[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.

[optimalsolver]

Also, what happened to Elrond's wife is hinted at, but never directly spelled out, because Tolkien rightly assumes we don't need the explicit details to be horrified by it.

In GoT, it would be several pages/several minutes of screen time.

It's why I could never get into the latter. Just goes for the absolute, lowest common denominator every time, but apparently that's what makes "grown up, serious" fantasy.

[aldarion]

Tolkien was actually the master of fridge logic... and fridge horror. Martin describes everything in detail... with Tolkien, he only hints at things, but when you understand things he is hinting at... let's just say that Middle Earth has a lot in common with Cthulhu Mythos.

[PNewling]

Huh, I had never heard the term 'fridge logic'.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic

[BerislavLopac]

Trebali bismo na kavu iduci put kad sam u HR. ;)

[OscarCunningham]

There's one of Tolkien's notes that implies that elves could and would die in preference to being raped:

> But among all these evils there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force; for this was wholly against their nature, and one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos.

So I think this raises some doubts about whether Tolkien intended to imply rape in Celebrian's case rather than some other evil.

[optimalsolver]

Torment in the dungeons of the orcs, what else could that be? The fact she had to leave Middle-earth forever after the ordeal, strongly suggests what actually happened, as does the fact it so galvanized her sons.

[solardev]

After reading all the comments in this thread, I still have no idea what happened to his wife. Maybe Tolkien should just have spelled it out...

[cratermoon]

While crossing the Misty Mountains via Redhorn Pass, Celebrían was captured by orcs. She was held for some time, tortured and poisoned. Elrond and company eventually rescued her, but she was so traumatized that after a year she left Middle Earth. Elrond would not see her again for some 500 years.

[solardev]

Thanks!

That doesn't sound so dramatic, IMO. I wonder if there's a generational component there too...? Maybe in Tolkien's time, explicit gore and violence were less common. Then since modern video games and TV shows upped the ante, maybe RR Martin had to be more explicit to create the same emotional effect that Tolkien's subtle hinting used to have on his audience? I dunno.

[renewiltord]

I suppose it also has the benefit that the works are child-readable. Little me thought she was tortured by beating and such.

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

Yeah, ASOIAF is very much a deliberate reaction against both the tropes (pure good vs. pure evil, characters whose morality or immorality is etched in stone disconnected from events and circumstances, etc.) and the romanticization in what is told and what is elided in the style that LotR deliberately leans into.

> This doesn't mean that LotR is less realistic

The tell vs. imply distinction isn’t a matter of realism, true, though other aspects of the difference, particularly around characterization, very much are, and those are deliberate stylistic choices on both sides.

[the_af]

I think ACOUP's point is that the grimmer tone of ASOIAF is not more realistic than LotR's romanticized tone, and that in many instances it's actually less so. And that while both are valid style choices, GRRM's insinuation that his choice leans towards realism is mistaken.

Examples being: kings believed in their own religion, they didn't randomly mistreat peasants, nobles and lowborn alike followed tradition, people weren't cynical about religion in private, and kings depended on their vassals to enforce their will, so mistreating vassals (at least, as the norm) was a no-go and everyone understood this. Other examples are about military logistics, the system of bannermen and what duties and obligations it entailed in both king and vassals, which are more realistic in LotR and less in ASOIAF (or so the blog claims).

I think ACOUP's main point is that GRRM is projecting modern sensibilities into his characters, which is valid but doesn't result in a less fairytale, more realistic depiction of medieval society, like GRRM claims was his intention!

[aldarion]

ASOIAF is a postmodernist cynical take on fantasy. But that does not mean it is realistic. In fact, it is less so than Lord of the Rings.

[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.

[the_af]

A couple of points of clarification are needed:

It's not "my take", it's ACOUP's (though, to be fair, I'm convinced by it): https://acoup.blog/2019/06/04/new-acquisitions-how-it-wasnt-...

Second, GoT seems to fit within the Late Middle Ages / Early Modern period. In fact, ACOUP points up that the armor worn on the TV show at times looks to be Early Modern / Renaissance! If this was Early Middle Ages, there would have to be a lot more chainmail and far less plate mail. The Early Modern period (not the Middle Ages) would make more sense for acts of sacrilege shown in GoT because it also saw the rise of professional armies who didn't act because of deference to neither church nor king, but because of pay. But besides Bronn and the mercenary companies outside Westeros, most of the armies within Westeros proper seem to be motivated by allegiances to noble houses, and so they must defer to tradition and religion.

