How do D&D decide what to keep/cut..?

[Werthead]

On 29/01/2017 at 5:53 AM, Rachel of Oldstones said:

Does anyone know how/why D&D have decided to cut certain storylines  (example: (f)Aegon...) and when to stick to to GRRM's original story?

I'm looking for factual answers, with quotes, interviews... Legit sources. I have done a few searches with no luck. But I know that this is the place to find out.

Thanks! 

My understanding is they have a large dartboard with characters' faces on it, and they swap them out for storylines. They throw darts at random to determine which characters and stories to keep and which to not.

[StepStark]

2 hours ago, lancerman said:

Realistically (and to avoid some of the sour grapes here) it probably has more to do with how integral something is to the main story weighed against how many resources need to allocated to it. 

 

Faegon for instance requires hiring a while set of actors a new location and groundwork to forshadow it. That's a lot of time and money if he's just an obstacle that Dany overcomes and reveals as a fraud on route to gaining her army. 

Likewise they could have spent all that time and money on Brienne's travels, which was a lot of character building, or they could just put her on the back burner in an already ongoing storyline in the North. 

Usually you can kinda trace where and why things are cut. Like Sansa probably ends up in a similar position with Jon in the North. This way just got rid of the Vale portion. 

Then why didn't they get rid of the Dorne portion? After all, it's not as if they know what to do with it.

Why didn't they get rid of the Daario portion, when he's clearly without any significance in their story?

Why didn't they remove Tyrells entirely, since it's obvious that in the show the entire family had no importance at all?

[StepStark]

On 1/29/2017 at 6:53 AM, Rachel of Oldstones said:

Does anyone know how/why D&D have decided to cut certain storylines  (example: (f)Aegon...) and when to stick to to GRRM's original story?

I'm looking for factual answers, with quotes, interviews... Legit sources. I have done a few searches with no luck. But I know that this is the place to find out.

Thanks! 

I think the final result makes their basic principle pretty obvious: whenever D&D think they don't have to follow Martin's original story, they deviate either by cutting or adding or altering storylines. And the main criteria is probably their personal preference, e.g. what they personally like and what they don't. And of course because of the famous butterfly effect it all piles up in time, and it's more and more easy for them to deviate as the show progresses. In the specific case of Aegon, they changed Dany's story so much up to that point, that they really didn't feel the need to include him. And, since they have Dany magically burn down a dozen Dothraki warlords, they actually don't need any logic, let alone Aegon. Also, with Stannis, whom they evidently dislike from the beginning, they removed him from the battle for the North, but since they like the burning of Shireen they kept that part, although in completely different circumstances than in the story envisioned by Martin. Of course, you won't find their quotes and interviews with confirmation of all this, but luckily you can see for yourself just by watching the show.

[teej6]

4 hours ago, Werthead said:

My understanding is they have a large dartboard with characters' faces on it, and they swap them out for storylines. They throw darts at random to determine which characters and stories to keep and which to not.

It isn't at random at all. They're favorites won't have their faces up on the dartboard. 

[teej6]

3 hours ago, StepStark said:

I think the final result makes their basic principle pretty obvious: whenever D&D think they don't have to follow Martin's original story, they deviate either by cutting or adding or altering storylines. And the main criteria is probably their personal preference, e.g. what they personally like and what they don't. And of course because of the famous butterfly effect it all piles up in time, and it's more and more easy for them to deviate as the show progresses. In the specific case of Aegon, they changed Dany's story so much up to that point, that they really didn't feel the need to include him. And, since they have Dany magically burn down a dozen Dothraki warlords, they actually don't need any logic, let alone Aegon. Also, with Stannis, whom they evidently dislike from the beginning, they removed him from the battle for the North, but since they like the burning of Shireen they kept that part, although in completely different circumstances than in the story envisioned by Martin. Of course, you won't find their quotes and interviews with confirmation of all this, but luckily you can see for yourself just by watching the show.

