Has "A Song of Ice and Fire" ruined fantasy?

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

snip

I've heard some really good things about Pillars of the Earth. Sadly I have also heard that it is nearly as incesteriffic as GOT. Seems an odd trend.

Pillars of the Earth was fucking depressing . It a seriously difficult read for the first bit. It's a great book, but it's more depressing than the start of Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood. Once all that ends, it is FANTASCIC! Also, the joint CBC / TeleDeuthchland TV miniseries is the REASON the TV miniseries started to be great. It predated Walking Dead, Game of Thrones and even I think Deadwood. (Sweringer is an evil Catholic Bishop, he's AWESOME)

There is only one Incestuous character, and it is clear that she is Bat Shit crazy, and forces it on her unfortunate son.

As for ruining Fantasy? Not even by any stretch of the imagination. I agree there is a mountain of garbage to wade through, but that's true across all genres of everything.

Also try Jack Whyte's "A dream of Eagles" Cycle. Merlin and Arthur told from a historical fiction perspective. Eg. A meteor fell from the sky, into a lake. Caius Merlinus Amberosius' Uncle, makes a statue from the metal Called the Lady of the Lake. Much plot later, Caius, "Merlin" to the Brittish, needs a symbol for Arthur. The Lady of the lake is melted down and two swords are forged. A plain one for him, and Excalibur for Arthur. There you have it, Excalibur from the Lady of teh Lake, no magic, no god, no mysticism. And they are great books.

 

[twistedmic]

I was only able to get through the first book and part of the second before I finally gave up. The story just seemed to drag on forever and there was far too much explaining going on. It seemed that every time characters appeared Martin devoted at least a (long) paragraph or two detailing every bit of clothing they were wearing or how they got their particular title/nickname. I can understand telling what clothes a character is wearing every one in a while, particularly if the clothing/armor is related to a particular profession (solider, guard, assassin, thief etc.) but I can enjoy a book just fine if I don't know what color hose and jerkin the main character is wearing.

 

[DugMachine]

Well the majority of her followers are people that she has freed from cities run by brutal leaders. She gets money from Xaro Daxos and her army is The Unsullied, soldiers raised from birth who know nothing more than following a leader, and once she kills theirs and even gives them the option to be free, they choose to serve her.

The money she stole from Xaro should be "enough to buy a ship" (according to that follower who really wants to bed her), so it can't be much. It's also not a steady income. And it's obviously not going to keep an army running. Even if the Unsullied would fight for free (which I find an arbitrary way to get around the fact that Daenarys is broke as shit) it would cost money to supply the army and the rest of her followers.

And to be honest, if you argue that people follow her because she's so benevolent; what does she do for her subjects, really? Like I said, she drags them across the desert and across the ocean, presumably without paying them or providing them with anything because she's broke.

To be honest I don't remember all the details as it's been awhile but in the novels they do touch on the topic of starvation and her people not being provided for. Being in a desert and all with huge stretches of land between cities, there are casualties and not everyone is pleased with her.

As for her "followers". If you're talking about Ser Jorah and the like, some follow because yes she is the dragon lady and dragons are kind of a big deal in this universe and some because they believe her to be the the true heir to the iron throne, also a big deal in the SoIaF universe. All the other would be leaders have the same type of followers that blindly do what they say.

The rest of the unnamed followers are merely free'd people. She releases them from servitude and gives them their city and allows them to put their own government in place should they wish to. At least from what I remember, the people are left to their own devices. But I could be wrong

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

Also, while I do enjoy david Edding's work, I consider him pretty traditional "dross" fantasy. It's the series that made me realise how utterly predictable most fantasy is.

I seem to recall that Eddings said that he decided to try and write fantasy after he discovered that Tolkien was still being publish even though Eddings thought it was crap. If that sort of crap could be in its 78th printing (at the time), then he could publish stuff like that too. He then proceeded to jam in every trope and archetype Jung had thought up so that readers would be "fish-hooked" and HAD to read it. He talks about the whole process in the introduction to The Rivan Codex.

OT: I'm going to agree with the general idea of the thread and say that in the fantasy genre (and pretty much every other one as well) there are a handful of good writers and a VERY large assortment of dreck writers. And more than a few of the good writers can find themselves slipping into dreck territory if they aren't careful.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Martin is good, maybe even great at what he does. But his stories aren't perfect. They aren't even close to eclipsing the rest of the fantasy genre. Wheel of Time, King Killer Chronicles, and anything written by Brandon Sanderson is worth checking out. Sanderson is the pinnacle for creating magic systems and rules within a fantasy setting. It doesn't get much better than him.

