If you’ve heard much about the new HBO series “Game of Thrones” — and I’m sure you have, as it’s been everywhere lately — you may have heard about the controversy surrounding the show. No, not that one; ironically, this one seems to have been generated by the show’s reviewers. Aren’t critics supposed to stay above the fray? Eh, don’t answer that …

Troy Patterson of Slate got the ball rolling on April 13, when he previewed the show’s premiere by defining the series as “quasi-medieval, dragon-ridden fantasy crap,” then pulled that sucker punch by protesting, “That’s not a comment on its quality but a definition of its type.” Granted, he readily admits an “anti-weakness for that general sensibility and those armor-clad generic trappings,” but it would’ve been nice if he’d actually bothered to learn the characters’ names — or regard reviewing the series as anything more than a chore. The ensuing brouhaha over the non-review prompted a follow-up on April 19, in which he glossed over the previous review by saying he was “confessing a blind spot.” But it’s safe to say he isn’t a fan of the series. Fair enough. Daenerys? That’s another story.

Gina Bellafante of the New York Times jumped into the fray on April 14 with a review that seemed to question the show’s existence in the first place. After bizarrely musing on the weather patterns that dominate Westeros (HVAC systems? Really?), she actually posed the question, “What is “Game of Thrones” doing on HBO?” She has a point in that you don’t see many fantasy series on the so-called “prestige” networks, but anyone who saw the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy knows that fantasy can be extraordinary when it’s done right. However, she really stepped in it when she pondered how the show’s rampant sexuality fit within the narrative. Her conclusion was that it didn’t: “The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of this illicitness has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive would watch otherwise … “Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half.”

Those are fighting words, to be sure — and here’s a nice counterpunch — but the most offensive part of the review came at the start, when she commented on the byzantine nature of the story: “Keeping track of the principals alone feels as though it requires the focused memory of someone who can play bridge at a Warren Buffett level of adeptness. In a sense the series, which will span 10 episodes, ought to come with a warning like, “If you can’t count cards, please return to reruns of ‘Sex and the City.’” As someone who enjoyed that show, as well as narrative-heavy series like “Deadwood” and “Rome,” all I’ll say is this: If she’s got a problem keeping everyone straight on “Game of Thrones”, I’d hate to see her reaction to “The Wire.”

For some reason, fantasy as a genre makes a ripe target for mockery. I’ve never truly understood this; I’ve always believed that great writing is great writing, no matter what the genre. So, while I understand the reviewers’ need to snark a little, I think it’s time to acknowledge that fantasy has truly come into its own. And while I’m at it … do you guys know any fantasy novels that would make these critics see the light? List them in your comments!