[silvester23]

If you are into this kind of in-depth look into fantasy worlds, you might enjoy the blog A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry (https://acoup.blog).

For a related article see, e.g. this one: https://acoup.blog/2019/06/14/collections-the-siege-of-gondo...

It has a bit of a different angle in that it critiques works of fantasy in terms of realism, feasibility and consistency in a pretty nitpicky way (the hint's in the name, really). Still I find it mostly good-humoured.

[the_af]

What's pretty interesting about ACOUP is that when contrasting Tolkien's Middle Earth with George Martin's Game of Thrones, from a realism perspective... it's Middle Earth that ends up winning.

If you peruse the many articles of this blog on both works of fiction, you'll realize the author (a scholar on medieval history) thinks Lord of the Rings is more realistic (in scope, military logistics, scale of the armies and even tactics) than Game of Thrones. This was surprising to me, because GRRM "sells" Game of Thrones as a fantastic [1] but "more realistic" [2] take on the Middle Ages. ACOUP takes him to task, because almost every "realistic" detail in GoT is, according to him, wrong. This also includes the purported cruelty of nobles towards the populace, GRRM's take on religion, etc.

Let me delve on that last point: ACOUP asserts that GoT's take on religion is wrong. In GoT -- especially in the TV show, but also in the books -- the take on religion of many major players is cynical. While some characters are fanatics or really believe, others are skeptical. Most of the Lannisters seem skeptical of any gods. Cersei goes so far as to blow out the Sept (cathedral), an act that in the real Middle Ages would see her hanged, burned or beheaded, and would lose her the support of her army. ACOUP makes the point that the nobility and kings of the Middle Ages really believed in their religion and gods!

----

[1] after all, it's a fantasy work with dragons and zombies. Then again, LotR has orcs, elves, ghosts and wizards and it manages to be more realistic!

[2] George Martin: "I wanted my books to be strongly grounded in history and to show what medieval society was like, and I was also reacting to a lot of fantasy fiction. Most stories depict what I call the ‘Disneyland Middle Ages’—there are princes and princesses and knights in shining armor, but they didn’t want to show what those societies meant and how they functioned."

[bee_rider]

It is totally predictable that a professor of historical languages would have a more accurate perspective on history than someone like Martin, right? ACOUP points out that Martin’s worldbuilding is better grounded in historical stereotypes than actual history…

Of course Lord of the Rings is fantasy, and sanitized (At least it doesn’t lie about it).

If we’re starting at Lord of the Rings and adding elements to get more realism, I’ve always thought Monty Python’s Holy Grail would be a better pickup than GoT. Everything is covered in shit in both, which is something Lord of the Rings really lacks, but the people in Game of Thrones are too clever and able to keep together these grand schemes. Python adds the stupid that defines us.

[OscarCunningham]

I agree.

I think that the main difference between LotR and GoT is that LotR is told in a style similar to the actual legendary epics and epic sagas that we have from history. These stories (and in particular the written versions that survive for us) were about the nobility and for the nobility. Because of this many everyday details are assumed and skipped over, and unpleasant or ignoble facts are ignored or glossed over.

So for example LotR features half-orcs as creatures, and the text describes their creation as Saruman's most evil act. But it doesn't explicitly spell out that this likely involved rape of human women by male orcs. Whereas GoT directly describes Daenerys being raped from her own point of view.

This doesn't mean that LotR is less realistic. It describes a similar set of events as GoT, but they are presented in a different way.

I think this is what people are sensing when they say LotR is 'less realistic', even though GoT is actually the worse match to historical reality.

[msh]

I think your take on Cersai would only happen in a period of the Middle Ages, with week kings and a strong church.

Right before the Middle Ages there are many examples like it, for example Charlemagne and his line. If they and the pope disagreed it was the pope that got the short end of the stick. There was also many example of viking kings and warlords converting to christianity and back again.

Right after the Middle Ages Henry the eight is another example.

[cooperadymas]

That's fascinating and I'll have to read it.

The thing that stood out to me in my most recent reread of LOTR is the complete and utter lack of farms. Outside of Farmer Maggot in the shire, the main characters almost never encounter random, normal people living outside of the main city centers. It feels like an empty world waiting to be explored, not one that has been heavily populated for thousands of years.

[JackFr]

I don't know. I find both Tolkien and GRRM excellent, but very different. I think it's easy to sell hating on GRRM as a smart take because of the popularity and spectacle of the TV show, but the books were very popular before the show came out.

GRRM cut his teeth as a TV writer and (because of that | despite that) he understands story very well. At least through the first four books his plotting was impeccable, his characters had meaningful arcs, he built excellent tension and resolution and his use of dramatic irony was perfect. His writing was never clumsy and lacked the purple quality that's prevalent in most fantasy. Is his world building perfect? No, but its top 1% compared to the other garbage fantasy being sold.

Tolkien was after all an academic medievalist, and so it's unsurprising that he gets a lot of stuff right (but he also leaves a lot of bits off stage.)

I'll say it's comparing apples and oranges and I like them both.

[hospitalJail]

When Stannis didn't maintain his supply lines, but he was the only experienced general, I was like:

Wtf this is nonsense. I'm not even a general, and I know to maintain my supply lines.

I lost a lot of interest after that happened. Seemed quite nonsensical.

[aldarion]

Tolkien was not a medieval historian himself, but he was the next best thing to it: he was a professional linguist. And lingistics require knowing and understanding historical context in which languages had developed. Add to this Tolkien's own experience in the First World War, and it is not very surprising that his world is very realistic and internally coherent.

GRRM was... a script writer. He manages to get some of the details correct, but once you scratch below the surface, his worldbuilding largely falls apart.

[aldarion]

I actually read that blog a lot. Author really goes deep into detail, and all articles are excellent.

[bee_rider]

I love how accessible it is. His willingness to talk about where fantasy stories and video games hit and miss the mark make it so much easier to get into a post.