Have a question about something fantasy-related? Please send an email to thetorchonlineoracle@gmail.com and be sure and include your city and state and/or country.
Q: Oh Oracle! [genuflects]. Many posts here at TheTorchOnline.com have reflected on what constitutes “fantasy.” And you have, thankfully, taken the broadest view. I like that you’ve challenged us to consider, for example, that Star Wars is actually fantasy in disguise as sci-fi (and I agree). But I wonder if the reverse can be true, and some other stories are only disguised as fantasy, but actually are not. Case in point: A Game of Thrones, the first of George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Fire and Ice series, which has been getting a lot of press lately because of the series in production. But the few fantasy elements in this book are so embryonic and unexplored in comparison to the rest of the tale, that they seemed to play no real role. I ended up hypothesizing that Martin had used the fantasy elements to entice an audience he might not otherwise get to read what is actually a work of medieval fiction: actually not fantasy at all. The book was mostly about kings, lords, courts, alliances, betrayals, city-states, battles, and so on. I have not yet read book 2, A Clash of Kings, but I gather it’s more of the same: just a few incidental turns of fantasy amidst great and lengthy medieval machinations. Does the series ever step into the fantasy realm whole-heartedly? Do you think individual books or the series as a whole really qualify as fantasy? – Bob, Durham, NC
The Oracle Speaks:
It’s a fair question.
First, yes, all the books (so far) are like that: mostly medieval character studies and political maneuverings, with the occasional reference to magic and legendary creatures.
That said, there are dragons, kracken, manticores, zombie-like wights, ape-like giants, mammoths, and dire wolves.
And there’s plenty of magic too: in the Guild of Faceless Men (who can change their appearances), the witch Melisandre, and The Others north of The Wall, who clearly command much power.
I’d say this is all more than enough to classify the books as “fantasy.”
Here’s what I think is confusing you (and, it should be noted, many other readers who make the same complaint): it’s not the books’ lack of fantasy elements that make them different from most other works of fantasy — it’s their shocking realism.
Unlike most fantasy, these stories of “yore” are not romanticizing the past in any way — they’re stories told as if magic and monsters, not to mention all the shocking brutality of medieval kingdoms, are absolutely real.
(Indeed, mammoths and dire wolves really did exist on Earth and are, of course, extinct now.)
And what if magic was real? It would surely inspire enormous panic and superstition (as in the books). But at the same, it might require great effort, and would be used only sparingly.
It would basically be very, very mysterious.
The threat of monsters, meanwhile, would be omnipresent and overwhelming. But at the same time, for humans to exist, those monsters would have to have been dealt with in some respect, shunted off to one side, at least in most parts of the world.
That’s the whole point of The Wall, I think: “We gotta block that magic and those monsters out completely!”
This all strikes me as perfectly plausible, given Martin’s realistic take on things.
Martin is also practicing subtly, understanding that sometimes “less is more.” When used sparingly, these fantastical elements have more of an impact when they do appear.
The one very compelling argument in your favor that these are not true works of fantasy is that, in addition to being so realistic, Martin chooses not to have any of his main or POV characters be magic-users (which is another bold break from fantasy convention). This makes magic seem even less “significant” in this world than it already is.
I can’t speak for Martin, but I suspect he’s doing two thing here: (1) deliberately breaking from fantasy conventions (which, let’s face it, need breaking!), and (2) subtly trying to create that “realistic” sense of magic and monsters that his characters feel, by deliberately using these elements sparingly and keeping them at arm’s length.
Q: How is Andy Whitfield doing anyway? — Megan, San Diego, CA
The Oracle Speaks:
In March, Spartacus star Andy Whitfield was, of course, diagnosed with with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which can rapidly become fatal if untreated.
But Whitfield was treated, and reportedly responded well and has been
given “a clean bill of health.”
