Bad Worldbuilding in ASoIaF

[Springwatch]

It's possible that the story is now heading in a more hard-boiled direction, returning to the style of GRRM's early sci-fi stories.

It looks very much like the plot is a game of two halves - Winter is Coming, and Winter has Actually Arrived. So all the winter mysteries (the Others, the wights, the Heart of Winter, the gods of the weirnet) must come into play and reveal themselves - all this I can easily imagine in the mould of the early sci-fi. If so the 'gods' aren't immortal or divine, and can be killed, which is likely the way to solve the weirdness of the seasons, and other weirdnesses as well.

And there's a lot of emphasis so far on false appearances, especially in Arya's training, e.g. 'Wise men can see through artifice, and glamors dissolve before sharp eyes', which suggests there is truth to be seen and it's her mission to find it. She's training with mummers now, and mummers are a major repeated note of falseness - mummer's farce, mummer's trick, mummer's folly. It feels suggestive when Manderley is given the words, 'The north remembers and the mummer's farce is almost done.'  Sounds like winter is a time for truth.

[SeanF]

38 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Death toll was 105,000 in the War of the Roses. I don’t suppose nobles made up a significant number of those deaths. 

Give me an estimate for the War of 5 Kings if you think it was so much more bloody. 

Just to give another example of a war of succession that I know was INCREDIBLY blood, the Three Kingdoms Period in China had some ridiculous death toll where huge percents of the population ended up dying. And I’d say do to the expansion of the war beyond just Stark vs Lannister could explain a larger death toll. 

Like was every real world lord like Tywin Lannister? Hell no. But those like him did exist. It would not be hard to pull someone just as violent as him from history. I don’t particularly feel lije doing tons of resewrch for this…but I did, for many papwrs in University, and horrific things happened…a lot in history, and the poor usually suffered the worst of it.  

I’d put the death toll for TWOT5K over a million (based on my population estimates on the other thread).  I’m including deaths by famine, disease, and exposure in the total.

[Aldarion]

4 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I have one question, @Aldarion : Have you read the Expanse, and is its world building good? 

I’ll even tell you why I am asking. If yo answer the Expanse’s world building is bad, I think your problem is not “bad world building”, it is “world building that challenges my political-stances and my personal view of the world” (because the Expanse has spectacular world building, but I suspect you won’t like it anyways…cause it won’t appeal to those who believe in a conservative fantasy version of the world where the rich and powerful are super nice and good and “deserve” to be in power)

No, I have not read the Expanse. I am not exactly a fan of sci-fi with no fantasy elements. Warhammer 40k, Star Wars, Star Trek... that is basically representative of the sci-fi that I have followed. The only "hard" science fiction I have read or watched are The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, The Martian, Deep Impact and Contact. And even Contact has some fantasy elements from what I remember (it has been a long time), while Jurassic Park has essentially dragons' grandparents terrorizing humans.

And you are just making up shit at this point. Literally ANY person with above pop-culture level of historical knowledge will tell you that ASOIAF worldbuilding is bad. It is basically a theme park version of Medieval Europe, or a Potemkin Village - it has all the bells and whistles, but the core is simply not there.

Also this:

Quote

cause it won’t appeal to those who believe in a conservative fantasy version of the world where the rich and powerful are super nice and good and “deserve” to be in power)

First, I am not a conservative, I am a reactionary. For me, conservatives are basically leftists. My ideology is basically this:

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2021/05/16/tolkiens-ideal-of-monarchy/

Second, what you describe is not even "conservative" version of the world, it is neocon version of the world - and neocons are essentially a mix of conservatives and progressives, or rather, progressives who have accepted some tenets of conservatism. Fact is, rich people are still people - some are good, some are evil, and all look out for their own interests. And due to globalization, interests of the rich people have diverged from population at large. Only the old-school neocons still believe that rich people are somehow "super nice and good and deserve to be in power".

In Middle Ages, however, the nobility did protect the peasants as much as they could. Not because they were nice - but because their power came from the peasants. When your wealth is in land, you need people to work that land. So protecting peasants is basically protecting investment. And that is the reason why yes, historical nobles were in fact on average far nicer than ASoIaF ones.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Plenty of worldbuilding makes little sense in LOTR.  The absence of population, or political structures, in Eriador, for hundreds of years;  the non-existent economics of the eleven realms; the dwarven mountain cities that have no agricultural land; the Shire being 1890’s Warwickshire set in pre-history.

These things don’t matter that much, unless they become stupid.

I am aware of that. Thing is, however, that situation is different between Tolkien and Martin for two reasons:

First, Tolkien set out to write a mythology. Absence of population in Eriador is a mythological element, and also represents the theme of the work, which is decline. Middle Earth is a world going through an apocalypse. To settle unsettled land, you need to have excess population. In the Middle Earth, there is none. Gondor itself is half-empty; how are they ever going to settle Eriador? We have an example of settlement of Rohirrim in Rohan, but they literally abandoned their old lands and left them empty when moving to their new homeland. There were no people left to settle the land they had abandoned. And yes, logistics of Moria do not make sense, just as logistics of Minas Tirith or entire Mordor do not.

Second, Tolkien never made claims to realism, and nobody claimed that Lord of the Rings is a realistic world. Martin however did make claims to realism, and more importantly, there is a perception that Westeros somehow represents Middle Ages as they "truly were". Therefore, Martin is in a position where he can have a very debilitating impact on popular perception of Middle Ages. Standards thus have to be different.

If it wasn't for this perception that Martin writes "gritty, realistic" fiction, I will have been content to just ignore the flaws (except maybe for one or two posts nitpicking it for fun). And while I am planning on adressing Tolkien's worldbuilding as well at some point, most of the flaws in his worldbuilding are deliberate choices for narrative purposes. Martin however has actually claimed to be trying to write realistic fiction, yet ended with something less realistic than WH40k.

Martin's claims can be seen here:

http://www.adriasnews.com/2012/10/george-r-r-martin-interview.html

Quote

Well… I want my readers to be emotionally involved in what they read. I don’t like to read from the distance and I want them to be really involved, and if scary stuff is gonna happen; I want them to be scared. Beyond the way to do that I want to state that everybody can die. Mine is not a predictable book like so many others, where you know the hero is safe. No matter how much trouble the hero gets in, what odds he seems to be facing; he’s gonna come through, cause he... he is John Carter, he is the hero. That’s not the way in real life and I want to be realistic in my books, so no one is safe in the books. My goal as a writer has always been to create a strong fiction stories. I want my readers to remember my books and the great time they had while they were sitting in a comfortable armchair. 

https://entertainment.time.com/2011/04/18/grrm-interview-part-2-fantasy-and-history/

Quote

I was also reading a lot of historical fiction. And the contrast between that and a lot of the fantasy at the time was dramatic because a lot of the fantasy of Tolkien imitators has a quasi-medieval setting, but it’s like the Disneyland Middle Ages. You know, they’ve got tassels and they’ve got lords and stuff like that, but they don’t really seem to grasp what it was like in the Middle Ages. And then you’d read the historical fiction which was much grittier and more realistic and really give you a sense of what it was like to live in castles or to be in a battle with swords and things like that. And I said what I want to do is combine some of the realism of historical fiction with some of the appeal of fantasy, the magic and the wonder that the best fantasy has.

And of course popular perception too:

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2017/08/22/fantasy-needs-magic

Quote

The world of “Game of Thrones” is very convincing and very realistic, so why did you decide to bring magic into this world? Did it need walking corpses and dragons? What prompted you, as the writer, to introduce magical elements?

I did consider in the very early stages not having the dragons in there. I wanted the Targaryen’s symbol to be the dragons, but I did play with the notion that maybe it was like a psionic power, that it was pyrokinesis — that they could conjure up flames with their minds. I went back and forth. My friend and fellow fantasy writer Phyllis Eisenstein actually was the one who convinced me to put the dragons in, and I dedicated the third book to her. And I think it was the right call. Phyllis, by the way, is distantly related to your Eisenstein, the maker of the great Russian films, “Battleship Potemkin” and “Alexander Nevsky.”

Fantasy needs magic in it, but I try to control the magic very strictly. You can have too much magic in fantasy very easily, and then it overwhelms everything and you lose all sense of realism. And I try to keep the magic magical — something mysterious and dark and dangerous, and something never completely understood. I don’t want to go down the route of having magic schools and classes where, if you say these six words, something will reliably happen. Magic doesn’t work that way. Magic is playing with forces you don’t completely understand. And perhaps with beings or deities you don’t completely understand. It should have a sense of peril about it.

BTW, when it comes to GRRM's criticism of Tolkien, keep in mind that Martin does not understand even the most basic aspects of Lord of the Rings:

https://ew.com/article/2011/07/12/george-martin-talks-a-dance-with-dragons/

Quote

I suppose I'm a lapsed Catholic. You would consider me an atheist or agnostic. I find religion and spirituality fascinating. I would like to believe this isn't the end and there's something more, but I can't convince the rational part of me that that makes any sense whatsoever. That's what Tolkien left out — there's no priesthood, there's no temples; nobody is worshiping anything in Rings.

No, there isn't. Because they don't need temples and worship. Tolkien's world is one where you have literal angels walking around, and while God is untouchable he is far from unknowable and he is there. 

