Jump to content

Why do people hate essos?


Daenerysthegreat

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Sure, this is GRRM's creation but he has to take his inspiration from various places and I'm fine with some broad brush strokes that are loosely based on (not a depiction of) real world cultures.  The Dothraki are just a bit of background in AGOT that were used to set up Dany's story but like I said it's for each of us to decide how much detail we want or, like the economy of Slaver's Bay, how well it fits together and stands up to analytical scrutiny.  I think fully-fleshed out systems and cultures would be both very difficult to create and would swamp the story with infodumps and reams of details the reader doesn't need.  But that's me 

 

:P

 

I'm not sure I agree. Tolkien's cultures and peoples feel far more fleshed out and far more natural than Martin's, despite the fact that Tolkien spent far fewer words describing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just say that extensive and internally consistent world building is not GRRM's strong point.  And it doesn't appear as though he expended a great deal of time and effort on Essos and its people.  It's basically a sandbox for Dany to play in and learn, so to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

I'm not sure I agree. Tolkien's cultures and peoples feel far more fleshed out and far more natural than Martin's, despite the fact that Tolkien spent far fewer words describing them.

We still don't get much on the far off peoples just like the ones in AWOIAF but I mostly agree. From the Westerosi point of view, most of the free cities feel like clones of each other except Braavos. I think this could be understandable and a good choice since the books are all from PoVs but even the World of Ice and Fire book, supposed to be written by a Maester, fails to deliver much difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I'm not sure I agree. Tolkien's cultures and peoples feel far more fleshed out and far more natural than Martin's, despite the fact that Tolkien spent far fewer words describing them.

Well, if you compare the Free Cities with, say, the Corsairs of Umbar or the Haradrim  and the Dothraki with the Easterlings, I'd say JRRT didn't flesh out these cultures at all compared to GRRM.

I'm a big fan of JRRT btw.  It's just he set his story in the western part of Middle Earth and didn't show us anything of the east.  That may be GRRM's problem here but I'm fine with the Easterlings / Dothraki being depicted as much as either author chooses to fit the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Well, if you compare the Free Cities with, say, the Corsairs of Umbar or the Haradrim  and the Dothraki with the Easterlings, I'd say JRRT didn't flesh out these cultures at all compared to GRRM.

 

I was referring more to Westeros and western Middle-Earth. Except for maybe North and Dorne, every single kingdom feels essentially a copy-paste even when compared to medieval Europe... whereas in western Middle Earth you have Gondor, Rohan, Bree, Lake Town... and that is just human cultures we see. Then you add variations of Elves (High Elves of Rivendell, mixed batch at Lothlorien and Wood Elves at ), different tribes of Orcs (mountain goblins in the Hobbit - which we briefly see again in Lord of the Rings) and so on.

Also, I am not sure I would call Dothraki "fleshed out". They are basically a collection of bad Mongol stereotypes. Entirety of Essos is a very extensive example of lazy writing - only things we get are Braavos, a bunch of copy-paste cities, and a whole mountain of bad stereotypes. Frankly, Tolkien did better in not providing too much detail about the Haradrim, Wainriders, Balchoth and so on, than Martin did in providing so much detail you can write essays on why things cannot work the way he describes them. "No, Martin, Mongols were not a tribe of half-naked horse archers. No, Martin, you cannot have heavy cavalry and chariots together in a civilization that uses iron weapons and armor*. No, Martin, eunuchs cannot be used as soldiers - they will die of disease. No, Martin, you cannot have a society that is 90% slaves unless said society's freedmen caste is extremely militarized. No, Martin, slave soldiers were never treated badly and never marched in chains.".

* Chariots were used by bronze age civilizations alongside cavalry, but when switch to iron happened, it was bye-bye chariots. In other words, chariots and cavalry - yes; chariots and heavy cavalry - hell no.

Difference is that Tolkien provides only what is strictly necessary whereas Martin loses himself in unnecessary detail. Yet Tolkien actually provides more than what Martin does: to me at least, Rohirrim and Gondorians always felt far more "alive" than any of the various groups in A Song of Ice and Fire.

9 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Sure, this is GRRM's creation but he has to take his inspiration from various places and I'm fine with some broad brush strokes that are loosely based on (not a depiction of) real world cultures.  The Dothraki are just a bit of background in AGOT that were used to set up Dany's story but like I said it's for each of us to decide how much detail we want or, like the economy of Slaver's Bay, how well it fits together and stands up to analytical scrutiny.  I think fully-fleshed out systems and cultures would be both very difficult to create and would swamp the story with infodumps and reams of details the reader doesn't need.  But that's me 

 

:P

Problem I have with GRRM's wordbuilding and also the reason why I hate Essos is that GRRM first decided to provide a detailed description, and then proceeded to muck it up. Dothraki are "not just a bit of background" - that is what Balchoth are. Dothraki are a major character, seeing how Daenerys spends a book living among them, and so Martin should have taken lot more care with their design.

That is like saying that Rohirrim are a background in The Two Towers.

And Tolkien's worldbuilding in general is far more realistic than Martin's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I was referring more to Westeros and western Middle-Earth. Except for maybe North and Dorne, every single kingdom feels essentially a copy-paste even when compared to medieval Europe... whereas in western Middle Earth you have Gondor, Rohan, Bree, Lake Town... and that is just human cultures we see. Then you add variations of Elves (High Elves of Rivendell, mixed batch at Lothlorien and Wood Elves at ), different tribes of Orcs (mountain goblins in the Hobbit - which we briefly see again in Lord of the Rings) and so on.

I thought we were talking about Essos?

