11 Reasons to Read the Books

[NymeriaWarriorQueen]

Number 5 is the biggest one for me. Everyone who has o it watched the shows are losing it because they see Jon Snow dead and can't see any other way than him remaining dead.

Through dreams, prophecies, and the foreshadowing they present, the book readers are quite confident that he will live again.

Well said

[LittleMissTyrell]

You should read the books because I feel like Rodrick Harlaw is very important to the storyline in the books and Lord Manderly and Arianne Martell. Stupid HBO leaving out the cool people like Quentyn Martell

[Touch of Dawn]

Number 10, re the ToJ

may be in the show yet! They might have posted a casting call for Arthur Dayne! Get that proverbial hype!

ETA: just wanted to add that people should read the books for many reasons one of my own selfish ones being ppl irl would know what i'm talking about half the time!!!

[Prince of the North]

Very interesting article (and I agree)! What is the significance of the name under each of the 11 items? That is, number 2 says "Dan Brown" and number 11 says "George R. R. Martin, Elio Garcia and Linda Antonsson". All the others simply say say "George R. R. Martin".

[kissdbyfire]

Very interesting article (and I agree)! What is the significance of the name under each of the 11 items? That is, number 2 says "Dan Brown" and number 11 says "George R. R. Martin, Elio Garcia and Linda Antonsson". All the others simply say say "George R. R. Martin".

Each of the 11 reasons is a link to one of the books. The first 10 by Martin, the last one is TWoIaF by Martin, Linda & Elio. The 'Dan Brown' one is a mistake, and is a link to a Dan Brown book. :)

[Prince of the North]

Each of the 11 reasons is a link to one of the books. The first 10 by Martin, the last one is TWoIaF by Martin, Linda & Elio. The 'Dan Brown' one is a mistake, and is a link to a Dan Brown book. :)

Thanks, kissdbyfire!

[teej6]

Per #1 - It was REALLY obvious watching just the show WHY Jon was stabbed--because of the politics of what was going on with the Night's Watch and the Wildlings. An Unsullied co-worker of mine saw that completely. Olly was just an easy way to see that the other Night's Watch (especially Thorne) was using his pain to get him to go along wih it. Anyone who isn't clearly anti-show would obviously see that the show made it clear that the stabbing of Jon Snow was ALL about the politics and had NOTHING to do with an orphan boy just as it was clear in the books. Everything that Elio described as being portrayed in the books, my Unsullied co-worker pretty much described as she thought as to why Jon was stabbed.

While I agree that the books are brilliant, it would have been nice to see a write-up endorsing that people buy the books with an acknowledgement that they are two different mediums and thus offer two different ways of enjoying this wonderful world that GRRM has created. GOT is wonderful, so is ASOIAF. One doesn't have to drag the books as these 11 reasons subtly (and not so subtly) do in order to praise GRRM's brilliance. I fear that in doing so, it will have turned some show-lovers away from going near the books out of solidarity to the show, because, yes, there are show purists out there too now and I wish no one would deny themselves the joy of GRMM's work. But by damning the show in order to praise ASOIAF, this may send some potential readers from ever going near the books.

I beg to disagree. The For the Watch scene made no sense at all in the show. All we got through out the season was those dirty looks from that annoying kid, Olly. And then in Ep 9 when Thorne finally had the opportunity to keep Jon and the wildlings out, he decides to let them in and then soon after goes and stabs the LC with a horde of wildlings and a giant this side of the Wall. Where is the logic in that? And the way Jon gets stabbed was also the most lazy telling of the story. I mean Jon just runs out to see uncle Benjen and bang we have for the watch. Why introduce Wun Wun if he wasn't going to be used. And where did the entire horde of wildlings dissapear or why is Jon not carrying Longclaw, or where is ghost? Ghost seems to appear from nowhere to save Sam and Gilly but he's not around when Jon needs him. You see the holes in D&D's storytelling. GRRM sets up the scene -- motive, opportunity, distraction (Wun Wun going crazy) -- so perfectly in the scene and D&D (who I think are amateurs at best or total hacks at worst) mucked up the entire Jon stabbing storyline. So yes, as Elio said, if one wants to enjoy a proper rendering of the For the Watch, I'd suggest they read the books. The show completely destroyed that storyline.

