A Song of Ice and Fire: Fantasy and History I

“A song of Ice and Fire” by George R. R. Martin is probably one of the best written pieces of fantasy of all time. And the great thing about it is that is not a copy of “The Lord of The Rings”.

The thing is that such was the influence and importance of Tolkien’s work in the fantasy landscape that ever since, almost every fantasy book that has come out has been trying too hard to be Lord of the Rings. And the result of that is a huge line of Tolkien’s rip offs that lack both the quality and imagination of the original. Therefore, a work like “A song of Ice and Fire” feels fresh and it’s really welcomed. The great thing about Martin’s work is that it creates its own world and dynamics and it takes from its own influences.

Whilst Lord of the Rings took a lot from the Nordic Mythology, A song of Ice and fire takes from European medieval history. And that is very noticeable.

There’s a great deal of things that could be said about this series of books, but I will keep this focused on the resemblances between real life history and the events and characters of this book. 

As there are thousands of these resemblances, I’ll devote one post to each of these. And the first post of this series will be dedicated to the resemblance between the figure of Isabella of France and Cersei Lannister.

First off, let’s briefly explain who Isabella was.

Isabella of France (1295- 1385) was the Queen consort of England as the wife of Edward II of England. She was the daughter of Philip IV of France and Joan I of Navarre. She was notable at the time for her beauty, diplomatic skills and intelligence. And has often been described as the She-wolf of France.

She was sent off to marry far away from home at the age of 12. Her husband, Edward the II, was notorious for the patronage he lavished on his favorite: Piers Gaveston, who was also his lover. This started a period of political turmoil that ended with an extended fight between the king and some of his nobles. The nobles would end up executing Gaveston, forcing the king into revenge. After his lover’s death, he turned to a new favorite, Hug Despenser the younger. His association which him resulted in the Despenser War and a period of internal repression across England.

Isabella, tired of her husband and Despenser, travelled to France under the guise of a diplomatic mission, where she began an affair with Roger Mortimer. Once there, he called for her son, and heir to the throne, to sign the peace treaty with the French. With her son by her side, she set sail towards England with a small army and took over Edward’s crown. She deposed him and became regent on behalf of her son: Edward III. A few years later, her husband died under strange circumstances, and it’s often believed that it was arranged by her.

Isabella landing in England with her son, the future Edward III in 1326

Seated as Queen next to her lover, Isabella led a lavish existence and ruled no better than her husband had.

When her son was seventeen, he deposed Mortimer and executed him, taking all power away from Isabella. She was exiled in an English castle until the end of her life whilst her son ruled.

She soon became a popular figure in plays and literature, usually portrayed as beautiful but cruel and often manipulative.

As you see, there is clearly some resemblance there.

Both were woman that were sold off to marry a rich and powerful king. Both Robert Baratheon and Edward II were handsome men, tall and fair. And both Isabella and Cersei found out during their wedding night’s that in their marriages there were three people, not two. In Isabella’s case was a real third person: Pierce Gaveston, her husband’s lover. And in Cersei’s case, was Lyanna Stark, Robert’s death fiancee. 

Another common aspect is that they both were regarded as very beautiful. At the time Isabella married, Geoffrey of Paris described her as “the beauty of beauties in the kingdom if not in all Europe”. And in Cersei’s case, it is often said that she is the most beautiful woman in Westeros.

And although far more far fetched there is even a small resemblance between the Isabella’s husband and Cersei’s. When the nobles executed Gaveston, the king, Edward II, went on a grieving rage and swore revenge. Which he actually got. Just as King Robert’s rage when he hear of the kidnapping and murder of his beloved Lyanna, which also ended in a bloody revenge.

Isabella was a fiercely protective mother, just like Cersei. Isabella took over her husband’s crown because he confiscated her lands and removed her children from her custody to be looked over at the Despenser’s household. Cersei is also a fiercely protective mother. And you could provable say that the only thing she truly cares are her children. Cersei actually takes the final step against her husband when Ned Stark threatens her and says he’ll tell her husband that the kids are the spawn of incest (which would mean death to them).