How I see it is, when the show started they stuck to the books and therefore it worked. After the show started getting popular, these two morons began to feel more confident and egotistic and felt that with their amateurish writing skills (both I believe are failed writers) they could do a better job than GRRM. And to top it off they started winning awards, which D&D took for validation of their pathetic writing skills. And now it almost seems like they are bored with the whole project and just want to get the damn thing off their plate, and therefore we'll see a mad rush to bring everyone together like one big happy family absent any logic or continuity in the story. 

[Dragon in the North]

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

How I see it is, when the show started they stuck to the books and therefore it worked. After the show started getting popular, these two morons began to feel more confident and egotistic and felt that with their amateurish writing skills (both I believe are failed writers) they could do a better job than GRRM. And to top it off they started winning awards, which D&D took for validation of their pathetic writing skills. And now it almost seems like they are bored with the whole project and just want to get the damn thing off their plate, and therefore we'll see a mad rush to bring everyone together like one big happy family absent any logic or continuity in the story. 

I disagree. They started to stray from the books at the point where Martin made a mess of the story. Martin buried himself in storylines and I, for one, think it'll be impossible for him to dig himself out. D&D learned from his mistakes and created a more focused and coherent narrative. I don't think they are better writers than Martin, but they are better storytellers.

[teej6]

1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

I disagree. They started to stray from the books at the point where Martin made a mess of the story. Martin buried himself in storylines and I, for one, think it'll be impossible for him to dig himself out. D&D learned from his mistakes and created a more focused and coherent narrative. I don't think they are better writers than Martin, but they are better storytellers.

By better storytelling do you mean the fiasco that was Dorne, or Sansa's every changing character, or Tyrion whiling away in Mereen telling ridiculous jokes to Greyworm and Missandei, or the butchery of Stannis? No, D&D's story telling lacks the fundamental elements of good story telling -- which is character development, continuity, and a logical and consistent progression of the narrative. Their modus operandi is creating spectacle and shocking the audience, logic and continuity be damned. For goodness sake, they can't even be consistent with their own changes and additions (for example, one day Stannis and his men are caught in a blizzard and covered in snow and the next day they are walking on ground with hardly any snow, or when Areo dies instantly when he is stabbed once in the back and Arya gets stabbed several times in the gut and within a few days she is seen high vaulting like an Olympic gymnast).

I agree that GRRM meandered a bit and may have expanded things more than necessary, but then again, he has the skill to neatly tie things up and to bring characters story arcs to a logical and satisfactory end unlike D&D.  Take for example how Stannis arc ended -- a man who is referred to as a seasoned and probably one of the best battle commanders in Westeros, someone who even Tywin is concerned about gets defeated by Ramsay (an upstart loon) who is shown to have no previous experience in battle or commanding an army. All Ramsay needed to defeat the Stannis, was 20 good men. 

[Dragon in the North]

3 hours ago, teej6 said:

By better storytelling do you mean the fiasco that was Dorne, or Sansa's every changing character, or Tyrion whiling away in Mereen telling ridiculous jokes to Greyworm and Missandei, or the butchery of Stannis? No, D&D's story telling lacks the fundamental elements of good story telling -- which is character development, continuity, and a logical and consistent progression of the narrative. Their modus operandi is creating spectacle and shocking the audience, logic and continuity be damned. For goodness sake, they can't even be consistent with their own changes and additions (for example, one day Stannis and his men are caught in a blizzard and covered in snow and the next day they are walking on ground with hardly any snow, or when Areo dies instantly when he is stabbed once in the back and Arya gets stabbed several times in the gut and within a few days she is seen high vaulting like an Olympic gymnast).

That all has to do with the writing. I'm talking about their ability to tell a story. By storytelling, I'm talking about the dramatic structure that makes up a good story: exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. D&D are able to use this to structure their seasons. In his last two books, however, Martin has failed to properly structure his story arcs and end them at random places. D&D's storytelling capability will allow them to end their story and bring it to a natural conclusion in a few years. Whether or not Martin will be able to complete his story continues to be a giant question mark.