[kissdbyfire]

^^The show tried to make it 'just about politics'. I agree with you, they failed miserably. But what did you expect the '11 reasons' piece to say?

'The books are wonderful, the show sucks!' 11 times? :)

[Red Helm]

I beg to disagree. The For the Watch scene made no sense at all in the show. All we got through out the season was those dirty looks from that annoying kid, Olly. And then in Ep 9 when Thorne finally had the opportunity to keep Jon and the wildlings out, he decides to let them in and then soon after goes and stabs the LC with a horde of wildlings and a giant this side of the Wall. Where is the logic in that? And the way Jon gets stabbed was also the most lazy telling of the story. I mean Jon just runs out to see uncle Benjen and bang we have for the watch. Why introduce Wun Wun if he wasn't going to be used. And where did the entire horde of wildlings dissapear or why is Jon not carrying Longclaw, or where is ghost? Ghost seems to appear from nowhere to save Sam and Gilly but he's not around when Jon needs him. You see the holes in D&D's storytelling. GRRM sets up the scene -- motive, opportunity, distraction (Wun Wun going crazy) -- so perfectly in the scene and D&D (who I think are amateurs at best or total hacks at worst) mucked up the entire Jon stabbing storyline. So yes, as Elio said, if one wants to enjoy a proper rendering of the For the Watch, I'd suggest they read the books. The show completely destroyed that storyline.

I always struggle to get over that stupidity in the theatrics. If Jon carried Longclaw, there is nothing to stop him whirling around after immediately reading the sign, drawing the blade and attacking the knife-weilding idiots. Assassination is a big failure.

WHY D&D thought Olly was more compelling than the subtle nuances of Bowen Marsh is a mystery... oh wait, Dave Hill!

It's beginning to anger me how two talentless fools ever got access to adapting a series which they have no business even being anywhere near. Jon XII and Jon XIII were absolute brilliance, and were utterly destroyed by the hacks and their underlings.

[The King in The Mount]

Nice list, I would show it to someone but everybody who cares in my family read the books already.

All the images in that article are ridiculously hi res!

[boojam]

It's beginning to anger me how two talentless fools ever got access to adapting a series which they have no business even being anywhere near. Jon XII and Jon XIII were absolute brilliance, and were utterly destroyed by the hacks and their underlings.

Access was granted by George R R Martin because he liked them.

[Ludo Kressh]

I beg to disagree. The For the Watch scene made no sense at all in the show. All we got through out the season was those dirty looks from that annoying kid, Olly. And then in Ep 9 when Thorne finally had the opportunity to keep Jon and the wildlings out, he decides to let them in and then soon after goes and stabs the LC with a horde of wildlings and a giant this side of the Wall. Where is the logic in that? And the way Jon gets stabbed was also the most lazy telling of the story. I mean Jon just runs out to see uncle Benjen and bang we have for the watch. Why introduce Wun Wun if he wasn't going to be used. And where did the entire horde of wildlings dissapear or why is Jon not carrying Longclaw, or where is ghost? Ghost seems to appear from nowhere to save Sam and Gilly but he's not around when Jon needs him. You see the holes in D&D's storytelling. GRRM sets up the scene -- motive, opportunity, distraction (Wun Wun going crazy) -- so perfectly in the scene and D&D (who I think are amateurs at best or total hacks at worst) mucked up the entire Jon stabbing storyline. So yes, as Elio said, if one wants to enjoy a proper rendering of the For the Watch, I'd suggest they read the books. The show completely destroyed that storyline.

I couldn't figure out why they paid the money for the CGI of the character and not use him the way he was utilized in the books. I can only hope he goes on a rampage in the aftermath with the other wildlings. And where in the seven hells was Dolorous Edd? Or Davos and Melisandre?

If Jon carried Longclaw, there is nothing to stop him whirling around after immediately reading the sign, drawing the blade and attacking the knife-weilding idiots. Assassination is a big failure.

There were other guys there that had their swords. True, Jon may have been able to ward off some of his attackers but he would have eventually been worn down and killed.

[Prince of the North]

Access was granted by George R R Martin because he liked them.

