I guess this is why I have no fundamental problem with slashers disemboweling an endless barrage of victims, but I do think movies like the Taken series are morally unpalatable.
Horror is honest about its perversions and appetites, and does not usually pretend they are righteous or realistic.
GoT's negativity is positioned like it's revelatory or realistic. Martin famously quipped "What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine."
GoT doesn't answer any these questions. Instead it presents violence as a shorthand for realism...
(Which is unsatisfying. A book about tax policy and administration in a fantasy world could actually be interesting. There were some asides and details occasionally in GoT/ASoIaF, but not nearly enough. Anyway...)
"Grim 'n gritty" was never a lack of style. It was a deliberate style that pretended not to be one.
And Between Two Fires is good. It's like Cormac McCarthy's The Road, except Catholic. And historical. And more entertaining.
Finished Between Two Fires last night. I enjoyed it a great deal! Can see why it got so much attention.
Obviously, any book about dark, miserable, and violent happenings in a medieval-esque setting is going to invite comparisons to Game of Thrones/ASoIaF. But I think there's a key difference...