But Westeros has 7 kingdoms.  We have the First Men, Andals and Rhoynar.  The culture of the Iron Isles is unique as is that of Dorne, the North (largely as a result of being the only kingdom/culture to worship the Old Gods rather The Seven) and The Wildlings.  The Dornish are split into Sandy, Salty and Stony and we have outliers like the Crannogmen in The Neck.  The Reach, Vale, Stormlands and Rock might be more similar but GRRM distinguishes them by geography - wonderfully imagined in my view - with The Eyrie, Storm's End, The Citadel and The Hightower, Alyssa's Lance, The Golden Tooth, Riverrun, etc.. - and by history, myth and heraldry.

To the reader the various tribes of orcs or the differences between the branches of the elves in The Hobbit or The Lord of The Rings are hardly a major feature of either story and you really need The Silmarillion to give the background.  Of course that lack of fleshing out doesn't detract from either story at all.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Also, I am not sure I would call Dothraki "fleshed out".

Compared to the Haradrim or Easterlings they are indeed fleshed out.  Compared to whatever level of plausibility or real world comparison you would like they may not be but this is really up to the reader.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

They are basically a collection of bad Mongol stereotypes. Entirety of Essos is a very extensive example of lazy writing - only things we get are Braavos, a bunch of copy-paste cities, and a whole mountain of bad stereotypes.

So you hate Essos then :)  That's ok, some people do.  The Dothraki are not Mongols, they are loosely based on any one or amalgam of steppe-dwelling nomadic cultures that erupted from the east throughout ancient and medieval history.  The very fact that they do not resemble any one culture is deliberate imo to avoid complaints of orientalism or copy pasting and denigrating a real world culture.  Instead complaints seem to come from the other direction about lack of detail or credibility but on balance I think that's the lesser evil. 

If the story was about the Dothraki or Essos I might agree with you but it's not, they are secondary in every way and less developed for that reason.  Our POVs come from The North, The Westlands, The Reach, The Stormlands, The Iron Isles and Dorne.  Not one is Dothraki or Essosi.  I''m okay with that and feel it should set an expectation.  Whether the reader is disappointed or not is an individual matter.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

only things we get are Braavos, a bunch of copy-paste cities, and a whole mountain of bad stereotypes. Frankly, Tolkien did better in not providing too much detail about the Haradrim, Wainriders, Balchoth and so on,

This I can't agree with at all.  Whether the author's vision of Braavos appeals to you or not is up to you but "bad stereotypes"? And arguing that one author does a better job by not fleshing out his creations when you criticise another author for not fleshing out his creations seems like you want it both ways.  The Dothraki are of course more fleshed out than the Haradrim or Easterlings; the fact that you don't care for how the Dothraki are portrayed does not change this.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

than Martin did in providing so much detail you can write essays on why things cannot work the way he describes them. "No, Martin, Mongols were not a tribe of half-naked horse archers. No, Martin, you cannot have heavy cavalry and chariots together in a civilization that uses iron weapons and armor*. No, Martin, eunuchs cannot be used as soldiers - they will die of disease. No, Martin, you cannot have a society that is 90% slaves unless said society's freedmen caste is extremely militarized. No, Martin, slave soldiers were never treated badly and never marched in chains.".

TBH this seems minor detail to me bordering on nit-picking.  Does the readership really care if you have heavy cavalry and chariots together because in our world we may not have?  It's fantasy with magic and non-human species and a range of cultures and civilizations.  It may bother you if you consider it inaccurate but does it really matter?  As for "writing essays on why things cannot work the way he describes them", it seems you're a bit too invested in criticising Essos.  Maybe Westeros too.  Each to their own :dunno:

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Difference is that Tolkien provides only what is strictly necessary whereas Martin loses himself in unnecessary detail. Yet Tolkien actually provides more than what Martin does: to me at least, Rohirrim and Gondorians always felt far more "alive" than any of the various groups in A Song of Ice and Fire.

Wowsers.  We meet Boromir, Denthor and Faramir.  Pippin meets a guard at Minas Tirith.  The people of Gondor do not emerge on page because they don't need to in story terms and the author does not waste time or ink on trying to flesh them out.  I do not know how they can possibly feel more alive than any group in ASOIAF after Arya and Brienne's journeys through the Riverlands, Sansa's and Tyrion's experiences in KL, Jon's time with The Wildlings or even Dany's interactions with the freed slaves as "Mysha".  With the addition of Dornish and Iron Isles povs they come alive too.  The hobbits tell the story and other than a brief Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli pov snippet in The Two Towers JRRT shows us everything through the eyes of four characters from the same background.

How you react to the story is up to you but I fundamentally disagree.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Problem I have with GRRM's wordbuilding and also the reason why I hate Essos

Trust me, that's coming across :P

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

is that GRRM first decided to provide a detailed description, and then proceeded to muck it up.

Well, that's your opinion.  I disagree.  Essos is not my favourite part of the story as I feel it detracts from the main setting and slows the story down but I don't agree that the author should have not bothered with any detail (as if that could have been satisfactory) or should have copy-pasted a real world civilization in every instance so it could stand up to scrutiny.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Dothraki are "not just a bit of background" - that is what Balchoth are. Dothraki are a major character, seeing how Daenerys spends a book living among them, and so Martin should have taken lot more care with their design.

Are they?  Dany's journey with the Dothraki was a brief interlude with a few chapters in AGOT.  They were a stepping stone for her character development as Khaleesi and Mother of Dragons and Claimant to the Iron Throne.  Why on earth would he have padded out AGOT with reams of detail on Dothraki society and culture?  He gives us Vaes Dothrak with it's spoils, the crones of the Dosh Khaleen, the competing khalasars and a few myths and cultural practices.  It's reasonable for you to want more but it's not really to demand more - they're a fictional construct the author has developed as much as he considers necessary or desirable.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

That is like saying that Rohirrim are a background in The Two Towers.

