[BOOK SPOILERS] Watching the show if it overpasses the books [Part 2]

[FalseKnight]

Well, I'm not much of a planner, so that's one pretty easy. I am planning on reading those books if and when they come out, and I anticipate that greatly. I'm not sure there are another 10 things I'm absolutely planning on doing . . . other than going to work for the next 10 workdays . . . and I think I'm looking forward to the last books in the ASOIAF series more than that!

Kids, marriage, friends--you must have ten goals that come before reading the books. Is reading the next two books really what drives you in life?

[Hodor's Dragon]

Kids, marriage, friends--you must have ten goals that come before reading the books. Is reading the next two books really what drives you in life?

Perhaps we're slightly side-tracked here, nor do I wish to turn this into a thread about The Meaning Of My Life, so let's just say I'm a day-at-a-time guy, or you could say more of a journey guy than a destination guy.

But to take out the comparative part, I'd say that the way I experience and interact with great art and great ideas is very, very important to me, and ASOIAF ranks very, very high on my list of great art I've encountered. It has certainly obsessed me in a way that few, if any, other works have done: I'm on my 6th readthrough. If the book ending gets spoiled by a frickin' TV show - even one that enjoy the hell out of - I'll feel a personal sense of loss.

[Seneti]

why would they fin change Asha's name? pff

Because of what is known as the "One Steve Limit" in TV: if you have two characters with names that are too similar too each other (Osha and Asha in this case), viewers are going to be confused. Double likely for shows with a large cast and GoT arguably has the largest cast in TV, atm.

In the interview with GRRMs editor she states how she is dieing to reveal the 5+ page layout of GRRMs original outline for ASOIAF after the series is over (back when he planned it to be a trilogy).

I'm dieing to read that, too, but only to find out just how much of the books was filler (particularly AFFC/ADWD). I'll definitely watch the show if it overpasses the books.

[stannisismyking]

I would rather read the book ending first. But I only found the books through the TV show and I enjoy the comforting regularity of the show (every April, we get ten episodes and a nice big chunk of the story) so I'll be more than happy to see the show finish first. Which is just as well really...

[Gallivant]

I agree with all those who argue that GRRM has had plenty of time to get his act together and get ahead of the game, however... i also don't relish the idea that his major life's work will get blown open before he (and by extension his readers) get there. Sure, it makes for an interesting reversal from the norm. There are occasional books written off the back of TV series or films i suppose, but this is an altogether different case.

Having said that, I quite like the idea of the TV series taking some different twists and turns to the books. One notion I've read that appeals to me is the idea that GRRM is writing one version of a (fictional) 'historical' events of Westeros/Essos, and the TV show is chronicling the same events but differently - similar to how two historians might recall the same events with their own bias / take on things.

Neither am I totally averse to a completely different ending... books and TV are very distinct mediums which tell their stories in very different ways. If the TV show tries to stick too hard to the novels from here on out it will likely lose plot momentum and even coherence for many viewers... not how HBO will want their smash hit series to be remembered for posterity! A much broader, more convoluted and richer experience is definitely possible via the books (my opinion), whilst the TV show needs to move much more dynamically through the plot to hold audience interest (and because of its compressed time scale). If the TV show ultimately leads to the exact same ending as the books it might feel like a rather rushed and unsatisfying Cliff Notes version. If, however, the producers can go their own way we might get a more satisfying ending which is better-tailored to its medium. Obviously though a whole new ending will be accused of being a grandiose fan fiction - but it might make more sense televisually.

If the TV series adheres to the same ending as the books we will of course have a whole new game of 'guessing the spoilers' - it's already in play! if we know a character dies or is cut we change our view of their book-fate accordingly. If a character is white-washed in the show we can guess they might be set for a heroic ending (the TV show is more likely to culminate with a more simplistic good v evil scenario than GRRM, IMO). It's a whole new dynamic and might even be intriguing and fun!

The one thing that slightly bemuses me is that the producers who know the ending of ASoIaF claim it is immensely satisfying (indicating that they will not therefore substantially alter it), whereas GRRM calls the ending 'bittersweet.' I'm not sure TV moneymen and even some audience will see 'bittersweet' as terribly 'satisfying.' I wouldn't be surprised if we DO end up with a different ending... not dramatically so, but not enough to render it a little less bitter and a bit more sweet.

[Grayven]

Seasons 1 through 5: "How dare those producers not stick to the story as GRRM intended?!"

Seasons 6 through 7: "How dare those producers stick to the story as GRRM intended?!"

[sj4iy]

Seasons 1 through 5: "How dare those producers not stick to the story as GRRM intended?!"

Seasons 6 through 7: "How dare those producers stick to the story as GRRM intended?!"

LMAO. Omg, that's perfect. I'm stealing this for my sig :D

[Newstar]

Seasons 1 through 5: "How dare those producers not stick to the story as GRRM intended?!"