You don't need faith when you have knowledge. In Middle Earth, God and his agents are present and walking in the world. You don't need priests when you have literal angels. You don't need temples when you can talk to God. Even Sauron does not try to negate God or claim there is none the way Marx does - it simply wouldn't fly, he would be laughed off. Rather, Sauron goes the Nietzschiean way: God is there, He just doesn't care.

There is a reason why the only temples we see in Tolkien's world were built by Numenoreans after they began worshipping Melkor / Morgoth.

16 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

So after reading one…of like 4 essay length paragraphs by @Aldarion on just one page (pg. 4) if this topic, I’ve come to a conclusion. 

@Aldarion : You don’t like ASOiAF that much do you? You prefer a series like Lord of the Rings right? 

I like both. I just think that Martin is being unfairly praised for one thing he screwed up (worldbuilding) while the thing he actually is good at (character building) does not receive anywhere near as much attention as it should. Including from Martin himself.

Just look at these two examples:

https://arwz.com/zinereviewVIO1.php

Quote

Martin's tale of royal politics and underhanded alliances is set in a gritty realistic world based upon Medieval Europe.

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2017/08/22/fantasy-needs-magic

Quote

The world of “Game of Thrones” is very convincing and very realistic

That is a problem. Like it or not, fantasy works such as ASoIaF do influence how people see history.

Yet for Martin, worldbuilding and prose are two things he is worst at. His real strength lies in how he writes his characters.

5 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Here, crucify me if you must, I’ll be direct : I think Lord of the Rings is a boring slog in which half the characters have 0 character growth, and the villains are compelling in now way whatsoever. I read all three books because I decided I had to. I had seen the movies, but in order to actually criticize the books, I had to read them. So I did. I barely made it through A Fellowship of the Ring, as it was maybe the slowest book I’ve ever read. I counted at one point : 15 pages of walking through a forest. Straight. And not just that, no character growth was happening either. Literally just a description of a forest for 15 pages. 

 

Yes, Lord of the Rings is slow-paced. And yes, most characters don't have character growth. Because they don't need to.

Frodo does in fact have significant character growth, as do Sam, Merry and Pippin. Do you really think that those four would be able to do what they did at the end - cleansing Shire - as they were at the beginning of the books?

Gandalf has no need for character growth. He is a tens of thousands of years old angel. What character growth do you expect from him?

Aragorn has had his character growth prior to the books. Why would he have character growth during them?

Boromir has character rollercoaster.

Both Legolas and Gimli have significant character growth.

Denethor has character growth... or rather, character fall. But changing trajectory is clear.

Dynamic characters are good. Static characters are also good. Character growth has to have some purpose and context; having character growth for the sake of character growth is not necessarily good.

And LotR villains are far more compelling than those in ASoIaF. In Lord of the Rings, even the worst of villains have reasons why they do things they do. Even orcs have dreams. Half if not most of the villains in ASoIaF do things... just because. The only ASoIaF villains I had found really compelling are Tywin and Roose. Tyrion to an extent. But Ramsay is just a caricature of Dracula, Euron is a caricature of Sauron, Petyr is obviously evil (his first scene mentions a "sly smile") yet everybody trusts him...

The main advantage that ASoIaF villains have is that we, as readers, spend time with them and so they get more fleshed out. But that doesn't automatically make them more realistic or compelling.

It is the protagonists in ASoIaF that are more compelling than those in LotR. Not because of the character growth or lack of it, but because as Martin says, ASoIaF is basically about human heart. So we learn far more about their hopes and dreams than we do in LotR, and there is far more personal stuff than there is in LotR. Could Tolkien have written equally compelling protagonists? Maybe. But Lord of the Rings is not the story about them, or even the humanity as a whole. It is a story about the metaphysical.

The only "good" character in LotR that I find as interesting as those in ASoIaF is Denethor. Maybe also Gandalf and Sam, to an extent. Others, not so much.

7 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

But nothing compares to my person nightmare. There is a scene upon Aragon and gang’s arrival in Rohan, in which Theoden (that’s the King’s name right) was still being controlled by…Wormstongue or whatever his name was, and Gandolf, Aragon, etc had to surrender their weopans to enter the King’s chamber. In ASOIAF this scene would last..at most 2 sentences. 3 pages. For 3 pages they surrendered rheir weapons to enter a King’s throne room. Do you know why? Because they were having a pissing contest, talking about how great there were, which Tolkein spends an INCREDIBLY long period of time doung constantly. I was told how great Aragorn was probably 700 times in these books. By the author. Not even really be the actions, often Aragorn was doing jack shit nothing while his praises were being sang. Now of coursec this wasn’t ONLY for Aragorn, I also had to be told how special the Hobbits were, how evil the Orcs were, how great the Elves were..for pages and pages and pages. 

 

And in Martin, you will have gotten fifteen pages of description of food, ten of describing the building, five references to whores... and Tolkien actually uses those three pages to set up later events. What do pages upon pages of food porn in Martin set up?

Fact is, neither Tolkien nor Martin are that good when it comes to actual prose. They are decent enough to be readable, but that is all. And Tolkien is actually better at integrating descriptions into action than Martin is; with Martin, all too often the story itself is put on hold while he describes stuff. Oh, are you interested in the plot? What a pity. Wait here while I describe those huge tracts of land. Martin's prose can also be clunky and repetitive. So yes, Tolkien has better prose than Martin, but that is basically damning him with faint praise.

You want good prose? Go read Hemmingway.

7 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Ahh good worldbuilding - When you have to tell your audience how everything is rather than showing them. And here I thought the golden rule of writing was “show not tell”. 

 

You are confusing worldbuilding with narrative. You might want to stop critiquing things until you understand at least the basic terminology.

7 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

And, and please don’t quote the Simillatuon ot whatever ti prove me wring, as I don’t care if it isn’t actually clear in the text of the book I am reading - The world of the Lord of the Rings is even more static then the world of ASOIAF. Everything seems to have existed forever in a very certain way, and also it is “supposed” to be that way (cause Tolkein constantly makes moral decisions of how things are suppossed to be, something @Aldarion seemed to dislike in other parts of this forum). 

 

Well, yes, it is static. But Middle Earth is static for a good reason. Main driver of the world of the Middle Earth are the elves: they are the ones who innovate, and other races merely copy them. Elves created the first swords, the first mail, elves taught humans basically everything.

But elves are immortal. So they do not have much reason for change. Orcs, too, are immortal, as are Sauron and Saruman.

Advancement moves one death at a time. But when all the main drivers of the world live forever, how will the advancement happen?

And presence of magic on top of this means that any room for significant technological breakthrough is firmly shut closed.

What reason does the world of ASoIaF have to have remained so static for so long? Magic might work as an explanation, except... there is basically none in the world until the events of the story. Especially in Essos.

8 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Listen, I studied history (and was rewarded with a degree for it lol). And yes, @Aldarion, ASOIAF is more accurate than Lord of the Rings to how things were. I think what you are affected by bad history. Mythical style/sugar coated history. You said that people like Eddard would be the “norm” for nobles in one comment. In what world? Certainly not Earth. Nobles did in fact abuse their power. Nobles did in fact treat the “small-folk” like crap. Again, what history books are you reading dude? The ones I read were full of shit JUST LIKE what happens in ASOIAF. In fact, in casw you don’t know (you should) GRRM just lifted a lot of the events in our books directly from history (particularly the War of Roses). Is he perfect in his WorldBuilding? No. But he is a hell of a lot better than authors like, yes, Tolkein, who’s world is incredibly black and white, and in casw you don’t get it, he’ll be sure to explain to you the morals you should have in the text repeatedly. 

 

Maybe not England (England was always... special), but certainly Earth.

Try to understand how feudalism actually works. Here, I will give you a quote:

https://acoup.blog/2019/06/12/new-acquisitions-how-it-wasnt-game-of-thrones-and-the-middle-ages-part-iii/

Quote

In a system which runs on trust and reputation, elites tend to value trust and reputation.

Granted, he is commenting on the show, but the books have the same problem. Martin is making a point that dishonor and treachery is, in the end, self-defeating: Starks may be gone but their vassals are still loyal. Even Tywin's vassals are largely still loyal, because Tywin actually did follow honor in his dealings with them (as brutal as he may have been). Meanwhile Freys are getting murdered left, right and centre, because they broke the guest right.

Yet his own characters do not seem to understand that. Martin is writing about feudalism, a system that is literally built on trust and reputation, yet dishonorable characters are dime a dozen and Ned Stark is held up as a paragon of honor when he really isn't that exceptional by actual medieval standards.

Yes, nobles did abuse their power and treat small folk like crap a lot of the time. That Martin does get right... to an extent. But even there he gets a lot of things wrong. "Small folk" were not helpless, you see. First, because there were many types of small folk. In Martin, you have the nobility and the commoners. And commoners are nearly exclusively the serfs. But in real Middle Ages, commoners were varied - serfs, yes, but also free peasants, citizens of free cities and so on and so forth. And many of these could be as powerful as nobles. A serf that was mistreated could run away into a city - and if he did, he was a free man. Free cities were extremely difficult to attack (walls!) and also extremely important due to their riches, manufacture and trade. As a result, they provided a very good counterweight to the nobility.

