A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin

I don't think I presented them as being scholarly, only reviews. Neither reviewer as far as I can tell is a fan of the fantasy genre (or solely a fan of the genre anyway), but rather they are fan of this particular work as evidenced by the reviews themselves. Both offer a sober picture of the work talking about its various qualities fairly indepth, while recognizing some of these elements will turn certain readers off and trying to address those concerns. They are actually two examples of fairly successful reviews, although certainly not scholarly. I also chose them because I think they are pretty much spot-on in their descriptions. I don't really see them as being much different than someone posting here on the forum. If I was in a format that required scholarly sources (say I myself were writing a scholarly paper) that would be a different matter.

Not to mention that part of your argument borders on being a Genetic Fallacy. It can certainly be relevant to point out bias in certain cases, but it has to go beyond just, "reviewer has male genitals," and "they are a fan."

Add on top of all this that in my very substantial post in this very thread I DID in fact link to female feminists who liked the series and some of their thoughts, which pretty much match the male reviewers, and I'm not really sure what your point is anymore.

As far as the books Martin read I would have to check most of them myself to determine how scholarly or not they are, but I am pretty sure the Gies book is a Gold Standard for medieval history. I suspect their biggest problem is being old and perhaps a tad outdated.

However, the accuracy of his medievial society is a moot point anyway whether someone is arguing it with you or fantasy fans with each other. It needs to have ENOUGH accuracy, but at the end of the day it is a FANTASY world.

God, JBI, why are you trying so hard to guilt trip every reader who enjoys this series. You think its misogynistic, you think it is rapist fantasy, WE GET IT. Plus, you just keep rehashing the same points, like because it is fantasy it shouldn't bean excuse, blah blah blah. Getting old.

And I don't really get why the prose is bad. Pretty good if you ask me, but I guess I don't measure everything against Faulkner.

God, Matuatis-Mutandi, why are you trying so hard to doge a reader who dislikes this series. You think its quality literature, you think it is a work of imaginitive genius, WE Get IT. Plus, you just keep rehashing the same points, like because it is fantasy, it should be excused, blah blah blah. Getting old.

And I really don't see why it's good prose. Pretty crummy if you ask me, but I guess it's fantasy so there isn't a need to measure it against Faulkner.

I've read some of the titles, and none offer anything more than trivial rubbish, like different occupations of people at the time. None offer real historical study, of any sort, and all of them are dated, being that they don't take into account recent movements in historical scholarship (I am referring to the ones I have read from the list).

It's pretty basic, I just wanted to point out that there is no real scholarship, in the sense that Eco's Name of the Rose, or Baudolino.


As for your link in your thread Drkshadow, one is dead, another points nowhere, and I read the third, but it doesn't talk about the book specifically, so it only creates a rather vague, unscholarly overview of one perspective of a whole genre. Especially when one describes herself as a post-feminist, meanwhile, contradicting herself over and over again, as well as breaking completely with the objectives, and essentially the definition of post-feminist (as vague a term as it is).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

I've read some of the titles, and none offer anything more than trivial rubbish, like different occupations of people at the time. None offer real historical study, of any sort, and all of them are dated, being that they don't take into account recent movements in historical scholarship (I am referring to the ones I have read from the list).

---

I may be wrong, and I'm not a history buff, but isn't Froissart's Chronicles one of the primary documents of medieval European history? I was under the impression that it ranked right up there with the Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People and Holinshed's Chronicles.

Perhaps, but Greis certainly isn't. Either way that is a historical record of events more of the battles in the Hundred Years War than an historical record of society. The Battles, knowing they are lifted from history doesn't really change anything. The views of medieval towns and society are based on mediocre research.

Either way, a primary from those times perhaps will give an idea of one account, but it is not grounds for labeling something historically accurate.

It's a fantasy series. The only way Martin could be inaccurate is if he were stricken with amnesia; it's his creation. There are no current trends in scholarship on the history of Martin's world.

Drk, the fact that you recognize thematic intent in Martin's work does not mean that he is a good writer, sorry. He has pacing down, which is commendable, but I can do that too. This segment is from one of my stories which an editor from the now defunct Bone & Flesh praised for being "a realistic depiction of violence against women". And it is a fantastical piece, though in an urban setting:

"His erection came upon him before Frecca knew a man was there, before the shape and form of an intruder brooked alarm to her mind, before she knew it as a man was there, before she knew he was a man or even the pronoun of maleness (before she knew a man was there), even before she knew something was wrong as she stepped from the kitchenette to the living room, simultaneously speaking to her feline as a mother would speak to an adored adolescent child about the *****iness of the day, before she knew anything else, before he lunged at her--as erections, semen full and charged, somehow seem to signal themselves, she knew of it, her flesh knew of it, and the flesh turned, hackles raised, wanting to tear that aroused sensation out of the air, when he did lunge at her, threw himself at her with the force of a semi-automatic, the bulk of his body impacting against the muscular flesh of her intestines as she screamed, her eyes flashing the horror in phosphorescent red and green and yellows, don’t faint! the horror no this is not happening to me, no! But was there time for denial? The apartment had been empty when the key had unclicked the lock, this she would have sworn to, had she known she still had the ability to swear. She felt the danger a live wire seething just before it hits your skin with its tinge and sizzle, and then this man was on her, threw himself at her, his denim jeans scratching against her stockings, like burlap, the sound. She struggled hard even with the shock of it rolling on her in waves, fortunate in that her body was naturally athletic, taking its routines of jogging and workouts with ease, being an active member of the Washington Square Theatrical Performers Gym though you would never see her near the stage: An arrangement had been worked out in exchange for her occasional paid weekend instruction, that she could have permanent membership at a discount--and so she fought back, as equally, as what she had been given to fight against. Where did he come from? Where was the answer?"

The only reason I did not get paid was the magazine went under, but I will take my work ethic over Martin's any day. I don't care what the genre is, fantasy authors have no excuse for poor diction. No one is saying Martin has to be Faulkner, but he also doesn't have to be as lazy as his excerpts display him to be.

JBI: to answer your earlier question, Disney does not display graphic violence in its adaptation of Seeker-- it still sucks. :)

I wasn't talking about graphic violence, but graphic sex - that is the central content of the book - men getting killed, and women get raped, or in some cases, men getting sado-masochistically slaved. (I only read the first one, but according to a reader I know, he only gets worse, not better).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebeard

It's a fantasy series. The only way Martin could be inaccurate is if he were stricken with amnesia; it's his creation. There are no current trends in scholarship on the history of Martin's world.

---

No, I am trying to contradict the perceived notion of Martin as a realist, and giving a realist portrayal of the middle ages, to an extent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

I wasn't talking about graphic violence, but graphic sex - that is the central content of the book - men getting killed, and women get raped, or in some cases, men getting sado-masochistically slaved. (I only read the first one, but according to a reader I know, he only gets worse, not better).

---

Not that I can tell. It is closer to a really watered down TH White's The Once and Future King. Wizard places orphan with decent family. Orphan grows up. Good witch rushes to find him to give him special book. Wizard then conveniently informs orphan he is messiah to the Midlands, where a dark lord is trying to become all powerful. Wizard, Witch, and Seeker then kill entire brigades and run around trying to coax dark lord out of his lair, and have various misadventures in the process.

I wouldn't watch it, but the scenic view is nice, and Bruce Spence doesn't really take his Merlin role seriously, but he is a riot, and I don't have cable, so I can go postal, or take a smile where I can find it; the story has picked up a little, but they really can't film decent battle scenes.

"you think it is a work of imaginitive genius"

I never said That. It is a good read.

The whole series doesn't focus on sex. That just seems to be the only parts you payed any attention to.

JBI, I just looked up where you got your information on Martin's site. You got your information from the FAQ on his website. He lists the titles as books he would recommend to the average reader wanting to buff up on medieval history.

Then follows up with the following lines which you conveniently failed to include:

Those are just the tip of the iceberg. There are also specialized books that focus on things like Fools and Jesters, Medieval Feasts, the Knights Templar, and the history of the Hundred Years War or the Wars of the Roses.

A writer cannot do too much research... though sometimes it is a mistake to try and cram too much of what you learned into your novel. Research gives you a foundation to build on, but in the end it's only the story that matters. (emphasis mine).

In other words, you took that entire section out of context.

This will be my final post here:

I highly reccomend ASOIAF to any fantasy fan who can handle violence and sex. Anyone who wants to stray away from the normal fantasy formula, this is for you. I will not claim it is completely original, just different than the norm. There are no clear "good guys" (except maybe Jon) or "Bad Guys" (except maybe Joff). The use of magic is very minimal, which I like. Too many authors like to use magic as a scapegoat for any tricky place they find their narrative to be in. It is well written, keeps you interested.

I absolutely love ASOIAF... can't wait for the next one... I enjoy complicated plots and circling, etc. This truly is epic fantasy at its best, as far as I'm concerned.

Excellent series. The anti-Tolkien in various respects, which suits me just fine, as I could never enjoy The Lord of the Rings.

I also take issue with this:

Quote:

---

something which is unseen in Fantasy fiction - decent prose.

---

Have you read Perdido Street Station? Titus Groan or Gormenghast? The Liveship Traders, or maybe American Gods? I think the main problem is that I don't actually know what you personally regard as 'decent prose' -- I think slamming an entire genre (aside from Kay) is far too hasty, though.

This is my favorite fantasy series as well, and I can't wait to see what the next books hold.