You know, for all that he got attention for asking about Aragorn's tax policy, I'm honestly not sure if George has a very good grasp of econ...

You know, for all that he got attention for asking about Aragorn's tax policy, I'm honestly not sure if George has a very good grasp of economic policy himself.

Like, how the frick does the Iron Bank of Braavos work? It just... has money? So much money that it can randomly lend to entire kingdoms? It doesn't seem to generate any income, I guess it gets income from interest on loans? Or something?

There weren't even banks as such in the Middle Ages, you had the Templars and that's pretty much it.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Braavos is just Vienna and the Iron Bank is just the Bank of Medici. None of George's ideas are actually original, the entire series is just pop culture versions of historical events with the names changed.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wow, ASOIAF is inspired by medieval europe? No fricking way what a hack!

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not to mention his worldbuilding (generally speaking) which he purports to be deeper and more interesting than Tolkien's but in actual fact is just more of a pastiche, stiched-together world compared to the practical interconnectedness of Middle-Earth.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >which he purports to be deeper and more interesting than Tolkien's
      He's never said that

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        He fricking implied it

        They're the only reliable bank in town and they keep it that way, see Fire & Blood where I think a Lys family tries to start a banking business and they get Godfathered.

        Also the Aragons tax policy thing is blown out of proportion by morons. He doesn't actually want Aragorns tax policy, it was just an example of how Tolkein ignores the nitty gritty of ruling and just says a good man being king is enough. And Martin's counterargument is that no you can't be king without pissing some people off, every decision you make is going to make someone angry. This is like the entire theme of asoiaf and a throughline of every characters story. Ned tries to be honorable and plunges the entire continent into war. Jon tries to be a good commander and gets merked. Danny tries to be a good queen and end slavery and ends up in a morass of moral quandries.

        Just shows George doesn’t understand Tolkien

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          no, it's the armchair critics like you who are the ones who "implied it"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >practical interconnectedness of Middle-Earth
      This, except time and scale are inconsistent. Like in The Hobbit crossing Mirkwood is a massive deal that takes a long time and can easily get you killed, while in LOTR those kinds of journeys are trivial side-quests.

      They're the only reliable bank in town and they keep it that way, see Fire & Blood where I think a Lys family tries to start a banking business and they get Godfathered.

      Also the Aragons tax policy thing is blown out of proportion by morons. He doesn't actually want Aragorns tax policy, it was just an example of how Tolkein ignores the nitty gritty of ruling and just says a good man being king is enough. And Martin's counterargument is that no you can't be king without pissing some people off, every decision you make is going to make someone angry. This is like the entire theme of asoiaf and a throughline of every characters story. Ned tries to be honorable and plunges the entire continent into war. Jon tries to be a good commander and gets merked. Danny tries to be a good queen and end slavery and ends up in a morass of moral quandries.

      >Tolkein ignores the nitty gritty of ruling and just says a good man being king is enough
      It's not just being a good man, but actually not wanting power in the first place. A good king doesn't tell you his tax policy, because he never even looked at it himself.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        > in The Hobbit crossing Mirkwood is a massive deal that takes a long time and can easily get you killed
        Isn’t this because it was corrupted by Sauron in Dol Guldur? And he was expelled from there to his power base in Mordor?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's more dangerous, but the Wood Elves still live there so it can't be anywhere near as bad as Mordor. They even manage to do regular trade with Laketown along the river. Also going around it to the south somehow isn't an option, yet two hobbits sneaking into Mordor somehow is.

          Unless he specifies the minutia of their ledgers in the series then there is no way to know exactly what activities generate the most profit for the bank. If you are in the business of lending to feudal monarchs then the contracts would likely include inheritance based on the vast sums involved, so a monarch would be less likely to borrow for frivolity knowing their heirs will be paying on it. Assuming the bank is lending on multiple fronts then there is likely a harsh penalty for noncompliance, if a monarch were to try to skip out then the bank would need a means to unseat them from power and install a monarch that is conducive to repayment. Provided an architectural model like the one described can be actualized then the bank could provide loans far in excess of what it has in reserve knowing that it has a means of generating operating income from existing repayments plus interest, or equity arrangements it may have entered into. The real fault in potential negotiations for the bank would be trying to determine how likely a monarch would be to destroy their own currency in order to meet repayment, so they may elect to use a more fixed medium like a precious metal, or perhaps create incredibly long term amortized loan schedules, this means in order to start business the bank would need an incredible amount of capital to begin with, perhaps more than one person can actually generate and may be run collectively in olligarchical fashion, but assuming the high barrier to entry can be met business can be conducted profitably I would imagine.

