Taking the Adaptation to Task: A TV Critic’s Perspective

[Kittykatknits]

Not the happiest love story, not the most sane, not the most appropriate, not the most anything really: I wrote that Sandor/Sansa is one of “the greatest love stories of all time”. Which is, have to admit, a failure on my part. Love is pretty abstract field, and you can’t possible know on what did I base this evaluation on; or, you could, if I explained it, but the piece would’ve been even longer. And, even with the explanation, it is hard to judge my statement. So, let’s put it like this: that statement certainly isn’t the part of my piece that I’m most proud of. Had I put “the greatest love story of ASOIAF”, probably would’ve been better.

I highlighted these two statements as they really sum up the relationship between these two for me. The story between the two of them is very subtle and unique. It's not sane or normal or easy but it is very different. For me, that just adds to the story between them as it is one of the few that we see developing on screen and over the course of several books. It makes ASOIAF all that much stronger.

Been really enjoying your responses here.

[The Meeraculous Third Reed]

Because gratuitous female nudity (and trust me, it's almost 100% female) is offensive and misogynist. If a naked woman is inserted for no particular reason but to titillate, then it's wrong. Like in the Bronn/Hound scene where the naked prostitute served no purpose that a partially dress or even fully dressed woman could not have done. It was pointless, in poor taste, added nothing to the story and was insulting to any non misogynist viewer.

Woah woah, I found that scene somewhat pointless, but not insulting.

Don't tar me with the "misogynist" brush just because I don't completely agree with a self appointed feminist spokesperson.

[boojam]

Because gratuitous female nudity (and trust me, it's almost 100% female) is offensive and misogynist. If a naked woman is inserted for no particular reason but to titillate, then it's wrong. Like in the Bronn/Hound scene where the naked prostitute served no purpose that a partially dress or even fully dressed woman could not have done. It was pointless, in poor taste, added nothing to the story and was insulting to any non misogynist viewer.

You want to watch naked women for titillation purposes? pornhub ---> thataway.

Are you being serious?

An image like that could have occurred in any brothel at any time , anywhere in this world, in any place.

Not only seemed in context but actually a little prudish.

It's almost like saying all nudity is gratuitous!

Goya's The Nude Maja is gratuitous?

Michelangelo's David gratuitous?

I think a few people in the Solar System think that, but not many.

Consider Geroge's quote above, he has the right of it.

[Punchslap]

It was pointless, in poor taste, added nothing to the story and was insulting to any non misogynist viewer.

So anyone not insulted by it is a misogynist? D&D, the execs at HBO, the actors who agreed to participate in it, the directors, the crew, the screenwriters, GRRM presumably for not protesting it, the majority of viewers, etc?

[Aemon Stark]

I have a little reproduction of an ancient figurine of (nude) Aphrodite - no doubt a sign of my misogynist tendencies as well. :rolleyes:

[Elder Sister]

Not the happiest love story, not the most sane, not the most appropriate, not the most anything really: I wrote that Sandor/Sansa is one of “the greatest love stories of all time”. Which is, have to admit, a failure on my part. Love is pretty abstract field, and you can’t possible know on what did I base this evaluation on; or, you could, if I explained it, but the piece would’ve been even longer. And, even with the explanation, it is hard to judge my statement. So, let’s put it like this: that statement certainly isn’t the part of my piece that I’m most proud of. Had I put “the greatest love story of ASOIAF”, probably would’ve been better.

But, on the other hand, to a certain extent I’m glad I used this overstatement. Because, everywhere I lurk I find remarks that GoT is “the best show of all times” or something similar, while I can’t recall seeing anything that praising for ASOIAF books. Which could mean: 1) GoT > ASOIAF; or 2) literature > TV; or 3) people generally repeat what they encountered most often, without too much thinking. If it’s number 3, I’m glad for my overstatement, as a matter of small counterbalance in the universe.

You know, we’re often being accused of ‘purism’, but really, did we ever as a community – not just here on ‘Westeros’, but generally fandom of the novels – praised the books as much as show-lovers are praising the series? Not that I think we should compete with them in that regard, really, just asking.

Well, thank you for explaining that...Sandor Clegane is my fave character of the series, so I do understand (I think) your explanation. The thing I love best about the Sansa/Sandor interaction is that it seems he really does want to help her for no other reason than he cares what happens to her.

I also get you when you talk about praise for the books. The books are the most brilliant series (IMO) since Lord of the Rings. Martin's ability to transport a reader into another world/era/culture is even better than Tolkien. That's probably because the language/writing style is a bit more modern, but that's just my opinion. I'm no expert, just a fan of the books.

Thank you for taking the time to explain that sentence...and thanks for the thoughtful review.

[Dragonfish]

Consider Geroge's quote above, he has the right of it.