 

3 hours ago, teej6 said:

I agree that GRRM meandered a bit and may have expanded things more than necessary, but then again, he has the skill to neatly tie things up and to bring characters story arcs to a logical and satisfactory end unlike D&D.  Take for example how Stannis arc ended -- a man who is referred to as a seasoned and probably one of the best battle commanders in Westeros, someone who even Tywin is concerned about gets defeated by Ramsay (an upstart loon) who is shown to have no previous experience in battle or commanding an army. All Ramsay needed to defeat the Stannis, was 20 good men. 

He meandered more than a bit. If he had cut out all the filler in Feast and Dance, he would have only needed one book. I use to have faith in his abilities, but after the fiasco of his last two books, I fear he has lost his touch.

As for the bolded, Ramsay was selected to lead the siege of Winterfell against Theon and he was instructed by Roose Bolton to take Moat Caitlin. Roose probably has been teaching Ramsy, much like how Ned taught Jon Snow. Stannis was simply in enemy territory with no allies and with half of his army comprised of sellswords, who aren't known for their loyalty. Even great commanders lose when the odds are against them.

[The Bear Who Knocks]

18 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

That all has to do with the writing. I'm talking about their ability to tell a story. By storytelling, I'm talking about the dramatic structure that makes up a good story: exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. D&D are able to use this to structure their seasons. In his last two books, however, Martin has failed to properly structure his story arcs and end them at random places. D&D's storytelling capability will allow them to end their story and bring it to a natural conclusion in a few years. Whether or not Martin will be able to complete his story continues to be a giant question mark.

 

He meandered more than a bit. If he had cut out all the filler in Feast and Dance, he would have only needed one book. I use to have faith in his abilities, but after the fiasco of his last two books, I fear he has lost his touch.

As for the bolded, Ramsay was selected to lead the siege of Winterfell against Theon and he was instructed by Roose Bolton to take Moat Caitlin. Roose probably has been teaching Ramsy, much like how Ned taught Jon Snow. Stannis was simply in enemy territory with no allies and with half of his army comprised of sellswords, who aren't known for their loyalty. Even great commanders lose when the odds are against them.

Or because the writers want to take chunks of other characters storylines and give it to more "pleasing fan favourite." So they're at the center constantly.

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, The Bear Who Knocks said:

Or because the writers want to take chunks of other characters storylines and give it to more "pleasing fan favourite." So they're at the center constantly.

I personally believe that Stannis's story in the books is over and that he has nothing left to tribute. He is the false messiah after all. His story was never going to end well. I think that the parallels between Jon and Ramsay are impossible to ignore and I can see Jon leading an army against him if Stannis has fallen. I could be wrong, though.

[StepStark]

1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

I personally believe that Stannis's story in the books is over and that he has nothing left to tribute. He is the false messiah after all. His story was never going to end well. I think that the parallels between Jon and Ramsay are impossible to ignore and I can see Jon leading an army against him if Stannis has fallen. I could be wrong, though.

Ending Stannis' story at this point would be very, very stupid. Quite the contrary, there are many hints that his story is far from over. For example, what he says to Davos that he had a vision of himself with a crown in flames. Stannis is probably heading towards some tragic conclusion, but Martin's tragic conclusions are far more satisfying and significant than D&D's. There is simply no way that something as ridiculous as "20 good men" can be anyone's downfall in the books, let alone Stannis' downfall.

[Meera of Tarth]

On 19/2/2017 at 9:21 PM, teej6 said:

By better storytelling do you mean the fiasco that was Dorne, or Sansa's every changing character, or Tyrion whiling away in Mereen telling ridiculous jokes to Greyworm and Missandei, or the butchery of Stannis? No, D&D's story telling lacks the fundamental elements of good story telling -- which is character development, continuity, and a logical and consistent progression of the narrative. Their modus operandi is creating spectacle and shocking the audience, logic and continuity be damned. For goodness sake, they can't even be consistent with their own changes and additions (for example, one day Stannis and his men are caught in a blizzard and covered in snow and the next day they are walking on ground with hardly any snow, or when Areo dies instantly when he is stabbed once in the back and Arya gets stabbed several times in the gut and within a few days she is seen high vaulting like an Olympic gymnast).