          >the bank could provide loans far in excess of what it has in reserve
          How could they do this before paper currency? AFAIK all the loans they provide are in physical gold, not fractional reserve notes.

          Plus essos is massive compared to westeros, you would imagine their resources across the world as something the kings in the west would be jealous of.

          I'd like to know just how far east their investments go. Based on IRL history you'd expect them to be funding explorers to find new markets for them.

          >A good king doesn't tell you his tax policy, because he never even looked at it himself.
          That just sounds like an idiot king more than anything.

          Well Tolkien was an Anarcho-Monarchist, so he'd probably prefer to be ruled by a good-hearted idiot than a power-hungry genius.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How could they do this before paper currency?
            Before that thete were some sort of bills of debt or something that eventually gotvtransferable and evolved in the current paper currency.
            I don't remmember it being mentioned on the books, however.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >A good king doesn't tell you his tax policy, because he never even looked at it himself.
        That just sounds like an idiot king more than anything.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >There weren't even banks as such in the Middle Ages, you had the Templars and that's pretty much it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Use your words, little boy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      speak up young man

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They're the only reliable bank in town and they keep it that way, see Fire & Blood where I think a Lys family tries to start a banking business and they get Godfathered.

    Also the Aragons tax policy thing is blown out of proportion by morons. He doesn't actually want Aragorns tax policy, it was just an example of how Tolkein ignores the nitty gritty of ruling and just says a good man being king is enough. And Martin's counterargument is that no you can't be king without pissing some people off, every decision you make is going to make someone angry. This is like the entire theme of asoiaf and a throughline of every characters story. Ned tries to be honorable and plunges the entire continent into war. Jon tries to be a good commander and gets merked. Danny tries to be a good queen and end slavery and ends up in a morass of moral quandries.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, he was grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to diminish Tolkien. That’s it. Martin is a progressive boomer, and as such, his whole worldview is tinged with progressive nihilism, whether he knows it not. He HATES that Tolkien relied on tradition and so Tolkien could say “and he was a good king” because in Martin’s view, kings are rarely good unless they’re very nice, generation of ‘68 hippie kings. Did Aragorn implement a progressive tax policy? Did he tax the rich? Did he redistribute wealth to minorities? Did he provide subsidized healthcare and fund social security?Martin wanted Tolkien to go and pander to his vision of goodness. That’s how these frickin’ people think. That’s his real grievance. It’s also why Martin is ultimately not a top bucket fantasy writer. He doesn’t get it. His whole shtick is fantasy as exactly some historically and religiously impoverished modern decadent would imagine swords and sorcery. The whole tax thing was just some bullshit he mustered up in the moment to suggest that Tolkien wasn’t specific enough. The real tragedy about it is that Tolkien wasn’t alive to reply to the b-rate author.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How is his worldview tinged with nihilism

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Is it not obvious? Do his books affirm religious traditions or ignore/reject them entirely? The gods in Martin’s universe are manufactured gods and gods strictly of power and not purpose at that. Politics is this NeoMachiavellian/Darwinian power play of cosmopolitan social intrigue (that obviously heavily involves women, gays, eunuchs, etc.). The typical boomer worldview itself is the result of nihilism. There is no genuine purpose anywhere in any of his books.