Yet in Westeros, Martin has essentially neutered two out of three counterweights that nobility (and also the King) had. The Faith has far less influence in Westeros than it does in medieval Europe, and there are no free cities in Westeros. Just this alone will have sufficed to make Westerosi political landscape shallow and disappointing compared to that of medieval European kingdoms.

The entire system he uses is not medieval at all. Rather he has copied the French system of the estates, which divided the Parliament into the clergy, the nobility and the commoners. But that is a system implemented under modern monarchy, and has absolutely nothing to do with feudal world that Martin is allegedly describing. If he wanted such a division... where is the Westeros' parliament?

Second, even serfs were not really without protection. They could ask for justice at the court - first with their own immediate lord, then with his lord, and so on all the way to the king (in theory; just like today, practice often differs from theory). And because nobles were constantly looking for advantage over each other, no noble could really afford to treat his serfs too badly, because serfs could then ask for justice. Or just up and leave. Look for another lord.

And I think you actually hit the point of the issue here:

8 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

GRRM just lifted a lot of the events in our books directly from history (particularly the War of Roses)

He lifted the events, but without truly understanding the socioeconomic situation and what caused said events. And even there he gets a lot wrong, such as presence of conscripted peasants in armies and the widespread devastation.

Raiding that we see so much in Westeros was in fact highly unusual for Wars of the Roses, or any civil wars where aim was taking the crown. Why devastate areas you are aiming to profit from later? In fact, such civil wars were often highly ritualistic, with large numbers of pitched engagements and very little raiding and devastation.

Instead, behavior that armies show in Westeros is closer to that of the Ottoman Wars or wars of the religion (e.g. 30 Years War), where the enemy was an imperial power with religion that was directly in conflict with your own. That may have worked if it had been Southrons invading the North - if religion actually mattered in ASoIaF (which it doesn't), then religious differences and Northerners being seen as heathens will have justified such behavior. As it is, however... no, just no.

8 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

PS. I like the Hobbits by the way. They were the only characters with any…character growth, and I just liked them. Good dudes (Movie Frodo also kind of ruined book Frodo if you ask me)

That I actually agree with.

9 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Neither Sauron nor Saruman were working towards the greater good by the end of the third age.  Sauron never, and Saruman not after about the middle of third age or so.

As for evil not bringing about good, "Oft evil will shall evil mar" is literally in the text.

Yes, they were.

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2023/11/16/sauron-and-saruman-the-tragedy-of-good-intentions/

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is clearly lacking in LotR, not so much in ASoIaF. It is also lacking in the real world, by the way, yet the lack of 'visible consequences in real world worldbuilding' doesn't dissuade the religious of the world from their (petty) superstitions.

Quite the opposite, in fact. In LotR there are visible consequences of divine presence, including that time when his angels literally came to Middle Earth and rearranged the geography of the west of the continent. And while God's presence is generally speaking much less obvious, it is also everpresent. In ASoIaF, not so much, largely because Martin takes the agnostic view of "maybe magic, maybe divine" towards everything supernatural.

Also, you have completely missed the point (as usual) of what I meant under "visible consequences in real world".

As I explained previously: in a world where God is a fact, you do not need faith. Faith is substitute for knowledge. If you know there is a God, faith becomes superfluous.

Religions exist because we do not know if there is a God or not; we can only believe. But that is not the case in Middle Earth.

There is a reason why Numenoreans started building temples only when they began to worship Melkor.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He isn't writing a medieval books series - and neither was Tolkien, whose characters are equally silly in the sense that there is no visible religion or piety at all in LotR. That is actually a deeply unrealistic part of the book as every society as complex as the ones portrayed in Tolkien's works would have had some kind of religion. But somehow they don't.

He is writing a series set in a pseudo-medieval world, and he has set out "realism" as one of his goals. Suffice to say, he utterly fails at it.

As for Tolkien, his characters are far more religious than Martin's despite not having trappings of an organized religion. And you need to forget that misconception that belief = organized religion. It is possible to believe in God and yet still not have Church, clergy or so on.

In Tolkien's world, belief in God actually matters and shapes characters' actions. There may not be organized religion, but there definitely is piety. And piety actually has consequences there - from oaths actually being important (e.g. Oathbreakers getting cursed, Eorl's and Cirion's oath basically sealing alliance between Gondor and Rohan for millenia) all the way to direct divine action (Downfall of Numenor).

In Martin's world, belief in a diety matters about as much as a taste in pizza (unless your name is Melisandre). Why Catelyn didn't have to convert to the Old Gods? Why Old Gods have no shamans, no rituals, no specific spirits (such as spirits of weirwoods, spirits of waters... Romans had dozens of different spirits). All religions in Planetos have literally no substance to them, they are salad dressing that is very much worthless. Westeros isn't religous, it is a modern-day secular world with medieval dressing.

You say that "there is no visible religion or piety at all in LotR" - yet there isn't one in ASoIaF at all. There are a bunch of circus clown LARPers, but no religions.

And as I explained above, having religion in a world where divine agents literally walk among the humans makes no sense.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I know what the character does, but none of that has any bearing on him being king. He is the king because of his ancestry, and for no other reason. And his ancestry - and nothing else - makes him great. Just as it makes Boromor and Faramir and Denethor great, albeit to a lesser degree because they are lesser men of Númenórean descent and not the last scion of the House of Elros.

In Tolkien's world nobility is real in the sense that it is what makes people noble and heroic and strong.

Aragorn is also always the king, never mind that he didn't push his claim. This is a work where royalty is real and powerful, and not given to the whims of the people. Aragorn's natural authority - something that goes back completely to his family tree and blood - is such that he wins every confrontation, even staring matches with Gandalf and Sauron.

It is true royalist literature, hammering home the view that true royalty will always be clear and visible, never mind where the king is, what clothes he wears, etc.

We have nothing like that in ASoIaF. In fact, George plays around with and mocks such, say, naive or childish conceptions of kingship. I mean, it is no surprise that 'the rightful heir' of the Baratheon dynasty is a completely unpopular prick who will never be accepted as king.

And in a world where you literally have people with divine ancestry, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Yet Tolkien also makes it clear that that alone is not enough.

Aragorn makes no claim to crown of Gondor until after he has actually earned it. Sure, he has the right to the throne due to his ancestry - but that alone is not enough for him to be a king. He has to earn it first - crown comes with duties, and he has to actually start carrying out duties of the king before he claims the crown. He literally spells out that trying to claim the crown without deeds to his name would lead to outright rejecton or, worse, another Kin-strife. Elrond too is clear that he has to earn the crown.

Earnil was selected as a king over Arvedui because he was from Gondor and had proven himself to people of Gondor.

In ASoIaF, we don't really have kings and nobility. More or less everybody acts like a postmodern sociopath would if dropped in a medieval world and draped in livery. Martin's conception of kingship is the polar opposite of Tolkien's, but that doesn't make it any more realistic.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Which would be also a rather bad plot device, if true.

It is not plot device and it is not bad.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you want to real 1,000 pages books where major secondary characters do not change at all - go along. But it is nothing I'll ever praise as good character design.

Obviously Aragorn would have worked much better as a character if the book had shown him evolve into a king just as Pippin, Merry, Sam, and Frodo changed and evolved as the story progressed. Wouldn't be that hard to write, but Tolkien obviously wanted a static king who doesn't have to earn his crown but is handed it by an angel of the lord.

Frodo rises so high in nobility and wisdom that he can lecture and shame Saruman in the end. Aragorn could always do that, because he is the king. The Frodo we meet in the beginning of the book could never even challenge Saruman.

No, it is not obvious.

Aragorn could always do that because he is 87 years old and has the education and the experience that few to none of the human characters in the book can match. It makes absolutely no sense for him or Gandalf to be dynamic, evolving characters, just as it makes no sense for e.g. Merry and Pippin to be static characters.

Aragorn is the king, but he is not wise and noble because he is a king. Denethor after all also comes from a distinguished line and is hardly an ideal ruler. Saruman is far above Aragorn or literally anybody else other than Sauron and Gandalf when it comes to nobility, and you know what happens with him.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He already has added such deities - and he doesn't have to spill out who or what sends prophecies. But obviously the reader is free to ask ... and also to wonder aloud what kind of metaphysical framework we can postulate on that basis.

I mean, the existence of skinchangers' second life alone proves the existence of the human soul in Martinworld (if skinchanging didn't prove that by itself). That alone doesn't confirm that gods and deities exist, but makes their existence more likely than in our world where we can be extremely confident that the human soul doesn't exist.

Point.

58 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

It's a good question. You can't fail in a vacuum: there's got to be a target to fail against, and I doubt GRRM shares the same target as you. I guess your position is that deep realism is a universal target and opting out is automatic failure - but that's not always true either: e.g. the Impressionist painters got panned by critics of the time who judged the lack of realism (precise drawing, smooth brushwork) as automatically a failure. The painters themselves felt inspired to record reality, in their own way. Critical standards expanded.

George is not Monet & co., but fiction is an art, and artists do their own thing, and his thing for asoiaf so far includes snatching away chunks of realism as gleefully as he does the tropes.

There's a lot of realism left, proved by all the theories and insights that depend on it and actually work out really well.