Well, Martin also knew that practically the only way to even attempt bringing ASoIaF to the screen would be via a premium cable network with HBO being the best option for obvious reasons. And, remember, they did a pretty good job for the first couple of seasons ;)

I couldn't figure out why they paid the money for the CGI of the character and not use him the way he was utilized in the books. I can only hope he goes on a rampage in the aftermath with the other wildlings. And where in the seven hells was Dolorous Edd? Or Davos and Melisandre?

There were other guys there that had their swords. True, Jon may have been able to ward off some of his attackers but he would have eventually been worn down and killed.

True, but probably not before taking a few of them out, attracting a lot of attention, and quite possibly getting some aid. It was illogical at best but, hey, another plot point got "checked off" the list so who cares about silly little things like logic and details, amiright? :bang:

[Toth]

It always amazes me that there are only three kinds of unsullied viewers:

The first one which was amazed by the first seasons and went straight to the books (I myself am a part of this one). The second one which immediately stumbles upon the hackjobs of D&D, but for some reason lashes out at the books for being horrible entertainment (seriously, what are those people thinking?). And the third kind which enjoyes the show and don't want to read the books because spoilers or because they don't read anything (yeah, really).

Pretty much everyone of the first group I personally know stopped watching the series after the Sansa rape thing, if not already before that. I wonder if this makes them now Haters in the eyes of the third group...

I don't have much to do with the second group, but yes, I encountered some of them in another forum where the whole GoT-section went silent sometime during season 3 and people were very aggressive towards GRRM whenever I mentioned the books. It was not nice. And it was the first time I got desillusioned by the series because I saw what picture GoT-viewers have of ASoIaF. Voyeuristic sex, violence, plotholes and sickeningly dark twists for the twists sake. And I always thought ASoIaF was about complex character-driven events which interact like wheels in a megalomaniacally large clockwork... It just grates me how unjust condemptions of the book on that basis are and I get always very defensive of them because GRRMs narrative is just so darn intelligently written.

Interstingly the third group was the most grating to me. I have had discussions with some who saw the plotholes and asked me for explanations I gladly gave (at least for as long as I was able to give more than a shrug). And then there was the one case where I had the following discussion. I don't remember exactly how it started, but it was shortly after episode 10 of the fourth season and I was in a pretty bad mood about Tyrion suddenly forgetting he was ever married. We talked about our favorite characters and we then talked about Jaime.

Me: "I really, really liked their execution of Jaimes redemption arc. At least until he arrived at King's Landing and suddenly forgot everything he ever learned from Brienne."

He: "How that. He seemed pretty in-character to me."

I thought about talking about the rape scene in Baelor's Sept, but since it was a scene from the book which was just garbled in its execution, I thought it would be more impressive if I just take a very symbolic one where I facepalmed immediately when I saw it.

Me: "Just think about his scene with Cersei in the last episode. In the white tower. You remember the White Book?"

He: "Yeah, the one with all the deeds of the Kingsguard. What about it?"

Me: "For Jaime, this book is a symbol for all his accomplishments. They pointed out how his page so far far was suspiciously empty. In the books his reunion with Cersei is overshadowed with her being disappointed about how he doesn't look like her anymore, having lost a hand and having gained a beard and a conciousness in the process. And he realizes just how superficial Cersei actually is and how unhealthy this relationship was for his sense of honor. It was this point in the book where Jaime looked at the White Book and decided to write his own his future from now on, thus becoming estranged from Cersei. In the show however they decided to let him shove the book away to have hot incestual sex with Cersei on the table. Do I really have to point out how much the symbolism in this scene goes horribly wrong and omits his whole progress for just another unhealthy sex scene?"

He *shrugging*: "Well, he couldn't really take her on the book, could he?"

No, he was not messing with me, he was dead serious! And I just stood there, completely helpless and just wanted to shout: "Read the damn book already!"

Really... all you Unsullied out there... read it. It might soil your fun with the show, but they are just so much richer and you must open the eyes to what kind of superficial hackjobs D&D really are.