The Dothraki are about as developed in AGOT as the Rohirrim in The Two Towers, if not mroe so, so I don't see the problem.  That analogy will hold if The Dothraki are to storm into Westeros like the Rohirirm onto The Pelennor Fields, as in they will have had a major story impact.   But still no Rohirrim or Dothraki pov is considered by either author :dunno:

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And Tolkien's worldbuilding in general is far more realistic than Martin's.

I'm a fan of both authors so I can't get too invested in a comparison but GRRM's is just far more detailed and realistic than JRRT's. 

JRRT has a magic heavy world with goblins, giant spiders, dragons, giant eagles, wraiths, trolls turning to stone at Daybreak, Talking Trees, fiery mountains, etc... This is okay as it's magic but he wrote The Hobbit with a small scale map that then scaled up to Middle Earth: The Shire is isolated from the nasty world and we have this weird child-sized race that live in tranquillity (unknowing of the outside world and that their borders are protected by altruistic rangers), then we transition into the outside world via The Old Forest, Barrow Downs, The Trollshaws before we have mountains, forests (Mirkwood) and The Lonely Mountain.  It feels childish because it is a child's story but it grows up with TLOTR and The Silmarillion and the story of the earlier ages.

GRRM's world is less heavy on magic and far more realistic to me.  It's geography feels more thought out and robust from the start and the human cultures and kingdoms are diverse, interesting and as developed as the story of ASOIAF needs them to be.  The other novels, historical encyclopaedias and the like flesh out the mythos and history of the world more fully and are analogous (but not identical in function) to The Silmarillion et al.

They have different styles and different focus, perhaps even different objectives, but both create wonderful stories with fascinating worlds brimming with variety, characters and history.

Honestly I don't see the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I thought we were talking about Essos?

 

We were. I just wanted to point this out because Westeros is far better in terms of worldbuilding than Essos is... yet it is still garbage, relatively speaking.

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

But Westeros has 7 kingdoms.  We have the First Men, Andals and Rhoynar.  The culture of the Iron Isles is unique as is that of Dorne, the North (largely as a result of being the only kingdom/culture to worship the Old Gods rather The Seven) and The Wildlings.  The Dornish are split into Sandy, Salty and Stony and we have outliers like the Crannogmen in The Neck.  The Reach, Vale, Stormlands and Rock might be more similar but GRRM distinguishes them by geography - wonderfully imagined in my view - with The Eyrie, Storm's End, The Citadel and The Hightower, Alyssa's Lance, The Golden Tooth, Riverrun, etc.. - and by history, myth and heraldry.

 

We don't really see much of the Iron Islands, and what we do see simply doesn't make any sense at all. Fact is, Iron Islands simply do not have the geography, resources, or geopolitical conditions necessary to even become reavers, much less an apparently powerful kingdom. At best, they should be akin to Neretva Duchy... except they would be bothering freaking Byzantine Empire in this scenario, and not Venice. And they wouldn't have a relatively powerful kingdom separating them from their worst enemy.

How the hell did Ironborn ever develop a culture of naval reaving when a) they do not have the forests necessary to build the fleets and b) are so close to the major powers on mainland that they should have been crushed whenever they attempted it? How do they maintain the fleets?

Make Iron Islands some twenty times the area and then we can talk...

Geographic distinctions are irrelevant if they do not result in cultural distinctions. There is literally no difference between the Reach and the Vale in things that actually matter - culture and similar. Martin should have made Vale akin to the Swiss Cantons - no knights and massess of lightly-armored pikemen, population politically organized into clans (which then developed into cantons) and f*** chivalry. Instead, Vale is literally a copy-paste of Reach in many ways (except for their mountain clans which... don't really matter in the big picture). Why TF does the Vale have a culture of chivalry, considering its geography? And if Westerlands are supposed to be England expy, why do they have so many knights - more than Reach by proportion of the army, apparently? Why Tywin's army had so few archers?

North is culturally distinct from the rest, but when exactly does that cultural distinction matter? They still behave like everybody else does, with sole exception of their rebellion against the Iron Throne. But even there Martin has screwed up in a major way because, quite frankly, with the dragons gone, Seven Kingdoms should have fallen apart the moment Robert's Rebellion started. And even if not, functionally speaking nobody should give a cr** about the Iron Throne, unless maybe Westeros became an elective monarchy.

Same goes for Dorne. Yeah, we are told that there are Sandy, Salty and Stony Dornishmen... but when does that actually matter? When do we actually see that distinction instead of just hearing about it?

And why the hell is Westeros even a feudal society to begin with? Feudalism simply doesn't work if you have decade-long winter. Nor does it scale successfully to allow for a continent-spanning polity. Westeros should, in terms of political organization, be more similar to the Roman Empire or Imperial China, than to any kind of feudal society.

 

So what we have here is that George Martin introduced all these potentially interesting things (ten year winters, continent-spanning polity, north-south oriented continent with diverse geography) and then completely, utterly failed at actually considering the implications of the stuff he built his world from. He dangled all the cool stuff in front of our noses, and then proceeded to throw it into bloody garbage.

And the worst thing about everything above? Westeros is actually well designed, comparatively speaking. Essos? With the potential exception of Free Cities (and even that is questionable), everything else in Essos is a pile of garbage, dumped onto manure, and then set on fire.

My point is, having anything happen in Essos at all was a mistake. George Martin has failed to properly design Westeros, so trying to design and describe a - far more diverse - Essos was simply impossible. Yet he still attempted to do it.