          Take in Tolkien the simple conversation between Gandalf and Frodo, wherein Frodo complains that he wishes the Ring never came to him, expresses that he wishes he could have just sat out these hard times in the shire, and laments the whole thing. And Gandalf says all men lament living through times like this, but you have to understand that there are powers at work in the world that are more powerful than you and it’s through those works you can find purpose, the only thing you have to do is figure out what to do with the little time your creator has given you”. Can you even imagine such a sentiment in Martin? No. It’s all mud and blood, and a mix of progressive historicity with pessimistic realism. There are no purposes, no plans, just ruthless decadent men grappling for power for power’s sake. That is nihilistic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Do his books affirm religious traditions or ignore/reject them entirely?
            They reject them but that doesn't make them nihilistic, all prophets reject the traditions that came before them
            >It’s all mud and blood, and a mix of progressive historicity with pessimistic realism. There are no purposes, no plans, just ruthless decadent men grappling for power for power’s sake.
            How can you be progressive and nihilistic simultaneously? Doesn't progressivism imply that people can improve the world morally

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >all prophets reject the traditions that came before them
            ????

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well if you come with a new message it must be because people did things wrong in the past

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This rejection is almost the textbook definition of nihilistic. A thing is not nihilistic simply because it tries to propose some shitty surrogate. Power for power’s sake is still nihilistic.

            >all prophets reject the traditions that came before them
            ????

            He’s being a pseud.

            Well if you come with a new message it must be because people did things wrong in the past

            Well, we don’t follow prophets in western culture. We follow the the traditions of Christ, who was not merely prophet. Furthermore, Christ came for renewal not for something entirely novel. Even Muslims claim something similar about Mohammed. So what is your point even? That Buddhists aren’t nihilistic because they follow some novel preaching of the Buddha? Well, I’d say that Buddhism is nihilistic and also that it’s totally irrelevant what Buddhists do. Who cares what prophets teach? You think Martin is a prophet? LMAO.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This rejection is almost the textbook definition of nihilistic.
            I thought nihilism was about a lack of belief, especially in moral values. But since Martin is progressive, he plainly believes in moral values. So it doesn't seem like he is a nihilist.
            >So what is your point even?
            Well my point would be that just because you reject previous ideas doesn't mean you're a nihilist. It would be an abuse of language to call Mohammed a nihilist because he rejected all previous ideologies (israeli, Christian, pagan) as false. Likewise it is not fair to call Martin a nihilist just because he rejects previous religious teachings.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If your progressivism is a cope with nihilistic displacement of belief, your progressivism is still nihilistic. But it’s not even the progressivism that is at work in Martin’s books. Obviously, there’s some of that going on behind the scenes. But mostly it’s just a meaningless power play. That has less to do with progressivism. He’s not constructing some utopian manifesto after all. He’s just telling stories, but they are stories that are totally imbued with a sense of the world that is nothing more than blood and guts and incest and power jockeying for money and power and pleasures of the flesh. That is textbook nihilism. Why are you taking so much interest in this anyway? That it is nihilistic is only one way in which he doesn’t get it. It wasn’t even the central theme of the original reply.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If your progressivism is a cope with nihilistic displacement of belief, your progressivism is still nihilistic.
            I don't think that follows, or that Martin's progressivism results from that.
            >He’s not constructing some utopian manifesto after all. He’s just telling stories, but they are stories that are totally imbued with a sense of the world that is nothing more than blood and guts and incest and power jockeying for money and power and pleasures of the flesh. That is textbook nihilism.
            I don't think portraying a vicious world is nihilistic in itself - it's in the way that world is represented. And Martin always represents vice as detestable and virtue as adorable.
            >Why are you taking so much interest in this anyway?
            I'm interested in this aspect since Martin's moral character seems to be a central theme in

            No, he was grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to diminish Tolkien. That’s it. Martin is a progressive boomer, and as such, his whole worldview is tinged with progressive nihilism, whether he knows it not. He HATES that Tolkien relied on tradition and so Tolkien could say “and he was a good king” because in Martin’s view, kings are rarely good unless they’re very nice, generation of ‘68 hippie kings. Did Aragorn implement a progressive tax policy? Did he tax the rich? Did he redistribute wealth to minorities? Did he provide subsidized healthcare and fund social security?Martin wanted Tolkien to go and pander to his vision of goodness. That’s how these frickin’ people think. That’s his real grievance. It’s also why Martin is ultimately not a top bucket fantasy writer. He doesn’t get it. His whole shtick is fantasy as exactly some historically and religiously impoverished modern decadent would imagine swords and sorcery. The whole tax thing was just some bullshit he mustered up in the moment to suggest that Tolkien wasn’t specific enough. The real tragedy about it is that Tolkien wasn’t alive to reply to the b-rate author.