[Ludo Kressh]

Well, Martin also knew that practically the only way to even attempt bringing ASoIaF to the screen would be via a premium cable network with HBO being the best option for obvious reasons. And, remember, they did a pretty good job for the first couple of seasons ;)

True, but probably not before taking a few of them out, attracting a lot of attention, and quite possibly getting some aid. It was illogical at best but, hey, another plot point got "checked off" the list so who cares about silly little things like logic and details, amiright? :bang:

Hence my question about where in the hell Dolorous Edd and Davos were. I can't believe no one saw a bunch of guys gathered around a cross that said 'traitor' and the Lord Commander bleeding out in front of them. None of his so called aid was anywhere in sight. But yeah, logic...this season's been lacking a lot of it.

Don't get me wrong, I expected FTW to happen, but it could have happened like it did in the books and made more sense. They could have had Edd there and the wildlings trying to deal with Wun Wun and still have the stabbing happen. Heck, they even could have had Olly still strike the killing blow. Idk, I'm looking forward to season 6 if only to see how they are going to play this all out.

Like Toth, I'm part of the first group and I've found the books are better in some areas and not in others, but that's only my opinion. It seems now that I'll have to treat the books and the show as two entirely different entities instead of the show being an adaptation of the books anymore.

[Valhalla Morghulis]

Books and TV/Films are completely different animals. Remember the Academy has awards for both original screenplay and adapted screenplay to show just how different and hard it is to successfully adapt across mediums. For a Book series as dense as GRRM's even a 70 episode series was going to leave out more stuff that was put in.

LOTR was well adapted but it took 10 hours of film time but the books are more adolescent than ASOIAF which has much deeper more complex themes. The best adaptations usually come from thin sources that can be expanded upon by creative talents such as Shawshank based on a short story.

[Toth]

Books and TV/Films are completely different animals. Remember the Academy has awards for both original screenplay and adapted screenplay to show just how different and hard it is to successfully adapt across mediums. For a Book series as dense as GRRM's even a 70 episode series was going to leave out more stuff that was put in.

LOTR was well adapted but it took 10 hours of film time but the books are more adolescent than ASOIAF which has much deeper more complex themes. The best adaptations usually come from thin sources that can be expanded upon by creative talents such as Shawshank based on a short story.

Yeah, yeah. We all know this argument. Books are thick, you have to omit stuff to get it onto the screen. It is a valid argument and can be used against anybody who complains because of missing content. But you know what: It doesn't work if you make an adaption that 'tries to be faithful to the books except when it doesn't'. Omitting stuff is no problem, but adding stuff that makes no sense, rips open plotholes or completely garbles any characterization is very problematic. They try to hit the twists of the books as if they have a checklist in front of them, but otherwise do what they want with the characters, having their own characterisations except when suddenly have to revert back to their book-self for a scene or two. This is very inconsistent writing and I can't believe how few of the casual show-watchers get it. Is it just for me as a now-bookreader that these inconsistencies are glaring so much into my face?

I try to make it as clear as possible: There are only two kinds of adaption that I consider good: The free adaption which takes the themes of a material and constructs a completely own story around them. The 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'-movie is a good example for this. Or, even more drastically, 'Starship Troopers', which occasionally feels like a parody of the work its adapting. I like them very much despite having read the books and could point out the deviations, so why am I not angry at those? It's easy to explain: Internally, those movies tell very straightforward stories with their own kind of consistency in a fraction of the screentime GoT has. If you want to do your own thing as a screenwriter, do it like them, start from scratch and only use what you want to use. D&D and their henchmen didn't they kinda tryed to do the second kind of good adaption, the one which is faithful to its source material and only deviates if it is absolutely nessecary for reasons of budget or medium. They really tried it with the first season. Except when they didn't and just added stuff they would find cool like the dreadful sexposition scenes. I just want to remind that there were good additions like Cersei/Robert-dialogue or Arya/Tywin, but those were always scarce. D&D are just horrible writers and they don't understand many of the characters, which make this back and forth between bookscenes and own constructs so confusing and terrible.

In addition to this, GRRMs story is very complex, has a ridiculous number of characters but also deals with a lot difficult themes like rape, slavery and misogyny. Those are topics you have to deal with in a tasteful and serious manner with. GRRM does, the show doesn't because the showrunners are only in it for shocks and sex and twists. They don't get many of the subtle themes and it is sad for Unsullied to think D&Ds version is the real thing.