Third, ACOUP is talking of religion in general. There are some characters in GoT that believe in their religion (possibly some of the Starks and their "Old Gods", Melissandre and her Lord of Light) but most of the world of Westeros is skeptical of any religions at all, not just the mainstream one. But as ACOUP points out:

> "This is the mistake my students make – they don’t believe medieval Catholicism or Roman paganism, and so they weakly assume that no one (or at least, none of the ‘really smart’ people) at the time really did either. Of course this is wrong: People in the past believed their own religion."

The vikings before converting to Christianity had their own gods, and they truly believed in them. In contrast, most of the nobles of Westeros don't believe in any gods, pagan or otherwise. Which a serious historical mistake if one is trying to reflect -- albeit with fantasy divergences -- "real medieval society".

I bet you Charlemagne truly believed there was a god judging him.

[msh]

But it comparison the blog makes between religion in GoT and the Middle Ages don't make sense. In GoT we are explicitly told that the "church" was deliberately culled and broken by the kings back when they had dragons and only survived on the kings mercy, it might make sense that this could have lessened belief in religion. We are not told what religion the dragon lords had, but apparently they took over the local beliefs after breaking the "church".

I also don't see how a army with allegiances to noble houses must defer to tradition and religion, how would you then explain a king converting to christianity (or the other way)?

[the_af]

> But it comparison the blog makes between religion in GoT and the Middle Ages don't make sense

Why then would GRRM claim his Westeros was "to be strongly grounded in history and to show what medieval society was like" then? A society with the church "broken" by the kings and without any religion to supplant it wouldn't be like medieval society at all!

It would make more sense for GRRM to claim his take is transposing modern sensibilities to a fantasy middle ages world. That would work. His characters are cynical like a modern person would be, rather than like a medieval person. But GRRM is not claiming this as his intent, which is a pity.

> I also don't see how a army with allegiances to noble houses must defer to tradition and religion, how would you then explain a king converting to christianity (or the other way)?

Well, what religion did Cersei claim was the true one then? Kings and queens converted to other religions, they didn't become atheists. And frequently this was divisive anyway, sometimes leading to civil war. And let's remember that Cersei was already on shaky grounds, she was a humiliated woman whom people didn't respect and were stoning moments ago! An already unpopular woman burns down the most important religious building and ascends to queendom on which grounds exactly?

Which gods should the Lannisters pray to, now that Cersei destroyed the Sept? Are they not deeply religious, like in true medieval society?

[msh]

I think you are looking for another kind of realism than what the books have. If it was a one to one society with our Middle Ages why would it not take place in our world.

GoT have a world with magic and dragons, I think it would be completely unrealistic if that world ended up with a religious life exactly as ours in the Middle Ages.

[cyberax]

On the other hand, not having strong religious feelings was also pretty common in the Asian history. Especially in China.

[the_af]

I thought GRRM was trying to set up a fictional European Middle Ages, at least in Westeros?

In any case, his depiction of "Asian" nomadic cultures is hilariously unrealistic as well. I recommend ACOUP's chapters on the Dothraki; their culture doesn't fit anything from the real-world, be it Huns, Mongols or Native Americans, all quoted by GRRM as references (so it's valid to mention if he misused them).

Someone mentioned GRRM seems to be using stereotype, not reality, as reference! Which is fine and dandy, except GRRM claimed he was aiming for realism...

[cyberax]

> I thought GRRM was trying to set up a fictional European Middle Ages, at least in Westeros?

Sure. I'm just noting that having cultures that don't care too much about religion is not unprecedented in the actual history.

[bashmelek]

That seems to contradict my understanding of Chinese history and culture. Historically they seem to be strongly spiritual like any people, and government support for religions. I admit most of exposure is from literature and not much more. Could you elaborate on the point?

[solardev]

I think their spirituality is more about mysticism rather than the apparatus of organized (and politicized) churches run by humans. There's not some huge clerical institution vying for power against the state, just a general background noise about the heavens and the ancestors and the such.

Even with the influence of Buddhism, that was only tolerated as a philosophical system of self improvement. When the Dalai Llama became an actual political threat, he was replaced with a puppet.

Modern China is pretty much an atheist state that is pretty religion unfriendly, but I think that's a lasting consequence of the Cultural Revolution and not something from their older history.

[xkcd-sucks]

Maybe the absence of a strong unified church which is separate(-ish) from a strong state, as the Catholic church related to European states? Like, there were religious institutions in classical Chinese civilization; the government did participate in it ("the role of the emperor is to maintain harmony between heaven and earth, he rules with the mandate of Heaven" etc); there was lots of "worshippy activities" in temple-ish buildings; the closest things to "official religion" were a bit syncretic but Christianity was also pretty syncretic in origin just presented later as something fully formed in unity; mythology overlapped with history in that mythological power structures resembled real power structures and government etc. One big difference seems to be the absence of Christian-style religious services in which a large audience listens to a preacher / regularly participates in a long shared ritual like Mass, but this is from the anecdotal perspective of comparing (very little) experience in modern Catholic churches vs received information and visiting historical sites in China

[cyberax]

China did not have a unified religion, or even a unified pantheon.