            Mohammad didn’t reject them. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Also, Martin isn’t a prophet. Stop trying to find an analogue in prophets.

            Well, he didn't reject EVERYTHING that was said in the past. But neither does Martin.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is nihilistic in so far as it articulates a worldview which is inherently nihilistic. But you’re missing the point of the original reply. It was starting why he didn’t get Tolkien, because Tolkien fundamentally didn’t have the same worldview as him. When he asks about Tolkien’s tax policy, what he’s really asking for his details about how Aragorn was a good king because he has certain expectations or questions. In so far as his morals matter, it’s in regard to expectations. Because good in this regard means something along the lines of a progressive tax policy rather that fulfilling some divine prophecy and spiritual benevolence he doesn’t get why Tolkien said he was good. But more important are the questions. He doesn’t get how or why Tolkien can say he was good. What does it mean to be good? What even is good? These are questions that George literally does not know the answer to because he’s a nihilist. His world is strictly a combination of boomer niceties as a veneer with an ugly, mud and blood, pessimistic, Darwinian/Machiavellian world buried beneath it. It’s not that he declares there is no good, it’s that the world isn’t good per se. It’s just blood and guts and selfish people killing peasants to gain power and fricking boys and siblings and whatever. He is being sincere when he talks about Tolkien because he does not get what Tolkien said. He no doubt considers Tolkien naive or ignorant.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It is nihilistic in so far as it articulates a worldview which is inherently nihilistic.
            How is his worldview inherently nihilistic?
            > It was starting why he didn’t get Tolkien, because Tolkien fundamentally didn’t have the same worldview as him. When he asks about Tolkien’s tax policy, what he’s really asking for his details about how Aragorn was a good king because he has certain expectations or questions. In so far as his morals matter, it’s in regard to expectations. Because good in this regard means something along the lines of a progressive tax policy rather that fulfilling some divine prophecy and spiritual benevolence he doesn’t get why Tolkien said he was good.
            I think the quote was more about Tolkien ignoring the practical realities of statecraft in his book.
            >But more important are the questions. He doesn’t get how or why Tolkien can say he was good. What does it mean to be good? What even is good? These are questions that George literally does not know the answer to because he’s a nihilist.
            I think Martin has a pretty decent idea of what is good and what is bad. The just, honourable, merciful Eddard is plainly good in the narrative; the partial, violent, cruel Jeffrey is plainly bad. Sure, he may not have a perfect ethical theory of good and bad, but that really doesn't make you a nihilist.
            >His world is strictly a combination of boomer niceties as a veneer with an ugly, mud and blood, pessimistic, Darwinian/Machiavellian world buried beneath it. It’s not that he declares there is no good, it’s that the world isn’t good per se.
            Is that nihilistic? Is that even bad? There's plenty of fictional worlds that are unjust and vicious places.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I already said how. I’m not going to keep engaging with you if you won’t even read what I already wrote.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You said at most that he doesn't know what being good is, which is a direct result of his nihilism. But there's no connection between these things. I would like you to explain why these things are connected: otherwise it just seems like you disagree with his progressivism and insult him by calling him a nihilist.

            Yeah because the Darwinian/Machievellian sort of view he takes isn’t one where the world is merely not good per se. It’s not good per se and is totally without deeper meaning. His gods are literally gods of powers and nothing else.