Both women actually though that they could be better rulers that their own husbands and decided to take over and rule themselves. Both planned the murder of their husbands so they could reign as regents for their sons. And in both cases, their sons ended up pushing them away from power. 

But, obviously, there are also differences between this strong willed women: for instance, Isabella’s son (Edward III) was not a psychopath and ended up being a pretty good king (at least for Middle Ages standards). Joffrey, instead, is basically crazy and a pretty bad king.

Isabella was a perfect match to her male contemporaries. Cersei, on the other hand, may not be as good as she thinks she is as a schemer. Her brother, Tyrion, is a thousand times better than her at the game of politics.

And Robert Baratheon had very little in common with Edward II. The latter was a soft man with no passion for hunting nor the usual kingly activities, whilst Robert was, first and foremost, a warrior. Robert also was a womanizer, instead, Edward was homosexual (or bisexual at least).

But whatever their differences are, Isabella and Cersei were raised to be no more than a pawn in a bigger game, but decided that they wanted to have a say at the game of thrones.

Cersei Lannister played by Lena Heady

Isabella of France played by Sophie Marceau in the
highly historically inaccurate "Braveheart"

In the next chapter of the “fantasy and history” series. I will compare Tywin Lannister to Edward I (the father of Isabella’s husband), also known as Hammer of the Scotts and Edward Longshanks. He ruled England with a hand of iron and destroyed the rebellion lead by William Wallace. Tywin, instead, squashed the rebellion lead by House Reyne of Castarmere in a very similar way.

But I’ll leave that to next year !

Happy New Year to all!!!

The Desolation of Smaug

“The Hobbit or There and Back Again” is a fantasy novel and a children’s book written by J. R. R. Tolkien that was first published on 21st September 1937 to a wide critical acclaim. The book follows the quest of Bilbo Baggins to recover the Misty Mountain and win a share of the treasure  guarded by the dragon Smaug. It’s told in the form of an episodic quest and each chapter introduces an specific creature of this mythical world that is Middle Earth.

Sixty four years later, in 2001, the spectacular screen adaptation of the Lord of the Rings hit the silver screen. It was a success beyond anyone’s imagination. So it was only a matter of time before they brought to the screen the original work that preceded the Lord of the Rings.

And so, last year, “The Hobbit: An unexpected journey” hit the theaters. It was a big let down. And so, I didn’t particularly look forward to this year’s “The desolation of Smaug”. But, being a Tolkien fan, I had to see it. 

I must recognize that it didn’t disappoint me as much as I though it would. It’s entertaining and action packed, and a lot of people will enjoy the hell out of it. But still, there are a lot of things that don’t sit well with me. With that said, I will proceed to comment on the film itself. Please, keep in mind that this is my opinion, just that. And let yourself be warned: spoilers lie ahead.

There’s one first thing I want to get out of the way. This is not a book versus film list. I am aware that in any adaptation, changes need to be done. Although, to be sincere, it will require a big effort. I will focus, mainly on the movie itself and what things work for me or don’t within the adaptation.

Another thing I’d like to get out of the way is the CGI business. I hate the visual effects of this movie (except for Smaug). I don’t like the use they make of the CGI. I think that the Dol Guldur sequence looks particularly bad. You can tell it’s computer generated by a mile. it feels like a video game. That’s not what I want when I go to see a movie. I want to see a movie, not a video game. Besides, am I the only one who things that the orcs in the original trilogy (that were practical effects) looked better than this ones? I hate seeing a close up of an orc and being able to tell that he doesn’t exist, that its just a computer generated image.

With that said, let’s move on. I think that this movie is definitely more entertaining than its predecessor. But, in my opinion, it’s still too long. I think it drags a little at the last 40 minutes. I could start blaming this on this aspect or that aspect of the film, but in the end I thing the problem is much more profound than that. The book is really short, and the story is very straight forward. At the most it could have been split into two movies. Three is really pushing it. While you are watching the movie, you can actually feel the filmmakers struggling to fill those two hours and forty minutes. And that does not help the final product at all.