It is not about promises but the perception: perception that Martin's world shows it how it actually was during the Middle Ages.

I don't think deep realism is a universal target. In fact, I don't give a shit about realism normally (unless I'm being pedantic for the fun of it). I do enjoy zombie flicks, after all. But Martin has made claims about realism... and more to the point, a lot of people have somehow gained perception that Martin has set out to write a realistic story set in a realistic medieval society.

That is the problem.

4 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I think Stannis' story shows the influence that religion has on the story's events, doesn't it?  

ETA: and I suppose Cersei's story as well.  Even though she's not religious herself, she is being very affected by those that are.

Stannis' story does, to an extent. But even then, the influence is limited entirely to political aspect of religion. In reality, for a medieval man, religion would permeate his life.

[Ran]

GRRM has always been clear that he's writing a fantasy, and his claims to realism are relatively limited to specific details or in reaction to the work of writers that were less realistic (e.g. binary good and evil with no moral ambiguities). In certain aspects he wants to be "more realistic" than some benchmark, but that's not the same as actually being fully realistic. He openly talks about "dialing it up to 11", for example.

So, I don't know, people are pushing out interpretations of his intentions which are not, I think, accurate to what he actually intended.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Ran

[SaffronLady]

10 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Martin however has actually claimed to be trying to write realistic fiction, yet ended with something less realistic than WH40k.

I will hesitate on claiming GRRM has gone full "all-the-way" like WH40K, but I think we could agree that calling Westeros an accurate depiction of the Middle Ages Europe is like calling the Fremen from Dune an accurate depiction of desert nomads?

[Jaenara Belarys]

1 hour ago, SaffronLady said:

I will hesitate on claiming GRRM has gone full "all-the-way" like WH40K, but I think we could agree that calling Westeros an accurate depiction of the Middle Ages Europe is like calling the Fremen from Dune an accurate depiction of desert nomads?

WH40K is just based upon being bonkers. But it does at least have a better sense of galactic scale than Star Wars. FTL travel can very much so have consequences, the amount of ships and soldiers available to a interstellar society on a war footing isn't perfect but it's better than just 25,000 Star Destroyers. 

The good thing about WH40K as compared to ASOIAF in terms of worldbuilding is religious. The people worshiping the God Emperor have it permeate the bits of their life, there's a large Inquisition based upon rooting out heretics and the like. The Imperial Cult has a bigger effect on the Imperium than the Faith does most of the time. 

The wars they fight are essentially existential and crusade-ish, mankind HATES aliens and is fighting a constant war to drum them out.  

The Emperor protects!

[SaffronLady]

10 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Faith does most of the time

In a sense, the Fot7's apparent discrepancies do seem to click together in a funny way. It sort of is there to officiate ceremonies but doctrinal differences don't trigger intra-Faith conflicts, which probably makes sense - nobody fights for the leadership of a religious structure that does so little.

GRRM does make King and Church a big point of conflict though, at least for the first 3 Targs. We don't hear of the Faith making petitions to Robert after he overthrew the Targs to restore ancient privileges like re-forming the Swords and Stars.

[Jaenara Belarys]

7 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

GRRM does make King and Church a big point of conflict though, at least for the first 3 Targs. We don't hear of the Faith making petitions to Robert after he overthrew the Targs to restore ancient privileges like re-forming the Swords and Stars.

For the first three, and then after Jaehaerys they might as well not exist most of the time. 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Jaenara Belarys

[the trees have eyes]

On 11/12/2023 at 9:15 PM, Springwatch said:

He's not trying for realism; he's very obvious about it. Complaining about missing realism is like complaining the lines don't rhyme - but rhymes and realism were never promised.

George writes on fantasy in glowing terms (see below). Obviously the actual books aren't pure sugar, but still, you've got to take it into account.

 

Thanks for that quote, I love it 

The really surprising thing is the number of people who complain about things like travel time, map scale or population density.  The world is the canvas he paints the story on, not the masterpiece itself.  I don't care if The Wall is too tall because that in itself has no story impact.  Or I disagree if someone thinks he should have done more work on religion or culture or class or bureaucracy etc. because the story does just fine with what it has.  In fact there's already too much without adding heaps more background and world building.  Creating and detailing the World shouldn't overwhelm the story.

And bureaucracy?  Don't people read fantasy to escape bureaucracy?!  Honestly scratching my head at this one.  If you're focusing on this you're missing all the fun.

I never really get the point of these discussions.  Fantasy simply takes inspiration from the real world to create a world of the author's imagination,  The influences are many, overlapping and are synthesised as the author plots, writes, changes his mind and takes as much or as little as he considers necessary, appropriate or desirable to create the world he wants to in order to frame his story and make it come alive.  The Wars of The Roses heavily influenced GRRM but the author read widely (maybe too much about food and heraldry...) to get a window for the time period and the elements he wanted to incorporate or use as influences for his world.

[SaffronLady]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

And bureaucracy?  Don't people read fantasy to escape bureaucracy?!  Honestly scratching my head at this one.  If you're focusing on this you're missing all the fun.

I won't repeat Aldarion's entire exposition on how GRRM made a point of realism, says he will write with more realism in mind, etc. I'll just focus on this.

LF, while being a noble himself ... is a nobody in the world of the nobles. He ... gets to one of the top positions in a realm, he gains direct access to the king ... in a realm where the nobles dare to not execute commands from the royal court. Case in point: Edwell Celtigar. So either, in vein with GRRM's "generating expectations for realism", LF 1) never climbs as high as Master of Coin 2) he gets there, but is quickly ousted from the position by a better-connected noble, a Tyrell, Hightower or Lannisport Lannister.

[Ingelheim]

On 11/17/2023 at 1:56 AM, Lord Varys said:

So you think the Good Masters couldn't have had magical testosterone replacement to make powerfully built and strong eunuchs despite the fact that they also have magical obedience and pain killer drugs? 

The Unsullied are clearly a part of the fantasy element of that fantasy series, and not so much a realism element.

Yes, they could have. But they don't. That's the bad worldbuilding. I would have been fine with some secret magic potion making them fearless and obedient and strong, but they don't use any of that.

They are castrated at 5, forced to kill a puppy, and then somehow grow to be muscular agressive warriors that's don't get fat. And that's not how castration works in males

Edited November 18, 2023 by Ingelheim

[Lord Varys]

13 hours ago, Ingelheim said:

Yes, they could have. But they don't. That's the bad worldbuilding. I would have been fine with some secret magic potion making them fearless and obedient and strong, but they don't use any of that.

We see they are strong, we don't need an explanation for that. What we do need is to know why they are special and loyal soldiers. And we do learn that.

That said - eunuchology is not necessarily George's strong suit. Varys also seems to be a eunuch from a very young age on (if we can treat his origin story as fact) yet what seems to be his true persona has a deep, booming voice, not exactly the voice we would expect from a eunuch who never went through puberty.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Quite the opposite, in fact. In LotR there are visible consequences of divine presence, including that time when his angels literally came to Middle Earth and rearranged the geography of the west of the continent. And while God's presence is generally speaking much less obvious, it is also everpresent. In ASoIaF, not so much, largely because Martin takes the agnostic view of "maybe magic, maybe divine" towards everything supernatural.

Oh, come on, you know Tolkien better than that. Yes, some people *know* that supernatural or divine beings exist - and some of those (if they are what we are told they are) also *know* that some god exists somewhere ... but that is very exclusive knowledge.

If you take nonsensical religious texts at face value then the protagonists of many of those also know and interact with gods or divine beings ... yet religions still formed and the followers or descendants of those people didn't have that special knowledge.

In LotR it is very much the same. Gandalf and Sauron might dimly remember Valinor and the Ainulindale, and Galadriel the light of the Two Trees ... but Elrond only ever saw Eonwe and some other Maiar, and was fed stories by his elders. And Elros' descendants didn't even have that.

Bottom line is - the Elves should have a religion, as should all human peoples and the dwarves, etc. LotR not that depicting that turns the world into a secular world where some forces might influence things behind the scenes, but decidedly not a deity who is worshiped in a meaningful way. And the people there have moved beyond religion or never invented it, obviously.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Also, you have completely missed the point (as usual) of what I meant under "visible consequences in real world".

As I explained previously: in a world where God is a fact, you do not need faith. Faith is substitute for knowledge. If you know there is a God, faith becomes superfluous.

Religions exist because we do not know if there is a God or not; we can only believe. But that is not the case in Middle Earth.

Obviously every religion claims their gods and deities are real and affect the world. There is no difference between Middle-earth, Martinworld, and our world in the sense that people do claim special knowledge about supernatural beings ... who also claim that certain events are 'miraculous' or 'caused by a god'.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

There is a reason why Numenoreans started building temples only when they began to worship Melkor.

That reason actually has to do with Tolkien not wanting King Solomon not being the first guy to build a temple to his god.

That also explains why there is no proper religion in his works. But that doesn't change that this is bad world-building. And bad world-building that actually undercuts the intended message of the works. Which is actually a good thing for the reader.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

He is writing a series set in a pseudo-medieval world, and he has set out "realism" as one of his goals. Suffice to say, he utterly fails at it.

As for Tolkien, his characters are far more religious than Martin's despite not having trappings of an organized religion. And you need to forget that misconception that belief = organized religion. It is possible to believe in God and yet still not have Church, clergy or so on.

