|
|
 Originally Posted by baudib
I don't disagree with you, but tell me why you think it's superior to, say, Tolkien.
I read both The Hobbit and the first two hundred pages of Fellowship twice. I couldn't get much further than that, but did watch the movies several times
My read on JRRT was that the lore was too much of a dichotomy. It was great for its time, for sure. Was very original in some ways, but the dichotomy of good vs evil is simply inferior to a more evolved view of the world. In some ways, that dichotomy is fun, but I'm honestly not sure if I can ever get behind it again. When I was a kid, sure I thought it was legit, but that dichotomy just doesn't play that well anymore. It truly never did, only to xtians and the like did it seem to become a thing. The Wire (new, and some of the best work) is a Greek Tragedy (old, and based in reality), after all. Only in our religious imaginations does the dark black of evil fight the bright light of good
On a different level, I think the play of steel, brain, and brawns vs magic is very good. Fantasies usually are much more blunt about their magic and it tends to dominate, but GoT uses it in very limited fashion and is quite mystical about it. For example: the Mother of Dragons is near death of starvation in a desert, while on the other end of the world, a boy dreams through the eyes of his pet. This is much more refined a lore than guys who shoot fireballs after learning a spell.
On a personal level, I like the humanness. No elves, no dwarves, just people being people. WRT my experiences in fantasy, this is a novel concept.
I also like the subtlety. It seems you never truly know what's going on, and I suspect we won't know until the end, and even then may not. In the books I read, the agenda, heroes, villains, and magics were all clear. But in GoT, they're not. Granted, I haven't read anything since maybe the 12th Drizzt book and the Rose of the Prophet trilogy; so it's been over a decade, and stuff may be more evolved now.
|