[ SECRET POST #2902 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2902 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 058 secrets from Secret Submission Post #415.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I would not call GoT historical at all. What are you watching?

[(Anonymous)]

It's not historically accurate but the Westeros politics stuff is heavily, heavily, heavily inspired by the War of the Roses

[(Anonymous)]

it's fantasy. I wouldn't call LOTR a historical movie, so I am not calling GoT a historical TV show.

[(Anonymous)]

a) ASOIAF is much more closely based on history than LotR
b) secret says "fantasy/historical series" in the first place, so this is kind of a moot point

[(Anonymous)]

Lord of the rings was actually written by a WI veteran though

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt - Not sure what the relevance is. LOTR isn't meant to be a parallel to WWI, if that's what you're implying. Tolkien has said he's not a fan of allegorical interpretations like that.

[(Anonymous)]

It depends a bit on how you define based on I suppose. While Tolkien is influenced by the history he lived through Martin is influenced by the bullet points medieval wars. I wouldn't say that either is less based on history just in different ways.

[(Anonymous)]

Lord of the rings was written by a wwi veteran and thematically it draws hugely from wwi, yes. But that's not the same thing as being a fantastic rewriting or a one - to - one analogous of wwi, anymore than it was true when people wanted to say it was about ww2.

Whereas asoiaf while still not a 1 to 1 correspondence us much closer to being a recasting of the events and personages of the war of the roses, not just the thematic and emotional resonances

[(Anonymous)]

I've always wondered if there was some small correlation between the differences in (the perception of) the world wars and the differences in tone/theme between the Hobbit and LotR. He wrote the Hobbit in the 30s, closer in time to his experiences in WWI, and the final conflict of the Hobbit is essentially a massive political cock-up over greed, grudges and alliances with some genuinely evil beings/armies crashing the party (and sparked by one titanic death). LotR, on the other hand, was written in the late 30s and 40s, while WWII was going on around him, and its final conflict is a vast heroic struggle between an unambiguously evil empire and an alliance of all good races. Those outlooks fit reasonably well with the popular perceptions of WWI and WWII respectively.

It's definitely more thematic a connection than an attempt to redo a historical conflict in a fantasy world, yes, but the world wars are definitely there on an emotional level. Particularly in the Hobbit, I think. Bilbo's desire to just go home, his impatience with the old wars and old grudges of this foreign land he's been thrown into, his despair at the endless conflict ... It does have a strong 'WWI through the eyes of a British soldier' vibe to it.

[(Anonymous)]

Well you could certainly read Bilbo that way and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong. But when it comes to lotr and WWI the part that's most relevant is Frodo's part of the story - that's where the WWI themes are strongest & certainly frodo is more the soldier in the trenches than Bilbo however much aragorn's story may be hopeful. My own tendency has been to read lotr as a confrontation between ancient, heroic, mythic, religious on the one hand and modern on the other, with aragorn broadly being the central character of the first part and frodo of the second but that's far more tenuous and in any case doubtful than the association of Frodo's quest with wwi.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't really know if it helps, but Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey believes that Tolkien deliberately designed Frodo, Bilbo and the other hobbits to be more modern than the rest of the races in Middle-earth, so that they might stand as "translators" or "gateways" between the ancient, mythic world of Middle-earth and the readers in the present.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure sure. And even if it weren't so it's hard not to notice their Englishness or the deep England fantasia that is the Shire, or the tonal difference between Hobbits and men, dwarves, elves, etc, and even tonal differences between hobbits. And very interesting in this context definitely.

[kallanda_lee]

I think that's sort of OP's point? GoT wouldn't be their cup of tea, but it's close enough genre-wise to their fandom, increasing chances of it being made into a series.

[(Anonymous)]

Secret says 'fantasy/historical'. I'd sure as hell call it fantasy.

[(Anonymous)]

Definitely not historical. Inspired by history, I guess. Like virtually every fantasy novel.

I find it rather stunning that every upcoming fantasy or European historical show seems to be called a GoT rip-off these days. I've heard that about Vikings and Outlander for sure, which is nuts. Though I guess OP's point, and fair enough, that GoT's financial success can lead to green-lighting more projects in roughly the same category.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, Outlander the book pre-dates ASOIAF by a good four or five years, but GoT's success means that anyone who can thematically draw a line between their project and GoT is getting something made! Good on them.

[(Anonymous)]

The secret says "fantasy/historical", not just historical.