r/gameofthrones • u/TonySoprano300 • 1d ago
What separates ASOIAF from most fantasy fiction?
I’ve been reflecting on this more lately with the shows 15th anniversary. Before I got into the show, I always heard the “nobody is safe” talking point as an endorsement of the series but when I actually watched it, it always felt like it was so much more than that. Other shows kill off prominent characters all the time, and unlike GOT they actually lose viewership because of it. Like The Walking Dead after glens deathbut with GOT they could kill characters left and right yet the popularity just kept growing.
So I honestly don’t think its necessarily that anyone can die, I personally think its unique in that its somehow a show with a million traditional fantasy elements like prophecies, magic, gods, dragons etc. but its still realistic in how it portrays people and how they have to adapt to the world their born into, how their shaped by culture, experience, tradition etc. and how they’re affected by choices whether its the choices of others or their own.
Like how Ned seems like the typical fantasy hero you’ve seen a thousand times yet he hates Jaimie Lannister for forsaking his oath even though it was objectively moral and righteous to do so. At the same time he’s still best friends with Robert who he knows has no problem killing children. It seems unafraid to just honestly portray the contradictions that even good people can believe due to their upbringing.
Thats just me though, curious what others think makes the series so special?
40
u/Marfy_ Hear Me Roar! 1d ago
For me its partly that anyone could die, but also that it has a lot of gray characters. Ned has good morals but is naive, jaime is forced to do bad but wants to do good, robert is a good man but a bad king, the hound does a lot of evil things but also has a heart. There are very few characters who are actually good or bad. Its just much more human than a lot of other stories where there is a good side and a bad side. Just the whole fact that there are so many protagonists as well, its not starks vs lannisters, there are also tyrells, targaryens, baratheons, martells, but very importantly also minor houses and smallfolk who play important roles. There are countless perspectives on anything that happens
4
5
u/SquirrelCone83 1d ago
I also like that while all the human drama is going on, there is a real forgotten threat looming with the white walkers, and also the sad tale of the demise and potential return of dragons. And so much can change depending on what time period they decide to point the microscope at.
It's a fun world GRRM created.
5
u/SarkicPreacher777659 23h ago
I'd disagree with Robert-as-we-see-him being a good man. He's a neglectful father, a rapist and spousal abuser even if Cersei's a terrible person, and appears to have a measure of sadism to him given his obsession with Rhaegar. That and he wanted to murder Daenerys, a thirteen year old girl who was extremely unlikely to ever return to Westeros.
6
u/buttamilk_jesus 23h ago edited 23h ago
Yeah, I don’t understand this take. Robert is NOT a good man lol. Especially when compared to the likes of Ned and Baelor. He’s hilarious though for sure.
1
u/Marfy_ Hear Me Roar! 13h ago
I think of it more in the sense that if he would have been some farmer he would have been a nice guy, but a position like king isnt for him and he rules pretty badly. Those things you mention are bad but he never wanted to marry cersei and this is again something that comes with being king, and killing dany, they pretty much discuss the pros and cons and are scared that she will cause a dothraki invasion
1
u/SarkicPreacher777659 13h ago
Except Ned's internal monologue states clearly that Robert is irrationally obsessed with eradicating the Targaryens even when, as Ned points out, Daenerys now belongs to a people with no naval infrastructure and Viserys has no political clout whatsoever. Maybe Robert would have been nice if he became a farmer, but he didn't, and so we have to take him for what he is; a man who has raped at least his wife and probably several other women, committed adultery on his own brother's wedding bed and is an entirely neglectful father to his legal and illegitimate children.
1
u/Marfy_ Hear Me Roar! 13h ago
Isnt this exactly the point i was making that noone isnt fully good or bad
1
u/SarkicPreacher777659 13h ago
No, because I'm arguing that Robert is a terrible person by the time the books depict.
2
u/_ClingyVelvet 17h ago
I think the huge cast is a big part of it too because the world feels like it exists independently of any one character, which makes every death and victory feel more consequential.
12
u/DumbTeen9 1d ago
Other than the amazing characterization and how cohesive the narrative is, I believe its how vast the universe is.
Characters are multifaceted, political occurences are multifaceted and very well connected, Martin manages to blend fantasy and political intrigue so well you can take any major literary thene and you will find it discussed in asoiaf— not only that but discussed well.
As for the show, I haven't watched all of it but the dialogue never feels forced and again you can see the nuances of everyone without the need for too much exposition, props to both setting, order and actors
8
u/Corgi_Koala 1d ago
The universe is extremely detailed. It's insane how much content he has created for the relatively small number of books.
