Jump to content

GRRM said come here to talk about it. So let's talk about it.


Borodin

Recommended Posts


GRRM has a standard response to those who express concern over the show deviating too much from the books. He blogged it recently here:



How many children did Scarlett O'Hara have? Three, in the novel. One, in the movie. None, in real life: she was a fictional character, she never existed. The show is the show, the books are the books; two different tellings of the same story.


This response is inadequate and Martin appears to be sidestepping the problem completely.



Let's get one thing out of the way. When dealing with fictional accounts, “real life” is never the arbiter of story-telling continuity. It is only when we are dealing with biographies of historical figures that we look to “real life” for accuracy. When trying to establish the accuracy of fictional characters and plots, we have only the original source material to go on.



So allow me to provide a different answer to Martin’s initial question about how many children Scarlett O’Hara had: Scarlett O’Hara had three children. In fact, she had three children with three different fathers and this detail is not incidental; it is crucial to understanding both her character motivation and the story arc. The fact that she only has one child in the film adaptation means her arc and her motivations are lost because the film-makers decided to go off script.



A good retort to Martin would be to ask: “How many children does Catelyn Stark have?” or "How many children does Cersei Lannister have?" Would he be satisfied if the answer from the show-runners was “one”, you know, because these are just "two different tellings of the same story"? I don’t think so.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, he isn't going to slag off the show while it's still running

It's also a bit hard to start criticising deviation when they are reaching the point to where he is up to, the series started in 2010, they were quite open about 1 book per season, GRRM released ADwD after about 6 years in 2011, given he hasn't even written material going forward the show can deviate

Within that though there are legitimate criticisms over the adaption process, mine are the non-use of flashbacks which would have been excellent for giving visual cue to backstory. As a consequence of opting not to we get illogical decision-making processes that shoehorn characters into certain situations, Tysha, Tyrion and Tywin being the perfect example

Of course they put in half of Maegi the Frogs prophecy and throw in a scheming Margaery to boot just so they can help further whitewash Cersei...yet they leave out Tower of Joy and so many other things

I can understand needing to blend and merge things, I could see how the Vale and northern plots could be elegantly combined and remain true to both Reek/Theon and Alayne/Sansa but instead they've just totally butchered Sansa

They need to have done more to properly pay more to honour book characters, eg give Mance his Rattleshirt moment with Jon in the yard (I actually suspect that is a foreshadowing of Turncoat Mance as Lord of Bones/WW on one side and Jon as King of humans on the other but anyway) before actually burning him and there's others like Loras who should have been put more prominently at the Battle of Blackwater but instead we get more Cersei obsessing over her children and whitewashing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sense is that D&D just wanted to put their own stamp on the characters. They could have easily been more faithful to the books in terms of characters and plot points. They chose not to, not because TV is hard, but because they thought they could do it better than GRRM.



As the seasons progress, D&D are getting more brazen, not because of the "butterfly effect" that GRRM blames, but because they get more confident in abandoning GRRM's story to advance their own fan fiction.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good retort to Martin would be to ask: “How many children does Catelyn Stark have?” or "How many children does Cersei Lannister have?" Would he be satisfied if the answer from the show-runners was “one”, you know, because these are just two different tellings of the same story? I don’t think so.

How many male children does Mace Tyrell have?

Show has one, Loras

Books has two, the heir Garlan and the Kingsguard Ser Loras

How many sons does Prince Doran have

How many Uncles does Theon and Yarasha have?

etc etc

Starks and Lannisters have probably been lucky given that they were in the pilot so put in whole, if introduced later they might have done without Rickon for example

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starks and Lannisters have probably been lucky given that they were in the pilot so put in whole, if introduced later they might have done without Rickon for example

Precisely. You could also write Arya and Sansa out of the story completely because, you know, so many characters and TV is hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine if Peter Jackson said he was just going to give Saruman's plot to Sauron because their names are so similar it might confuse audiences. Also, because there's so many characters and only 9 hours of movie. Also, no resurrected Gandalf the White.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many male children does Mace Tyrell have?

Show has one, Loras

Books has two, the heir Garlan and the Kingsguard Ser Loras

How many sons does Prince Doran have

How many Uncles does Theon and Yarasha have?

etc etc

Starks and Lannisters have probably been lucky given that they were in the pilot so put in whole, if introduced later they might have done without Rickon for example

Mace Tyrell actually has three sons in the books (Willas) but point taken. I also agree with what you wrote above that Martin won't criticize the show much at all no matter how he may feel about it (not saying I know how he feels about it, etc.)