I agree that GRRM meandered a bit and may have expanded things more than necessary, but then again, he has the skill to neatly tie things up and to bring characters story arcs to a logical and satisfactory end unlike D&D.  Take for example how Stannis arc ended -- a man who is referred to as a seasoned and probably one of the best battle commanders in Westeros, someone who even Tywin is concerned about gets defeated by Ramsay (an upstart loon) who is shown to have no previous experience in battle or commanding an army. All Ramsay needed to defeat the Stannis, was 20 good men. 

I completely agree with that.

22 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

That all has to do with the writing. I'm talking about their ability to tell a story. By storytelling, I'm talking about the dramatic structure that makes up a good story: exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. D&D are able to use this to structure their seasons. In his last two books, however, Martin has failed to properly structure his story arcs and end them at random places. D&D's storytelling capability will allow them to end their story and bring it to a natural conclusion in a few years. Whether or not Martin will be able to complete his story continues to be a giant question mark.

 

He meandered more than a bit. If he had cut out all the filler in Feast and Dance, he would have only needed one book. I use to have faith in his abilities, but after the fiasco of his last two books, I fear he has lost his touch.

As for the bolded, Ramsay was selected to lead the siege of Winterfell against Theon and he was instructed by Roose Bolton to take Moat Caitlin. Roose probably has been teaching Ramsy, much like how Ned taught Jon Snow. Stannis was simply in enemy territory with no allies and with half of his army comprised of sellswords, who aren't known for their loyalty. Even great commanders lose when the odds are against them.

I think that basic storytelling needs what @teej6 comments: character development, continuity, logic ...., but good storytelling IF it is defined as plot-driven (like someone pointed out in this thread before) has, apart from these, some of the points you mention, such as rising action, climax... Stories that are more introspective also need those elements but not in the same capacity.

To me it's blatantly clear that the first three Asoiaf books are extremely good in storytelling, and the last two are good storytelling in the sense that they are completely logical, respect the laws of continuity, like the frist ones, but are more introspective and possibly expand to much the story, which makes them less appealing to the average reader, who is more accustomed to action/same set of characters. I for one prefer the first three but I also like the last two, even if sometimes are boring to me. However, some of the passages that some people consider "too boring" are the ones I have enjoyed the most, because I love characterisation and introspection. I also like expanded storytelling if it follows logic. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.  To sum up, ALL the BOOKS, even aFFC and aDwD have a plot that follows the rules of LOGIC  and also are good or very good books (the last two books are considered average ones by some readers, but not for not having logic).

As for GOT, to me it's very clear that the first seasons have good storytelling and have their logic.  I can complain about certain things but I see each season separately and they can't be considered an horror IMHO. My opinion is in fact of a very good show for the first three, good for the 4th. However, if we analyse the last two seasons, globally there is a lack of logic that starts when the show diverges from the book source. Being very optimistic, a show lover who still finds s5 as a good season, can't say that the logic and continuity is at the same level than in previous seasons being objective. If it is analysed per episodes, this pattern is even more recognisable. 

I recall that watching s5 my opinion was that it was a very bad season. Having rewatched it, I consider that some things were not as horrible as I had previously thought, but the ones that were really bad and had the least logic were even more noticeable after having watched the other seasons just before (up to the point of feeling I am watching another show). So, to me, I think one can like or can't like a show or a series of books, but it is not objective to say (I'll put just an example) the rules of being stabbed in s5/s6 are good storytelling: Areo Jon and Arya. So it is very clear that those continuity errors (which is basic storytelling) wouldn't have happened with the same/other characters from the same show in seasons that preceded s5. And that is telling considering the showrunners are the same ones.