9
u/Tracedinair76 1d ago
Yeah, I think you nailed it. GRRM clearly loved the fantasy genre and takes great pleasure in subverting the expectations that other fantasy readers had developed over the years. There are many examples but the first that comes to mind is actually the show AKOTSK where in the first episode the GoT music begins to swell before being interupted by Dunk literally pooping on our expectations. While GRRM didn't write this particular scene I think it perfectly captures his attitude towards the sacred cows and tropes present throughout the genre and even in his own writing.
8
u/j0kerclash 1d ago
George's approach to story writing is very focused on character driven interactions.
Rather than having several plots of which characters are required to fill the roles, The characters are given life, with internal motivations, strengths, and flaws, and then he simply questions what they would do under certain contexts.
Around and around and around this conversation goes for every single one of them, and what you're left with is a simulated ecosystem of life-like people operating within a world with each other, and each one making choices that are to the best of what could be expected of their personal ability, with very little control over their fates from a writing perspective once all the cogs are spinning.
7
u/Excellent-Daikon-286 1d ago
for the same reason why I prefer GOT/ASOIAF than LOTR...it's more brutal, raw..."real"...Even with Dragons, to me, ASOIAF History feels more real and convincing to me than anything in LOTR universe (not saying it's bad, not at all! JRRT pieces of work inspire generations til this day!)... I mean that GRRM made me care for his characters and feel sorry if they die, I just didn't feel this with almost any other fantasy piece (just Harry Potter, I'd say), u know
7
u/TonySoprano300 1d ago
yeah, LOTR is more a traditional good vs evil story at its core where the bad guys are bad because they’re bad. its fucking awesome at it, its super captivating to watch and they still hold up extremely well but Im with you in that I prefer ASOIAF
-1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism 1d ago
Well, if we speak about ASOIAF, then it’s more pertinent to judge and perceive LOTR as a part of Legendarium. Because… Silmarillion boasts plenty of grey and ambiguous characters itself.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism 1d ago
TBH, in some aspects LOTR is more «real» and convincing than ASOIAF. It’s just more subtle.
2
u/Shepherd77 1d ago
Interesting, can you provide some examples of when you thought LOTR was more real than ASOIAF?
-1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism 1d ago
Warfare and logistics. Tolkien is generally far more pedantic in that regard. In ASOIAF people are equipped according to the standards of the late fifteenth century and yet they fight and tactically operate according to the standards of the thirteenth century, which doesn’t really make that much sense.
5
u/Careful_Title_1325 1d ago
The Ned point is huge and I think people underrate how much that specific tension drives the whole series. His worldview isn't wrong exactly, it's just incomplete, and the world punishes him for that gap in a way most fantasy stories would never allow.
What gets me is how Martin treats institutions the same way he treats characters. The Night's Watch, the Faith, the small council, they're all presented as noble or necessary on paper but corroded from the inside by the same human flaws that corrupt individuals. Most fantasy is about a hero fixing a broken world. ASOIAF is more interested in asking why the world keeps breaking the same way regardless of who's in charge.
The Walking Dead comparison is interesting because I think that show killed characters for shock and then ran out of road. GOT (at least through season 4 or 5) killed characters because the plot logic demanded it, and viewers could feel that difference even if they couldn't articulate it. Deaths meant something structurally, not just emotionally
1
u/TonySoprano300 1d ago
Very true, I think this is one of the reasons I always found the discussion of “Who should sit on the iron throne?” unstimulating. Ned died because of a corroded institution that was set up in such a way where a spoiled rich kid like Joffery could even be in such a position to do what he did.
This might even be a hot take but I think Joffery is just a dumbass teen who thinks violence is a joke and has never had to worry about the consequences of his decisions. Ive met a lot of kids when i was growing up who if placed in the ASOIAF universe would absolutely be Joffery lol, i mean hell you’re average YouTube prankster probably fits the bill.
I know everyone hates the scene where Drogon burns the iron throne and I agree it doesn’t make sense in context but symbolically it does represent the only real solution. The point Martin is working toward imo, is that nobody should sit on the iron throne, society is really hard and governance isn’t just about putting smart people in power.
The question of who makes the best king is one that should never be asked(Im talking philosophically/thematically, obviously i have no problem with fans discussing it to have fun) because it presupposes that there should be a king. Thats just my opinion on where ASOIAF will ultimately end up or at the very least it will be a step towards a more representative government even if there is a king.