Imagine if Peter Jackson said he was just going to give Saruman's plot to Sauron because their names are so similar it might confuse audiences. Also, because there's so many characters and only 9 hours of movie. Also, no resurrected Gandalf the White.

I think you may find some like-minded folks in the Rant and Rave Without Repercussions threads in the Season 5 forum :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree with what you wrote above that Martin won't criticize the show much at all no matter how he may feel about it (not saying I know how he feels about it, etc.)

It's a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edited.

Thanks. :) Still, what's your issue here? That the show is not 100% faithful to the books, or that Martin accepts that? If it's the former, then I'm sorry that you do not take enough enjoyment from the show; I hope that the next books will arrive soon (no sarcasm intended). If it's the latter, well, he just have a wider margin of what's a faithful adaptation than you. And that's fair, too, people differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. :) Still, what's your issue here? That the show is not 100% faithful to the books, or that Martin accepts that?

The issue is that elements which are foundational - i.e., they are not incidental changes - to character arcs in the books are being excluded from the show and this leaves characters in the show doing things more or less inexplicably, or for reasons that are entirely different from their motivations in the books, which means they are essentially different characters altogether.

When GRRM asks "How many children did Scarlett O'Hara have? Three or one?" as a rhetorical way to dissolve the problem, he sidesteps the fact that O'Hara having three children (with three different fathers) was essential to understanding her character in the books. He proves the point that deviations from the book are not without major consequences to story-telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that elements which are foundational - i.e., they are not incidental changes - to character arcs in the books are being excluded from the show and this leaves characters in the show doing things more or less inexplicably, or for reasons that are entirely different from their motivations in the books, which means they are essentially different characters altogether.

When GRRM asks "How many children did Scarlett O'Hara have? Three or one?" as a rhetorical way to dissolve the problem, he sidesteps the fact that O'Hara having three children (with three different fathers) was essential to understanding her character in the books. He proves the point that deviations from the book are not without major consequences to story-telling.

First and foremost, welcome to the forums!!!!

But to get to what you are saying, I agree with you, and then i disagree with you. The whole Scarlett O'Hara thing is a valid response to what people are asking, but it's a really crappy explanation for everything.

I mean essentially what he is saying is "this is all made up shit anyway, so stop your bitching." Which I think is a huge disservice to his fans, and basically a huge "fuck you" to anyone who disagrees with him. I don't think he can admit to himself that he is a bit selfish and that the TV show was *possibly* a mistake.

However, he is completely right that there are restrictions when having a TV show. In the books he can write as much detail as pleases him.....in the show, added detail equates to needing more and more of a budget. However, the broad strokes of the story being retold stay the same. Ned still got executed, Jon is still Lord Commander of the NW, Sansa is still under the control of Littlefinger, Arya is still becoming an assassin, etc.

However, some of the things they changed GREATLY change the story. Like taking Stoneheart out for instance; they completely changed the story arcs of Catelyn, Brienne, and Jaime. And they could have recovered if they had sent Jaime with Brienne, or left him in Kings Landing long enough for him to find out about Lancel, and then maybe have to go save Brienne from the Brotherhood. Sending Jaime to Dorne makes no sense whatsoever. Bronn would have easily been the person to send as we know he stays relevant within the books and he could easily soak in Arys Oakhearts character and duty And since there is no Arienne in this story (from what we see....leaving Trystane as the sole heir to Dorne) then there would be no real need to kill Bronn.

When it comes down to it, it's almost like D & DB lied to GRRM about how they wanted to do his story. IN the end I think they just wanted to get to the Purple Wedding, and then after they would completely just fuck off the rest of the story. They knew the RW and the PW would make for great TV, and it would be the climax of the show. If they successfully pulled that off, the show would be remembered as a win no matter what they did after, as long as they have some semblance of the story. I feel like my point is proven by the fact that after the PW and Tyrions exodus, is when they decided to make the biggest changes to the show. And also because they have been adamant about only having 7-8 seasons (in a recent article they said quite sincerely that they aren't going to have 9 seasons) when the series, to do it any kind of justice, would really need at LEAST 9 seasons. You can tell this by looking at the difference of the tone in the books to where we are presently at, compared to the tone of the show at present. In the books, there is still a lot to be dealt with. Jon just got assassinated, Dany rode off on Drogon leaving Mereen to its own devices and unsettled. Stannis contemplates battle plans for Winterfell, and Sansa is barely starting to flower as LF's apprentice. As to the show, you can tell that they are already setting up the end game. Especially since Dany and Tyrion are now together, pairing the two arguably most electric and powerful characters in the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem isn't the adaptation. Problem is D&D are poor storyteller who are obsessed with pointless nudity, sex and being politically correct. They would rather spend 10 minutes joking about the sexual prowess of Podrick rather than develop coherent storylines or fully developed characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, welcome to the forums!!!!