Each region had its own sets of gods and traditions. Even the somewhat unified Confucianism is more of a philosophical teaching, and it works just fine alongside the traditional Chinese religions. People understood this and generally were content to leave each over in peace over the religion.

Compare this to Europe and Middle East where people (still!) wage actual holy wars over doctrinal matters.

GRRM's world is closer to China than to Europe in this regard.

[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.

[DoughnutHole]

To be fair most of the books take place in either total wastelands or areas ravaged by war once you leave the Shire.

- The civilisation of men east of Isengard apart from the Shire was more or less destroyed by the Witch King of Angmar before the books.

- Frodo and Sam spend books 2 and 3 wandering swamps, desolate mountains, and eventually Mordor (specifically avoiding roads and civilisation to avoid being caught).

- The rest of the fellowship spends book 2 in Rohan - most of their economy seems to be rearing horses on pasture rather than growing crops (not an uncommon situation in the pre-modern past)

- They then spend book 3 in and around the front lines of the war between Gondor and Mordor. Gondor is also explicitly depopulated - it had been ravaged by plague in the years beforehand. That’s why Gondor is so weak.

Tolkien’s world probably could have contained more of a realistic agricultural economy, but it does seem that the reason the world outside of the Shire feels so desolate is that Middle Earth is more or less in the process of total societal collapse.

Also Elves are weird and it’s not entirely clear what they eat or how they maintain their civilisation in the forests…

[OscarCunningham]

The ones who's food source is a real mystery are the goblins in the Misty Mountains.

[GolfPopper]

The late Third Age Middle-Earth of Lord of the Rings is largely post-apocalyptic. It was heavily populated a thousand-plus years ago, but it isn't anymore.

This isn't casually obvious from the text, as The Shire and Bree are near pastoral paradises within their borders, and Gondor is a functioning kingdom (the farms surrounding Minas Tirith are mentioned briefly in the book), and we all remember the Lonely Mountain, Laketown, and Dale from The Hobbit. But the vast majority of Eriador used to be inhabited, but no longer is, at least not with any density.

Arnor and its successor kingdoms are gone, the great dwarf-Kingdoms are gone (with the Lonely Mountain as a very local and very recent successor-state), the Elves have dwindled to the level where the Havens and Rivendell have no military capability, roads have crumbled, and almost all the cities and towns of Men outside of Gondor (and its allied state of Rohan) have been in ruins for centuries.

[Tyr42]

So, interesting you would say that.

Acoup does point out that the pelenore (sp? The ones outside Minis Tirith) fields in the book has farms and small towns, but the movies just make them flat nothings.

Though true, the characters don't I retract with said farmers, who have mostly evacuated at this point.

[mhink]

Although the main characters tend not to encounter farmers, they're noted in a few places, as Devereaux (from ACOUP) points out:

> "the townlands [of the Pelennor] were rich, with wide tilth and many orchards and homesteads there were with oast and garner, fold and byre, and many rills rippling through the green from the highlands down to the Anduin.” (Rotk 23)

[tnecniv]

This is something that bugged me for a while. Characters rarely seem to encounter hamlets or small towns as well.

[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.

[civilitty]

Brett is very clear that he’s evaluating Game of Thrones based on Martin’s explicit claims of historical accuracy, nothing more.

He isn’t reviewing Game of Thrones for its artistic qualities and I don’t know why lots of people need to jump to GoT’s defense every time his blog posts come up. Everything you just mentioned is irrelevant to whether or not GoT is historically accurate like GRR claims.

[the_af]

> I think it's easy to sell hating on GRRM

I'm not selling that, and neither is ACOUP.

He's merely evaluating historical realism according to the claims of the respective pieces of work. GRRM claims he set up to write a fictional version and a more "realistic" take on "medieval society"; and claims other depictions are like "Disneyland Middle Ages" -- his words! However, his take is actually less realistic than romantic epics like Lord of the Rings.

Other than that, I really enjoy both. It's a critique, not hatred :)

[0cf8612b2e1e]

> At least through the first four books his plotting was impeccable…

I mean, it was supposed to be three books, so I think the pacing must have gone awry somewhere. Can he tell compelling stories? Yes, but he is like a developer who only wants to work on greenfield projects. As soon as the plot gets messy, introduce a completely new character +setting elsewhere.

[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.