In a marathon read I finished the full GoT in two weeks. After an enthused start I realised that this on going fantasy soap also smacks of Hagar the Horrible meets The Wizard of Id and can be very annoying; I'll not expand that unless there is interest in making a thread-fist of this genre. Judging from the ott reviews the series has a huge following - and of course TV has enhanced this no end. So what does this mish mash of a parallel medieval world do for history? Not much, is my conclusion. It was checked for anachronisms - so he do say - eh? what? That they ate a hell of a lot of turnips because of no potatoes, they otherwise abound. What did I most admire? The style, is of course excellent - but his message-bearing ravens was an excellent notion because keeping the pot boiling with slow communication is a writer's nightmare. How they managed it was left unexplained. Other's thoughts on this and similar manipulation of history, please.

Other than Harry Potter and LoTR, GoT was my first real foray into the fantasy genre. I'd previously assumed that books of this sort were largely for the teenage reader, so was pleasantly surprised that this isn't the case.

The manipulation of history, as you describe it P, doesn't bother me at all and I rather enjoyed the parallels. It isn't really any different from any other fiction which has been loosely based on some historical era in that respect.

What do they do for history? The books are sold as fantasy, not as historical fiction or non fiction and I think most people are prefectly capable of keeping the two seperate. Unless one is Phillipa Gregory, that is .

PS edit. I think bttdp has a GoT thread going somewhere around here also.