Woof. Sanderson is a hack.

OT: It'd be pretty hard to "ruin" a genre. Whether or not ASOIAF is a benchmark series for you will depend on your preference for heroic or "realistic" fantasy and whether or not you enjoy Martin's style and peculiarities. It could certainly be argued that Martin popularized "realistic" fantasy for the North American audience and has been extremely influential to newer authors like Abercrombie and Lynch.

 

[Ishal]

Martin is good, maybe even great at what he does. But his stories aren't perfect. They aren't even close to eclipsing the rest of the fantasy genre. Wheel of Time, King Killer Chronicles, and anything written by Brandon Sanderson is worth checking out. Sanderson is the pinnacle for creating magic systems and rules within a fantasy setting. It doesn't get much better than him.

Woof. Sanderson is a hack.

OT: It'd be pretty hard to "ruin" a genre. Whether or not ASOIAF is a benchmark series for you will depend on your preference for heroic or "realistic" fantasy and whether or not you enjoy Martin's style and peculiarities. It could certainly be argued that Martin popularized "realistic" fantasy for the North American audience and has been extremely influential to newer authors like Abercrombie and Lynch.

eh, opinions.

I enjoy his stories for what they offer. He did a pretty good job finishing WoT. As I said before, its a about depth, the more there is to a story, the happier I'll be. His stories offer more things than stuff done by Sapkowski.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

eh, opinions.

I enjoy his stories for what they offer. He did a pretty good job finishing WoT. As I said before, its a about depth, the more there is to a story, the happier I'll be. His stories offer more things than stuff done by Sapkowski.

I've certainly read worse, but the man is still a hack. He's got himself a rather notorious reputation on fantasy fiction forums too, hardly a day goes by without a new Brandon Sanderson hate thread.

For my own part I wonder if it's not one of those left brain/right brain divides. It's possible people are dropping trou for his insufferably fussy and repetitive magic systems and not giving a fig that his characters are one dimensional dialogue fonts.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

It might have ruined it for you, but that's a personal thing and not indicative of either the genre or the majority of fantasy readers. GRRM is one author among many and almost undoubtedly the most popular today due entirely to the televisation of his books. His style is also part of a sub-genre of fantasy (I couldn't say precisely which. Personally I don't like the subdivisions but "Military Fantasy" or "Low Fantasy" or "Political Fantasy" might be each partially accurate) and as such, isn't really impactful on the rest of the genre.

Other people may try to imitate him because of his books popularity but personally I couldn't read the books. I think the characters and events depicted are quite vile and not to my taste. I think it works in a TV show and am looking forward to the new series starting next week, but couldn't get beyond 1/3rd the way thru book 1. His characters are not "morally grey" as many often describe them. They're arseholes across the board. Ambiguity and constant backstabbing/betrayal/changing sides is not that interesting truth be told.

The fact is that nothing established in GoT at any point is ever important. Why? Because at any time, anything can happen. Anyone can die, anyone can change sides, anyone's motives could change without warning. There's no point in establishing anything in such a scenario. No culture, person or nation can be expected to act to their type. This means no genuine world building, no real characterisation. Ask a fan of the WoT books to describe the Aeil to you and they can tell you about their value of water and shade, their skill with spears, their customs of Ji'eh'toh and gai'shain, the Wise Ones, the clans and so on. Ask an Eddings fan about Belgarion's world and they can describe the money-oriented Tolnedrans, the horse culture of the Algars or the vile practices of the Grolim.

Westerosi are all just murderous and ambiguous. The only trait they have is unpredictability. I'll grant that he is still able to pull of some shocking moments, but that's about it. Shocking moments based on unpredictability isn't drama, it's just shocks. It's like comparing Doom 3 horror with Silent Hill 2. "Morally grey" is not being nice one moment and evil the next. "Morally grey" is not simply remaining ambiguous about Varys/Baelish whose motivations are never made clear at any time ever; they just exist and plot but with no reason for why. Since magic is so rare in the world (don't know how it is in the books) it also has no real rules or parameters (eg. we don't know what it can or cannot do, who is able to do what and to what extent, etc).