What do we know about Westeros from additions by D&D? Aside from what is from in the books? That all prostitutes are loving their jobs, craving for cock because they are so darn sexually liberated and give free sex to customers who impress them? Really? This is the main reason I've met people who were angry about the books without having read them and find this just infuriating.

[Prince of the North]

Yeah, yeah. We all know this argument. Books are thick, you have to omit stuff to get it onto the screen. It is a valid argument and can be used against anybody who complains because of missing content. But you know what: It doesn't work if you make an adaption that 'tries to be faithful to the books except when it doesn't'. Omitting stuff is no problem, but adding stuff that makes no sense, rips open plotholes or completely garbles any characterization is very problematic. They try to hit the twists of the books as if they have a checklist in front of them, but otherwise do what they want with the characters, having their own characterisations except when suddenly have to revert back to their book-self for a scene or two. This is very inconsistent writing and I can't believe how few of the casual show-watchers get it. Is it just for me as a now-bookreader that these inconsistencies are glaring so much into my face?

I try to make it as clear as possible: There are only two kinds of adaption that I consider good: The free adaption which takes the themes of a material and constructs a completely own story around them. The 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'-movie is a good example for this. Or, even more drastically, 'Starship Troopers', which occasionally feels like a parody of the work its adapting. I like them very much despite having read the books and could point out the deviations, so why am I not angry at those? It's easy to explain: Internally, those movies tell very straightforward stories with their own kind of consistency in a fraction of the screentime GoT has. If you want to do your own thing as a screenwriter, do it like them, start from scratch and only use what you want to use. D&D and their henchmen didn't they kinda tryed to do the second kind of good adaption, the one which is faithful to its source material and only deviates if it is absolutely nessecary for reasons of budget or medium. They really tried it with the first season. Except when they didn't and just added stuff they would find cool like the dreadful sexposition scenes. I just want to remind that there were good additions like Cersei/Robert-dialogue or Arya/Tywin, but those were always scarce. D&D are just horrible writers and they don't understand many of the characters, which make this back and forth between bookscenes and own constructs so confusing and terrible.

In addition to this, GRRMs story is very complex, has a ridiculous number of characters but also deals with a lot difficult themes like rape, slavery and misogyny. Those are topics you have to deal with in a tasteful and serious manner with. GRRM does, the show doesn't because the showrunners are only in it for shocks and sex and twists. They don't get many of the subtle themes and it is sad for Unsullied to think D&Ds version is the real thing.

What do we know about Westeros from additions by D&D? Aside from what is from in the books? That all prostitutes are loving their jobs, craving for cock because they are so darn sexually liberated and give free sex to customers who impress them? Really? This is the main reason I've met people who were angry about the books without having read them and find this just infuriating.

Completely agreed! I never expected everything from the books to be put on the screen, far from it. That would be impossible with this story. However, just judging the show by itself, it lacks a great deal of internal consistency and is becoming increasingly sloppy and illogical.

[Red Helm]

I couldn't figure out why they paid the money for the CGI of the character and not use him the way he was utilized in the books. I can only hope he goes on a rampage in the aftermath with the other wildlings. And where in the seven hells was Dolorous Edd? Or Davos and Melisandre?

There were other guys there that had their swords. True, Jon may have been able to ward off some of his attackers but he would have eventually been worn down and killed.

It's still incredibly stupid because if he did have Longclaw, likely several would have been killed or injured... and if they overpowered immediately even if Jon ripped Longclaw and began attacking first with no cost of life/injury, even more stupid inconsistencies given Jon's prior portrayal as this grand master swordsman. Literally if you look at it from one way or another it is utterly stupid.

[boojam]

LOTR was well adapted but it took 10 hours of film time but the books are more adolescent than ASOIAF which has much deeper more complex themes. The best adaptations usually come from thin sources that can be expanded upon by creative talents such as Shawshank based on a short story.

I would not classify LTOR as 'adolescent' it does not contain 'explicit' adult material but it is pitched at an adult level of prose narrative.

Robert E. Howard's sword and sorcery novels fall sort of between, he wrote at a time hard core material could not be included, but he did include mature material I don't think Tolkien would have touched.