George's quote applies to prose, but it does not necessarily apply to a visual medium. He claims part of his reason for including sex scenes is to provide the reader a vicarious experience. I don't have much of a problem with such a rationale when it comes to books, but I do find it problematic when it comes to TV shows. A book has the advantage of being able to place the reader inside a character's head, and to show them how they experience the sex/nudity, and what they're getting out of it. A TV show, on the other hand, can only show us what's happening from the outside, and thus it's ability to provide us that "vicarious experience" is necessarily hampered. A sex scene on a show can titillate as well as a book's can, but it's difficult to stage it in such a way that the audience truly feels they are a part of the experience, rather than looking in on it from the outside. As such, a sex scene that may have been non-gratuitous in the books can come across as gratuitous in the show, especially when it takes up valuable screen time that could have been devoted to more consequential scenes.* That's why I think we need to discuss these scenes based on how they work and come across in the show, and not based on some quote Martin made years ago about his own books.**

*Which is yet another difference between prose and television: a few sex scenes in a nine-hundred-page book might not seem excessive, but when you put them in a show that has a more limited amount of time to tell its story, it can really be a bit too much.

**And this is leaving aside the fact that you can't simply justify sex in the show by claiming that Martin approves of it. Sometimes the author of the original source material can stray in his creative judgment. Plus, there are a fair number of readers who find some of the sex scenes in the books themselves to be problematic, so it's not really enough to defend the show's sex scenes by pointing out it was all in the source material.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

The key to discussing sex scenes is context. Under some context it's fine, for example Bran finding Cersei and Jaime in the tower. That scene was necessary, and interestingly enough, when the contracts of the actor/actresses forbid nudity, they found a way to do it without nudity.

The point is, very few of the sex scenes in GOT is necessary, advances the plot, etc. They exist because they can, not because they're needed. And the critique is that by doing so, the producers cheapens the product, and demeans the audience. What could have been a piece of art, it's turned into something that appeals to perverts. Which is just another way of saying softcore porn. I wish the producers would have more respect for the audience, and for themselves.

I

[Kittykatknits]

Woah woah, I found that scene somewhat pointless, but not insulting.

Don't tar me with the "misogynist" brush just because I don't completely agree with a self appointed feminist spokesperson.

Are you being serious?

An image like that could have occurred in any brothel at any time , anywhere in this world, in any place.

Not only seemed in context but actually a little prudish.

It's almost like saying all nudity is gratuitous!

Goya's The Nude Maja is gratuitous?

Michelangelo's David gratuitous?

I think a few people in the Solar System think that, but not many.

Consider Geroge's quote above, he has the right of it.

So anyone not insulted by it is a misogynist? D&D, the execs at HBO, the actors who agreed to participate in it, the directors, the crew, the screenwriters, GRRM presumably for not protesting it, the majority of views, etc?

I have a little reproduction of an ancient figurine of (nude) Aphrodite - no doubt a sign of my misogynist tendencies as well. :rolleyes:

Whether a person has a problem with the scene or not does not, by itself, make a person a mysogynist. The problem with this scene in particular is that we know it was put in for one reason only, for titilation, to please a particular segment of the audience. The director confirmed that it is not there to develop the characters, enhance plot, or add any element of historical reality to the show. It's for the "perverts in the audience". Take a step back from this scene and look at the pattern of nudity and sex throughout the entire season. The proportion of female to male nudity in this show is very starkly balanced towards women. There have been multiple sex scenes this season that required the woman to completly undress yet the men remained either totally or mostly clothed. The Bronn/Hound scene is just a single example but when you look at it through this wider lens, it's very disturbing.

Misogny takes many forms but the element most relevant here is that of sexual objectification. A women becomes a sexual object when she is regarded solely for sexual gratification or pleasure. This is exactly what happens on GOT, as confirmed by the director himself. That women was inserted for this purpose only and that is misogny.

When it comes to art, that is something very different. David or figurines of Aphrodite have nothing to do with sexual objectification of either men or women. Rather, they are works of art that celebrate the human form. We can celebrate and appreciate a naked individual and appreciate its beauty without sexual objectifying that form.

I guess some would also call me a self-appointed feminist spokeperson but I'll go ahead and note that I am saying this as someone who also happens to have more than one painting of a nude woman in my house, one of which sits above my bed as I type this. :)

@Lyanna Stark - If I put words in your mouth, I apologize.

[The Meeraculous Third Reed]

If it was insulting to any "non-misogynist" viewer, then it's implied that anyone not finding it insulting is a misogynist.

[Punchslap]

If it was insulting to any "non-misogynist" viewer, then it's implied that anyone not finding it insulting is a misogynist.

That's exactly my point above. It implies everyone connected to the show either embraces misogyny or is indifferent to it.

