The BBC has run an article by Jane Ciabattari that examines the relationship between George R. R. Martin’s Game of Thrones saga and the works of J. R. R. Tolkein. It’s a decent read, though I took issue with several paragraphs toward the end:
By definition, fantasy should be a limitless genre of unbounded imagination. Isn’t it time we came up with something new?
There are two reasons for this. To start with, it’s about sequels. In the age of algorithm-assisted online shopping and ‘if you like that, you’ll like this’ recommendations, the gatekeepers at the biggest publishing companies tend to choose the tried-and-true over the quirky or original. The five novels in Martin’s series to date have topped bestseller lists and sold more than 15 million copies in all.
And secondly, the familiar prevails. Readers often gravitate toward the childhood obsessions they love, which include games like Dungeons and Dragons and books involving swordplay and witchery. And the swords-and-dragons tale works in any century, because of commonalities across Western history.
It’s a shame that Ciabattari failed to acknowledge that there are a number of contemporary fantasy authors who avoid the stereotypical medieval setting. For example:
- Aliette de Bodard’s Obsidian and Blood trilogy is set in the Aztec Empire;
- Saladin Ahmed’s Throne of the Crescent Moon is set in a world that’s inspired by the medieval Middle East;
- N. K. Jemisin’s Inheritance Trilogy and the Dreamblood series are both set in unique universes that are influenced by a wide range of cultures;
- Susanna Clarke’s Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is set in 19th century England.
These books might not be mega-bestsellers like GoT or LoTR, but that doesn’t mean they’re obscure. They were all published by big-name publishers, and many of them won prestigious awards. The genre isn’t quite as homogenous as Ciabattari seems to believe, and it’s unfortunate that she chose to resort to sweeping generalizations.
Codex Lochianus 