So to come full circle, no, SoIaF has not "ruined" fantasy. It is a good TV show, evidently incredibly popular series and tho it may well spawn copies and derivatives, the rest of fantasy remains unaltered and unphased, stoic as ever. I'd probably put the most influential fantasy authors as Tolkein, Jordan, McAffrey. For the odd readers who, like the OP won't want to read "less ambiguous" stories inthe future, that's a matter of your personal tastes. I know people who'll only read high fantasy, vampire books, urban/contemporary fantasy and so on so your taste is nothing new. It's a personal preference and if book sales are anything to go on, a preference likely to be well catered for for some time to come.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The fact is that nothing established in GoT at any point is ever important. Why? Because at any time, anything can happen. Anyone can die, anyone can change sides, anyone's motives could change without warning. There's no point in establishing anything in such a scenario. No culture, person or nation can be expected to act to their type. This means no genuine world building, no real characterisation. Ask a fan of the WoT books to describe the Aeil to you and they can tell you about their value of water and shade, their skill with spears, their customs of Ji'eh'toh and gai'shain, the Wise Ones, the clans and so on. Ask an Eddings fan about Belgarion's world and they can describe the money-oriented Tolnedrans, the horse culture of the Algars or the vile practices of the Grolim.

I don't really have an iron in the fire here and it's clear you don't like the novels and thus aren't likely to be receptive to criticism of your position, but this is wildly off base. A very, very small number of Martin's characters are unpredictable, and those are often predictable in their unpredictability. His characterization is actually reasonably strong for the genre, and people act in accordance with their established personality. Be that personality forthright and earnest, glib and avaricious, rigidly hidebound, etc, etc.

It's a really bizarre criticism. I'm guessing you didn't read the books at all and are basing this entirely off the television show, which doesn't exactly do a bang up job establishing motivation, back story or "inner monologues" due to restraints of time, budget, and medium.

 

[Ishal]

eh, opinions.

I enjoy his stories for what they offer. He did a pretty good job finishing WoT. As I said before, its a about depth, the more there is to a story, the happier I'll be. His stories offer more things than stuff done by Sapkowski.

I've certainly read worse, but the man is still a hack. He's got himself a rather notorious reputation on fantasy fiction forums too, hardly a day goes by without a new Brandon Sanderson hate thread.

For my own part I wonder if it's not one of those left brain/right brain divides. It's possible people are dropping trou for his insufferably fussy and repetitive magic systems and not giving a fig that his characters are one dimensional dialogue fonts.

I don't know, there are reasons people have for calling someone a hack. You obviously think Sanderson is one for the way he writes, or fails to write his characters. I don't read his books for the characters. It goes back to what I said about the monomyth. I don't have a love for it in and of itself, but it usually provides a framework for interesting worlds and lore to explore. When playing Mass Effect immediately after I was done talking to Udina and Anderson I left to explore the citadel. I immediately turned left from the room and came across a volus and an elcore. I learned about them through their dialogue and the lore index. My focus was there, not on Shepherd or anything pressing about Sovereign or other stuff.

I think Vonnegut is a hack because none of his stories can hold my attention and I don't find his premises or characters interesting. Coupled with his tendency to sometimes be an insufferable twat. I'm sure he had the technical skills and all sorts of accolades he was worthy of, but all those things couldn't make a reader of his. So... /shrug?

It probably is a left brain/right brain thing. I get called ADD/ADHD for this sort of stuff all the time. Other than it being childish and offensive, it's just not true. A person with those tendencies walks into a room and immediately starts to look around and lose focus. They don't just pay attention to whats in front of them. That's not what I do. I see what's in front of me, and if I find it interesting, fine. If not, then I'm looking elsewhere. If characters and all that stuff doesn't keep my attention, I get bored.

When I read Harry Potter, I immediately lost interest in Harry as the protagonist. Hermione and Ron were a bit more interesting. The houses of Hogwarts huh? They mean what to the students who go there? Voldemort was a Slytherin? Huh... So Harry almost could have been one... okay, that's neat. Snape hates Harry, he was a servant of Voldemort... they are called Deatheaters... See where I'm going with this?

The more there is for me too look for, the happier I'll be.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I don't believe that any author can single-handedly "ruin" a genre. Anyone can take a stab at writing a manuscript and getting published, what makes a good read stand apart from the bad ones is the amount of care in assembling everything properly that's to be seen, as well as how well the author avoids obvious tropes - or at least uses them consciously.

GRRM started out with very strong historical inspirations. The early books have a widely documented "War of the Roses" feel to them, and I've always thought that Eddard Stark's fate reminded me of Jacques de Molay's death, in "Les Rois Maudits". That's a book series that focuses strongly on the aftermath of the Crusades, and on how most of the involved rulers piled their grievances on the Knights Templar, who made for convenient patsies.

Going briefly off-topic here, but a little research shows that the rumors about devil worship or the Templars paying homage to Baphomet or the Goat of Mendes was basically a Medieval attempt at slander. Fact-checking being a tricky business back then, it worked devastatingly well.