Certainly not to a proper Catholic like Tolkien.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

In Tolkien's world, belief in God actually matters and shapes characters' actions. There may not be organized religion, but there definitely is piety. And piety actually has consequences there - from oaths actually being important (e.g. Oathbreakers getting cursed, Eorl's and Cirion's oath basically sealing alliance between Gondor and Rohan for millenia) all the way to direct divine action (Downfall of Numenor).

That is all not the kind of piety I talk about. The characters in the books are brave, honorable, faithful, etc. ... but they are also decidedly secular.

Yes, if you know all the mythological background you know that Aragorn is crowned king by an angel of the lord. You know that this is not a secular kingship. But that is not all that evident from reading the novel as such.

The singing eagle is also just a singing eagle in the book - and not some messenger of the Elder King.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

In Martin's world, belief in a diety matters about as much as a taste in pizza (unless your name is Melisandre). Why Catelyn didn't have to convert to the Old Gods? Why Old Gods have no shamans, no rituals, no specific spirits (such as spirits of weirwoods, spirits of waters... Romans had dozens of different spirits). All religions in Planetos have literally no substance to them, they are salad dressing that is very much worthless. Westeros isn't religous, it is a modern-day secular world with medieval dressing.

Perhaps because the people there are, you know, mostly not fanatics?

There is religion and piety in Martinworld, toned down but realistic in a fantasy setting. Which Tolkien's depictions isn't.

There are some problems with how George depicts the Faith and its authority and structure ... but there is actually nothing wrong with the Westerosi not being all that fanatical about their religion.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And as I explained above, having religion in a world where divine agents literally walk among the humans makes no sense.

Again - religions claim the same thing is happening in our world. If this is true it didn't undercut or stop the religions that yet exist.

If Gandalf knocked at my door right now I might end up believing in magic. But I certainly would never buy that this smoking old fool is older than the universe nor that things suck because an orchestra wasn't properly trained to play in harmony.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And in a world where you literally have people with divine ancestry, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Yet Tolkien also makes it clear that that alone is not enough.

Of course, there is everything wrong with the silly idea that some people with 'special ancestry' have a right to rule. And even more with the silly idea that the same 'special ancestry' gives you deeper insights or certain magical or miraculous powers.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Aragorn makes no claim to crown of Gondor until after he has actually earned it. Sure, he has the right to the throne due to his ancestry - but that alone is not enough for him to be a king. He has to earn it first - crown comes with duties, and he has to actually start carrying out duties of the king before he claims the crown. He literally spells out that trying to claim the crown without deeds to his name would lead to outright rejecton or, worse, another Kin-strife. Elrond too is clear that he has to earn the crown.

Earnil was selected as a king over Arvedui because he was from Gondor and had proven himself to people of Gondor.

I'm not sure you understand Tolkien's concept of kingship - nor divine kingship in general. Such kings are kings by right of birth and blood because the divine power has made them king. People can only confirm or acknowledge that, they do not make such kings.

Aragorn's actions, character, and very nature express his kingship, but it is never made. He doesn't have to have any worldly trappings of power in his possession - that he is the king he shows every single time some poor fool challenges him and is stared down or awed into silence by his family tree.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

In ASoIaF, we don't really have kings and nobility. More or less everybody acts like a postmodern sociopath would if dropped in a medieval world and draped in livery. Martin's conception of kingship is the polar opposite of Tolkien's, but that doesn't make it any more realistic.

Of course it is more realistic as people are people in Martinworld, be they of 'special blood' or not. There are no spoiled brats in Tolkien's works, nor stupid or weak(-minded) Númenóreans. There are bad kings in that world, to be sure, but not stupid or degenerate ones. Even Pharazôn is great is villainy. Ditto with Feanor in his arrogance or Turgon and Thingol in their greed/reluctance.

Not to mention that Tolkien honestly has the singularly silly scenario of a royal dynasty being restored to a vacant throne after 1,000 (!) years. That is utter horseshit. It is worse than thinking that some scion of Otto the Great could rule Germany these days ... since it actually treats a royal bloodline as so sacrosanct that the new guys in charge would not simply crown themselves.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

No, it is not obvious.

Aragorn could always do that because he is 87 years old and has the education and the experience that few to none of the human characters in the book can match. It makes absolutely no sense for him or Gandalf to be dynamic, evolving characters, just as it makes no sense for e.g. Merry and Pippin to be static characters.

Aragorn is the king, but he is not wise and noble because he is a king. Denethor after all also comes from a distinguished line and is hardly an ideal ruler. Saruman is far above Aragorn or literally anybody else other than Sauron and Gandalf when it comes to nobility, and you know what happens with him.

Denethor is not a king, and neither is Saruman.

I'm sorry, but go back and do some more reading of Tolkien. Aragorn has certain powers because he is the king. For instance, his kingship magically makes him 'the rightful owner' of all the palantíri which gives him the upper hand in his staring match with Sauron. Saruman effectively stole the Orthanc stone which contributed to him being ensnared by Sauron. Something similar could have happened to Gandalf had he used the Orthanc stone himself - but not to Aragorn. And also not to Denethor who also had a right to use the Anor stone.

If 'the people' or Sauron's fall or Aragorn presenting a claim, etc. 'made him king' then he would have only gotten property rights to Gondorian royal heirlooms upon becoming king - not while he was but the last ragged survivor of an impoverished and disinherited bloodline which never reigned in Gondor anyway. 

But obviously that was not the case.

We can also cite his miraculous healing hands, him fulfilling Malbeth's prophecy of mastering the dead - who, in turn, recognize and express Aragorn's kingship by doing his will. The guy isn't a necromancer or sorcerer, so the only reason why they do his bidding is because they buy or know that he is indeed Isildur's Heir.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Lord Varys

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

I feel like a lot of the specific cases of realism people point out here are correct. They then follow that by not applying the same standards to Lord of the Rings at all. If you just take Tolkein's explanations at face value, and don't question the realism of those explanations....then apply the same logic when talking about ASOIAF. 

Also, specifically to @Alester Florent : I was pretty specific. Give me an example in which GRRM has characters just walking through woods with literally nothing else happening for 15 pages. I know it doesn't exist, as I've read the books many times. The closest would be Arya or Brienne's chapters...however things happen. Every chapter. Arya goes into a camp, or has a conversation with Harwin about something, or does some exciting. Brienne has deep discussions about the meaning of war or something during her walks. I counted the pages. I want to state that again. I counted. It was 15 pages and nothing happening. Nothing. And it was far from the only walking scene. Again, I also gave a specific example where they had a pissing contest. Nothing in GRRM's books approaches the boring/annoying-ness of this scene. Nothing. I almost quit during that scene. I'm sorry, not sorry. I find Tolkein's writing preachy, boring, and he tells constantly rather than shows. Even people's defense of his worldbuildign is like, "He tells us in a seperate book the reason for this." Like......that isn't the kind of writing I like. 

I get it, I enjoyed the Return of the King actually, and I'm glad I read the books. However, I won't ever read them again and they are the most boring books I've actually finished, lol. I finished them specifically to have these conversations, and otherwise I would have quit. I just don't like them, and no, I am not that impressed by the world building. I think most things don't make sense, which I understand is because it's "fantasy"...but eh, I don't like that kind of writing. I like things that don't need to have to constantly mention magic for things to make sense or constantly say "it's a myth" or whatever. Just an example. Ursula K Le Guin writes several mythological feeling books, and....I never felt bored, nor did I feel like I had to suspend my ability to understand how the world could work in order to read those books. She also doesn't have 15 pages of walking. Also, I would argue her world building is excellent, specifically that I can tell she has a background in anthropology by reading her writing...and that makes me believe the interesting/various/often unusual structures of societies she creates. 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Lord of Raventree Hall

[the trees have eyes]

13 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

I won't repeat Aldarion's entire exposition on how GRRM made a point of realism, says he will write with more realism in mind, etc. I'll just focus on this.

LF, while being a noble himself ... is a nobody in the world of the nobles. He ... gets to one of the top positions in a realm, he gains direct access to the king ... in a realm where the nobles dare to not execute commands from the royal court. Case in point: Edwell Celtigar. So either, in vein with GRRM's "generating expectations for realism", LF 1) never climbs as high as Master of Coin 2) he gets there, but is quickly ousted from the position by a better-connected noble, a Tyrell, Hightower or Lannisport Lannister.

Thomas Cromwell was Henry VIII's premier minister for years and he wasn't noble at all.  Despite being born the son of a cloth merchant he came to hold an enormous number of titles including Chancellor of The Exchequer 1533-40, Principal Secretary 1534-40 and Lord Privy Seal 1536-40.

I hope we can agree that neither the existence of Thomas Cromwell nor LF upend the general operation of the system.  I know Tudor England is Early Modern rather than Medieval England but the problem of using "realism" as a cudgel arises when you take a sanitised view of a medieval ideal (the middle ages lasted c 1000 years) and create a stereotype that you require the author to adhere to. Real history is much messier.

[SaffronLady]

1 minute ago, the trees have eyes said:

I know Tudor England is Early Modern rather than Medieval England

You have essentially defeated the entire purpose of your post by your own hand, so I will not insult you by extrapolating my point.

