does ASOIAF really belong in the fantasy genre?

[KalibakCruel]

Are you trying to say that we shouldn't make distinctions between fantasy works? Aren't there genre pieces that do try - and sometimes succeed - to deal with important social and political and psychological issues, opposite to other genre pieces that, although possibly great in their own light, just don't? LOTR is, in my eyes, something that doesn't transcend genre boundaries. It uses genre elements perfectly, and that is why it's so popular even among non-fantasy fans, just like Romeo and Juliet are popular among and respected by people who otherwise don't care about romances. So, transcending genre boundaries isn't a success on its own, nor is not transcending a failure, but it is something that can be noted.

Also, the show you took the avatar from, is a clear example of a story that transcended the cop procedural genre.

No, what I'm trying to say is that something can be great and insightful while still being part of a particular genre. What I'm saying is that of you pick apart EVERYTHING then nothing is really anything. I joked before that LotR isn't fantasy, it's an adventuring travelogue.

As for The Wire, it's a drama, but it has funny moments, is it no longer a drama? And it's not a cop procedural, it's a crime drama. But since its scope is larger, more ambitious, and just better than other crime dramas, is it not a crime drama all of a sudden? No it's a crime drama. It has elements of many things, but most good things do.

[kephv]

Regarding what is or isn't fantasy, I agree wtih Wolfe on the subject:

"All novels are fantasies. Some are more honest about it."

[lojzelote]

No, it's clearly a science fiction story. Sorry if it's already been said.

[Miodrag]

No, what I'm trying to say is that something can be great and insightful while still being part of a particular genre. What I'm saying is that of you pick apart EVERYTHING then nothing is really anything. I joked before that LotR isn't fantasy, it's an adventuring travelogue.

As for The Wire, it's a drama, but it has funny moments, is it no longer a drama? And it's not a cop procedural, it's a crime drama. But since its scope is larger, more ambitious, and just better than other crime dramas, is it not a crime drama all of a sudden? No it's a crime drama. It has elements of many things, but most good things do.

I get what you're saying, but it contradicts OP in no way. He didn't say something can't be great and insightful if still a part of a particular genre. Nor did I. That's why I mentioned transcending: ASOIAF is clearly a fantasy, but it's also - unlike many great many other fantasies - a deep and layered human/political/social drama. It doesn't mean a work has to transcend its genre to be great; again - LOTR; but, some works do transcend, and ASOIAF is one of them.

[KalibakCruel]

I get what you're saying, but it contradicts OP in no way. He didn't say something can't be great and insightful if still a part of a particular genre. Nor did I. That's why I mentioned transcending: ASOIAF is clearly a fantasy, but it's also - unlike many great many other fantasies - a deep and layered human/political/social drama. It doesn't mean a work has to transcend its genre to be great; again - LOTR; but, some works do transcend, and ASOIAF is one of them.

I agree with what you're saying, but the OP seems to be saying something different, like it can't be fantasy.

[Miodrag]

^^ Not the impression I got. At least, not before OP was attacked by a number of posters. Under that kind of attack, people can sometime say things that not entirely reflect the essence of their stance.

[KalibakCruel]

I don't know if it's because of the attacks, but I got the vibe very early that it just couldn't be fantasy because it was too good, too popular, because it had other components to it. Then setting up those useless hypotheticals.

[taem]

Have to say I’m puzzled by all this anger at OP. As I got it, he only wanted to say that ASOIAF is different than what is usually considered fantasy... Tolkien’s work is pure fantasy. It reflects our world very vaguely... On the other hand, ASOIAF is based on characters that are endlessly relatable, and on a society that reflects our own very much. The most iconic moments of ASOIAF are about human drama that resulted from some sort of political or social or family intrigue: Ned’s death, The Red Wedding, The Battle of the Blackwater Bay (wildfire is modeled after actual Greek fire), Tyrion murdering Tywin and Shae, Oberyn/Mountain duel, Jon’s stabbing and so on. All of which means that, even though it contains fantasy elements, ASOIAF is essentially different from great many other fantasy works out there. Not to mention that even fantasy elements in ASOIAF are brought with some political or social meaning (Mel’s shadow-babies are a prime example).

Kay’s “Tigana”

Hey great post! Yeah, pretty much. One of the first things I said is, to me fantasy is a window into a different world, and ASOIAF feels more like a warped and dirty mirror being held up to our own. So maybe this is just a "feel" issue that can't be rationally dissected. But honestly? I didn't think I was saying anything controversial. LOL! I honestly thought this would be a pretty common take on ASOIAF.