As good of a writer GRRM may be, he is not a god. He should have stuck to Westeros, and if he really wanted to do something with Essos, he should have hired an assistant writer to write a side story or something.

Not only did he fail in properly worldbuilding Essos, but even attempting to do so likely had a negative impact on Westeros. Who knows how much more detailed and better Westeros may have become if Martin hadn't gone on to create the quagmire that is Essos?

George Martin is a prime example that sometimes, less really is more.

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

To the reader the various tribes of orcs or the differences between the branches of the elves in The Hobbit or The Lord of The Rings are hardly a major feature of either story and you really need The Silmarillion to give the background.  Of course that lack of fleshing out doesn't detract from either story at all.

Precisely. See what I wrote above: what Martin did with Essos was introduce a bunch of unnecessary, badly-designed stuff that otherwise he could have simply mentioned, touched upon or maybe not even that.

To quote fictional George Martin, you don't need a backstory on every f***ing tree branch.

That being said, when it comes to Tolkien going into detail... unlike many of the details that Martin gives, Tolkien's background actually matters. Yes, you don't need to know it... but you cannot really understand how the world of the War of the Ring came to be, if you haven't read the Silmarillion. You don't need to read it, but if you don't, you won't know where Sauron came from, why he became evil and why he really made the One Ring, who Galadriel is and why she was able to resist temptation of the One Ring, why dwarves and elves hate each other, why Numenor sank, why Sauron hates Gondor so much, who exactly Gandalf is, who Saruman is and why he was so relatively easily seduced by Sauron... Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and other side-books also significantly expand on many events in the Appendices as well as the events that were only mentioned in passing during the Council of Elrond.

Tolkien's universe is honestly... kind of like an archaeological study. You have all these little pieces, and as you put them together, something far grander emerges than what you had ever thought you'd see. Just look at Harondor.

Meanwhile, Westeros is basically what we see, while Essos is much less than what we see - a house of cards which collapses the moment you try to think too hard about it. Especially the Dothraki and the Slaver's Bay, which is very bad because that is where most of action in Essos has happened so far.

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

So you hate Essos then :)  That's ok, some people do.  The Dothraki are not Mongols, they are loosely based on any one or amalgam of steppe-dwelling nomadic cultures that erupted from the east throughout ancient and medieval history.  The very fact that they do not resemble any one culture is deliberate imo to avoid complaints of orientalism or copy pasting and denigrating a real world culture.  Instead complaints seem to come from the other direction about lack of detail or credibility but on balance I think that's the lesser evil. 

If the story was about the Dothraki or Essos I might agree with you but it's not, they are secondary in every way and less developed for that reason.  Our POVs come from The North, The Westlands, The Reach, The Stormlands, The Iron Isles and Dorne.  Not one is Dothraki or Essosi.  I''m okay with that and feel it should set an expectation.  Whether the reader is disappointed or not is an individual matter.

This thread is literally about "why people hate Essos". And no, Dothraki are not Mongols. I am well aware of thatBut they are talked about as Mongols and they should be Mongols, if they really are intended to be a threat that some characters - and people on forum - portray them as. So we have two solutions. Either 1) Martin has completely, utterly screwed up in designing the Dothraki or 2) Dothraki are an irrelevant joke whose sole purpose was to teach Daenerys... what, exactly?

And what "amalgam" of steppe-dwelling nomadic cultured Dothraki are, exactly? They are literally worse than Plains Indians in terms of military technology and tactics, from what we have seen so far. They have literally nothing that made Scythians, Huns and Mongols so successful. Where is Dothraki armored heavy cavalry? Where are their reconnaissance elements? Where is infantry? Where is artillery? Where are combat engineers? Where are their diplomats, their sedentary allies?

If Martin really wanted to avoid orientalism by designing Dothraki the way he did, I have to say he did a really shoddy job of that.

Well yeah, but that is why people hate Essos. It is simply irrelevant, and as a consequence, badly designed.

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

This I can't agree with at all.  Whether the author's vision of Braavos appeals to you or not is up to you but "bad stereotypes"? And arguing that one author does a better job by not fleshing out his creations when you criticise another author for not fleshing out his creations seems like you want it both ways.  The Dothraki are of course more fleshed out than the Haradrim or Easterlings; the fact that you don't care for how the Dothraki are portrayed does not change this.

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Dothraki are literally a collection of incorrect stereotypes about Mongols and other steppe nomads. See here, here and here. I honestly would have preferred them to have been less fleshed out if that meant I didn't have to suffer through headaches when I read Dothraki chapters. Do the job properly or don't do it at all. Dothraki may be more fleshed out, but Haradrim and various Easterling groups are far better designed. And because they are so well designed, you can actually extrapolate from what has been revealed to fill in the blanks - this guy literally made a three-hour video based on maybe three lines which Wainriders have in the books. You can't do that with the Dothraki, because while we know much more about the Dothraki than we do about the Wainriders, none of what we know about the Dothraki makes any sense.

Unsullied are literally a collection of incorrect stereotypes about Spartans. See here, here and here. Overall, same problems as with the Dothraki, so no need to repeat myself.

Slaver's Bay is literally a collection of incorrect stereotypes about ancient slave-owning societies mixed with some American South. Again, same issues as the above two.

Braavos is by far the best designed, but as saying goes, one swallow does not spring make. And it is ironic that anti-slavery Braavos is based on the massive slavers and slave-traders that were Venetians. It is at least not an actually bad worldbuilding. Just ironic.

Martin describes so much that his descriptions end up being a) irrelevant and b) not making any sense.