Another problem very related with the length is reflected in the tone. This was a story intended to be a light hearted children’s story. By making three movies out of it, you are trying to give an epicness to it, that just isn’t there. The stakes are not high enough. This solemnity worked on Lord of the Rings because the very fate of Middle Earth was at stake. Here, there’s just a mountain in stake. It’s not comparable. It is true that the movie has its goofy moments, which work really well, because it is the original tone. But the solemn moments don’t quite fit in.

In relation to that, I want to talk about the Dol Guldur story arc. Even when I watched “An unexpected Journey” I thought that it was a brilliant idea to incorporate this part of the story, even though originally it wasn’t in the book. It was taken from one of the appendices and I though it worked nicely. I still think it, because it ties with the rest of the Trilogy really nicely. But I don’t think that the best way to do it is the way they are doing it. In the source material, it worked because it was more subtle. Gandalf did discover that the Nine had been awakened, and he did go to Dol Guldur to sniff around this necromancer thing. But he never found out it was Sauron. He did suspect that it was a foul thing, and talked to Galadriel about it. But he never discovered the truth. That’s why, in the beginning of the Fellowship, he was surprised when Sauron finally revealed itself. So it’s only understandable that I don’t really like the reveal of Sauron in this movie. It wouldn’t bother me so much if the revelation was only to the audience (after all, that would be the only way for a non-Tolkien reader to link the necromancer to Sauron), but it reveals itself to Gandalf, and it doesn’t make any sense. 

Then there’s the “eye” thing. I know this is really nitpicking, but if Sauron could take already the form of the eye, it would mean that he has recovered all his power, and that would mean that the war could already start. This sounds really stupid, but think about it: if Sauron has all his power back, why wait 60 years before striking upon Middle Earth? Just saying. In the source material, Sauron isn’t able to take the form of the eye until Frodo inherits the ring, and that’s when the ring awakens. It’s a tiny detail, but it would have given a certain level of coherence with the trilogy that now it doesn’t have.

With that said, I will turn my attention to the dwarves. I must face that they were better this time; I mean, there wasn’t any of them fighting orcs with a slingshot. Still, I can’t find it in myself to like this interpretation of Thorin. I know they needed a leader figure, but did they really had to repeat the Aragorn story arc? The whole thing about becoming the King they were born to be doesn’t really fit Thorin in my opinion. He has other problems and inner demons to create his inner conflict. But I understand this is very subjective. 

The other thing that really bothers me is the use they make of Balin (the oldest of the dwarves). Throughout the movie he is reduced to an expository device. It seems that his only function is to explain things to the audience. Every word that comes out of his mouth is exposition. That is something that really bothers me.

Then, there’s the Mirkwood passage. This is my favorite part of the book, so it’s hard for me to see certain things. I’ll agree that the spiders are really good. I enjoyed the hell out of their sequence. The same goes for Thranduil. I love his character and what they did with him. They did change things from the book, but they kept his spirit. He was enjoyable in his prickiness and was everything I expected him to be and more. I also loved the barrel sequence. It was fun, dynamic, entertaining. And even though at times it felt like they were pushing it, it was still enjoyable.

I can not say the same about Tauriel. She is too much for me. I can take a lot of changes from the source material. I could take a new invented character. But I can't stand what they did with her character. I though the love triangle was horrible. I know a lot of people liked her. But it killed me. The whole love attraction between her and Killi was something that made me want to tear my eyes out every time it appeared. I think it wasn’t necessary, and that it undermines the importance and humanity of the later friendship between Legolas and Gimli. With this backstory, that relationship is read as Legolas trying to emulate his beloved Tauriel. Without it, it felt more human, because the friendship was born out of true respect and understanding of each other. So I really thing they messed up with it.