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

Ending Stannis' story at this point would be very, very stupid. Quite the contrary, there are many hints that his story is far from over. For example, what he says to Davos that he had a vision of himself with a crown in flames. Stannis is probably heading towards some tragic conclusion, but Martin's tragic conclusions are far more satisfying and significant than D&D's. There is simply no way that something as ridiculous as "20 good men" can be anyone's downfall in the books, let alone Stannis' downfall.

And there's Dany's House of the Undying vision that alludes to a meeting between her and Stannis. I just don't understand why he's dragging out Stannis's downfall. Him losing to the Boltons makes sense narratively, which would then leave room for the Starks to take back their home, whether it be Jon Snow or Sansa with the Knights of the Vale.

[Dragon in the North]

37 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I think that basic storytelling needs what @teej6 comments: character development, continuity, logic ...., but good storytelling IF it is defined as plot-driven (like someone pointed out in this thread before) has, apart from these, some of the points you mention, such as rising action, climax... Stories that are more introspective also need those elements but not in the same capacity.

To me it's blatantly clear that the first three Asoiaf books are extremely good in storytelling, and the last two are good storytelling in the sense that they are completely logical, respect the laws of continuity, like the frist ones, but are more introspective and possibly expand to much the story, which makes them less appealing to the average reader, who is more accustomed to action/same set of characters. I for one prefer the first three but I also like the last two, even if sometimes are boring to me. However, some of the passages that some people consider "too boring" are the ones I have enjoyed the most, because I love characterisation and introspection. I also like expanded storytelling if it follows logic. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.  To sum up, ALL the BOOKS, even aFFC and aDwD have a plot that follows the rules of LOGIC  and also are good or very good books (the last two books are considered average ones by some readers, but not for not having logic).

As for GOT, to me it's very clear that the first seasons have good storytelling and have their logic.  I can complain about certain things but I see each season separately and they can't be considered an horror IMHO. My opinion is in fact of a very good show for the first three, good for the 4th. However, if we analyse the last two seasons, globally there is a lack of logic that starts when the show diverges from the book source. Being very optimistic, a show lover who still finds s5 as a good season, can't say that the logic and continuity is at the same level than in previous seasons being objective. If it is analysed per episodes, this pattern is even more recognisable. 

Like I said, I believe that Martin does character development and dialogue better than D&D, but the structure of the last two books is just plain bad. Stannis's arc in particular suffered from this in that we didn't get the Battle of Winterfell. This meant that his arc was entirely made up of exposition and rising action, without so much of a climax. However, take a look at Jon's arc in season 6. We had exposition with him reuniting with Sansa and receiving Ramsay's letter. We had rising action, with Sansa and Jon rallying the North to their cause. We had a climax with the Battle of the Bastards. We had the falling action, with Jon and Sansa conversing on the battlements of Winterfell, discussing their next move. And we had resolution, with Jon being proclaimed King in the North. That is good storytelling. I could make the same case for the vast majority of the arcs in season 6. All of your critiques about the character development and continuity have to do with the writing aspect of the show.

As for logic, all I'll say is that the show has its own logic that its kept to, for the most part. It may have strayed a bit here and there, but not nearly as much as people here think.

50 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

II recall that watching s5 my opinion was that it was a very bad season. Having rewatched it, I consider that some things were not as horrible as I had previously thought, but the ones that were really bad and had the least logic were even more noticeable after having watched the other seasons just before (up to the point of feeling I am watching another show). So, to me, I think one can like or can't like a show or a series of books, but it is not objective to say (I'll put just an example) the rules of being stabbed in s5/s6 are good storytelling: Areo Jon and Arya. So it is very clear that those continuity errors (which is basic storytelling) wouldn't have happened with the same/other characters from the same show in seasons that preceded s5. And that is telling considering the showrunners are the same ones.

The only law of stabbing is if you get stabbed in a vital organ, you die. Areo was stabbed in the spine, Arya, the side. It's possible the Waif's knife missed a vital organ, which helped Arya stay alive until she received medical attention. Now, even though I don't have a problem with her surviving the wound, I did have a problem with all the stunts Arya was able to do. The least she could have done was clutch her side, as running should have been painful.