Take Winterfell. It has double wall, 80 and 100 feet tall... but when does that end up mattering in the story? In the end, castle is captured by a bunch of dudes with ropes. Martin may well have made the walls eight and ten feet tall, for all the relevance they ended up having. Same goes for that gargantuan ice wall. Meanwhile, both Orthanc and the main wall of Minas Tirith being indestructible ends up being relevant in the story. As in, that fact literally shapes characters' actions on several occasions.

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

TBH this seems minor detail to me bordering on nit-picking.  Does the readership really care if you have heavy cavalry and chariots together because in our world we may not have?  It's fantasy with magic and non-human species and a range of cultures and civilizations.  It may bother you if you consider it inaccurate but does it really matter?  As for "writing essays on why things cannot work the way he describes them", it seems you're a bit too invested in criticising Essos.  Maybe Westeros too.  Each to their own :dunno:

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is not a minor detail. It literally means that none of the major armies relevant to Daenerys' plot so far can work the way they are intended to work.

Literature is in part educational, and Martin himself has stated that he wanted realism. Now, I don't care whether you have knights riding mechanical horses powered by nuclear reactors, but if you do want to do that, then you a) cannot claim any realism and b) have to consider implications of that fact on your world: society, people in it and the story itself.

George Martin fails miserably on both of the above points. How and why, I have described earlier in this post.

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Wowsers.  We meet Boromir, Denthor and Faramir.  Pippin meets a guard at Minas Tirith.  The people of Gondor do not emerge on page because they don't need to in story terms and the author does not waste time or ink on trying to flesh them out.  I do not know how they can possibly feel more alive than any group in ASOIAF after Arya and Brienne's journeys through the Riverlands, Sansa's and Tyrion's experiences in KL, Jon's time with The Wildlings or even Dany's interactions with the freed slaves as "Mysha".  With the addition of Dornish and Iron Isles povs they come alive too.  The hobbits tell the story and other than a brief Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli pov snippet in The Two Towers JRRT shows us everything through the eyes of four characters from the same background.

How you react to the story is up to you but I fundamentally disagree.

And that is literally all we need, because Tolkien is so good with his descriptions. Read the Edolas chapters in The Two Towers - or the book in general. You will see Rohirrim as people with the past, the present and the future, with deeply seated culture and beliefs. Same with Gondorrim in the Return of the King. Sure, you may not notice everything on the first readthrough because Tolkien (unlike Martin) doesn't whack you over the head with it, but it is there. Fact that Edolas is made of wood and Minas Tirith literally carved out of the side of the mountain, that Rohirrim sing songs whereas Gondorrim write books... these little tidbits tell us massive amounts about the respective societies, their differences and similarities. In fact, just the short appearance of Argonath in the first book says volumes about Gondor as a society.

Meanwhile, Martin's people are basically modern people transplanted into Planetos. Sure, there are many likeable characters... but I never get the feeling that these are the people living in actual Middle Ages the way I do with Tolkien. Let alone living in actual fantastical setting.

And Essos is, again, far worse than Westeros in that regard. How many characters do we have from Essos that aren't shallow, irrelevant, or both?

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Well, that's your opinion.  I disagree.  Essos is not my favourite part of the story as I feel it detracts from the main setting and slows the story down but I don't agree that the author should have not bothered with any detail (as if that could have been satisfactory) or should have copy-pasted a real world civilization in every instance so it could stand up to scrutiny.

I never said either - though not bothering with detail or copy-pasting civilizations would have been better than trying to make something new and mucking it up. If he wanted to create new civilization, he should have made sure that these civilizations can actually exist. As in, internal logic and consistency, logic and consistency in how they interact with the environment... instead, what we get in Essos are a bunch of civilizations that by all logic should have collapsed ages ago not due to external pressure, but because they are set up in a way that should literally have never worked.

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Are they?  Dany's journey with the Dothraki was a brief interlude with a few chapters in AGOT.  They were a stepping stone for her character development as Khaleesi and Mother of Dragons and Claimant to the Iron Throne.  Why on earth would he have padded out AGOT with reams of detail on Dothraki society and culture?  He gives us Vaes Dothrak with it's spoils, the crones of the Dosh Khaleen, the competing khalasars and a few myths and cultural practices.  It's reasonable for you to want more but it's not really to demand more - they're a fictional construct the author has developed as much as he considers necessary or desirable.

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Again, I never said that he should have padded the Dothraki with reams of detail - why are you so fixated on everything being explained in detail, I do not know. What he should have done is made sure that whatever information he provides about the Dothraki actually makes sense with what he wanted them to be and role he wanted them to play in the story.

Sorry, but you cannot convince me that a bunch of moronic Mongol LARPers with no armor, no heavy cavalry, no siege technology and a culture that explicitly rejects any new input, can ever be a threat to any sedentary society that has managed to not collapse on itself.

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

The Dothraki are about as developed in AGOT as the Rohirrim in The Two Towers, if not mroe so, so I don't see the problem.  That analogy will hold if The Dothraki are to storm into Westeros like the Rohirirm onto The Pelennor Fields, as in they will have had a major story impact.   But still no Rohirrim or Dothraki pov is considered by either author :dunno:

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

1) They are not.

2) What we know about the Dothraki makes no sense. Rohirrim are actually logically developed and consistent in their interactions both within their own society and with other societies. Dothraki simply make no sense, unless they are intended to be a literal joke of a cannon fodder for Westerosi archers to practice on.

3) We may not have Rohirrim POV, but we have information about the Rohirrim given to us by Aragorn (who lived among them for some years), Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn and Gandalf (a literal angel of a lower order). Who is main source of information on Dothraki? Jorah Mormont.