Then, of course, there’s the issue of Legolas’ inclusion in the movie. I like that, I can’t deny it. But I must recognize that, in this movie, Orlando Bloom does his worst. He has the worst acting moments in his career during the length of this film. And that sort of rubs me the wrong way. Besides that, I have another major issue with his character. In the books, and the original trilogy, Legolas was defined by an acute sense of humor and a recurrent use of irony. But somehow, this is lost in this movie. Legolas is one of the younger elves. He is fun loving. But somehow, in The Hobbit, he never smiles. So, you are telling me, that someone who was able to crack jokes before the battle of the Hornburg can’t even smile now? Why do this in a movie where the tone is overall more light and goofy? I really didn’t like that.

The issue of Legolas leads me to another thing I didn’t like. Following the source material line by line doesn’t really make a good adaptation. Maintaining it’s spirit and logic does. It’s important to be faithful to the logic established in the source material. That’s why I hated when, in Lake town, Legolas fought with the orcs barehanded. In the books, and even in the Lord of the Rings movies, it’s established that elves never fight like humans, they wouldn’t use their hands. They have weapons for a reason. This is a silly detail, but it shows a huge discordance with the logic that has been already established. And that bothers me.

Let’s move to the Lake-town. Here, the audience is introduced to Bard the Bowman. In the book, he only appears when the dragon has already burned Lake-town, and his background is explained later. In the movie, they chose to introduce him earlier and give said background before. On one hand, I like it, because it doesn’t seem like he pops out of nowhere. On the other hand, it turns everything very predictable (anyone can tell me that he doesn’t know that Bard is going to shoot the black arrow and kill Smaug?). So, I can’t decide which option would have been better.

And before I start talking about Smaug. I want to say something. I loved Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He is great. He has a huge sense of humor and an incredible timing, but at the same time, he has a huge capacity for emoting in the dramatic moments. So, I have nothing bad to say about him.

Said that, let’s dive into the halls of Erebor. I thought that Smaug was incredible. The animation was amazing. It looked great. And Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug’s voice was top notch. He nailed it. A lot of times, monsters are horribly voiced in movies. They sound too ridiculous. This is not the case. I loved the first scene with Smaug and Bilbo. It’s like a battle of wits almost. That was really enjoyable. What I really didn’t enjoy was the whole sequence with the molten gold. In the books, the dwarves never go into the mountain while Smaug is still inside, but I do understand the dramatic need to have Thorin face Smaug (which never happens in the book, if I recall correctly). What I don’t understand is the need to create a stupid plan to kill the dragon. The gold scene is really silly and far too long. A plan like this makes the characters seem really stupid: why would a boiling liquid (molten gold) kill a dragon? Dragons aren’t affected by fire nor heat. Maybe it is because I’ve read and seen a lot of fantasy, but that is common knowledge. So please writers, do some research before you do something like that.

So, all in all, I think The Hobbit adaptation, if done in two movies and not three, could have been a much better movie. But, being what it is, The desolation of Smaug is entertaining enough and can make you have a good time at the movies, even though it still has a lot of problems that, for me, are very difficult to go through, but for most of people will be unnoticeable.

The Desolation of Smaug Premiers

The more or less awaited sequel of "An unexpected Journey" is finally out in theaters. This weekend "The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug" has hit the silver screen.

I still haven't had the opportunity to see it, and therefore, I cannot offer any particular insight. I just wanted to mark this event.

Truth be told, I am not terribly excited about it, especially after seeing how disappointing the last movie was. But I also must say that the part of the book which this movie covers is probably my favorite. That's probably the reason why I really feel bad about how little expectations I have about this movie.

I really love the insight we get in the book of the Mirkwood forest and its people. Specially Thranduil. He might be a disagreeable character with a profound hate towards dwarfs (I will discuss the racist interpretations some other day), but he is one heck of an enjoyable character.

One of the most controversial aspects of this release is the introduction of the she-elf Tauriel, which is a completely invented character. She doesn't appear in the book, and was added due to the controversial lack of female presence in the story. I don't really agree with that decision. But I will refrain my complaints until I see the movie.