[Aldarion]

8 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

I will hesitate on claiming GRRM has gone full "all-the-way" like WH40K, but I think we could agree that calling Westeros an accurate depiction of the Middle Ages Europe is like calling the Fremen from Dune an accurate depiction of desert nomads?

16 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

WH40K is just based upon being bonkers. But it does at least have a better sense of galactic scale than Star Wars. FTL travel can very much so have consequences, the amount of ships and soldiers available to a interstellar society on a war footing isn't perfect but it's better than just 25,000 Star Destroyers. 

The good thing about WH40K as compared to ASOIAF in terms of worldbuilding is religious. The people worshiping the God Emperor have it permeate the bits of their life, there's a large Inquisition based upon rooting out heretics and the like. The Imperial Cult has a bigger effect on the Imperium than the Faith does most of the time. 

The wars they fight are essentially existential and crusade-ish, mankind HATES aliens and is fighting a constant war to drum them out.  

The Emperor protects!

Agreed.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, come on, you know Tolkien better than that. Yes, some people *know* that supernatural or divine beings exist - and some of those (if they are what we are told they are) also *know* that some god exists somewhere ... but that is very exclusive knowledge.

If you take nonsensical religious texts at face value that the protagonists of many of those also know and interact with gods or divine beings ... yet religions still formed and the followers or descendants of those people didn't have that special knowledge.

In LotR it is very much the same. Gandalf and Sauron might dimly remember Valinor and the Ainulindale, and Galadriel the light of the Two Trees ... but Elrond only ever saw Eonwe and some other Maiar, and was fed stories by his elders. And Elros' descendants didn't even have that.

Bottom line is - the Elves should have a religion, as should all human peoples and the dwarves, etc. LotR not that depicting that turns the world into a secular world where some forces might behind the scenes, but decidedly not a deity who is worshiped in a meaningful way. And the people there have moved beyond religion or never invented it, obviously.

First, it is not exactly that exclusive knowledge. High Elves have literally all lived in Valinor, where they got to interact with the Valar. That is why they are called High Elves in the first place. People like Glorfindel having been in Valinor also appears to be a reasonably well known fact. Many of the older Sindarin will have met Orome on his rounds of the Middle Earth.

Also, they do have religion. Or rather, they have belief.

Why are you assuming that religion automatically has to have a political organization akin to the Catholic Church?

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Obviously every religion claims they gods and deities are real and affect the world. There is no difference between Middle-earth, Martinworld, and our world in the sense that people do claim special knowledge about supernatural beings ... who also claim that certain events are 'miraculous' or 'caused by a god'.

Oh, of course they do claim. But you can only believe or not believe that.

Religion is an act of faith. But in this world, we do not have an entire race of people who had personally met and lived with God's emissaries.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That reason actually has to do with Tolkien not wanting King Solomon not being the first guy to build a temple to his god.

That also explains why there is no proper religion in his works. But that doesn't change that this is bad world-building. And bad world-building that actually undercuts the intended message of the works. Which is actually a good thing for the reader.

It is true that Tolkien wanted King Solomon to be first guy to build a temple to God. But as a result of that, Tolkien has actually implied that organized religion is a bad thing (yes, there is in fact proper religion in Tolkien's works - Numenoreans worshipping Melkor!).

But again, why have organized religion when you have literal angels among you, and people living with them coming to your place on a regular basis?

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Certainly not to a proper Catholic like Tolkien.

Yet proper Catholic like Tolkien wrote precisely such a world.

Again, the only organized religion (in modern sense), with temples and stuff, appeared only after Sauron came to Numenor and introduced worship of Melkor.

In Middle Earth, the only organized religion present was literal Satanism.

Outside that, the closest we get to organized religion is sacral kingship.

Also, considering that Valar are basically Norse Pantheon absorbed as archangels serving under Catholic God, it is quite clear that placing too much importance into Tolkien being a "proper Catholic" will easily mislead you.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is all not the kind of piety I talk about. The characters in the books are brave, honorable, faithful, etc. ... but they are also decidedly secular.

Yes, if you know the all the mythological background you know that Aragorn is crowned king by an angel of the lord. You know that this is not a secular kingship. But that is not all that evident from reading the novel as such.

The singing eagle is also just a singing eagle in the book - and not some messenger of the Elder King.

Not being overtly religious does not make something secular. Tolkien very much saw kingship through religious lens, and not just through Aragorn being crowned by God. Rather, kings in Tolkien are religious leaders as much as they are secular leaders - we see this most obviously with kings of Numenor, who indeed lead religious ceremonies.

That is the opposite of secular.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Perhaps because the people there are, you know, mostly not fanatics?

There is religion and piety in Martinworld, toned down but realistic in a fantasy setting. Which Tolkien's depictions isn't.

There are some problems with how George depicts the Faith and its authority and structure ... but there is actually nothing wrong with the Westerosi not being all that fanatical about their religion.

Problem is that not only they are not fanatics, they are rather the opposite of that - they are functionally agnostics, and display overtly postmodern attitude towards anything supernatural.

Religiousness in Martin's world doesn't even fit early 20th century, much less actual Middle Ages. It is cynical and agnostic view of religion, very much out of the line for a medieval world.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again - religions claim the same thing is happening in our world. If this is true it didn't undercut or stop the religions that yet exist.

If Gandalf knocked at my door right now I might end up believing in magic. But I certainly would never buy that this smoking old fool is older than the universe nor that things suck because an orchestra wasn't properly trained to play in harmony.

Elves are literally immortal, and have actually met God's angels. And then those elves proceeded to teach the Edain, who then taught people in Middle Earth.

Existence of God and Valar is not faith or religion to them, it is history and fact.

Or as Tolkien put it:

Quote

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

And at any rate, belief does not need to mean typical religion.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/complex-societies-evolved-without-belief-in-all-powerful-deity1/

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course, there is everything wrong with the silly idea that some people with 'special ancestry' have a right to rule. And even more with the silly idea that the same 'special ancestry' gives you deeper insights or certain magical or miraculous powers.

Why?

If a person had certain magical or miraculous powers due to special ancestry, of course they would be more likely to develop deeper insights into such powers. And if magic isn't something that can be learned in school, how can a person gain access to it without it being tied to ancestry?

Not to mention that characters with such "special ancestry" are in fact dime a dozen in Planetos. We have Targaryens, who are magically bonded to flying lizards, have prophetic dreams that are not explained at all. Daenerys would be nobody now if she hadn't had her magical ancestry. Starks are bonded to direwolves, have some connection to weirwoods and also have innate magical abilities as a direct consequence of their blood. So if you think that Tolkien is silly for introducing "special ancestry" giving magical powers, then Martin is far sillier than Tolkien.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure you understand Tolkien's concept of kingship - nor divine kingship in general. Such kings are kings by right of birth and blood because the divine power has made them king. People can only confirm or acknowledge that, they do not make such kings.

Aragorn's actions, character, and very nature express his kingship, but it is never made. He doesn't have to have any worldly trappings of power in his possession - that he is the king he shows every single time some poor fool challenges him and is stared down or awed into silence by his family tree.

Yet we see multiple times that "right of birth and blood" is not enough.

Kings of Numenor became tyrants despite their ancestry, with Ar-Pharazon even becoming the greatest tyrant since Morgoth. And Kin-Strife was caused when Castamir rebelled due to Eldacar being of mixed ancestry. Castamir temporarily won - and promptly turned into a tyrant. Clearly, having good genes is not enough to be a good ruler.

Aragorn only received divine blessing after he had proven himself an adequate king. Of course, any future kings will have divine blessing by default - but as with the Kings of Numenor, said divine blessing can and will be withdrawn should kings in question fail at fulfilling their duties.

And answer this: if "right of birth and blood" was enough, why didn't Dunedain Chieftains just waltz into Gondor immediately after death of Gondor's last king?

In fact, Tolkien makes it clear that Aragorn's competence is not genetic:

Quote

I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall, but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless — while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors — like Denethor or worse. I found that even so early there was an outcrop of revolutionary plots, about a centre of secret Satanistic religion; while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going around doing damage. I could have written a ‘thriller’ about the plot and its discovery and overthrow — but it would have been just that. Not worth doing.

(Letter 256: 13th May, 1964)

You have your headcanon of what Tolkien believed and wrote, but said headcanon is not only very different from but in many ways completely runs counter to what Tolkien actually wrote or intended.

Frankly, having a very proactive God would significantly improve Martin's world because it would open the opportunity to explain many illogical aspects of it.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course it is more realistic as people are people in Martinworld, be they of 'special blood' or not. There are no spoiled brats in Tolkien's works, nor stupid or weak(-minded) Númenóreans. There are bad kings in that world, to be sure, but not stupid or degenerate ones. Even Pharazôn is great is villainy. Ditto with Feanor in his arrogance or Turgon and Thingol in their greed/reluctance.

Not to mention that Tolkien honestly has the singularly silly scenario of a royal dynasty being restored to a vacant throne after 1,000 (!) years. That is utter horseshit. It is worse than thinking that some scion of Otto the Great could rule Germany these days ... since it actually treats a royal bloodline as so sacrosanct that the new guys in charge would not simply crown themselves.