Two other points. One, thank you for reminding me about Tigana. One of my favorites ever, and I'd totally forgotten it existed. Time to visit the kindle store. Man I am looking forward to that. I think I'll grab Memory Sorrow and Thorn and Lyonesse while I'm at it.

Two, about the "anger," I don't mind it, but I wonder what it says about how fantasy is viewed. Because it seems like several fantasy fans in this thread were quick to see possible slights, which suggests that they have experienced fantasy get disrespected quite often.

I'm not going off any scientific study here, but while unlikely, I don't think it's inconceivable that every single person I know might have either read or watched Lord of the Rings, and many will have done both.

This isn't even remotely true of aSoIaF/GoT. Yes, it is a big deal, but you appear to be vastly overestimating it because of its disproportionate popularity with the internet-keen demographic.

Really? I know next to no one who's read LotR. Everyone knows what it is. But hardly anyone I know has actually read the books. I do know a bunch of people who bought the books after the movies came out, and then they read a few pages and then stopped. The movies, sure. But like I said earlier, big budget special effects laden features get broad viewership, it doesn't necessarily speak to the source material or genre. The box office records are dominated by big budget sci fi, taht does not mean sci fi is popular. Thoughtful sci fi without 'splosions do not fare well at the box office.

But with GoT, it is that big a deal. It's shattering records, for boxed tv set disc sales, television ratings. Second only to Sopranos thus far, and it may top Sopranos eventually. I find that amazing. Just earlier today I saw in Vanity Fair a big graphic about huge media buzzes and one of the faces featured is Emilia Clarke as Daenerys.

[Miodrag]

I don't know if it's because of the attacks, but I got the vibe very early that it just couldn't be fantasy because it was too good, too popular, because it had other components to it. Then setting up those useless hypotheticals.

Well, hypothetical examples can be very useful in this kind of discussion. After all, we do know Martin originally designed the story with far less magic, or possibly without magic at all. It would still be a fantasy, but, as OP speculated, the story would essentially be the same. It wouldn't change much. Even the dragons could've been worked around, I guess - Dany would still have to find some military strength, so perhaps Drogo would live on, but it'd be doable.

That's not to say that I agree with everything OP said in the discussion. To be honest, I really don't share his enthusiasm about the show, and that's an understatement.

[KalibakCruel]

Hey great post! Yeah, pretty much. One of the first things I said is, to me fantasy is a window into a different world, and ASOIAF feels more like a warped and dirty mirror being held up to our own. So maybe this is just a "feel" issue that can't be rationally dissected. But honestly? I didn't think I was saying anything controversial. LOL! I honestly thought this would be a pretty common take on ASOIAF.

Two other points. One, thank you for reminding me about Tigana. One of my favorites ever, and I'd totally forgotten it existed. Time to visit the kindle store. Man I am looking forward to that. I think I'll grab Memory Sorrow and Thorn and Lyonesse while I'm at it.

Two, about the "anger," I don't mind it, but I wonder what it says about how fantasy is viewed. Because it seems like several fantasy fans in this thread were quick to see possible slights, which suggests that they have experienced fantasy get disrespected quite often.

Really? I know next to no one who's read LotR. Everyone knows what it is. But hardly anyone I know has actually read the books. I do know a bunch of people who bought the books after the movies came out, and then they read a few pages and then stopped. The movies, sure. But like I said earlier, big budget special effects laden features get broad viewership, it doesn't necessarily speak to the source material or genre. The box office records are dominated by big budget sci fi, taht does not mean sci fi is popular. Thoughtful sci fi without 'splosions do not fare well at the box office.

But with GoT, it is that big a deal. It's shattering records, for boxed tv set disc sales, television ratings. Second only to Sopranos thus far, and it may top Sopranos eventually. I find that amazing. Just earlier today I saw in Vanity Fair a big graphic about huge media buzzes and one of the faces featured is Emilia Clarke as Daenerys.

Again, we live in the social media age, Sopranos was out before. Also, I'm one of the only people i know that watches the show and reads the books, i know more people who have read LotR by far. Everyone knows GoT, but barely anyone I know has read it.

Also, please at least stop with the "big budget special effects" stuff, because people watch GoT because of the big budget and sex scenes then.