And then there's the inclusion of Legolas, although he isn't in the book either. This is not so controversial because Tolkien itself though that he should be in the story, but he never had the time to include him. Again, I will wait to see the movie to give my final thoughts on this.

So, enough complaining. The movie is out in theaters since last Friday. And as a high fantasy fan, I had to mention it.

The Lord of the rings: the role of the Everyman

The art of storytelling, whether we are talking of literature, movies or theater, is a very complex one. And, if we restrict to ourselves to what has unfairly been called “commercial” storytelling, we must agree that it bases itself on the premise that there must be a certain structure, certain formula that helps the audience to connect with the story by the means of easy recognition of said formula. That formula, in action, adventure or epic stories is generally known as the hero’s journey.

Campbell’s study of mythology that resulted on this “hero’s journey” is nothing more than a standardization of the narrative structure that lies behind every mythological story told since the beginning of time: from the story of Isis in ancient Egypt to every story in the Bible, passing through the legends of King Arthur and most of the literature that derives from it. Therefore, it’s only logical that a story that aimed to become the true Anglo-Saxon mythology would loosely follow this structure even if at the time it was written, Campbell was very far from its conception.

“The Lord of the rings” was written by J.R.R. Tolkien between 1937 and 1949 and was first published in 1954, divided into three books: “The Fellowship of the Ring”, “The Two Towers” and “The Return of the King”.

The most interesting aspect in regards to this is the fact that, as it was written and structured intuitively (unlike many scripts that were made after Campbell published his theory) it creates a story were different journeys are incased one inside the other. We all can agree that, as a protagonist, Frodo leads the main journey, but there is also Aragorn’s hero’s journey, and Faramir’s, and many others. This gives the story a veracity that helps create this feeling that you are reading a legend that is thousands of years old.

I’m going to try to clarify this: stories like “Star wars”, “The matrix”, “Harry Potter”, created after Campbell’s big revelation, follow almost step by step his theory. The result, although very entertaining, is also very contrived. I base this far fetched statement in one single argument: the role of the everyday man. In these stories these is far too forced and contrived, especially when compared to a story like Tolkien’s.

I started off this essay by saying that in adventure or epic stories it is needed a recognizable structure to capture the audience. But there is one thing that is even more important: the audience needs to connect with the characters and the story, and to do that he need to relate to our protagonist. Because of this, in this heroic stories, the hero tends to respond to the figure of the Everyman.

The Everyman is the narrative equivalent to the ordinary person. It’s the figure of the average, which calls to almost everyone in an audience because most of us don’t have superpowers or are incredibly brave and courageous. We are nothing but ordinary, and, therefore, we want our protagonist to be nothing but ordinary, at least at the beginning.

This is especially clear in stories like “Harry Potter”, where our main character is absolutely ordinary, it even has the most ordinary name in the Anglo-Saxon world. He has nothing special about him, except that he is a wizard. But even then, he is not the best wizard nor the bravest. He is nothing but average.

In “Star Wars” there is also something like that, but it’s not so blatant: Luke is the Everyman in the sense that he is nothing but a farmer with no special powers. But, unlike Harry, as his adventure advances he abandons the role of the ordinary man to become extraordinary, and that is maybe the reason why I prefer “Star Wars” to “Harry Potter”. But I’m going to try to stay out of such diatribes.

"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future" - The Fellowship of the ring

The thing is: I’ve made my point clear: there is the need of the figure of the Everyman for the audience to connect with our story through our protagonist.

And “The Lord of the rings”, as expected, even though it’s not as formulaic as these other stories I’ve mentioned, it does use the figure of the Everyman. 

Tolkien’s work is a huge, heavy-detailed high fantasy epic, filled with characters. But at the same time, it’s the story of a little Hobbit named Frodo Baggins. It’s a high fantasy epic, but it’s also the story of the Everyman.

In this case, the figure of Frodo helps the audience to connect with the story, for in the middle of this fantasy, there’s a character that, to a degree, it’s recognizable.