            Again, that is not nihilistic. Neither do I see how that kind of view is a literary demerit. Many great works of literature showcase a world which is bad or without inherent goodness.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah because the Darwinian/Machievellian sort of view he takes isn’t one where the world is merely not good per se. It’s not good per se and is totally without deeper meaning. His gods are literally gods of powers and nothing else.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >His gods are literally gods of powers and nothing else.
            The gods in his story are characters and part of the narrative. Having an omnipotent god as a part of the narrative can make the stakes of the story you are telling less compelling. Like with Tolkien I found after reading the silmarillion that what happened in the lord of the rings was made less meaningful due to there being this pantheon of gods who are on the side of good and are far more powerful than sauron, but refuse to defeat sauron because of some philosophy of non engagement. If every fantasy author were to copy Tolkien’s use of mythic pantheons it would just make the stories less engaging. Because what makes something engaging is when you know the good guys can only rely on themselves to defeat the bad guys. When the good guys know that they have on their side gods that far outclass the villain but that the gods are wanting the good guys to ha for things on their own to build character, it cheapens the stakes.

            Because when you look at the overarching narrative of middle earth that is what it is. Illuvatar and the Valar do not destroy evil because they want the elves and men to do it on their own to build character. Morgoth and sauron are never a real threat. They never could actually destroy all that is good.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What's the Silmarillion position on free will? Was Morgoth's rebellion actually a break with Eru Illuvatar's plan, or was it all predestined to "build character"?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The beginning of the silmarillion has morgoth try to sing his own song instead of being in harmony with the other Valar and illuvatar. Morgoth wanted to create his own things and wanting to create his own melody was the first instance of this. But illuvatar played other melodies that were able to come into harmony with Melkors harmony and then told melkor that anything he does it is part of illuvatars plan. So it seems to say that you can have free will but the illuvatar will use your choices for his plan.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The beginning of the silmarillion has morgoth try to sing his own song instead of being in harmony with the other Valar and illuvatar. Morgoth wanted to create his own things and wanting to create his own melody was the first instance of this. But illuvatar played other melodies that were able to come into harmony with Melkors harmony and then told melkor that anything he does it is part of illuvatars plan. So it seems to say that you can have free will but the illuvatar will use your choices for his plan.

            Forgot to answer the last part. So it does seem then that it was part of erus plan based on that first part of the silmarillion. Eru says something like, “you might try and twist things but it will end up being part of my greater plan that will be greater than you can imagine.”

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Mohammad didn’t reject them. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Also, Martin isn’t a prophet. Stop trying to find an analogue in prophets.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Can you even imagine such a sentiment in Martin?
            You moronic unread baboon, there's like tons of dialogues between many characters stating the same sentiment, specially those related to the Stark plots, it's literally about riding to meet the occasion just take people like Arya or Sansa who grow immensely in terms of character, from innocent know-nothings to important characters that are starting to fit their dreadful world how is that nihilist when it affirms the will to life itself?!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Go ahead and cite one. This isn’t about “growing in character” by the way. It’s an articulation of worldview. But let’s see a green text. Go ahead.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > affirms the will to life itself
            This is nihilistic. Read someone other than Nietzsche.

            All you people getting hung up on the claim about nihilism are missing the point anyway.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is nihilistic. Read someone other than Nietzsche.
            >Affirming that life is worth living in spite of suffering is actually nihilistic
            Maybe it's you who needs to read Nietzsche

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >No, he was grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to diminish Tolkien.
        He loves and admires Tolkien, it's rather clear he said it to imply George himself gives a different take on fantasy, that's it, no need to sperg out with paragraphs based on your assumption which is also incorrect

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, he doesn’t. He admires the bust of Tolkien that stands in the hall of authors. He has neither respect nor admiration for Tolkien the man or Tolkien the author. He pays lip service because Tolkien is the founding father. That’s it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Tolkiens a fairly mediocre writer anyways. The hobbit was good but lotr is a slog, and he inspired every aspiring autist to build their own conlang/loredump that nobody gives a shit about

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why does IQfy get off to complaining about GRRM so much? I swear you gays find the dumbest 'criticism' possible to make threads about. Like what fricking moron doesn't know that kingdoms borrowed money in the middle ages?
    If he doesn't want to write his fantasy the same way Tolkien does that's his right.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      because popular thing bad, obviously!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >that's his right
      Having a right to produce realist drivel disguised as fantasy doesn't make it not drivel.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        In-universe Westeros is regarded as a backwards shithole by the people of Essos. The westerosi get owned hard in every way whenever they set foot on Essos.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Seethe. It’s better than 99% of other fantasy including Tolkien

        In-universe Westeros is regarded as a backwards shithole by the people of Essos. The westerosi get owned hard in every way whenever they set foot on Essos.