5 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I'm a fan of both authors so I can't get too invested in a comparison but GRRM's is just far more detailed and realistic than JRRT's. 

JRRT has a magic heavy world with goblins, giant spiders, dragons, giant eagles, wraiths, trolls turning to stone at Daybreak, Talking Trees, fiery mountains, etc... This is okay as it's magic but he wrote The Hobbit with a small scale map that then scaled up to Middle Earth: The Shire is isolated from the nasty world and we have this weird child-sized race that live in tranquillity (unknowing of the outside world and that their borders are protected by altruistic rangers), then we transition into the outside world via The Old Forest, Barrow Downs, The Trollshaws before we have mountains, forests (Mirkwood) and The Lonely Mountain.  It feels childish because it is a child's story but it grows up with TLOTR and The Silmarillion and the story of the earlier ages.

GRRM's world is less heavy on magic and far more realistic to me.  It's geography feels more thought out and robust from the start and the human cultures and kingdoms are diverse, interesting and as developed as the story of ASOIAF needs them to be.  The other novels, historical encyclopaedias and the like flesh out the mythos and history of the world more fully and are analogous (but not identical in function) to The Silmarillion et al.

They have different styles and different focus, perhaps even different objectives, but both create wonderful stories with fascinating worlds brimming with variety, characters and history.

Honestly I don't see the problem.

Eh, your and my understanding of realism are different.

GRRMs world is far more detailed, but perhaps because of that it is also far less realistic. It is more cynical, but cynicism does not make realism.

Sure, Tolkien has a lot of fantastical elements - it is a high fantasy series, what did you expect? But the way societies are structured, the way different societies and groups interact and function internally, is far more realistic than in Martin's case. Gondor is in fact far more realistic than Westeros or Essosi societies are. Neither Westeros nor most Essosi societies could ever have existed the way they are described. You cannot say that something is "realistic" if it is incapable of existing in the real world.

Gondor does not have that problem:

https://bondwine.com/2010/03/13/gondor-byzantium-and-feudalism/

https://www.thetolkienforum.com/threads/gondor-as-byzantine-empire-and-other-parallels.29152/

Shire is isolated from the nasty world because literally nobody who matters gives a shit about it. Yet it is not truly exempt: there was an invasion by orcs (once) and when Rangers leave, Shire immediately starts experiencing troubles.

As for Rangers being altruistic, why do you think that is weird? Rangers are literally all that remains of the military force of Arnor, and Shire is a fief of the King of Arnor - an ancestor of Chieftain of Dunedain, who are his heirs. Defending Shire is their duty, because Hobbits are subjects of their ruler.

Old Forrest, Barrow Downs and Trollshaws... again, nothing really childish there, unless you mean to say old legends and folk stories are childish.

GRRM's geography isn't really well thought out, especially its political geography - as I noted, Westeros makes absolutely no sense, and most Essosi civilizations make even less sense.

Both are well-written works, and interesting - otherwise I wouldn't have read ASoIaF at all - but I do not think Planetos is in any way more realistic than Arda. More cynical, yes, but not more realistic - except maybe in the fact that it is less magical, but that to me is not enough for realism.

I see a problem solely in the fact that this misconception that ASoIaF is somehow realistic can lead to people having wrong ideas about the real world history (remember a friend I mentioned who, after watching 300, came to believe that actual Spartans fought with no armor and were somehow unusually badas fighters? Yeah, that is what I mean here). That is why I like to chew this particular bone. But realism isn't necessary for a good story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

We were. I just wanted to point this out because Westeros is far better in terms of worldbuilding than Essos is... yet it is still garbage, relatively speaking.

We don't really see much of the Iron Islands, and what we do see simply doesn't make any sense at all.

and then completely, utterly failed at actually considering the implications of the stuff he built his world from. He dangled all the cool stuff in front of our noses, and then proceeded to throw it into bloody garbage.

I don't really want to get in to a back and forth as I quite simply disagree and I'm a fan of both works so as I said, comparisons or criticisms of one versus the other are weird to me as I think they are both marvellous works of creative fantasy.  And also what one reader wants or looks for or enjoys is not necessarily what another does - I think our respective stances shows that very clearly B)

A couple of observations and general thoughts though.

Please don't post stuff like the above - it's just opinion and pretty difficult to read.  Actually, given the tone and length of your post I stopped reading pretty early on and flipped to the end.  It makes your post and views an angry screed and Idk why anyone would read on.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Martin should have made Vale akin to the Swiss Cantons - no knights and massess of lightly-armored pikemen, population politically organized into clans (which then developed into cantons) and f*** chivalry. Instead, Vale is literally a copy-paste of Reach in many ways (except for their mountain clans which... don't really matter in the big picture). Why TF does the Vale have a culture of chivalry, considering its geography? And if Westerlands are supposed to be England expy, why do they have so many knights - more than Reach by proportion of the army, apparently? Why Tywin's army had so few archers?

Why should he?  Why shouldn't it?  Why do you think it is or should reflect England or army composition?  And so on with what you term worldbuilding.

Other than you wanting certain things there's no reason to go into this and your expectations seem pretty detailed and restrictive.  The point of a work of creative fantasy is the author uses his imagination and loosely bases his creations on aspects of real world cultures and systems but what he creates is different from the real world of any historical period.  It's his own.  Otherwise it may as well be historical fiction.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

I see a problem solely in the fact that this misconception that ASoIaF is somehow realistic can lead to people having wrong ideas about the real world history (remember a friend I mentioned who, after watching 300, came to believe that actual Spartans fought with no armor and were somehow unusually badas fighters? Yeah, that is what I mean here). That is why I like to chew this particular bone. But realism isn't necessary for a good story.

