[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.