Obsession with Game of Thrones

[Mectojic]

A large amount of people on this forum are always citing and mentioning the ASOIAF or Game of Thrones series.

Do we have too much of an obsession with it, simply because it's so popular?
I fear that there might arise a dangerous level of copying that could mirror Tolkien's day.

 

[Incanus]

In my case, I started reading the books a year or two before they announced the making of the show. It's popularity has risen quite a bit since then. I like it because it's good, not because it's popular.

I'm a fan, but I have absolutely no intention of doing anything like it myself. For one thing, it's already been done, and done better than I could do it. So why would I bother? I'm simply doing my own thing, finding my own way, popular or not.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

GOT is like LOTR in that it's a touchstone of fantasy. We talk about because of that reason. It's the same reason we mention LOTR.

 

[X Equestris]

I'm sure there are already a fair number of copycats with their work on the market in some form or another, and there are probably even more wannabes who'll never get their work published. It happens with every super successful franchise.

People like it because it's good, not because it's popular. In fact, I'd say the popularity comes from the quality. Personally, part of the citations come from the fact that it turns a fair number of fantasy tropes on their heads, making it a bit more difficult to guess what'll happens next and who'll live or die.

 

[thedarknessrising]

I love it because it's a great story rich in lore and detail. I started reading the books before I saw the show. Granted, I started the books about a year after the show premiered, so it was already very popular. But I'm a huge lover of fantasy (obviously), and the stories are just so amazing. ASOIAF deserves the popularity it has gained.

 

[Devor]

For sure the copycatting is happening.

More than anything else, I think I personally am impressed with GRRM's ability to juggle the sheer number of lords and bannermen and the massive political situation he has going on in his book. That's the kind of thing that usually compressed and simplified a lot. He does overdo it sometimes, though.

Everything else, I feel, is really well done, but nothing quite in a way that, to me, gets the same level of "How is he doing this so well?" surprise that the above does.

 

[Ban]

I think i am more concerned about writers being compared to much to George if their style or subject matter is a little similar. My main story is planned to be highly political, but the time period is post-renaissance (No real equivalent in our time, elements from different periods) and the story focuses more on the goals of nations and ideologies than the personal intrigues that Martin focuses on. I am a little concerned that i will be compared to his style, which means that i would have to live up to the standards set by one of the most succesful fantasy writers ever. That's a little scary to think about.

 

[Lunaairis]

I don't think there is much in the way to copy.

Its not like lord of the rings where you have elves,dwarves and humans, That one ring, and a great evil etc. The characters are all grey. The setting and people with in each part of the setting are varied. Since the series isn't complete there isn't a strict story line other then each of the characters just trying to survive the events thrust upon them.

I guess someone could copy wargs? But even then there is not much difference between them and werewolves or just psychic people?
Then there are the houses and their motto's. Maybe the faceless men? I guess the wall and the night watch could be copied.
The white-walkers are just zombies. Magical frost zombies.

There is just too much and its all just too varied and unfinished that I don't think you could tell if someone was trying to copy it with out them explicitly telling you its a copy.

 

[Miskatonic]

Using it as an example for dissection and discussion is possible because it's become very popular. I'm always curious to know what other people think the strengths and weaknesses are regarding ASoIaF. It's also a great topic for discussing worldbuilding because Martin has spent a lot of time developing his world (to the point where I think it is too much).

I can't say I'm madly in love with the books, though AGoT was very entertaining. I find myself only really interested in certain character chapters; specifically Jon Snow, Tyrion, Arya (to a lesser extent), Bran and Eddard. This continues on into the second book. Sansa and Daenerys, after the first book, are chapters I skim through. Both are boring in comparison to the others. To be honest, if an entire book was dedicated to the Night's Watch and their ordeals beyond the wall I would have no complaints. There are plenty of new characters in the second book, but I'm still far more interested in the characters from the first that I mentioned.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I enjoy reading the books, and would never copycat this. It's not the sort of thing I would enjoy writing. I like keeping stories light and cute. When I get too dark, I kill the fun. GRRM does his thing well, but it's his thing. I'd hate for every aspiring fantasy writer to try to be the next GRRM for the same reason I'd hate for everyone to try to be the next JRRT. There's only one of each, and it's because of well-executed stories/characters that were just original enough that readers felt there had never been anything like the Hobbit/Game of Thrones before, though neither is entirely the first of its kind.

(On a side note, the phrase "well-executed characters" applies to GRRM in more ways than one.)