        Excluding Aegon I and the prehistoric migrations, the same is largely true of Essosi coming to Westeros.

        The real question about Braavos is how the Great Lagoon went for so damn long without anybody finding it. Lorath was founded before it, and is further east off the coast of the north of the mainland, so its ships would have been moving around the northwest coast to trade with places like Pentos.

        It always struck me as such a odd choice of world building to throw into a place so intimately tied into current events. You'd think George would pull another Rhoynar and merely have the equivalent to the modern Braavosi's ancestors be a displaced people who fled and integrated with an existing local population. Perhaps the nascent FM would have negotiated keeping the migrants secret from the Valyrians or something.

        Seriously, how the frick did it go so long without anybody finding it?

        The same happened with Venice.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >It’s better
          Learn to judge between what you enjoy more and what is objectively superior.
          Start by reading picrel.
          Realism and fine literature are antithetical.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but what exactly makes ASOIAF some sort of super hard realist literature? George mostly just focuses on representing the uglier elements of medieval politics and the after effects of war but beyond that it's full of magic and prophecy and super powers.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, it's definitely not "hard" realism, but this concern with tax policies and other life-like but spiritually dead minutiae makes it clear where our author is coming from. True literature makes even what is real seem fantastic (e.g. Dickens' London), while hacks like Martin make even the purely fantastic seem hideously mundane.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Venice wasn't a super secret unknown geographical location, it mostly just flew under the radar as a bunch of fishing villages.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >realist
        This is just what brainlet contrarians desperately try to pretend to strawman his position as so you can pretend to be not even half as moronic as you actually are.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s because fantasy is a genre that is just teeming with potential and Martin represents almost the worst possible thing you can do with that potential. He’s a technically good author, but that special something that made fantasy authors like Tolkien, Wolfe, etc. (nevermind the authors of the genre’s medieval influences) is just totally absent. But it’s not just that it’s absent. In its place is this uniquely contemporary sort of poison that we find so everywhere in everything today, but in just the right dose such that it’s almost undetectable. This poison laces everything he writes. The fact that he is enormously popular is just icing on the cake. He’s bad for culture, bad for literature, bad for fantasy, and his enormous popularity and deference he receives really just speaks to the absolute state of these things in the current day. That’s why I seethe about Martin. I can’t stand what his success suggests and I feel way more strongly about this than Harry Potter, the obnoxious Brown University MFA feminist novel, or any of the other sort of similar things people rant and rave about today.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >He’s a technically good author, but that special something that made fantasy authors like Tolkien, Wolfe, etc. (nevermind the authors of the genre’s medieval influences) is just totally absent.
        What is that something because I have the feeling you cannot even describe it, other than that something being your bias and nostalgia

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          > you didn’t come prepared with the language for something fundamentally mysterious so it must be just nostalgia haha checkmate
          You’re a fraud

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you didn’t come prepared with the language for something fundamentally mysterious
            Hey moron if you can't actually describe what you mean then go to >>>/x/ specially if your experience of reading someone is so fundamentally "beyond words"

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Poison? The special something

        So the special something VS contemporary poison. This is ambiguous to say the least.
        Do better, report back.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          > reading comprehension

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What fricking poison? That politics is difficult and full of unintended consequences? Seems pretty responsible to me. morons like

        Is it not obvious? Do his books affirm religious traditions or ignore/reject them entirely? The gods in Martin’s universe are manufactured gods and gods strictly of power and not purpose at that. Politics is this NeoMachiavellian/Darwinian power play of cosmopolitan social intrigue (that obviously heavily involves women, gays, eunuchs, etc.). The typical boomer worldview itself is the result of nihilism. There is no genuine purpose anywhere in any of his books.