Oh just once more, please, no more comparing social media/instant information age to the age before it. LotR in this age would've been even bigger, torrents like you've never seen, trending like GoT or more. And bringing up the mainstream popularity doesn't help you much anyways since the casual viewer calls Dany "the lady with the cool dragons" and all they care about is the dragons growing and being used, aka, the fantasy element.

[KalibakCruel]

Well, hypothetical examples can be very useful in this kind of discussion. After all, we do know Martin originally designed the story with far less magic, or possibly without magic at all. It would still be a fantasy, but, as OP speculated, the story would essentially be the same. It wouldn't change much. Even the dragons could've been worked around, I guess - Dany would still have to find some military strength, so perhaps Drogo would live on, but it'd be doable.

That's not to say that I agree with everything OP said in the discussion. To be honest, I really don't share his enthusiasm about the show, and that's an understatement.

Hypothetical examples are arbitrary. Ok Renly could've been killed by a person and not a shadow, but he wasn't. The Wire could've been in London and been about British culture, but it wasn't.

And you can make any change to any story and keep it largely the same. Harry Potter isn't a wizard battling a dark Lord, he's a kid rising to defeat a despotic would be conqueror. It's arbitrary.

Edit: I also think it'd change a ton if we got rid of magical swords that never dull.

[taem]

After all, we do know Martin originally designed the story with far less magic, or possibly without magic at all.

Seriously?? Do you have a link to an interview for that? Because if that's true that's total justification for me in this whole thread lol.

That's not to say that I agree with everything OP said in the discussion. To be honest, I really don't share his enthusiasm about the show, and that's an understatement.

I'm actually not a fan of the show, if I gave that impression I didn't meant to. It's alright, I don't hate it, I'll watch anything with Charles Dance in it. I just finished season 2, I grab an episode here and there, but I've never felt compelled to go on to the next episode immediately after finishing one, which says a lot. Nothing like the LotR films, which I bought on dvd; then extended versions on dvd; then bluray; then extended bluray; then I downloaded them too just for good measure. Those films were a dream come true for me.

[Miodrag]

Hypothetical examples are arbitrary. Ok Renly could've been killed by a person and not a shadow, but he wasn't. The Wire could've been in London and been about British culture, but it wasn't.

And you can make any change to any story and keep it largely the same. Harry Potter isn't a wizard battling a dark Lord, he's a kid rising to defeat a despotic would be conqueror. It's arbitrary.

Wouldn't say any change would have the same results. For example, cutting Renly out would ruin the story much more than cutting the shadow-babies out: meaning, it's much more about brotherly love/hate/whatever, than about Mel's mysterious creatures. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm what is usually considered a book-purist, so by no means I'm advocating changes. On the contrary, I despise vast majority of the changes the show made. But, there are changes and there are changes. Some changes don't affect the essence of a story. And in the case of ASOIAF, the essence is not about fantasy elements, but about human, realistic aspects. That's what I'm saying, and I hope it's obvious the two of us are much more in agreement than not.

[KalibakCruel]

Wouldn't say any change would have the same results. For example, cutting Renly out would ruin the story much more than cutting the shadow-babies out: meaning, it's much more about brotherly love/hate/whatever, than about Mel's mysterious creatures. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm what is usually considered a book-purist, so by no means I'm advocating changes. On the contrary, I despise vast majority of the changes the show made. But, there are changes and there are changes. Some changes don't affect the essence of a story. And in the case of ASOIAF, the essence is not about fantasy elements, but about human, realistic aspects. That's what I'm saying, and I hope it's obvious the two of us are much more in agreement than not.

Oh very obvious lol I agree with most of what you're saying. My only issue is that the changes are arbitrary for two reasons. One, the books do have shadow babies, so there's no point in the what if. Two, you can change most fantastical elements in any fantasy story and still keep the core theme or message intact.

[Miodrag]

Seriously?? Do you have a link to an interview for that? Because if that's true that's total justification for me in this whole thread lol.

He dedicated ASOS to someone named Philis (sp?), who persuaded him to put the dragons in the story. That's what he wrote at the beginning of the book. Meaning, he originally envisioned the story without dragons. And I think that, in some interview, he confirmed that in the first version (possibly even before he began the actual writing) there was almost no magic at all - but I'm really not sure about that, my memory may be fooling me there.

[Miodrag]

Oh very obvious lol I agree with most of what you're saying. My only issue is that the changes are arbitrary for two reasons. One, the books do have shadow babies, so there's no point in the what if. Two, you can change most fantastical elements in any fantasy story and still keep the core theme or message intact.