“Andy looks better than I have ever seen in my entire life,” says Spartacus executive producer Steven DeKnight. ” He looks fantastic. He’s in great spirits. He’s recovered, he’s training. He’s actually talking about bulking up bigger this year. So yeah, he’s doing great.”
Q:With all the attention being paid to the new Comedy Central show MAD, I can’t help but wonder why anyone cares about MAD Magazine. Does anyone even read it anymore? — Ed, Trenton, NJ
The Oracle Speaks:
You didn’t give your age, but I’m assuming you’re under the age of, say, 35.
For better or for worse, I believe the major influences on comedy over the last thirty years were (1) Saturday Night Live, (2) David Letterman, (3) Jerry Seinfeld, (4) The Simpsons, and (5) Judd Apatow. They’ve shaped the crude but ironic and cynical modern comedy sensibility we now all recognize.
But preceding (and influencing) all of the above was MAD Magazine, founded in 1952 and directly influencing most of today’s top humorists, especially at the peak of their influence in the early 70s, when circulation topped 2 million. Basically, they were ironic, openly cynical, seemingly dumb, but often deceptively smart back in the days of Sid Ceasar and Carol Burnett (who were funny, but irony-free).
Their sensibility became modern humor.
Of course, the magazine and its influence has long since been eclipsed by the work of all the writers and comedians who were inspired by it, which makes the new Comedy Central TV show an homage, at best.
And why is this a fantasy-themed question? Eh, it’s not, except that plenty of fantasy geeks were also devoted readers of MAD and saw both as major antidote to simple-minded provincialism. Me, for example.
Have a question about something fantasy-related? Please send an email to thetorchonlineoracle@gmail.com and be sure and include your city and state and/or country.
Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.
Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Q: Given all the sex and violence in Spartacus: Blood and Sand, will there be anything new in the “uncut” DVD version? — Wayne, Lakewood, CO
The Oracle Speaks:
In other words, if it wasn’t already clear, Starz’s TV Spartacus is a far cry from the version of the story seen in the 1960 Kirk Douglas movie.
“Of course, the big thing was the chance to have John Hannah [who played Batiatus] and Lucy Lawless [who played Lucretia] together again for six episodes,” DeKnight adds. “I adored working with John, loved writing for him. It was a thrill to do that again.”
“The first thing that happened after all of our concerns was making sure he was okay and giving him enough time to go through treatment and recover,” DeKnight says. “We immediately shut down production in New Zealand. The writers kept working [on Season 2] because we were waiting for the full prognosis and how long the treatment would be. We got close to halfway through the scripts when we got the full prognosis on Andy what the extent of his treatment would be. Cancer is never good, but we were very thankful it was such a strong prognosis.”
TTO: I think my favorite theme of the show is that this is a society infused with violence, in the ring, but also in the different social strata. In the palaces and in the streets, among Lucretia and her friends, it’s the same thing that’s going on in the gladiator ring. They’re all having these tournaments, just in different ways. Was there an “Ah ha!” moment when you realized the two halves of the show were two sides of the same coin?
TTO: That’s one of the other things I like most about the show, the sort of Upstairs/Downstairs quality to it, where the slaves are obviously real people to the viewer, but they’re subhuman to the folks over them. Is that how you, as a contemporary writer, are making a judgment about these Roman characters, by showing us their society through the eyes of the slaves?
TTO: One of the most shocking elements is the degree to which people accept the system. Ultimately, where you’re going is that one of them won’t accept the system and will try to overturn the system, but the degree to which the gladiators take on this idea that allowing yourself to be killed is honorable, and if you don’t do it, you’re shamed. Shocking from a modern perspective.
TTO: You’re writing Season 2 now? Where are you and what can we expect?
In a presentation today at the annual Television Critics Association conference in Pasadena, the producers and stars of the upcoming series Spartacus: Blood and Sand emphasized that it pushes the limits of what’s been seen on television, with graphic violence and plenty of sex and nudity, but that it’s all in the service of a well-told story involving compelling characters.