        Take in Tolkien the simple conversation between Gandalf and Frodo, wherein Frodo complains that he wishes the Ring never came to him, expresses that he wishes he could have just sat out these hard times in the shire, and laments the whole thing. And Gandalf says all men lament living through times like this, but you have to understand that there are powers at work in the world that are more powerful than you and it’s through those works you can find purpose, the only thing you have to do is figure out what to do with the little time your creator has given you”. Can you even imagine such a sentiment in Martin? No. It’s all mud and blood, and a mix of progressive historicity with pessimistic realism. There are no purposes, no plans, just ruthless decadent men grappling for power for power’s sake. That is nihilistic.

        assert that Martin is just a modernist nihilist, which only shows their ignorance. The books are full of reasons to be good, from Tywin destroying his legacy by not loving his family, to the northern conspiracy plotting against the Boltons for being backstabbing c**ts, to Jaime seeking redemption because a life of violence and taboo sex doesn’t fulfill his boyhood dreams of heroism, to the whole theme of letting the nights watch fall into disrepair and why we should listen to old myths.
        What Martin is saying is that it’s not enough to be good if you’re also naïve. You have to be CAPABLE, AND good. In that respect I think he’s a far better influence than Tolkien.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      And yet the fat moron calls himself the american Tolkien.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Other people call him that

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Where did he say this? Oh he didn’t your just a midwit that believes moronic twitter memes

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, if anything R.E. Howard is the american Tolkien
          Or better saying, Tolkien is the english R.E. Howard

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because it's overrated genreshit?

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    His point was not about tax policy in and of itself but that Tolkien basically ends his story saying "and Aragorn was a good and just king and all was well" without really delving into nuances of leadership and difficulties that may arise without a clear moral solution. It wasn't even a critique, it was in response to an interview question about how he tries to differentiate his works from Tolkien. You have to be willingly obtuse to think he was sincerely saying a fantasy author should delve deeply into economic policy.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What's the Night's King tax policy?

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Unless he specifies the minutia of their ledgers in the series then there is no way to know exactly what activities generate the most profit for the bank. If you are in the business of lending to feudal monarchs then the contracts would likely include inheritance based on the vast sums involved, so a monarch would be less likely to borrow for frivolity knowing their heirs will be paying on it. Assuming the bank is lending on multiple fronts then there is likely a harsh penalty for noncompliance, if a monarch were to try to skip out then the bank would need a means to unseat them from power and install a monarch that is conducive to repayment. Provided an architectural model like the one described can be actualized then the bank could provide loans far in excess of what it has in reserve knowing that it has a means of generating operating income from existing repayments plus interest, or equity arrangements it may have entered into. The real fault in potential negotiations for the bank would be trying to determine how likely a monarch would be to destroy their own currency in order to meet repayment, so they may elect to use a more fixed medium like a precious metal, or perhaps create incredibly long term amortized loan schedules, this means in order to start business the bank would need an incredible amount of capital to begin with, perhaps more than one person can actually generate and may be run collectively in olligarchical fashion, but assuming the high barrier to entry can be met business can be conducted profitably I would imagine.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Plus essos is massive compared to westeros, you would imagine their resources across the world as something the kings in the west would be jealous of.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The real question about Braavos is how the Great Lagoon went for so damn long without anybody finding it. Lorath was founded before it, and is further east off the coast of the north of the mainland, so its ships would have been moving around the northwest coast to trade with places like Pentos.

    It always struck me as such a odd choice of world building to throw into a place so intimately tied into current events. You'd think George would pull another Rhoynar and merely have the equivalent to the modern Braavosi's ancestors be a displaced people who fled and integrated with an existing local population. Perhaps the nascent FM would have negotiated keeping the migrants secret from the Valyrians or something.

    Seriously, how the frick did it go so long without anybody finding it?

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is King Tommen Baratheon's (first of his name) tax policy?

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    He's so fat

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      FAT IS IT? IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT YOUR AUTHOR?