[Marjie Eilie Myatt]

Why do people keep saying (including the Serbian TV critic) that the sex scenes appeal to perverts? Are you saying everybody who likes the occasional sex scene in a movie is a pervert? (And book purists are perverts, too, then, because there's more sex in the books and you've got to read about it in minor detail?)

I agree there's a lot of gratuitous nudity and sex in HBO original series (and HBO has had some arguably perverted nonfiction series in the past), including the GoT Joffrey-prostitutes scene that was completely made up for television, Ros flashing her vagina at Theon from the turnip cart, Theon's flaccid penis flopping around after just pulling out of Ros (what's up with that? or should I say, what's not up with that) and let's not forget the whole raison d'etre of "Sex and the City," but at the same time, sex is a noticeable part of the novels (including thematically), and normal healthy adults have a normal healthy interest in sex, and sex is a part of life and relationships.

I've seen *worse* in a variety of rated-R movies in the cinema. Heck, have you not seen "The Kids Are All Right" with Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo? And that was nominated for Best Picture (AMPAS). Were the theaters full of perverts?

[Miodrag]

I highlighted these two statements as they really sum up the relationship between these two for me. The story between the two of them is very subtle and unique. It's not sane or normal or easy but it is very different. For me, that just adds to the story between them as it is one of the few that we see developing on screen and over the course of several books. It makes ASOIAF all that much stronger.

Been really enjoying your responses here.

To you, and all the rest of the folks that liked my piece or parts of it – thanks, I really appreciate it. Didn’t reply on your posts because, you know, we do agree over many things, so I wanted to answer to the criticism of the essay, and especially because some of that criticism was spot on.

Not unconnected to this topic is my general disappointment in ASOIAF fandom and their shyness, i.e. with their unawareness that this novels may very well turn out to be The Story of our day and age, unawareness caused by accepting “the genre” as the frame for this story to be considered. It depends on the rest of the series, of course, but if GRRM completes it in style and on par with existing books, it’s going to be pretty damn hard to find any other contemporary literature that can compete with the greatness of ASOIAF. Is there any other author out there who writes anything on the scale, depth, sharpness, intelligence and strength of Martin’s work? Maybe there is, but I certainly didn’t hear about that person.

If completed in style, ASOIAF will have an excellent prologue (AGOT), insanely good first act (ACOK and ASOS), somewhat slower but even more philosophical second act (AFFC and ADWD) and what is to be the third act (AWOW and ADOS). It will be no les than 7.000 pages of thorough, densely structured, engaging story – which is an accomplishment in itself, just for pure volume. And, if GRRM does manage to preserve some of his main themes throughout the very end, than I guess we’d have a winner: an artwork that will be a testament to the world culture at the beginning of the 21^st century. And I thought that there isn’t a better place for testing/expressing this evaluation than fan sites. But, since lurking over them, I rarely saw a true conviction that ASOIAF is really a masterpiece, like literary masterpiece, not genre masterpiece (BTW, always thought ASOIAF first and foremost belongs to almost extinct “genre” of tragedies). Like that fans of ASOIAF are reluctant to express their full admiration for the series.

And on top of that, TV show comes along, and everyone’s like: “Whoa, this is even better than the books”.

So, I was really pleased when I saw many posters here ready to argue over the holistic values of ASOIAF, even if not all of them agree with what I wrote. This much analyzing combined with this much passion only reinforced my belief that Martin is doing something remarkable on a much more important level than a “genre” is.

(Not that “genre” means something bad, or unworthy. Fantasy genre especially, since it is the oldest “genre” in the history of fiction. Homer had Gods and Achilles with his Myrmidons, Shakespeare had ghosts and witches and prophecies: Martin’s epic wouldn’t be the first fantasy stuff that turned up all-time great.)

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Why do people keep saying (including the Serbian TV critic) that the sex scenes appeal to perverts? Are you saying everybody who likes the occasional sex scene in a movie is a pervert? (And book purists are perverts, too, then, because there's more sex in the books and you've got to read about it in minor detail?)

I agree there's a lot of gratuitous nudity and sex in HBO original series (and HBO has had some arguably perverted nonfiction series in the past), including the GoT Joffrey-prostitutes scene that was completely made up for television, Ros flashing her vagina at Theon from the turnip cart, Theon's flaccid penis flopping around after just pulling out of Ros (what's up with that? or should I say, what's not up with that) and let's not forget the whole raison d'etre of "Sex and the City," but at the same time, sex is a noticeable part of the novels (including thematically), and normal healthy adults have a normal healthy interest in sex, and sex is a part of life and relationships.

I've seen *worse* in a variety of rated-R movies in the cinema. Heck, have you not seen "The Kids Are All Right" with Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo? And that was nominated for Best Picture (AMPAS). Were the theaters full of perverts?

