Game of Thrones is lauded as one of the greatest pieces of fiction in the post Tolkien era. In fact George R.R. Martin has been compared to Tolkien quite often, yet the moral complexity of Game of Throne far surpasses the simplistic narrative of Tolkien's. Does our love for GoT mean that we as a society have evolved to be more empathetic of others' viewpoints or more sinister we have become more cynical? George R.R. Martin in fact draws his inspiration from history creating a 'realistic' fantasy story. Moral righteous does not equate to victory or even survival. By praising and worshiping GoT do we do the same for pragmatism and nihilism?

I'm well aware of Game of Thrones cynical nature, and though I love the characters if there's one complaint I have, is that life itself, even in Mediaeval times, was not always this cynical. There were many good things that came from the Mediaeval period, such as the introduction of the founding basics of Science (it was a British Monk named Roger Bacon who discovered the light spectrum, not Newton (though he was imprisoned temporarily for trying to publish this idea), Women began to accumulate power and equality during the reign of Richard II, though this too was crushed during the Renaissance, and society was often more sophisticated in the High Middle Ages then we often give credit for, Free peasants in England often had a say in local government, their lord often being away from his estate, the Peasants had to organise themselves, and some Peasants rose to some of the highest positions in the land, such as William of Wykeham, who went into the Church and from there became Lord Chancellor of England, not once but twice, and he founded Winchester College to provide education for 70 boys from Peasant backgrounds.

The Medieval period in England went out on a cynical note but unlike a story, history went on, society constantly changed and adapted, and not just because of war or corruption, though they were certainly good motivators. The Song of Fire and Ice just seems to delight in taking the hopes of the reader and smashing them to smithereens. I know the series isn't over yet, but if this cynicism keeps up to the end I doubt George R.R. Martin will get many more readers after his final book is published. The Lord of the Rings was successful because through the darkness there was always that faint ray of hope driving the readers forward, then ending on a high note, a triumphant yet bitter sweet note that will stick in our memories for many years to come.

There's a place for idealism and cynicism but they must be balanced out, otherwise it won't feel real.

3451695
A most insightful observation. I am glad there are such folks around!

Well, the dark ages was a time of scientific suppression. Basic sanitary systems like Roman plumbing were lost to the fall of the great empire. During plague times life expectancy was in the 20s. Knights/Samurai were basically warlords that took what they want from the peasantry. Chivalry and Bushido were afterthoughts to the harsh reality.

Grim dark settings, such as Berserk, Warhammer 40k, and etc seem to be the fashion in fantasy nowadays. I understand darker doesn't equate to more realistic. From a modernity standpoint, statistically life span, infant mortality, violent death, and disease death have decreased. We apparently live in the most 'civilized' time in lieu of human history. Yet perhaps we look towards cynical fiction because in our time and technology more could be done. The great amount of human suffering in the world is not due to lack of resources but improper and unequal distributions of said resources. The tragedy of our times is not what has been done but what could have been done. If fiction is the mirror, we see ourselves as we imagine and what we are.

Concerning balance, if we moderate between one and an extreme the equation can shift towards the extreme. The argument for moderation could be consider a logical fallacy.

3453326 Even the so called 'Dark Ages' had some bright light. The Dark ages are called that because there was hardly any written history. However even though a lot of things were lost after the collapse of the Western Empire nonetheless society moved on. Art continued to flourish, and some parts of European history are well documented, such as the rise and fall of the Empire of Charlemagne. It may interest you to learn that the Church was not opposed to science in the Middle Ages, in fact for the most part, they wanted to use it. After all since the bible contained the truth, how can the Church be threatened by understanding the truth better? It was later during the time of the Renaissance that the Vatican became frightened of Science, and even then arguably their actions and cruelty could be over-exaggerated. The Spanish Inquisition for example was in its early days relatively 'tame' in its fight against heresy, most complaining that they weren't hard enough on heretics, and when they did go tougher Protestants from England and the Netherlands (who at the time were at war with Spain) did their best to demonize them. Now I'm not defending them at all, they still suppressed free thinking, but perhaps not to the level we might think.
Point is History is often what someone wants us to think happened rather than what exactly happened.

But yes, we do seem to go in for the Dark and Horrible these days don't we? I think that's why FIM is such a breath of fresh air. Something positive to balance out the negative. Just the right ammount of Cynicism to make the situations believable (or as believable as a land full of Pastel Ponies can be) with an idealistic ending once the right pieces are set.

3454297
Well the Dark Ages had some progress but when we look at the possible progress we should be ashamed. From say 500 to 1500 technology advanced at a snails' pace... but from yet in modernity 1900 to 2000 we developed flight, landed on the moon, mass media telecommunication, and invented penicillin. In economics we must consider opportunity cost which is the difference between the benefit of our current action and the best possible action. Moving forward at an obtuse angle is less efficient than progress at straight path. In medieval times a man could be considered a heretic if he proposed that the earth was not the center of the universe. Bloody crusades were launched that still shape modern Middle East to West relations. George R.R. Martin's interpretation seems dead on accurate in the respect to the true zeitgeist of that era rather than a historian's past perspective. Tolkien and other authors tended towards romanticizing and hiding the dirt and grime.