Seasons 6 through 7: "How dare those producers stick to the story as GRRM intended?!"

LOL, classic.

Even there was nothing in the interview to suggest anything of the sort overtly, GRRM's TWOW tease published in EW.com left me with a dull sense of certainty that he will be unable to finish in seven books, if at all, and that TWOW is nowhere near completion. I am increasingly convinced that the show will be the only ending we ever get.

[sj4iy]

LOL, classic.

Even there was nothing in the interview to suggest anything of the sort overtly, GRRM's TWOW tease published in EW.com left me with a dull sense of certainty that he will be unable to finish in seven books, if at all, and that TWOW is nowhere near completion. I am increasingly convinced that the show will be the only ending we ever get.

Well, at least we will get an ending :) We are luckier than most, in that the show actually became a hit and is practically guaranteed to get all 7 seasons it needs to unfold.

[jons nissa]

LOL, classic.

Even there was nothing in the interview to suggest anything of the sort overtly, GRRM's TWOW tease published in EW.com left me with a dull sense of certainty that he will be unable to finish in seven books, if at all, and that TWOW is nowhere near completion. I am increasingly convinced that the show will be the only ending we ever get.

awww. don't think that. he was facing a wall with the meerenese knot and figured his way out of it. i definitely agree he won't be done before the show is done. ironically i think both mediums are being extreme: grrm is saying "however long it takes" and hbo is saying "7 seasons and no more". i believe the answer is a happy medium and wish hbo could add a season or two so they could include more from the book but i also acknowledge that the books really need to be streamlined. :dunno:

regardless, nothing could keep me from watching the show as it overtakes the books. nothing!!!!!! and i look forward to the weird conversations that will happen at that points: is this canon? is this d&d interpreting? should we believe this is what happens? this is definitely not what will happen in the books! etc, etc.

at least people will be able to judge the show on its own merit at that point.

ps - love this:

Seasons 1 through 5: "How dare those producers not stick to the story as GRRM intended?!"

Seasons 6 through 7: "How dare those producers stick to the story as GRRM intended?!"

[cade]

.

[Seneti]

Seasons 1 through 5: "How dare those producers not stick to the story as GRRM intended?!"

Seasons 6 through 7: "How dare those producers stick to the story as GRRM intended?!"

:lmao:

You crack me up, sir/ma'am. Thanks for giving me my daily dose of laughter. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess.

[Annara Snow]

Because of what is known as the "One Steve Limit" in TV: if you have two characters with names that are too similar too each other (Osha and Asha in this case), viewers are going to be confused. Double likely for shows with a large cast and GoT arguably has the largest cast in TV, atm.

I'm dieing to read that, too, but only to find out just how much of the books was filler (particularly AFFC/ADWD). I'll definitely watch the show if it overpasses the books.

Define "filler". Something that develops the characters, the universe and the themes in a meaningful way is not "filler". Otherwise we'd all be reading Wiki summaries of the plot instead of reading books or watching TV shows/movies.

Not to mention that stories grow in telling, and the story GRRM ends up telling may be very different from the bare bones of the plot that he envisioned over 20 years ago. Would you prefer if AGOT-ACOK-ASOS were just one book, as originally planned, and three times shorter? I sure wouldn't.

[Annara Snow]

The one thing that slightly bemuses me is that the producers who know the ending of ASoIaF claim it is immensely satisfying (indicating that they will not therefore substantially alter it), whereas GRRM calls the ending 'bittersweet.' I'm not sure TV moneymen and even some audience will see 'bittersweet' as terribly 'satisfying.' I wouldn't be surprised if we DO end up with a different ending... not dramatically so, but not enough to render it a little less bitter and a bit more sweet.

Why do you think that "bittersweet" and "satisfying" are incompatible? A satisfying ending does not mean "happy ending", it means a narratively and dramatically satisfying, strong, well-written ending that concludes all the important storylines, reveals all the mysteries, resolves characters' fates in a plausible manner, and leaves a strong emotional impression. When a lot of people complain about endings as unsatisfying, it's usually because they are vague or inconclusive and fail to resolve all storylines and mysteries that people expected to be solved (as was the case with the dissatifaction with the Lost finale). An ending can be completely tragic and very satisfying. It can also be very happy and unsatisfying, if it feels forced.

The TV moneymen (let's assume we should care what they think about art in the first place) would see it as "satisfying" if it brings a lot of viewers and lots of DVD sales, repeat viewings, etc.

I certainly don't think that the majority of audience would want a super "happy ending" (which isn't really possible anyway, too many tragedies have already happened and too many people are dead). This is ASOAIF/GoT, do you think anyone is reading/watching it and expecting rainbows and unicorns at the end? (Well, maybe unicorns...)

Seasons 1 through 5: "How dare those producers not stick to the story as GRRM intended?!"