Of all the criticisms of heroic fantasy I never expected to hear that it does not accurately reflect the real world and is performing an educational disservice to it's readership.  It's fantasy (with magic too) and has no duty to pass any gates as to whether chariots and heavy cavalry could be used together historically.  If the author wants them to, or to build a massive Wall of Ice, he can :thumbsup:

300 is a movie based on real events at Thermopylae however much it is romanticised and distorted for myth and machismo, not a work of creative fantasy.  Spartans were renowned warriors in Ancient Greece though so your friend learned something after all :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Please don't post stuff like the above - it's just opinion and pretty difficult to read.  Actually, given the tone and length of your post I stopped reading pretty early on and flipped to the end.  It makes your post and views an angry screed and Idk why anyone would read on.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

It is opinion based on facts. Which I explained below.

And if you are so thin skinned that a stranger on a forum writing a few impolite words not even directed at you makes something hard to read, how do you manage to survive going anywhere or talking to anyone? Genuine question.

16 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Why should he?  Why shouldn't it?  Why do you think it is or should reflect England or army composition?  And so on with what you term worldbuilding.

 

Because there are reasons why society develops in certain ways, and if you throw logic and realism completely out of window, there is nothing to relate to.

You cannot have a mountainous state rely on heavy cavalry - it not just doesn't make sense, it is impossible, for reasons of logistics, tactics and physics. Likewise, steppe nomads are not going to rely on heavy infantry.

Things happen for a reason. Problem is, Martin generally doesn't understand what that reason is.

18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Other than you wanting certain things there's no reason to go into this and your expectations seem pretty detailed and restrictive.  The point of a work of creative fantasy is the author uses his imagination and loosely bases his creations on aspects of real world cultures and systems but what he creates is different from the real world of any historical period.  It's his own.  Otherwise it may as well be historical fiction.

Tolkien quite closely followed these restrictions - at least as they were known in his day and age - yet his work is far more original than Martin's is. So I see no reason why my expectations would be restrictive, even if they are detailed.

So long as you are writing about humans and human societies, some restrictions will be logically imposed. If you want to do away with them, don't write about humans - write about elves, dwarves, aliens... then you will have your freedom.

25 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Of all the criticisms of heroic fantasy I never expected to hear that it does not accurately reflect the real world and is performing an educational disservice to it's readership.  It's fantasy (with magic too) and has no duty to pass any gates as to whether chariots and heavy cavalry could be used together historically.  If the author wants them to, or to build a massive Wall of Ice, he can :thumbsup:

 

If you don't want your cavalry to act like cavalry, don't give them horses. Give them pegasi, or wolves, or chimeras.

If you don't want your archers to act like archers, don't make them archers - make them mages.

Taking something that historically existed and making it act in a manner completely different from how it did shows either a lack of understanding or a lack of imagination.

15 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

300 is a movie based on real events at Thermopylae however much it is romanticised and distorted for myth and machismo, not a work of creative fantasy.  Spartans were renowned warriors in Ancient Greece though so your friend learned something after all :ph34r:

They were renowned, but that renown was unearned. Spartans were no better than any other hoplite army.They definitely weren't badasses that "300" makes them seem as.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It feels like filler...

Everyone there at the moment has their goals in Westeros and I don't belive any of them will perish or choose to stay on Essos, so it just feels like a waste of time.

From Arya, to Daenerys and Tyrion... the only one I belive has a chance to end their story in Essos is Victarion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

The Dothraki are not Mongols, they are loosely based on any one or amalgam of steppe-dwelling nomadic cultures that erupted from the east throughout ancient and medieval history.

It is not an amalgram of nomadic societies, sorry. Let's use the Mongols, for example. 

We can see from history that there are very good reasons as to why some societies/armies, etc failed or succeeded. The Mongols had their horseback cavalry, yes, but they also had heavy cavalry and when they invade China, they used a bunch of local Jin infantry, captured engineers and military officers and that's how they conquered China (even if conquering all of Song China's territory took seventy-odd years). They were willing to incorporate useful parts of their enemy to win and they actually wore armor. 

The Dothraki have no armor, they don't do what the Mongols did, they somehow can move around in hordes of 40000 on a steppe without starving, their interactions don't make sense, and their tactics from Qohor are idiotic (admittedly, it was over 300 years ago, but we've seen no developments and lessons learned in AGOT). 

10 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

The Dothraki are about as developed in AGOT as the Rohirrim in The Two Towers, if not mroe so, so I don't see the problem.

From just a character standpoint, I'd have to disagree because in Two Towers and ROTK, we get a bunch of Rohirrim characters who help show us what their culture is like, as compared to, say the Shire and Gondor. They sing, they fight on horseback and behind a shield wall, their feudal structure makes sense and they're competent. They make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

From just a character standpoint, I'd have to disagree because in Two Towers and ROTK, we get a bunch of Rohirrim characters who help show us what their culture is like, as compared to, say the Shire and Gondor. They sing, they fight on horseback and behind a shield wall, their feudal structure makes sense and they're competent. They make sense

Dont all characters sing and fight behind shield walls and then sing some more? I also thin they fight with horses but Rohan has something going on there, which is kinda strange if the others dont. 
Nothing about Rohan imo made sense. King exiled his entire army, then woke up and told gandalf dont bother looking, then thought gandalf betrayed him, then was mad suprised when the army he banished came back to save him. And then we think hes cool, but then for some reason hes like "why should i fight with gondor"? Also do Rohan women fight or was it just her? Why dont any Gondor princess fight? 
I dont see how say, Tom Bombodill is more flushed out then anything in asoiaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Dont all characters sing and fight behind shield walls and then sing some more? I also thin they fight with horses but Rohan has something going on there, which is kinda strange if the others dont. 
Nothing about Rohan imo made sense. King exiled his entire army, then woke up and told gandalf dont bother looking, then thought gandalf betrayed him, then was mad suprised when the army he banished came back to save him. And then we think hes cool, but then for some reason hes like "why should i fight with gondor"? Also do Rohan women fight or was it just her? Why dont any Gondor princess fight? 
I dont see how say, Tom Bombodill is more flushed out then anything in asoiaf

We're talking about the book Rohan, not movie Rohan. 