Yeah, go back and read Tolkien because you clearly had your mind elsewhere when you were reading him.

Maeglin is the definition of a spoiled brat.

Stupid and weak-minded Numenoreans? What, exactly, would you call Ar-Pharazon if not that? He was both weak-minded as well as dumb as a brick. And most Kings of Numenor since Atanamir can easily be considered weak-willed at least. Oh, and literally all Black Numenoreans.

And Tolkien restoring a royal dynasty after a 1 000 years is no sillier than dynasties in Martin's world existing for nearly ten thousand years.

What is silly is the notion that any actual dynasty could have survived that long in world as war-torn as Middle Earth is. But even there Martin has Tolkien beat in siliness by leagues.

Starks have ruled the North, in an apparently unbroken line, for eight thousand years. And they are not the only ones:

• The Hightowers have held Oldtown for over 10,000 years.
• The Gardeners of Highgarden were kings for around 10,000 years before being incinerated on The Field of Fire.
• The Durrandons of Storm's End ruled for 8,000- 10,000 years.
• The Starks of Winterfell were kings for 8,000 years.
• The Lannisters of reigned for 4,000 years or so.
• The Arryns claim 2,000 - 4,000 years of rule depending on the dating of the Andal conquest.
• The Martells have ruled Dorne for 1,000 years.

...in a supposedly realistic world with no divine blessing or intervention.

Assuming that generation is ~25 years, we get:

• Hightowers: 10 000 years (400 generations)
• Starks: 8 000 years (320 generations)
• Lannisters: 6 000 years (240 generations)

If we assume 35 years for a generation, that is still 286 generations for Hightowers, 228 generations for Starks and 171 generation for Lannisters.

Now, what about Tolkien?

• Line of Elros (Kings of Numenor): 3 287 years (22 generations for kings - 25 actual kings)
• Line of Valandil (Lords of Andunie): 2 811 years (18 generations) - had 5 generations of kings before the first Lord
• Line of Isildur (Kings of Arnor): 862 years (10 kings)
• Line of Isildur (Kings of Arthedain): 1 113 years (15 kings)
• Line of Isildur (Kings of Gondor): 2 171 years (33 kings)
• Line of Isildur (Chieftains of Dunedain): 1 044 years (16 chieftains ending with Aragorn)

So a maximum of 56 generations before the break (first 5 kings + Lords of Andunie + Kings of Gondor) and I'm quite sure there were few kings that were succeeded by their siblings, so it is really fewer). At absolute temporal maximum - from Elros until Aragorn - we get a total of 64 generations (fewer, if some were succeeded by siblings and not children) and 6 306 years.

Historical dynasties:

• House of Yamato: 1 483 years (98 Emperors) confirmed - oldest dynasty ever (clams 2 682 years traditionally)
• House of Habsburg: 1 235 years (35 generations) - oldest Western dynasty

So yeah. Tolkien's dynasties are very long-lasting, but not entirely outside the realm of possibility for historical dynasties. Meanwhile, Martin's dynasties are just bloody immortal, and there are far more long-lasting dynasties in Martin than in Tolkien. And unlike Numenor which was at peace, Westeros rarely was - even Targaryens did not bring the kind of peace that Numenor enjoyed.

As for treating the "royal bloodline as so sacrosanct that the new guys in charge would not simply crown themselves", have you forgotten this?:

Quote

Stannis read from the letter. “Bear Island knows no king but the King in the North, whose name is STARK. A girl of ten, you say, and she presumes to scold her lawful king.”

Martin does nearly all the stuff that you accuse Tolkien of doing, does it worse than Tolkien, yet somehow you think it is fine with Martin but not with Tolkien.

The only difference is that there is an actual reason - namely, divine blessing - in Tolkien, whereas with Martin such things happen... because Tolkien did it first.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Denethor is not a king, and neither is Saruman.

I'm sorry, but go back and do some more reading of Tolkien. Aragorn has certain powers because he is the king. For instance, his kingship magically makes him 'the rightful owner' of all the palantíri which gives him the upper hand in his staring match with Sauron. Saruman effectively stole the Orthanc stone which contributed to him being ensnared by Sauron. Something similar could have happened to Gandalf had he used the Orthanc stone himself - but not to Aragorn. And also not to Denethor who also had a right to use the Anor stone.

If 'the people' or Sauron's fall or Aragorn presenting a claim, etc. 'made him king' then he would have only gotten property rights to Gondorian royal heirlooms upon becoming king - not while he was but the last ragged survivor of an unpoverished and disinherited bloodline which never reigned in Gondor anyway. 

But obviously that was not the case.

We can also cite his miraculous healing hands, him fulfilling Malbeth's prophecy of mastering the dead - who, in turn, recognize and express Aragorn's kingship by doing his will. The guy isn't a necromancer or sorcerer, so the only reason why they do his bidding is because they buy or know that he is indeed Isildur's Heir.

I don't know what you have read, but Tolkien isn't it.

Yes, Aragorn has certain powers because he is of a royal line. But those powers alone are not enough to make him a king or to ensure that he will be a good king. They just make it easier.

And it is not Aragorn's kingship that makes him "the rightful owner" of the Palantiri. Rather, it is the fact that the Palantiri were a gift from the Valar to Amandil, the leader of the faithful, and are therefore family property. And since Aragorn is a descendant of Amandil, they are his property.

Reason why Denethor has the right to use the Palantir is because Stewards of Gondor were given that right by the royal house. So in theory, if Aragorn were to gift a palantir to Frodo, Frodo would become a legitimate owner of a Palantir and would gain similar advantage that Denethor had in conflict with Sauron. And if house of Amandil were to abdicate the throne in favor of whomever, new ruling house would not gain the right to the palantiri - not unless they were explicitly given that right (say, by receiving a palantir as a gift).

And what do you mean with "property rights to Gondorian royal heirlooms"?. Aragorn DID only get property rights to Gondorian royal heirlooms upon ascending to the throne of Gondor. He had to get crown of Gondor from the tomb, remember?

And healing hands are not "miraculous", they are symbolism. Had healers in the Houses of the Healing remembered athelas, there will have been no need for Aragorn's healing hands.

5 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I feel like a lot of the specific cases of realism people point out here are correct. They then follow that by not applying the same standards to Lord of the Rings at all. If you just take Tolkein's explanations at face value, and don't question the realism of those explanations....then apply the same logic when talking about ASOIAF. 

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Tolkien SPECIFICALLY set out to create mythology.

Martin SPECIFICALLY set out to write a "realistic" fantasy.

Therefore, standards cannot be the same to begin with.

Besides, I have pointed out that Tolkien too has many unrealistic elements. Yet despite that, and the fact that Tolkien - as I noted - has set out to write fantasy, he has actually created a more realistic world than Martin even if we actually go and apply the exact same standards.

But "more realistic" does not mean "realistic". There are indeed many things in Tolkien that do not make sense by historical standards.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

56 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Agreed.

First, it is not exactly that exclusive knowledge. High Elves have literally all lived in Valinor, where they got to interact with the Valar. That is why they are called High Elves in the first place. People like Glorfindel having been in Valinor also appears to be a reasonably well known fact. Many of the older Sindarin will have met Orome on his rounds of the Middle Earth.

Also, they do have religion. Or rather, they have belief.

Why are you assuming that religion automatically has to have a political organization akin to the Catholic Church?

Oh, of course they do claim. But you can only believe or not believe that.

Religion is an act of faith. But in this world, we do not have an entire race of people who had personally met and lived with God's emissaries.

It is true that Tolkien wanted King Solomon to be first guy to build a temple to God. But as a result of that, Tolkien has actually implied that organized religion is a bad thing (yes, there is in fact proper religion in Tolkien's works - Numenoreans worshipping Melkor!).

But again, why have organized religion when you have literal angels among you, and people living with them coming to your place on a regular basis?

Yet proper Catholic like Tolkien wrote precisely such a world.

Again, the only organized religion (in modern sense), with temples and stuff, appeared only after Sauron came to Numenor and introduced worship of Melkor.

In Middle Earth, the only organized religion present was literal Satanism.

Outside that, the closest we get to organized religion is sacral kingship.

Also, considering that Valar are basically Norse Pantheon absorbed as archangels serving under Catholic God, it is quite clear that placing too much importance into Tolkien being a "proper Catholic" will easily mislead you.

Not being overtly religious does not make something secular. Tolkien very much saw kingship through religious lens, and not just through Aragorn being crowned by God. Rather, kings in Tolkien are religious leaders as much as they are secular leaders - we see this most obviously with kings of Numenor, who indeed lead religious ceremonies.

That is the opposite of secular.

Problem is that not only they are not fanatics, they are rather the opposite of that - they are functionally agnostics, and display overtly postmodern attitude towards anything supernatural.

Religiousness in Martin's world doesn't even fit early 20th century, much less actual Middle Ages. It is cynical and agnostic view of religion, very much out of the line for a medieval world.

Elves are literally immortal, and have actually met God's angels. And then those elves proceeded to teach the Edain, who then taught people in Middle Earth.

Existence of God and Valar is not faith or religion to them, it is history and fact.

Or as Tolkien put it:

And at any rate, belief does not need to mean typical religion.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/complex-societies-evolved-without-belief-in-all-powerful-deity1/

Why?