Seasons 6 through 7: "How dare those producers stick to the story as GRRM intended?!"

:lol: I don't know about anyone else, I'm hoping they stick as close to it as possible. I don't mind being spoiled by the show if the show is 1) faithful in important ways, and 2) good. My biggest fear is that they will diverge - probably not in major plot points, but in "small" things that are actually very important since they majorly affect characterization and/or themes (which is what has happened several times so far) and that I will get really pissed off because of something, hate it and almost give up on the series - and then learn years later that, in the books, it actually makes perfect sense and feels completely different.

[Newstar]

I completely agree with Annara Snow that a bittersweet or even tragic ending can be satisfying--Breaking Bad is a good example--while a happy ending can be unsatisfying: the Harry Potter epilogue is a good example. I also agree that given the tone of ASOIAF to date, if the ending is too cheery and upbeat, not only would it be tonally jarring, but also fans would hate it.

With all that said, I wouldn't just assume that the ending is satisfying simply on the showrunners' say-so. Even if they didn't find the ending satisfying, what do you think D&D are going to say when faced with that question? "Hell, no. The ending is a disaster. We're talking LOST/Battlestar Galactica/How I Met Your Mother levels of awfulness. We regularly have panic attacks thinking about post-finale fan rage. God knows how we're going to adapt that crap." That's not going to happen. So grain of salt and all that.

[Seneti]

Define "filler". Something that develops the characters, the universe and the themes in a meaningful way is not "filler". Otherwise we'd all be reading Wiki summaries of the plot instead of reading books or watching TV shows/movies.

Not to mention that stories grow in telling, and the story GRRM ends up telling may be very different from the bare bones of the plot that he envisioned over 20 years ago. Would you prefer if AGOT-ACOK-ASOS were just one book, as originally planned, and three times shorter? I sure wouldn't.

1) For me, personally, there are two kinds of filler:

a; Material that does not add anything to plot or character progression, such as the absurd amounts of food and scenery porn. This is what made me hate LotR with a passion, even though I really wanted to like it.

b; Material that subtracts from my reading enjoyment by taking way too long to make its point about plot/character development, e. g. much of Bran's and Brienne's travelogues and Dany in Meereen, all of which could have been significantly shorter for all I care. This is of course highly subjective. Some people enjoy the meandering, I don't. For me, the favourite part about any journey (physically, mentally and emotionally) is the point when I finally get to the destination, not the way there. I love the feeling of finally arriving. Other people enjoy the journey more than that moment and - from what you wrote - I guess you are one of them. That's good for you and I wouldn't dream of taking that from you, but for me, that's not what it's about.

As for your question: Yes, I would have enjoyed it a lot more. AFFC/ADWD were among the most bloated books I've recently read (although nobody beats Stieg Larsson for unnecessarily detailed prose) and the geographical split grated on my nerves from the first word of AFFC to the last word of ADWD.

Why do you think that "bittersweet" and "satisfying" are incompatible? A satisfying ending does not mean "happy ending", it means a narratively and dramatically satisfying, strong, well-written ending that concludes all the important storylines, reveals all the mysteries, resolves characters' fates in a plausible manner, and leaves a strong emotional impression. When a lot of people complain about endings as unsatisfying, it's usually because they are vague or inconclusive and fail to resolve all storylines and mysteries that people expected to be solved (as was the case with the dissatifaction with the Lost finale). An ending can be completely tragic and very satisfying. It can also be very happy and unsatisfying, if it feels forced.

I agree, the emphasis being on "plausible". If the ending to ASOIAF would be Greyworm emerging as AA and TPTWP, Sansa, Arya and Bran warging the three dragons together in one big happy Stark reunion and Dany and Tyrion getting married and ruling Westeros together, then that would be a horrible ending, even if it was made of rainbow and sunshine pooping kittens (I'm looking at you, Ser Pounce). I'd rather see the White Walkers roll over Westeros and slaughtering 90 % of the population before finally dying in an epic "everybody dies" showdown with Dany's dragons (which seems much more plausible).

I completely agree with Annara Snow that a bittersweet or even tragic ending can be satisfying--Breaking Bad is a good example--while a happy ending can be unsatisfying: the Harry Potter epilogue is a good example.

Agreed. I had the same experience with Open Water (really depressing, but plausible and satisfying ending) and The Sword in the Stone (which decided to kill its entire saving grace by undoing the Scrappy's tear-jerking sacrifice in the last minute and left me screaming at the screen in outrage).

[Hodor's Dragon]

Kudos to Annara Snow and Seneti for taking a shot at defining "filler" . . . but neither of those definitions is quite right. Words mean specific things. Filler means something specific.