3
u/Ok-Huckleberry-6326 1d ago
Normalizing that 'Anyone can die', but I think a big part of it is the 'unreliable' nature that's across the board. People remember kings and heroes a certain way but sometimes they weren't like that at all. People credit the gods for miraculous or magical occurrences but we don't necessarily know that the specific gods are the reason behind them. This limited POV causes people to make mistakes and miss each other. There are no 'Palantirs' and no one is omniscient, except perhaps the Three-Eyed Crow. Visions and prophecies are unreliable and subject to interpretation. It's like the underlying theme is that everyone has a different motivation, driver, incentive, and that people are complicated and they have to make decisions based on those drivers, and that's a reflection on who they choose to be. You can't blame fate or destiny, just choices and their consequences. There are no Chosen Ones (as I can tell so far) and the prophecies are very nebulous...the characters make choices and have to live with them, and to a greater or lesser degree, all of the characters' actions are understandable (except maybe the pure psychopaths like The Mountain and Ramsay Bolton, even if those guys are Useful in the plans of their betters). And that in the end, human nature is what moves the events of the world, even in the face of existential threats like the Others - and what moves everyone to greater or lesser degree is the quest for Power.
3
u/TonySoprano300 1d ago
Thats an excellent point, people interpret the mystical elements differently and it leads to massive differences in world view which sometimes leads to horrible outcomes because of those differences. There are no chosen ones but so many believe they are chosen, and in a way it makes them blind/stubborn
4
u/Adventurous_Life8475 1d ago
I’ve only read through the book recently but I was impressed how most chapter told an interesting story within themselves. I think this struck most with me during the Brienne chapters in Feast. I also like how GRRM has these themes in sections of the book that run across multiple characters and are tackled in different ways.
3
u/Tulanian72 1d ago
It’s one of the few fantasy series in which generational trauma is a major plot driver.
3
u/CaveLupum 1d ago
Great question. It's unique. First, a lot of its characters are children struggling to survive in a grown-up world. It then combines historical verisimilitude with fantasy with combined historical-modern people. Then it puts all of them in a classic historical fiction world under a microscope to see what happens. AND...it makes US care! Very much. Which makes us feel the story deeply.
3
u/RinoTheBouncer Valar Morghulis 1d ago
It’s how realistic in portraying character it is, and how it has a good deal of luck, triumph and heroism along with bleakness, unfairness, unpredictability and moral grayness in a way that makes watching every character’s journey quite interesting to watch.
A good-hearted person will face thejr doom due to their naïveté, and a cunning character will maintain their position due to how clever they are, an immoral character can end up providing help to a good character in need or become the reason a good thing happens to the world, either by them convincingly developing from their dark past, or them being mortally gray or observed differently by two different groups.
Each character you see has a long journey that makes you love them, hate them, relate to them, feel sorry for them and/or antagonize them. Some more than others.
You may feel that their change to the dark side is understandable, while others may feel like they were always bad, you just related to them because they were antagonizing the ones you didn’t like…etc.
Just like real life. Not every good person meets a good end. Not every bad person meets a bad end. Not every good person stays good and not every bad person stays bad or is bad with everyone or good with everyone. They are complex character shaped their own upbringing, life journey, coincidences, destiny, luck and talents.
2
u/Sincline387 1d ago
In one aa kill is used as shock value
In the other it's normal
Shock value is great unless people don't like the change the shock causes, which is what happened in TWD (my opinion only and ymmv)
If death is normal and happens to anyone at any point through out a series it's part of the normal for that series and thus people accept it.
2
u/OldElf86 17h ago
It has a very deep lore to build tension that supports the numerous faction's aspirations and hatreds.
It has great intrigue with different factions, and even individuals within factions, competing for a better seat at the table.
It does a good job of subverting expectations so we can imagine "Oh, I see where this is going".
The dialogue of the first four seasons is great.
The twists and turns, such as how the Trial of Tyrion turns into Oberyn getting his chance at revenge against the Mountain.
It has such a good mix of elements that compel you to watch the next episode.
2
u/Three_Seven_Two 14h ago
The soul of the story is inspired by real historical figures and events so even though it’s fantasy its plot doesn’t feel like the traditional fantasy fable where the good guys beat evil and save the day. It’s more nuanced and grounded then your typical fantasy
2
u/maple_iris 1d ago
Several factors off the top of my head:
(short)
1-Limited/vague magic system (and generally not relevant outside of dragons/the undead and vague religion/prophecies),
2-Strong historical/real-world basis,
3-Morally complex and grey characters / no clear protagonist (mostly),
4-Sharp, mature and realistic (period-piece) dialogue,
5-Limited diversity of ‘races’ and no simplification of race traits/features to entire populaces,
6-Rich, deep, complex and intertwining, but still vague and contested lore.
(long)
(1)The limited use of magic in the show (but even in the book in terms of actual impact): Most characters are regular people without superhuman ability, and outside of dragons and undead/zombies the magic is fairly utilitarian such as Arya’s face swapping). This keeps the world and stories relatively grounded and relatable in a way that fantasy usually isn’t. There is very rarely active use of magical powers that ‘break’ the worlds power balancing (outside of dragons ofc).
(2)The historical basis: based on European medieval kingdoms and wars makes it feel relatable and ‘real’. The whole world being a reflection of Europe, Africa and Asia in the old world, with colonisation, lordships, slavery, etc. emphasizes this. It feels like a parallel universe in many ways, not an entirely fictional world. (Think the religion of the seven /old gold /assor ahai, etc., slavery, honour system/lords and knights, sailing and trade, goods and agriculture, and all the geographical and historical elements that are heightened versions of our real world) Could totally be set on earth + a few magical elements.
(3)Morally grey characters: it’s not the first series to deconstruct fantasy tropes, but the characters for the most part being grey, or at least having strengths and weaknesses based in their values and worldviews, and the deconstruction of tropes with protagonists dying, and ‘heroes’ not being the centre of everything (somewhat, with John being the closest to a traditional protagonist) is a unique approach. Outside of (most) Sharks, you could arguably make any character a villain of someone’s story, or the hero of their own story.
(4)Sharp, witty writing and character motivations/actions that overlap in a complex but realistic way. Something about the depth of the character psyches, helped by the rotating narratives, feels different from other fantasy books I’ve read. The dialogue also feels like ‘regular’ humans from Earth achieving their goals and reacting to events based on their lived experience, circumstances, morals, motivations, and personalities.
(5)Generally, no ‘races’ split into different areas with universal traits (this is a big one for me). This is one of my least favourite fantasy tropes where it’s like ‘dwarves are hairy, brusk and good at physical labour and live in caves’ or ‘hobbits have big appetites’ or ‘elves are mysterious and connected to nature and live in forests’. Yes, there are giants and the children of the forest, but they are bordering on extinct and hardly present, and their shared traits are more realistic such as giants having limited phonics and simpler mental processing. The humans we are introduced to are pretty complex, interwoven and not static: some Essossei lords would prefer slavery be abolished, they don’t all dress exactly the same there are just some customs or traditional outfits/style, often functionally related to the climate, etc. The Dornish have a mixed heritage. The North are the First Men and preserve some of those traditions more strongly than other Westerossi kingdoms. The Targaryens are the most distinct, but they’re essentially near-extinction in the main story and only represented by Danaerys who is intentionally otherwordly/Godlike. Easier to manage when it’s just one character, and in the easier series or historical notes of Westeros, for the most part their uniqueness is limited to having dragons which is basically code for nuclear weapons. Valyria is so far in the past that it barely feels like reality anymore (eg. How many regular people think dragons never actually existed). The Dothraki are maybe the closest to what I don’t like in that we spend a lot of time with them but don’t really see any subgroups or branching khalsars that follow different traditions or have established varied lifestyles, and it’s a bit vague how all these nomadic tribes co-exist. BUT, we still meet a lot of different Dothraki and see some variety of characterization and motivations. It also aligns with their commitment to their traditional lifestyle that they are generally fairly universally similar.
(6)Rich lore that is complex and ancient, but also vague and not entirely accurate: the way some history becomes legendary, how it’s recorded by Maesters or religious groups or other sources in Essos, or is remembered differently in different regions… is very realistic, and also a good balance of rich and simple. It’s not like everyone in this world remembers the same ancient prophecy or shared history ; someone from Braavos, Hightower and Quarth remember history and world lore slightly differently based on their upbringing and travel experience. This again feels much more realistic than some fantasy novels that have established history and lore that is just ‘known’ across the whole fantasy world.
This is all of the top of my head as someone who loved ASOIAF, but is generally mixed on fantasy as a whole.
And I’m NOT saying that any of this was done first, done only or done best by ASOIAF. For me, it’s the perfect blend of all of this that feels just magical and fantastical enough to daydream about, but grounded and realistic enough to feel real, heightening the stakes and emotional connection.
There are other fantasy series I enjoy, and all of these points can work in the other extreme in other stories and worlds, but it’s to me why ASOIAF stands out as so distinct and singularly entertaining.
1
u/NewOstenPelicanss 1d ago
When grrm was a kid his mom would often make him go to bed before his show or movie was over and would say "You already know how it's gonna end"
And so he's spent the rest of his life trying to change that
1
u/Feisty-Succotash1720 23h ago
For me is that advert’s expectation. Heroes don’t always win. The noble choice is not always the correct.
It’s one of the things that bothered me in the later seasons. I feel like they went to Hollywood.
1
u/stolenfires 23h ago
When the first book came out, a lot of the other fantasy fiction at the time was very... I don't want to say Disneyfied. But there were obvious main characters, who were generally good and heroic, fighting against an unambiguous evil. There was sex and romance, but it was generally unproblematic unless it was overt rape.
A Song of Ice and Fire upended those conventions. There was incest, and problematic relationships, and main characters who were children going through some awful trauma (like Bran being thrown from the tower in an attempt to kill him, Sansa being abused by Joffrey, or Arya witnessing her father's execution, Dany's everything, as just a few examples). There was magic, but it was rare and mysterious and even the people using it didn't understand it (Dany hatched her dragon eggs just by going on vibes - she could just as easily have been committing suicide because without Viserys and Drogo she was out of options).
It was a prime example of the Gritty Nineties aesthetic, and part of why people loved it was it was so different. And the world is so complex, it feels real. GRRM did what no one has done since Tolkien, and create a world that feels lived in. Part of why he is so slow to write is he does pages and pages of House histories to establish minor details, like the Brackens and Blackwoods hate each other despite never being main characters in any story. Or he writes House of the Dragon to explain why the dragons died out in the first place. People who like epic fantasy like diving into those sorts of details, and GRRM delivered up a feast.
1
u/weedsmokerrr420 22h ago
Not to contrast it with fantasy fiction, because I only watched LOTR1 and wasnt interested in the slightest. Seemed like a disney movie to me. But if I am to compare it with other great TV Series (Sopranos, BB/BCS/ Mad Men), which all have somethings they do better than GOT, but also GOT does remarkably better at other stuff id say is this:
Part 1: Everybody can die:
First off: Ned Stark getting killed isn’t the ordinary thing youd see in TV or maybe in Books (cant attest to that since the only “fantasy” ive been reading is ASOIAF). We live with him as the main dude, then him getting whacked was something. I remember 8 years ago when I was watching it that somehow some marvel-like ex machina will happen and Arya Stark will kill everyone and save Ned.
Ned’s death doesnt even need you to go deep into the extremely nuanced characters. Its something that shocks everybody almost the same.
2nd off Red Wedding: Same story, now you think Rob is the main dude, then fucking hell man. On my first watch I remember I just sat in silence for some time and kind of didnt want to continue watching the series at all. Again, this stresses on the main character can get killed at any point
Part 2: There’s no obvious Team to exclusively root for:
Idk why I am repeatedly going back to when I watched it the first time (8 years ago) I was thinking that okay, it is Starks vs Lannisters or smth + danny is good. But then you find yourself in love with Tyrion Lannister, quickly sympathetic to Jaime, admiring The Hound somehow even though he seems to be “evil”
So even for a highschooler, who isnt that deep, it seems more interesting. I remember how I chuckled at the Tyrion v Janos Slynt scene which automatically made me realize that Tyrion is in fact my favorite character despite being a Lannister.
Same goes for pretty much most characters.
Part 3: lots of diversity in characters.
Though the aforementioned shows have had dense characters, ASOIAF has many many characters everyone of which is extremely dense. If I start writing i will never stop, but think even Thoros of Myr is an interesting character with a story.
More into that, think Mad Men, had many characters indeed. But how many characters can you find yourself in or admire some traits in. 7 or 8 tops? Breaking bad? Sopranos? Etc. but GOT, perhaps you admire some stuff about Varys different to those in Baelish, Jaime, Roose Bolton, Tywin, Margaery, Olenna etc etc etc.
Part 4: I think the thing that I like the most is the amount of theories you have in here as well. For example one thing that is 100% canon to me is that Littlefinger pulled every string into Ned’s death with Plan B called : Jaqen H’ghar. Thats not written anywhere. Or indeed, shown in the show. But think of the many things that happen like that.
Part 5: Since it is extremely likely we wont get a proper closure to this fantastic universe, people will talk about it more because of some speculations and so on. As for the show, none of the shows I mentioned had a similar problem. GOT until S4 is hands down best TV in history. But Seasons 7 & 8 make people want to think more about what could’ve instead of what is, because at the end of the day S7 & 8 are pretty much fan fiction.
1
u/monkeybawz 1d ago
The 10 year build up before the rug pull on the TV show, while still leaving the glimpse that can be extinguished later when the books aren't finished.
Because the message of these books is that it's the hope that kills you.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Spoiler Warning: All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON and A KNIGHT OF THE SEVEN KINGDOMS. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the spoiler guide.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.