As a fan of preferans (a card game very popular in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe) I'm always for a "what if" analysis. About other fantasy stories, I'm not so sure. Granted, I'm not as familiar with fantasy genre as some other posters here, but, again, LOTR can be a good example, I guess. Without supernatural elements, that story just wouldn't be possible. Everything could be worked around, of course, but It would be so altered that it really wouldn't be the same story, not even remotely, regardless of the central theme that could be preserved.

[Gertrude]

I agree with what you're saying, but the OP seems to be saying something different, like it can't be fantasy.

^^ Not the impression I got. At least, not before OP was attacked by a number of posters. Under that kind of attack, people can sometime say things that not entirely reflect the essence of their stance.

The original question was 'is aSoIaF really fantasy?' End of story. He then elaborated a bit more and said it didn't 'feel' like fantasy (or more specifically, what his experience and understanding of fantasy is)

I do appreciate taem saying at one point, let me back up because I think I said some things I don't mean - that's awesome in a discussion. But what i am getting from him is exactly what the original question stated - he doesn't feel that a SoIaF is really fantasy. Even the posters who are more on taem's side of this (Sparrowyn, yourself Miodrag) agree that it is rightly called fantasy. That is what most people are arguing in this thread and we're getting distracted by tangentials.

I get the point that the heart of aSoIaF and what makes it so good are the people - character driven stories that resonate because they face familiar, mundane problems. That doesn't make it less a fantasy than WoT (to use his example), I think that is what most people are reacting too - the fact that someone wants to recategorize Martin's work into something that's not fantasy. We fantasy fans have had to put up with a lot of shit (generally) from the main populace about our 'childish' tastes, and now that something has emerged that is so well regarded ... well, to try and snatch it out of our hands is a bit off-putting. (sorry if I am speaking for anyone else here, just my opinion)

[KalibakCruel]

As a fan of preferans (a card game very popular in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe) I'm always for a "what if" analysis. About other fantasy stories, I'm not so sure. Granted, I'm not as familiar with fantasy genre as some other posters here, but, again, LOTR can be a good example, I guess. Without supernatural elements, that story just wouldn't be possible. Everything could be worked around, of course, but It would be so altered that it really wouldn't be the same story, not even remotely, regardless of the central theme that could be preserved.

Of course it'd be possible. Make everyone human, and big bad make him a despotic ruler. A few changes here and there and it stays an adventuring travelogue.

[Miodrag]

The original question was 'is aSoIaF really fantasy?' End of story. He then elaborated a bit more and said it didn't 'feel' like fantasy (or more specifically, what his experience and understanding of fantasy is)

I do appreciate taem saying at one point, let me back up because I think I said some things I don't mean - that's awesome in a discussion. But what i am getting from him is exactly what the original question stated - he doesn't feel that a SoIaF is really fantasy. Even the posters who are more on taem's side of this (Sparrowyn, yourself Miodrag) agree that it is rightly called fantasy. That is what most people are arguing in this thread and we're getting distracted by tangentials.

I get the point that the heart of aSoIaF and what makes it so good are the people - character driven stories that resonate because they face familiar, mundane problems. That doesn't make it less a fantasy than WoT (to use his example), I think that is what most people are reacting too - the fact that someone wants to recategorize Martin's work into something that's not fantasy. We fantasy fans have had to put up with a lot of shit (generally) from the main populace about our 'childish' tastes, and now that something has emerged that is so well regarded ... well, to try and snatch it out of our hands is a bit off-putting. (sorry if I am speaking for anyone else here, just my opinion)

Perhaps not less a fantasy, but it definitely is a different kind of fantasy. And, speaking of genre, I think that you fantasy fans already gave up too easily on some not entirely insignificant authors: Homer, Shakespeare, Goethe, Bulgakov, Marquez, Saramago... They, and great many other literature greats, used a number of various supernatural elements, which makes them a fantasy writers, at least partially. Actually, the literary snobs are the ones who should be put in front of a decision: either you recognize a fantasy genre for its historical accomplishments, or never mention Homer and Shakespeare ever again. Those snobs shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

As for the OP, I really didn't get that impression.

[Gertrude]

i don't think anyone disagrees that there are sub-genres of fantasy. I also think that many people are making the point that it doesn't really matter as it's all somewhat arbitrary anyway. I also don't think that people have given up on claiming the authors you've mentioned. Sure, the general populace. whatever divine authority exists that classifies literature and the literary snobs may have shifted them, but I've seen many an argument include them to support a point.