Simply put, filler is filler. It is defined by its intention. It's a scene or interaction that is there to pad. Filler is unusual in written literature, because authors usually aren't really that concerned with page count - at least in good literature. Filler is primarily a magazine/newspaper thing or a TV-show thing, because columns are supposed to be X words long and shows are supposed to last X number of minutes and those requisites must be fulfilled; you can also occasionally see it in movies where the script is otherwise going to be too short for minimum length features or where the studio wants the movie to be longer for some obscure commercial reason.

A scene that's written as filler can still turn out to be a great scene - but since it doesn't proceed from the central logic of the story but instead from a desire to make the time limit, it's often not. A lot of times filler scenes take some idea that is necessary to the story but go into it in an unnecessary amount of detail. In other words, they're bloated.

Bloat can occur in non-filler, too, when a writer is writing something with the intent not to fill time or pages but the intent to entertain, and just misses the mark. Example: what is called "food porn" or "description porn" was not written to fill pages, it was written to root the reader in the scene. Maybe it doesn't succeed, maybe it gives the same bloated effect that filler often gives - but it's not filler. Even if you really don't like it, it's still not filler.

There is no filler in A Song of Ice and Fire. Unsuccessful writing does appear from time to time in the approximately 6,000 published pages, but filler? None.

Dictionary.com

Journalism. material, considered of secondary importance, used to fill out a column or page.

World English Dictionary

6. journalism articles, photographs, etc, to fill space between more important articles in the layout of a newspaper or magazine

7. informal something, such as a musical selection, to fill time in a broadcast or stage presentation

Merriam-Webster.com

material used to fill extra space in a column or page of a newspaper or magazine or to increase the size of a work (as a book)

[sj4iy]

Kudos to Annara Snow and Seneti for taking a shot at defining "filler" . . . but neither of those definitions is quite right. Words mean specific things. Filler means something specific.

Simply put, filler is filler. It is defined by its intention. It's a scene or interaction that is there to pad. Filler is unusual in written literature, because authors usually aren't really that concerned with page count - at least in good literature. Filler is primarily a magazine/newspaper thing or a TV-show thing, because columns are supposed to be X words long and shows are supposed to last X number of minutes and those requisites must be fulfilled; you can also occasionally see it in movies where the script is otherwise going to be too short for minimum length features or where the studio wants the movie to be longer for some obscure commercial reason.

A scene that's written as filler can still turn out to be a great scene - but since it doesn't proceed from the central logic of the story but instead from a desire to make the time limit, it's often not. A lot of times filler scenes take some idea that is necessary to the story but go into it in an unnecessary amount of detail. In other words, they're bloated.

Bloat can occur in non-filler, too, when a writer is writing something with the intent not to fill time or pages but the intent to entertain, and just misses the mark. Example: what is called "food porn" or "description porn" was not written to fill pages, it was written to root the reader in the scene. Maybe it doesn't succeed, maybe it gives the same bloated effect that filler often gives - but it's not filler. Even if you really don't like it, it's still not filler.

There is no filler in A Song of Ice and Fire. Unsuccessful writing does appear from time to time in the approximately 6,000 published pages, but filler? None.

Dictionary.com

Journalism. material, considered of secondary importance, used to fill out a column or page.

World English Dictionary

6. journalism articles, photographs, etc, to fill space between more important articles in the layout of a newspaper or magazine

7. informal something, such as a musical selection, to fill time in a broadcast or stage presentation

Merriam-Webster.com

material used to fill extra space in a column or page of a newspaper or magazine or to increase the size of a work (as a book)

I don't see how most of Brienne or Jaime's chapters can be anything but. How are their travelogues important to the story overall? What is the intention of their respective arcs other than to keep them busy until they meet up with each other, when something interesting happens and then we get a cliffhanger.

Filler need not be boring, and not every important plot element is interesting. But there is filler in these books. Moreso in the last two than the first three.

[Faint]

Even there was nothing in the interview to suggest anything of the sort overtly, GRRM's TWOW tease published in EW.com left me with a dull sense of certainty that he will be unable to finish in seven books, if at all, and that TWOW is nowhere near completion. I am increasingly convinced that the show will be the only ending we ever get.

Care to share? I just ask because nothing I read in the interview gave me that vibe.

[Hodor's Dragon]

I don't see how most of Brienne or Jaime's chapters can be anything but. How are their travelogues important to the story overall? What is the intention of their respective arcs other than to keep them busy until they meet up with each other, when something interesting happens and then we get a cliffhanger.

Filler need not be boring, and not every important plot element is interesting. But there is filler in these books. Moreso in the last two than the first three.

Did you even read the definitions? Whether or not something is "important to the story overall" does not define whether it is "filler." If it is, then writers like James Joyce and Thomas Pyncheon pretty much wrote nothing but filler.

I'm just trying to see that this word "filler" doesn't get away from us and start meaning "anything I don't like." The word has a meaning, and I'm pretty confident that not one single word was put into ASOIAF for the purpose of making it longer.