My interpretation of the pony verse is sort of an actualized version of the hypothetical state proposed Plato's Republic. They're sort of on the highly idealistic side on the scale of things for such a government to even exist. Ponies live in a relatively peaceful world, which may result in intelligence evolving from herbivores. In my own fiction, I tend towards deconstructionism of Plato's Republic. lol I'm a massive nerd.

3454524 O.K. good point. I'm not saying things were rosy and nice in the Medieval period, or even that they are now, and I agree that things could and did get really dark and violent in history. I'm just saying for every dark cloud there's a silver lining. True we did not advance as quickly as we could have but if everything was easy there wouldn't be much incentive to try and improve and develop.

As for the examples you've posted, yes the Crusades were a big mistake, and they were in my opinion pointless and unnecessary (though of course at the time it made perfect sense to the Church, capture the holy city, gain influence and power over other religions and direct the violence of knights (who often directed their violence against monks) against another source with the promise that killing infidels would absolve their past sins), though I think its more recent actions that are causing more damage today than a series of religious wars 700 years ago (though its still used as propaganda), and as for the punishment for heresy, it varied from period to period and country to country.

The Roman Catholic Church (though the Protestant one is just as guilty) in the Renaissance was to my knowledge and in my opinion way more corrupt and hardcore on heresy than in 'most' of the Middle Ages (you'll correct me if I'm wrong, its just my opinion after all), the Borgia's being a prime example of this. They were certainly harder on women in the Renaissance, who in the 13th-14th Century were slowly gaining power and influence, even taking on jobs reserved for Men after the Black Death, though during the 15th and 16th Centuries there was a massive backlash against Feminine power, and Women started to lose much of what they enjoyed in the earlier centuries.

I do agree with your perception of Equestria however, its well thought out. And aren't we all Nerds here?

3454969 I apologize but I simply cannot concur with your assessment of Tolkien. In my honest reckoning not only is his narrative building not only unrealistic there's a detrimental aspect to it too. Tolkien demonizes and dehumanizes his enemies as Orc and assorted evil. His characters clearly walk upon the path of righteousness. Propagandists would be proud of his polarizing narrative. It separates us and them. It's easier to pick up a rifle and shoot when you think your enemies are pure evil. It's harder when you realize they're human just like you. The Orcs have a legitimate complaint. White Racist Elves and Humans hold the best land and shoot them on sight. In this respect the 'dark' Orcs are the underclass and Tolkien is the upholder of the status quo. I'm being harsh on Tolkien, I read his biography he was a good moral human being, however, his literature being great as it was still was perhaps victim of the subconscious prejudices and biases.

Yes, George R.R. Martin has an unambiguous bad(The Wights, The Others), however, the majority of his stories deal with human to human combat. Even the most wretched folks are at times shown to have humanity. In light of his cynicism, this aspect of his writing is most realistic and perhaps most desired in an age where we demonize and ostracize the other.

3455472
I agree Tolkien was a Great author, but greatness has little to do with morality. Napoleon, Hitler, Alexander the Great, such men were considered Great. Tolkien establishes the status quo and set the standard for fantasy, but he built from much that was. George R.R. Martin tackled the wall, he defied the easy enemies and sought to create a tale with people struggling against people. The Silmarillion was awesomely extensive but again it shows Tolkien's fault. The villains' humanity was an afterthought mired in the backstory and lore. It would have been better demonstrably in the main story.

In Verisimilitude, George R.R. Martin triumphs again. His characters have real motivation rather than shout generic statements concerning 'good' and 'evil'. Such as in real life conflicts, they arise from real concerns of the material and all else is used to justify war. His study of history no doubt shaped his writing. I see much of Machiavelli's The Prince in George R.R. Martin's work.

3455570 You seem well versed in the material. Well part of being rational is that we're open to new ideas. I'm always up for new ideas even if they explode the old. Actually more the better. We should all throw in our evidence into the crucible's fire. From the squall we should see the truth revealed in the flames. A conclusion should never come before an experiment, that would defeat its purpose.

3454547 I like your arguments. Yeah lol, the Dark Ages weren't so bad if you think about prehistory.... ughh 50,000 years of hunter gathering and cowering in fear of the saber tooth's shadow.

How do you feel about the political maneuvering in GoT? I actually feel it's more direct than the politics of today. Compared to the faceless institutional corruption and back room dealings, that old family mafia style sort of arrangement seems quaint.

3457051 It is indeed brutal, although there is background politics in the series as well, those sneaky, cunning little plans cooked up by Vayrs and Petyr, the corruption of major institutions such as the Royal guard, moles in every house, kings being controlled by competing parties, its a political nightmare. In my opinion the Song of Ice and Fire takes the problems faced by both our ancestors and ourselves and cranks it up to 11.
As for mafia conflict, the entire Wars of the Roses was this, the war that inspired the War of the Five Kings. When not actually fighting there was plenty of backroom politics, in fact, it was a major factor in the outbreak of war, just like the War of Five Kings.
For better or worse backroom politics has always been a part of society and government. Its a much larger version of having a private conversation.