1. Yeah, kinda. Theoden sings out his "spear will be shaken" stuff before they enter the Rammas Echor. And Rohan army is based partially off of cavalry. 

2. Movie stuff, or partially happened while under Saruman's control. 

3. In the book, there is no hesitation, really to support Gondor, since Rohan's fate rises or falls with the battles in Gondor. They have to support Denethor's men, or else it's them against the forces of Mordor. 

4.  Eowyn is the only woman known to be in the army that goes to the Pelennor Fields. I don't remember if any other women have fought. Also, Gondor doesn't have princesses since there was no king for a long time until Aragorn. Plus, I don't think that Boromir and Faramir had a sister, so no fighting princesses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

We're talking about the book Rohan, not movie Rohan

I've read it a few times over the many years tho I've seen em like a million times lol. So I may be wrong here sorry

8 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Yeah, kinda. Theoden sings out his "spear will be shaken" stuff before they enter the Rammas Echor. 

The Gondor boys don't sing? Or the dad? Or Aragon and co? Or elves? At least one of them. Maybe it was Pippen...

11 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

And Rohan army is based partially off of cavalry. 

Because women get treated like the gentle sex, except they all do. Except for that one, although she does. But she isn't.

9 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Movie stuff, or partially happened while under Saruman's control. 

I thought he did banish the nephew and something ambiguous happened with the army and then, idk, somehow the good guys won helms deep. I mean the nephew was back when Pippen was getting high with the trees... Before he made that phone call. (He's really the best character lol. I love how Elrond didn't want Pippen in the fellowship and Gandalf maybe too. But it turns out Pippen did more then any other character not named frodo&Sam, and gollum but he's no fellow)

12 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

In the book, there is no hesitation, really to support Gondor, since Rohan's fate rises or falls with the battles in Gondor. They have to support Denethor's men, or else it's them against the forces of Mordor.

Yea exactly. I thought that was in the books too

13 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Eowyn is the only woman known to be in the army that goes to the Pelennor Fields. I don't remember if any other women have fought. Also, Gondor doesn't have princesses since there was no king for a long time until Aragorn. Plus, I don't think that Boromir and Faramir had a sister, so no fighting princesses. 

Word. Plus I don't think she's a princess. Just a niece. Which may still make her a princess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Word. Plus I don't think she's a princess. Just a niece. Which may still make her a princess. 

She gets referred to as Lady Eowyn if I recall correctly. 

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I thought he did banish the nephew and something ambiguous happened with the army and then, idk, somehow the good guys won helms deep

 I don't think he banished Eomer in the book, but that does happen in the movies. And the army (Erkenbrand and such) is tied up at Helm's Gate, KIA at the Fords of Isen, etc. And there were no elves besides Legolas at BoHG. 

7 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The Gondor boys don't sing? Or the dad? Or Aragon and co? Or elves? At least one of them. Maybe it was Pippen...

24 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

I think they all sing, but it's the Rohirrim I remember the most. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

She gets referred to as Lady Eowyn if I recall correctly

I believe you are correct. I also believe it's the lady galadrial, I'm not sure about arwyn. (Who's from a different neighborhood then galadrial and legolas? but I can't tell the elf races apart)

16 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

I don't think he banished Eomer in the book, but that does happen in the movies. And the army (Erkenbrand and such) is tied up at Helm's Gate, KIA at the Fords of Isen, etc. And there were no elves besides Legolas at BoHG

How does Rohan win? Nothing climactic like in the movie? (If Gandalf doesn't help direct other people to save them I think that's pretty great because I'm kinda convinced the entire fellowship was useless except three hobbits and a little Aragon, And it'd be pretty funny if the wizard didn't even help save Rohan, tbh a little sam too. Aragons ghost ships saved Gondor tho. Wait was that only movie?)

22 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

I think they all sing, but it's the Rohirrim I remember the most. 

Yea I kinda remember faramir singing some sad song about gollum or something. I remember pippens the most, they were fun. I do like how Tolkien kinda gave everyone a different way of singing, I think 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

How does Rohan win? Nothing climactic like in the movie? (If Gandalf doesn't help direct other people to save them I think that's pretty great because I'm kinda convinced the entire fellowship was useless except three hobbits and a little Aragon, And it'd be pretty funny if the wizard didn't even help save Rohan, tbh a little sam too. Aragons ghost ships saved Gondor tho. Wait was that only movie?)

Well, for Helm's Gate in the books, Erkenbrand and his infantry are the ones who show up and save the day. Eomer was already at the complex. Gandalf brings E and company along (minus the ones he assigns to bury the dead at Isen Ford). 

Then Pelennor Fields is just the cavalry because all this is working on a fairly tight timetable, no time to get the infantry to Minas Tirith once Hirgon and the Red Arrow arrive. 

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I believe you are correct. I also believe it's the lady galadrial, I'm not sure about arwyn. (Who's from a different neighborhood then galadrial and legolas? but I can't tell the elf races apart)

33 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Ye, Lady Galadriel and Lady Arwen, but I can't make heads or tails of the different types. I just call them Mirkwood or Lothlorien. IDK what Tolkien does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...