What Martin does is pile extremely realistic political setting onto slowly revealed High Fantasy mainstays. For almost two full seasons and two books, dragons are mentioned as cultural items or as curiosities from yesteryear. It takes its sweet time in fleshing out Dany Targaryen into something that does bear some resemblance to what her chosen title represents. The Fantasy elements are slowly and surely added to the political picture, so the reader feels a bit like a frog being placed in a pot of warming water. By the time shit hits the fan and catapults start hurling Fantasy Greek Fire under the command of Tyrion Lannister, the reader's been acclimatized to the idea that there's more to Westeros than swords, shields and political maneuvering.

It's deep and it's complex. It's a lot more "Historically-Flavored Fantasy" than "High Fantasy", so the barrier of entry is higher if you're the type who's just looking for a transcribed D&D campaign. It's not impossible, though. All it takes is extra patience.

As for it ruining Fantasy as a whole - of course not. We might be stuck with a decade or two of GRRM copycats or with misguided attempts to turn a High Fantasy series that's popular as of recently into something that looks like HBO's current cash cow, but we'll never run out of uncomplicated save-the-world-and-get-the-girl material.

As there's a time and a place for everything, I have evenings when I want to dig deep into Westeros with one of the books and a good beer (let's pretend it's mead), and others where I'm happy enough digging out my childhood's DragonLance or Forgotten Realms books because I suddenly have a yen for Drizzt Do'Urden's hilariously Emo genesis story.

 

[jademunky]

The story just seemed to drag on forever and there was far too much explaining going on. It seemed that every time characters appeared Martin devoted at least a (long) paragraph or two detailing every bit of clothing they were wearing or how they got their particular title/nickname.

I get the feeling that the reason you hated the series is the same reason I loved it.

 

[jademunky]

As there's a time and a place for everything, I have evenings when I want to dig deep into Westeros with one of the books and a good beer (let's pretend it's mead), and others where I'm happy enough digging out my childhood's DragonLance or Forgotten Realms books because I suddenly have a yen for Drizzt Do'Urden's hilariously Emo genesis story.

Heh, I actually had Drizzt in mind when I started this thread. When I was a kid, I was big into that series. A few weeks ago I was browsing the public library and discovered that the author was still writing books for that character and........ well I could not give a crap about it. I honestly found myself rooting for the bad guy (some tiefling or something) not because I liked the villain but because if he wins, the book is over.

 

[Flunk]

No, no one book or movie or anything else can ruin the rest of them for you. It's up to you alone.

 

[RedDeadFred]

No, no it has not. In fact, of the recent fantasy books I've read, I've enjoyed The Name of the Wind the most. The second book isn't as great but the author's writing style is so consistently enthralling. I love ASoIaF but if the third book of the Kingkiller Chronicle lives up to my loft expectations, it might take Martin's spot as my current favourite fantasy series. The magic in the series is by far the most interesting I've ever read about. It's like a science. It can be dark but there are some moments that genuinely had me laughing out loud.

 

[Amizrael]

I would suggest the "A Trial of Blood and Steel" series by Joel Shepard. It's almost historical fiction given the degree of low fantasy it embraces, and it's a very good look at political and societal behaviors of humans in a world where a "non-human" species exists during a middle ages period.

 

[Mutie]

Even though Wessos isn't supposed to be a metaphor for England, there's a verisimilitude there that sucks you in.

Really!? But it's shaped like England and the whole Stark vs Lannister thing is basically just the war of the roses... :/ And there's Hadrian's wall. And Tribalistic Scots... If it's not supposed to be England then he did a pretty terrible job >.<

OT: I don't put much stock in Fantasy writing and movies, even though it's my favourite genre to work with / play video games based around. I honestly find Martin's writing staid and predictable... I'm doing my best to read the books before watching the show, but they read like Harry Potter; it's very difficult to keep one's attention on the book (past a certain age, I'd warrant). Try reading Gormenghast or Terry Pratchett, that's where the real juice is! And Gormenghast arguably isn't even a Fantasy!

 

[lacktheknack]

Did Lord of the Rings ruin fantasy, by exactly the same token?

I don't get modern fascinations with single works somehow "ruining" whole genres, as if a concept could be ruined. Do we just desperately want relics of our time to leave an impact? o__O

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

For me it's sort of the opposite. World of Warcraft killed/ruined fantasy for me. Game of Thrones may have rekindled it. Still hate WoW. I don't think anything could rekindle my interest in that.