her. Recall the scene when Robert hits her, or the scene when she tells him about how Robert murmured "Lyanna..." on their wedding night.

And incidentally you are missing the most important argument in favor of Ned being foolish -- it is his own investigation, and Cersei's awareness that he knows, that leads to Cersei trying to kill Robert in the first place. But Ned was fated to kill Robert, and die himself as a result -- remember the mother dire wolf at the very start of the series? But recall the manner of Robert's death and how iffy that whole scheme was. The odds were in Ned's favor. 99% chance Robert comes back from the hunt safe and sound and Ned tells him what's what, and that's that. Cersei drew to an inside straight flush to beat Ned's full house. This doesn't make Ned stupid.

Again, until Robert dies, there is no need to send his kids away. And remember that when Ned sailed from the Vale to travel to Winterfell at the start of Robert's Rebellion, he almost died in a shipwreck. While Robert is alive, why on earth should he send his kids away from a place where they are perfectly safe to take a ship somewhere when things like that can happen? You keep arguing that Ned should have done things he had no reason to do at that time because of things that happened later than Ned had no reason to believe would happen.

No. Just no.

Don't care about Jon's parentage in this situation, since it's stupid to apply it anyway. Cersei's no Lyanna and that should be obvious. And it doesn't matter that she wasn't the one who tried to kill Bran, the fact that she was a suspect is enough. And perhaps you missed the part about her brother being the Kingslayer? You know, Jaime Lannister, the same guy that Ned found on the Iron Throne with Aerys' blood on his sword? There's no guarantee that Robert would be able to keep ANYONE SAFE! And there wasn't, because Cersei had him poisoned.

So no. Just no.

No a million times.