But to get to what you are saying, I agree with you, and then i disagree with you. The whole Scarlett O'Hara thing is a valid response to what people are asking, but it's a really crappy explanation for everything.

I mean essentially what he is saying is "this is all made up shit anyway, so stop your bitching." Which I think is a huge disservice to his fans, and basically a huge "fuck you" to anyone who disagrees with him. I don't think he can admit to himself that he is a bit selfish and that the TV show was *possibly* a mistake.

However, he is completely right that there are restrictions when having a TV show. In the books he can write as much detail as pleases him.....in the show, added detail equates to needing more and more of a budget. However, the broad strokes of the story being retold stay the same. Ned still got executed, Jon is still Lord Commander of the NW, Sansa is still under the control of Littlefinger, Arya is still becoming an assassin, etc.

However, some of the things they changed GREATLY change the story. Like taking Stoneheart out for instance; they completely changed the story arcs of Catelyn, Brienne, and Jaime. And they could have recovered if they had sent Jaime with Brienne, or left him in Kings Landing long enough for him to find out about Lancel, and then maybe have to go save Brienne from the Brotherhood. Sending Jaime to Dorne makes no sense whatsoever. Bronn would have easily been the person to send as we know he stays relevant within the books and he could easily soak in Arys Oakhearts character and duty And since there is no Arienne in this story (from what we see....leaving Trystane as the sole heir to Dorne) then there would be no real need to kill Bronn.

When it comes down to it, I think D & DB lied to GRRM about how they wanted to do his story. IN the end I think they just wanted to get to the Purple Wedding, and then after they would completely just fuck off the rest of the story. They knew the RW and the PW would make for great TV, and it would be the climax of the show. If they successfully pulled that off, the show would be remembered as a win no matter what they did after, as long as they have some semblance of the story. I feel like my point is proven by the fact that after the PW and Tyrions exodus, is when they decided to make the biggest changes to the show. And also because they have been adamant about only having 7-8 seasons (in a recent article they said quite sincerely that they aren't going to have 9 seasons) when the series, to do it any kind of justice, would really need at LEAST 9 seasons. You can tell this by looking at the difference of the tone in the books to where we are presently at, compared to the tone of the show at present. In the books, there is still a lot to be dealt with. Jon just got assassinated, Dany rode off on Drogon leaving Mereen to its own devices and unsettled. Stannis contemplates battle plans for Winterfell, and Sansa is barely starting to flower as LF's apprentice. As to the show, you can tell that they are already setting up the end game. Especially since Dany and Tyrion are now together, pairing the two arguably most electric and powerful characters in the series.

Well there is a lot to be said that the main adapted focus will be the first 3 books. First conversation with Martin occurred just as AFFC was being released

The lie point will nicely consider some harder evidence. Martin may of been really excited and wanted them to do more after ASOS. I mean ADWD would of been out by 2007/08 as far as he know ( Meanwhile at The Wall.. ).

I have as much evidence as you do on the above comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beginning assumption is exaggerated. The show is more faithful to the books than the vast majority of adaptations are to their source material.

That other adaptations are worse doesn't make the failures of GoT any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Scarlet O'Hara answer is a dodge, and not a very good one, and it's disappointing coming from an author based on the majority of his previous comments about canon, which he basically throws out the window with such a statement.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Scarlet O'Hara answer is a dodge, and not a very good one, and it's disappointing coming from an author based on the majority of his previous comments about canon, which he basically throws out the window with such a statement.

Agreed. I have to admit, there's a part of me that wants to believe GRRM is invoking Scarlett O'Hara in order to let us know that he in fact acknowledges that the show's deviations from the book are determinental to the story-telling. When he asks "How many children does Scarlett O'Hara have?" I secretly hope he is saying in his head "You and I know damn well that it's three."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...