If a person had certain magical or miraculous powers due to special ancestry, of course they would be more likely to develop deeper insights into such powers. And if magic isn't something that can be learned in school, how can a person gain access to it without it being tied to ancestry?

Not to mention that characters with such "special ancestry" are in fact dime a dozen in Planetos. We have Targaryens, who are magically bonded to flying lizards, have prophetic dreams that are not explained at all. Daenerys would be nobody now if she hadn't had her magical ancestry. Starks are bonded to direwolves, have some connection to weirwoods and also have innate magical abilities as a direct consequence of their blood. So if you think that Tolkien is silly for introducing "special ancestry" giving magical powers, then Martin is far sillier than Tolkien.

Yet we see multiple times that "right of birth and blood" is not enough.

Kings of Numenor became tyrants despite their ancestry, with Ar-Pharazon even becoming the greatest tyrant since Morgoth. And Kin-Strife was caused when Castamir rebelled due to Eldacar being of mixed ancestry. Castamir temporarily won - and promptly turned into a tyrant. Clearly, having good genes is not enough to be a good ruler.

Aragorn only received divine blessing after he had proven himself an adequate king. Of course, any future kings will have divine blessing by default - but as with the Kings of Numenor, said divine blessing can and will be withdrawn should kings in question fail at fulfilling their duties.

And answer this: if "right of birth and blood" was enough, why didn't Dunedain Chieftains just waltz into Gondor immediately after death of Gondor's last king?

In fact, Tolkien makes it clear that Aragorn's competence is not genetic:

You have your headcanon of what Tolkien believed and wrote, but said headcanon is not only very different from but in many ways completely runs counter to what Tolkien actually wrote or intended.

Frankly, having a very proactive God would significantly improve Martin's world because it would open the opportunity to explain many illogical aspects of it.

Yeah, go back and read Tolkien because you clearly had your mind elsewhere when you were reading him.

Maeglin is the definition of a spoiled brat.

Stupid and weak-minded Numenoreans? What, exactly, would you call Ar-Pharazon if not that? He was both weak-minded as well as dumb as a brick. And most Kings of Numenor since Atanamir can easily be considered weak-willed at least. Oh, and literally all Black Numenoreans.

And Tolkien restoring a royal dynasty after a 1 000 years is no sillier than dynasties in Martin's world existing for nearly ten thousand years.

What is silly is the notion that any actual dynasty could have survived that long in world as war-torn as Middle Earth is. But even there Martin has Tolkien beat in siliness by leagues.

Starks have ruled the North, in an apparently unbroken line, for eight thousand years. And they are not the only ones:

• The Hightowers have held Oldtown for over 10,000 years.
• The Gardeners of Highgarden were kings for around 10,000 years before being incinerated on The Field of Fire.
• The Durrandons of Storm's End ruled for 8,000- 10,000 years.
• The Starks of Winterfell were kings for 8,000 years.
• The Lannisters of reigned for 4,000 years or so.
• The Arryns claim 2,000 - 4,000 years of rule depending on the dating of the Andal conquest.
• The Martells have ruled Dorne for 1,000 years.

...in a supposedly realistic world with no divine blessing or intervention.

Assuming that generation is ~25 years, we get:

• Hightowers: 10 000 years (400 generations)
• Starks: 8 000 years (320 generations)
• Lannisters: 6 000 years (240 generations)

If we assume 35 years for a generation, that is still 286 generations for Hightowers, 228 generations for Starks and 171 generation for Lannisters.

Now, what about Tolkien?

• Line of Elros (Kings of Numenor): 3 287 years (22 generations for kings - 25 actual kings)
• Line of Valandil (Lords of Andunie): 2 811 years (18 generations) - had 5 generations of kings before the first Lord
• Line of Isildur (Kings of Arnor): 862 years (10 kings)
• Line of Isildur (Kings of Arthedain): 1 113 years (15 kings)
• Line of Isildur (Kings of Gondor): 2 171 years (33 kings)
• Line of Isildur (Chieftains of Dunedain): 1 044 years (16 chieftains ending with Aragorn)

So a maximum of 56 generations before the break (first 5 kings + Lords of Andunie + Kings of Gondor) and I'm quite sure there were few kings that were succeeded by their siblings, so it is really fewer). At absolute temporal maximum - from Elros until Aragorn - we get a total of 64 generations (fewer, if some were succeeded by siblings and not children) and 6 306 years.

Historical dynasties:

• House of Yamato: 1 483 years (98 Emperors) confirmed - oldest dynasty ever (clams 2 682 years traditionally)
• House of Habsburg: 1 235 years (35 generations) - oldest Western dynasty

So yeah. Tolkien's dynasties are very long-lasting, but not entirely outside the realm of possibility for historical dynasties. Meanwhile, Martin's dynasties are just bloody immortal, and there are far more long-lasting dynasties in Martin than in Tolkien. And unlike Numenor which was at peace, Westeros rarely was - even Targaryens did not bring the kind of peace that Numenor enjoyed.

As for treating the "royal bloodline as so sacrosanct that the new guys in charge would not simply crown themselves", have you forgotten this?:

Martin does nearly all the stuff that you accuse Tolkien of doing, does it worse than Tolkien, yet somehow you think it is fine with Martin but not with Tolkien.

The only difference is that there is an actual reason - namely, divine blessing - in Tolkien, whereas with Martin such things happen... because Tolkien did it first.

I don't know what you have read, but Tolkien isn't it.

Yes, Aragorn has certain powers because he is of a royal line. But those powers alone are not enough to make him a king or to ensure that he will be a good king. They just make it easier.

And it is not Aragorn's kingship that makes him "the rightful owner" of the Palantiri. Rather, it is the fact that the Palantiri were a gift from the Valar to Amandil, the leader of the faithful, and are therefore family property. And since Aragorn is a descendant of Amandil, they are his property.

Reason why Denethor has the right to use the Palantir is because Stewards of Gondor were given that right by the royal house. So in theory, if Aragorn were to gift a palantir to Frodo, Frodo would become a legitimate owner of a Palantir and would gain similar advantage that Denethor had in conflict with Sauron. And if house of Amandil were to abdicate the throne in favor of whomever, new ruling house would not gain the right to the palantiri - not unless they were explicitly given that right (say, by receiving a palantir as a gift).

And what do you mean with "property rights to Gondorian royal heirlooms"?. Aragorn DID only get property rights to Gondorian royal heirlooms upon ascending to the throne of Gondor. He had to get crown of Gondor from the tomb, remember?

And healing hands are not "miraculous", they are symbolism. Had healers in the Houses of the Healing remembered athelas, there will have been no need for Aragorn's healing hands.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Tolkien SPECIFICALLY set out to create mythology.

Martin SPECIFICALLY set out to write a "realistic" fantasy.

Therefore, standards cannot be the same to begin with.

Besides, I have pointed out that Tolkien too has many unrealistic elements. Yet despite that, and the fact that Tolkien - as I noted - has set out to write fantasy, he has actually created a more realistic world than Martin even if we actually go and apply the exact same standards.

But "more realistic" does not mean "realistic". There are indeed many things in Tolkien that do not make sense by historical standards.

Disagreed. I don't think Tolkein's world is more realistic...at all, by any stretch of the imagination, and I honestly feel like...I'm existing in an alternate reality.. in order for anyone to think that. I don't think his world is realistic in anyway basically whatsoever. The Simpsons or Rick and Morty feel like more realistic worlds to me than Middle Earth. 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

You have essentially defeated the entire purpose of your post by your own hand, so I will not insult you by extrapolating my point.

Plenty of medieval monarchs had ministers who were minor nobility, or even lowborn, to act as their hatchet men.

Justinian had John of Lydia and Trebonian.  Philip the Fair had Hugues de Boueville and Enguerrand de Marigny;  Henry VII had Empson and Dudley;  Charles V had the Marmosets.

The advantage to a king was that such men were entirely your creatures, and could be sacrificed, if necessary.  They knew that their own execution was a probable outcome, but the potential rewards for office were enormous.

[SaffronLady]

14 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Justinian had John of Lydia and Trebonian.  Philip the Fair had Hugues de Boueville and Enguerrand de Marigny;  Henry VII had Empson and Dudley;  Charles V had the Marmosets.

Let's try to keep the lords of the Roman Empire out of these discussions because they operate on different frameworks.

[Jaenara Belarys]

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Disagreed. I don't think Tolkein's world is more realistic...at all, by any stretch of the imagination, and I honestly feel like...I'm existing in an alternate reality.. in order for anyone to think that. I don't think his world is realistic in anyway basically whatsoever. The Simpsons or Rick and Morty feel like more realistic worlds to me than Middle Earth. 

Neither of them are fully realistic, but at the very least Tolkien's armies don't move around by teleportation or fast travel. Supply lines are important and the fights have to be planned around it. 

Gondor does not necessarily need to have exposition for a clever reader to discern the social, governmental and military structure used. Does Tolkien sound a bit dry? Yes, he does and I see that every time (and compare it to ASOAF), but I feel like there's less suspension of disbelief to understand the systems. 

Isn't Rick and Morty the one with the mad scientist with a bunch of clones of himself? That's more realistic? 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Jaenara Belarys