      YOU HEARD THE OP! THE AUTHOR IS TOO FAT FOR HIS DEADLINE! GO FETCH THE DEADLINE STRETCHER

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >read a supposed excellent novel with amazing financial worldbuilding
    >their dollar isn't backed by anything
    >the entire economy is based around debt encouragement
    >one group of people control it all despite the size of the world
    >prices can randomly go up depending how the author is feeling
    Seriously who writes this shit

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The main problem with the backing of Braavos' wealth is its location. If it was somewhere in the far south and there was an implication it was the controlling middleman between the rest of the known world and more exotic, unknown parts of the south, it might make sense. As it is I have no idea what makes Braavos better at controlling naval trade than the rest.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Could be they control the trade between northern and southern essos but so far all the northern kingdoms have been irrelevant.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Braavos isn’t prone to Dothraki raids. Also the faceless men probably have a deal with the bank

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    GRRM isn't realistic at all.
    >bodyparts being sliced off with swords

    [...]

    people gathered in one place somehow surviving off the land in the frozen north
    >fire arrows being a thing
    >homosexuals and pederasts being tolerated like it ain't no big thing

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      All realistic except the 10000 men thing

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nope. None of it is realistic. Also

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Who taught you fire arrows were fake? You can't read two historical books without running into the fricking things

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, name two books that do that then

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Montaigne's Essays and Kamandaki's Essence of Statesmanship

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >There weren't even banks as such in the Middle Ages, you had the Templars and that's pretty much it.
    The cities of Esoss are mostly based on early renaissance, Westeros is a backwater shithole compared to them, there were of course many hugely successful banks established in trading cities during the early renaissance and even late Middle ages

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I guess it gets income from interest on loans? Or something?
    That and the fact they no doubt have a hand in every pie in Braavos.
    Arya sees life insurances for sailors and shit like that while there, lots of money in that shit

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Theres not one single good western fantasy world that makes sense. Manga on the other hand…

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Berserk fangirls are the most dumb

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Which fangirls are the smartest?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >somehow shitty mangas are better

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      OMG THE HECKING BERSERKORINOS??? SO HECKING DEEP AND EPIC LIKE MY GYM PLAYLIST

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No one in this thread actually knows what nihilism even is

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, nihilism is just anything that don't agree with my philosophic or religious worldview and anything that don't actively push those

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah I know what it is... it's that thing... yeah that thing that those leftists(?) have.
      It's like a disease I think, transmitted trough sodomy. It was revealed to me on an anonymous buthanese deer hunting forum

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Americans don't know shit about any kind of philosophy. Whether it's political, metaphysics or anything in between, the lack of understanding concerning basic conceptions and ideas is embarrassingly bad.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Financial Vipers of Venice; Babylon's Banksters, Joseph Farrell

    Yes, you have the time to do research fat frick. You're welcome.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >It just... has money? So much money that it can randomly lend to entire kingdoms?
    Authentic if anachronistic depiction of the federal reserve.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do all of these irrelevant details matter to you to pretentious pseuds like you? Or do you actually want a master's thesis in the middle of your ficitonal story detailing the exact finances of a distant bank in a different country from the main story that gets a handful of brief mentions?

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >for all that he got attention for asking about Aragorn's tax policy
    you fricking morons are still banging your heads over this simple throw away analogy after how many years now?
    IQfy truly lacks reading comprehension
    ok I'll spoonfeed you idiots
    the fat man wasn't saying that Tolkien's work is inferior or flawed because it doesn't explore such mundane topics, what the was trying to convey is that he personally isn't interested in writting Tolkienesque fantasy
    the fat man even expanded on this in the preface of the hedge knight:
    >when he's worldbuilding these types of questions just bother him too much
    >he genuinely likes to write world like this
    >he believes he is unable to write a work of equal quality to LotR
    >he also thinks there's no reason to even attempt to write fantasy in that vein because Tolkien already exists and any resulting work would just be an inferior echo

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      if he likes to write so much then wheres the next asoiaf novel?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        he's old and fat and already spent his whole life writting
        also his friends are dying (many of whom were other writters and helped him with the series) and world's current zeitgeist no longer makes to sense to him
        add that to the fact he's probably neck deep in HBO productions (making his "free" time even more preciosus) and I wouldn't be surprised that his love of writting as diminuished significantly in the last few years

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >westeros
    >easteros
    >northeros
    >southeros

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *