Games Of Thrones More Brutally Realistic Than Most Historical Novels?

Albedo said:

I mentally append "and everything smelled like open cesspits" to every description when reading historical fiction.

Click to expand...

Hm. But it didn't. Except if you were near an open cesspit, and in the countryside (which accounts for about 95% of the population of western Europe in the early modern era) you almost never ever were (obviously cows and horses – not to mention goats – smell too, but no more than they do today). According to the medical theories of the time, bad smells carried diseases so it was actually a major concern to get rid of them.

Sorry, one of my pet peeves, that idea that everything was horrid and smelly back in the day. An army on the move was one thing, but most people spent a lot of time and energy keeping cesspits and smells at bay.

Flicka said:

Hm. But it didn't. Except if you were near an open cesspit, and in the countryside (which accounts for about 95% of the population of western Europe in the early modern era) you almost never ever were (obviously cows and horses – not to mention goats – smell too, but no more than they do today). According to the medical theories of the time, bad smells carried diseases so it was actually a major concern to get rid of them.

Sorry, one of my pet peeves, that idea that everything was horrid and smelly back in the day. An army on the move was one thing, but most people spent a lot of time and energy keeping cesspits and smells at bay.

Click to expand...

Moreover, in Medieval towns in France at least, rivers were diverted to clear out as much of the wastes as possible and for mills, so up until modern (ie post 1500) artillery forced towns to fortify and mess up their drainage (in France at least), towns were probably even cleaner than the countryside.

Maxx said:

Moreover, in Medieval towns in France at least, rivers were diverted to clear out as much of the wastes as possible and for mills, so up until modern (ie post 1500) artillery forced towns to fortify and mess up their drainage (in France at least), towns were probably even cleaner than the countryside.

Click to expand...

I think the main hygiene problems in urban areas were usually caused by the lack of space and lack of water - the quicker towns grew and the more cramped the conditions, the worse it got so conditions probably deteriorated during periods of intense urban growth. But if you look into archival sources there is usually a huge amount of energy going into making and enforcing rules for waste disposal for most medieval and early modern towns.

gothicangel said:

I like Vorenus, but I think the storytelling went off the rails at the beginning of Season II. I have to admit I much prefer the second Octavian (but don't get why the writer thinks Caesar is the family name, when it's Julius/Julii. Octavian wasn't called Octavian until his adoption anyway.)

Click to expand...

Yes, I prefer season I as well. And I hated the way they ended it.

The problem with a lot of long, epic historical series is that they throw money and effort at season one, line up all these great actors, make sure the writing is really top notch, because they may never get a season 2 otherwise. But staking it all on one throw like that often leads to a lack-lustre season 2, because they never really had a concrete plan for it. They lose some of the best actors/characters (either because of the historical storyline, like Caesar, Pompey etc, or because they were only contracted for one season) and the plots tend to be mopping up from season one rather than going anywhere. I think the only thing that kept me riveted to Rome in season 2 was James Purefoy (and not just coz he aint bad to look at )

Oh, I really liked Vorenus in S2. I'm probably the only person, though. I also liked the ending of the series. I wonder if they'd had more seasons guaranteed if the writing would have been less clunky. They had to cover a lot of major historical events in a short amount of time.

But yes James Purefoy in S2 was excellent.

Fascinating to read some of the comments here from people who did not or were not able to read the books.

Of course they are wildly successful - as the sales and readership attest - and as a fantasy author myself I can only hope to have a fraction of that same success. I don't expect many of you to read my books either...

That said, they are not historical fiction, and though there may be REMOTE similarities between historical events, it's a fantasy and needs to be appreciated as such.

The only thing I found challenging was that he continued to kill off characters for whom I had developed attachmetns. Though it doesn't ruin the story for me, it did derail my "who will be the winner" thought on more than one occasion.

I like his style. He's fun to read and keeps the reader interested - as demonstrated by his wild success....

Thewitt said:

Fascinating to read some of the comments here from people who did not or were not able to read the books.

Of course they are wildly successful - as the sales and readership attest - and as a fantasy author myself I can only hope to have a fraction of that same success. I don't expect many of you to read my books either...

That said, they are not historical fiction, and though there may be REMOTE similarities between historical events, it's a fantasy and needs to be appreciated as such.

The only thing I found challenging was that he continued to kill off characters for whom I had developed attachmetns. Though it doesn't ruin the story for me, it did derail my "who will be the winner" thought on more than one occasion.

I like his style. He's fun to read and keeps the reader interested - as demonstrated by his wild success....

Click to expand...

Like I said, I liked the first 3 books a lot, but the 4th book just couldn't keep my interest and so I never bothered with number 5 (I should add I read the first three some ten years ago so it probably didn't help that I'd forgotten a lot, which is a danger when you take that long to put out a sequel). I could also really have done without the Daenerys plotline which I found myself mostly skimming, and probably the Watch one too. Much more fun with political machinations and murder, IMO.

It's interesting that I am the only one who is absolutely not bothered by characters dying. It's nowhere near the carnage I used to design when I played with dolls as a child. They all died. Horrible, terrible, tragic deaths; sacrificing themselves, flinging themselves off rocks, dying of consumption... I would sometimes bawl my eyes out because OMG, the tragedy! I still have to restrain myself when I write because I know not everyone else is like me. But yeah, I still love a good tragedy. It's probably why I like history – the only thing you can be sure of is that they all going to die in the end...

Flicka said:

Like I said, I liked the first 3 books a lot, but the 4th book just couldn't keep my interest and so I never bothered with number 5

Click to expand...

Lawks, yes. I'm reading Dance with Dragons at the moment - or should I say not reading, because after Feast for Crows I just can't quite bring myself to slog through another mindless worldbuilding-fest. I got about 2 chapters in and haven't picked it up since. My brain just goes.... newp.

Flicka said:

I could also really have done without the Daenerys plotline which I found myself mostly skimming, and probably the Watch one too. Much more fun with political machinations and murder, IMO.

Click to expand...

I actually found those the two most interesting storylines! The whole Kings Landing business is very intriguing as a distraction while the other storylines come to fruition, but in the back of my mind is always the thought that NONE OF THIS SILLY SQUABBLING FOR THE THRONE MATTERS, YOU FOOLS! Because either the white walkers will turn you all into the undead, or you'll get cooked and eaten by Dany's dragons. So basically, it's all just a side show until GRRM decides which one happens first

Kallithrix said:

I actually found those the two most interesting storylines! The whole Kings Landing business is very intriguing as a distraction while the other storylines come to fruition, but in the back of my mind is always the thought that NONE OF THIS SILLY SQUABBLING FOR THE THRONE MATTERS, YOU FOOLS! Because either the white walkers will turn you all into the undead, or you'll get cooked and eaten by Dany's dragons. So basically, it's all just a side show until GRRM decides which one happens first

Click to expand...

I don't think it helps that I really don't care for Dany as a character. I find her supremely annoying.

A sort of Game of Thrones-related question: many POVs à la Martin. Good or bad? I'm finding myself writing my current project in that way and it's just so much more fun to shift personality and language every chapter that writing becomes so much easier. I think I'll end up with, all in all, maybe 8 different POVs, all very, very different.

I'm racking my brain for other books than GOT with this many POVs but not coming up with any (except maybe Dunnett's), but maybe this is nothing unusual and I just have brainfreeze and poor memory? Anyway, is this a problem you think? Because I really don't think this will be as good written in another way.

I seem to remember that the axing of Rome after 2 series was made before series 1 was even finished hence the need to cram so much into series 2. I still enjoyed it immensely and so much more than Spartacus and Game of Thrones.

I can't think of anything historical with that sort of narrative structure, unless THE LUMINARIES kind of sort of counts? What I think of with GOT is that you have many distinct (as in, not omni, which Dunnett does) POVs and multiple (at least three?) distinct plot-lines going on. I can think of examples of more distinct POVs than I can of the complicated, interwoven plot-lines. But yes, when I think of books with more than, say, five POVs, I would say Dunnett and also Sharon Kay Penman. I think it's more common in some of the more classic historical fiction, when third person omni was more acceptable. (I feel like today it would be considered "head-hopping".)

Personally, I don't mind it, if it's clear who is thinking what and who is attributing what motivation to whom. But I like big, complex novels like that!

mayqueen said:

I can't think of anything historical with that sort of narrative structure, unless THE LUMINARIES kind of sort of counts? What I think of with GOT is that you have many distinct (as in, not omni, which Dunnett does) POVs and multiple (at least three?) distinct plot-lines going on. I can think of examples of more distinct POVs than I can of the complicated, interwoven plot-lines. But yes, when I think of books with more than, say, five POVs, I would say Dunnett and also Sharon Kay Penman. I think it's more common in some of the more classic historical fiction, when third person omni was more acceptable. (I feel like today it would be considered "head-hopping".)

Personally, I don't mind it, if it's clear who is thinking what and who is attributing what motivation to whom. But I like big, complex novels like that!

Click to expand...

True, Dunnett does omni (duh! should have remembered that), but she has a select number of plotlines focused on different people. That was what I was thinking about. She could have written it in third as well, I think, with not too many changes to how the story unfolds.

Mine is close third, chapter by chapter. No hopping within a single scene. Also, very distinctly different voice in each POV. Right now I've done like Martin and headlined each chapter/scene with the name of the POV character, but I also usually name them somewhere in the first three sentences. It should be pretty clear who does what and who knows what (I think). I'm not sure how many plot lines I have -- can't say what is a subplot and what is a separate plotline, but there's lots of stuff going on, politically and personally, though all intertwined. It is complex though, and lots of names in the beginning, but all in all, the same characters keep popping up in all POVs.

I wasn't planning on this. It just happened. Right now I think it works and it more or less writes itself (also think it's by far the best I've written) but we'll see in 50,000 words if I still feel that way (currently about 12,500 words in). I think the changes in POV actually makes the story feel like it's moving faster and keeps you hooked. But it does make me antsy that it's a bit unorthodox. I'm either brilliant or a moron.

Well, either it'll fly or it won't. Nothing ventured, nothing gained!

Dunnett's use of POV is extremely complex. It's omni, and in many scenes the POV is clearly focused through one character, but in many other scenes the focus is shifting and it's not always clear if any particular element is filtered through a character, coming through some different character altogether, or from an external narrator. And even when the narrative is filtered through a well-defined POV and you're apparently sharing a character's thought process and perceptions, you're not necessarily getting the whole of it. Characters keep secrets from the reader, and readers aren't necessarily given the information to detect when important things are being hidden from them -- although they may suspect it, and draw their own conclusions. (For example, when a major character in the protagonist's entourage whose POV was frequently used through many volumes of a series turned out to have been in fact a Secret Master Villain all along.)

IOW, Dunnett used omni/multi-character POV very skillfully to lie to the readers. She was, after all, very deliberately and explicitly playing a war-game with her readers, especially in her later books. The narrative was intended to be deceptive and hide what was really going on from readers who who were actively trying to penetrate the secret and untangle the truth.

This is very advanced technique. If you're not a true master, you shouldn't play this game. (And probably not, even if you are.)

Oh man, Secret Master Villain is actually my one serious gripe!

It might not be totally orthodox, Flicka, but if it's working now and keeps working, why not! Like you said, nothing ventured. I like the technique of switching among multiple POVs to keep the plot moving. (I'm in the polishing stage of revising a mystery/thriller, and that's what I did--or tried to do.) It works for me as long as it's clearly marked when the POV is changing and whose it is.

benbenberi said:

This is very advanced technique. If you're not a true master, you shouldn't play this game. (And probably not, even if you are.)

Click to expand...

Personally, I would never try that particular technique. I know my limitations. Also, if you want to play hide and seek with your readers there are other ways of doing it - cleverly chosen third POVs can have the same effect (which was what I meant she could have done instead, and I think Martin does to some degree IIRC though it was ages since I read GoT), as can unreliable narrators. Not that I think that's in itself easier, though -- it requires as steady a hand as Dunnett's way -- but it's possibly more "modern" for want of a better word.

Randomly, a very interesting take on unreliable narrators that blatantly lie to you even in first person is Iain Pears An Instance of the Fingerpost (a favourite book of mine). It's basically built on that very premise - you have 4 narrators recounting the same events, one after the other, and they are all lying for different reasons so you get 4 widely different stories, but when you've read all of them, you sort of get the truth anyway.

But mine is simple, straightforward close third, though some of the most important people aren't used for POV precisely because I don't want you peeking into their heads. With them it's all showing and no telling.

gothicangel said:

But the writer's really shot themselves in the foot when Livia said that she only had one son, Tiberius. Even if they decided to make a movie now, they couldn't go passed Tiberius as they wiped his brother and his children from history.

Click to expand...

eeep, I didn't even notice that. Yeah, when you take Drusus out of the equation, you no longer have historical fiction, you have alt history - no Germanicus, Claudius, Caligula or Nero. A third season trying to figure that out might have been fun

About the multiple POV's: it's out of vogue, I think, to have a lot of point-of-views and/or to "head-hop". It's more common to have one or only a few. It's telling that Dunnett, who wrote decades ago, is the best example of many POVs in historical fiction. And obviously GoT is fantasy.

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with many POVs per se. It's just that the trend doesn't seem to be that way.

In my current WIP, I have four third-person points-of-view, always separated by chapter breaks. Every other WIP I've written is confined to one or two POVs.

For a recent example of many-POV historical fiction, I recommend A.L. Berridge's books. In both Honour and the Sword and In the Name of the King there are a lot of different first-person narrators (some used in both books, some in just one) who all contribute different elements to the narrative and the story. She separates them chapter-by-chapter, but each voice is distinctive.

benbenberi said:

For a recent example of many-POV historical fiction, I recommend A.L. Berridge's books. In both Honour and the Sword and In the Name of the King there are a lot of different first-person narrators (some used in both books, some in just one) who all contribute different elements to the narrative and the story. She separates them chapter-by-chapter, but each voice is distinctive.

Click to expand...

Oh, I have Honour and the Sword! Should have remembered that. Thank you!

What a profoundly interesting conversation about (what I believe is) a flawed premise. It doesn't matter whether the violence or whatever is 'realistic' in GoT...the fact is it's all invented, as opposed to the censored/sanitised versions of true events in historiography or historical fiction.

Frankly, it seems a tad evil to me to invent really bad stuff that didn't ever happen, in contrast with insulating modern readers from the full impact of historical truth - which might be intellectually dishonest, but morally sensitive in its intent.

In the end, GoT is fantasy. Please don't compare it with reality.

Flicka said:

I'm racking my brain for other books than GOT with this many POVs but not coming up with any (except maybe Dunnett's), but maybe this is nothing unusual and I just have brainfreeze and poor memory? Anyway, is this a problem you think? Because I really don't think this will be as good written in another way.

Click to expand...

I just thought of another! Sharon Key Penman. Or at least, KING'S RANSOM is like that. It's the first book of hers I'm reading. The POV skips around mid-scene. There are a ton of POV characters.

The Black Prince said:

In the end, GoT is fantasy. Please don't compare it with reality.

Click to expand...

Have I ranted about this yet in this subforum? I don't know. I recently read a well-reviewed, popular novel that was billed as historical fiction and yet got compared everywhere to GOT (and I think GRRM even blurbed it). It was frustrating because there were a couple of historical inaccuracies that none of the reviews I read seemed to pick up on.