But here, unlike in other stories, the set up for the introduction of the Everyman into the adventure works much more natural.

More often than not, it is very difficult to put the Everyman into the protagonist slot because: what does the Everyman have to do with the doings of war and heroes? Some storytellers go to great lengths to put that Everyman into the coveted slot of the protagonist.   Our main character always ends up being the product of some predetermined Messianic prophecy; someone comes and tells them they were the chosen one all along (Dune, Harry Potter, Star Wars). Or sometimes, the set up is just stupid: the main lead just happens to have a mark in their skin that happens to be the map to anywhere important or something like that.

But the set up of the ring actually works very naturally for Frodo. He is the only one who can carry it to Mordor because if any of the great heroes or powerful characters, like Aragorn or Gandalf or Galadriel, are the ones to carry the ring, they can become something terrible, like Sauron or a Ringwraith. On the other hand, if it’s Frodo who takes it, in the worst case can become like Gollum. And this is precisely because he is the Everyman, he is ordinary, he doesn’t matter and has no say in the big schemes of the world. He has no power at all. So, because of the powerful and corrupting nature of the ring itself, only a non powerful and unimportant person can carry it.

And it is something as stupid as this what gives the extra point of credibility to this story. The Hobbits, as described by Tolkien, are the most similar to the average men we have in middle earth. And precisely because of it they are described as small folk who always stay out of everything. They do not take part in the comings and goings of their world. They are humble and contempt themselves with what they have. Frodo never dreams of becoming a great warrior, nor does he want any glory for himself. His wish is more human: he wants to keep the Shire green and safe, so Hobbits can continue being the way they are. He knows he is not Aragorn; brave and kingly, neither is he Legolas: bold and graceful, nor is he Gandalf: old and wise. He is Frodo Baggins of Bag End.

The key of this lies behind a line voiced by Galadriel in “The Fellowship of the ring”; even the smallest person can change the course of the future. This is clearly an idea deep engraved behind Tolkien’s trilogy. And that is exactly the reason why they couldn’t use the excuse of the Messianic prophecy to force our character into the adventure. The moment this card is played, our character stops full filing the role of the Everyman and becomes  a Messianic figure. 

That is why Harry, despite J.k Rowling’s efforts, isn’t really the representation of the Everyman. By marking him and turning him into “the one who lived” he becomes something else. He is marked as superior from the rest. As seen here, this setup doesn’t really respect the notion of the Everyman.

The case of Luke Skywalker in the Star wars trilogy is really similar. Luke is never the Everyman, not even in his days in Tatooine. He is his father’s son, and therefore he is destined to become, to a certain extend, a Jedi. Therefore, what we get is a non average character who has lived his youth as the Everyman and after a certain external element enters his life (R2-D2 and C3PO) he is forced to return to the life he was predestined to. Again, we find another “false” Everyman figure.

The main difference is that in “The Lord of the rings” Frodo is not marked nor predestined to anything. He is a simple Hobbit who lives a simple life. And when the story begins, he is thrusted into a world that is not his own, only to end up returning to his usual normal world and live for the rests of his days as the Everyman.

In the other two examples, what we find is two characters who were being forced into the Everyman slot out of a tragedy that befell on their parents and they are eventually restored to the world they were born into; in Harry’s case is the magic world, and in Luke’s case is the Jedi Order.

And so, I rest my case. The role of the Everyman is almost vital to high fantasy or big adventure stories, and it’s set up is something really complex due to its inner workings. Despite that, Tolkien’s work, does a great job at introducing it and finds a perfect excuse to make something really transcendent within the story itself.

This is Tolkien’s greatness (amongst other things), to take a world created completely out of his imagination and find the way to anchor it in our reality by constructing a really great link with the readers (or audience) through the reestablished role of the Everyman.

Welcome!!

The Last Homely House is a Blog dedicated to high fantasy and all its forms; from Lord of the Rings to Game of Thrones, but also Star Wars and other fantasy fandoms.

I hope you, fantasy fans around the world, enjoy it.

Thanks to you all! :)