Once again, another person arguing against a strawman. It's not the presence of sex-scenes, but those that aren't there to advance plot or character development, but simply to titillate, that is only put in to serve as softcore porn, that some of us object to.

[Aemon Stark]

I don't find the amount or use of nudity in GoT appreciably different from other HBO series like Rome (where during season one Atia seems to spend half her time naked).

I also think the idea that nudity or sex - and even that which is HBO-mandated - represents appeal to "perversion" or "titillation". I certainly don't find it either, but what do you expect? It's not as if Theon treated the captain's daughter especially well, and the presence of prostitutes is fairly inherent to how the books are written. Should they be portrayed in the ahistorical and completely ridiculous way that "companions" are depicted in Firefly?

[Aemon Stark]

Once again, another person arguing against a strawman. It's not the presence of sex-scenes, but those that aren't there to advance plot or character development, but simply to titillate, that is only put in to serve as softcore porn, that some of us object to.

Honestly I think that's only a non-contestable point concerning the "sexposition" featuring Littlefinger's monologue from last season. That was silly and a bad choice.

But the presence of a bare-chested whore on Bronn's lap isn't especially "titillating" (did you think it was?), whatever the intent.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

It wasn't particularly titillating to me, but it was a transparent attempt (and since proven by the Marshall interview) at titillating certain segment of the audience.

[Punchslap]

Honestly I think that's only a non-contestable point concerning the "sexposition" featuring Littlefinger's monologue from last season. That was silly and a bad choice.

Agreed. There's been less sex and nudity in the second season, but it's HBO so there will always be some of each no matter what. I'm a bit lost at the connection between titillation and misogyny implied here though--one is not inherently the other.

[Dragonfish]

Why do people keep saying (including the Serbian TV critic) that the sex scenes appeal to perverts? Are you saying everybody who likes the occasional sex scene in a movie is a pervert? (And book purists are perverts, too, then, because there's more sex in the books and you've got to read about it in minor detail?)

It was one of the producers who said the scene with Bronn and the prostitute was for the perverts. If you have a problem with that characterization, take it up with him.

[Miodrag]

Ive commented on that particular part of the article back on page four.

Im interested in what you would think about my interpretation of characters and their relationship. By which i mean just that they relate to and affect each other, nothing else.

Let me quote it for simplicity purposes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sandor and Sansa relationship is not romantic in the sense of actually being a relationship. No doubt Sandor thought about consummating the physical aspect and that he us attracted to Sansa on account of her beauty which is described numerous times in the books. Regardless of her youth in the books.

But thats not why she affects him so.

You see... Sansa represents something he lost and stopped believing in long time ago, as half of his face burned off. Then that reality was reformed numerous times through further experiences, many done by his own hands.

And yet, Sansa... has a true quality of a maiden from a song, so strong and true that it affects even such a lost, disillusioned and dangerous soul as Sandor.

He loves her and hates her for it. And he would die protecting her if push came to shove.

She, on the other hand, despite her lack of realistic knowledge from the start and her enduring naivety.... sees a knight... maybe not a knight but a good man,... or some leftover of that good man, inside all that rage and pain, in that horrible burned face.

So she fears and likes him and cares for him at the same time.

They can never be together, not really. Thats not the main point.

How they see each other, despite everything, and how they affect each other - IS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think your view is spot on, and doesn’t contradict anything I wrote about two of them. When people are attracted to each other that strongly, they do tend to, in their states of mind, go back to “child mode”, and Sandor’s “child mode” is exactly what you describe. We all act somewhat juvenile near the people we love, and he, around her, has to remind himself his face is burned. When he forces her to look at his face, it’s not only a lesson for her, but also a “reminder” to himself that he isn’t a child he’d like to be when near her.

And she is also conflicted over emotions she feels toward him, just as you described it.

I only think that one of their main impulses is what I described – they both crave for a master that inspires no devotion of any kind, and on subconscious level they “recognize” that in each other. That kind of attraction is as strong as they come.

Given up ages ago to predict what Martin will do with his characters, so I wouldn’t be that sure they won’t end up together, just as I’m not sure they’ll even see each other ever again. But, of all the possible and existing couples of ASOIAF, I’d most easily picture San&San going somewhere far, far away, never to be heard or seen by anyone again – and, we’d kinda know they would be OK, just having each other.

Of course, Sansa may turn out to be much more ancestry-grounded than I thought of her. After all, she is the one to build Winterfell out of snow. Maybe it isn’t conflicted with her craving for an empty master, but maybe she craves for the home she had even more.

Anyway, can’t wait to read about it, to find out what GRRM intends to do with them. After all, you can see my nick.

(Not that I’m into underage girls, mind you. I prefer them legal.)