[Meera of Tarth]

33 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

Like I said, I believe that Martin does character development and dialogue better than D&D, but the structure of the last two books is just plain bad. Stannis's arc in particular suffered from this in that we didn't get the Battle of Winterfell. This meant that his arc was entirely made up of exposition and rising action, without so much of a climax. However, take a look at Jon's arc in season 6. We had exposition with him reuniting with Sansa and receiving Ramsay's letter. We had rising action, with Sansa and Jon rallying the North to their cause. We had a climax with the Battle of the Bastards. We had the falling action, with Jon and Sansa conversing on the battlements of Winterfell, discussing their next move. And we had resolution, with Jon being proclaimed King in the North. That is good storytelling. I could make the same case for the vast majority of the arcs in season 6. All of your critiques about the character development and continuity have to do with the writing aspect of the show.

As for logic, all I'll say is that the show has its own logic that its kept to, for the most part. It may have strayed a bit here and there, but not nearly as much as people here think.

The only law of stabbing is if you get stabbed in a vital organ, you die. Areo was stabbed in the spine, Arya, the side. It's possible the Waif's knife missed a vital organ, which helped Arya stay alive until she received medical attention. Now, even though I don't have a problem with her surviving the wound, I did have a problem with all the stunts Arya was able to do. The least she could have done was clutch her side, as running should have been painful.

The problem with resolution you mention in thr books is not as it seems. The manuscript was not allowed to be so long and that is the reason some stories have no ending in this book. But this started happening since agot. With the universe being expanded at this point of thr story, it means the stories will continue in the next books or have cliffhangers instead of a finished ending, brcause if not the book would be much much longer.

the show has its own logic until it fails. For instance, the stabbing thing. Arya was repeteadly stabbed not just on the side, it was deep, lasted a fdw seconds, and the waif twisted thr knife. An hemorrgahe and fainting should have been theminimum, and that is huge. She could die only bc of the hemorrgahr but instead she jumps, walks, gets cured wit soup and some help anf the next day she is able to run and jump again, kill the waif, cut her face, etc and then travel to westeros and do ecerything she does there. She is totally cured.

[Dragon in the North]

8 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

The problem with resolution you mention in thr books is not as it seems. The manuscript was not allowed to be so long and that is the reason some stories have no ending in this book. But this started happening since agot. With the universe being expanded at this point of thr story, it means the stories will continue in the next books or have cliffhangers instead of a finished ending, brcause if not the book would be much much longer.

That argument doesn't hold up because Martin chose to expand his story. He chose to concentrate on secondary characters, giving his main characters incomplete arcs. D&D learned from Martin's mistakes and their show has something that Feast and Dance lack: focus. That is why they will complete their story in a timely manner, whereas Martin may never finish his.

 

12 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

the show has its own logic until it fails. For instance, the stabbing thing. Arya was repeteadly stabbed not just on the side, it was deep, lasted a fdw seconds, and the waif twisted thr knife. An hemorrgahe and fainting should have been theminimum, and that is huge. She could die only bc of the hemorrgahr but instead she jumps, walks, gets cured wit soup and some help anf the next day she is able to run and jump again, kill the waif, cut her face, etc and then travel to westeros and do ecerything she does there. She is totally cured.

I saw her stabbed twice, and it's unclear how deep the knife went. I've seen characters in tv and in movies survive much worse. In fact, in this very show, Davos survived a mini-nuke, Jaime survived having his hand cut off, Theon survived his castration, etc. Arya surviving her stab wound is not outside the realm of possibility for me. I agree with the rest of it, though. She healed way too quickly.

[teej6]

1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

Like I said, I believe that Martin does character development and dialogue better than D&D, but the structure of the last two books is just plain bad. Stannis's arc in particular suffered from this in that we didn't get the Battle of Winterfell. This meant that his arc was entirely made up of exposition and rising action, without so much of a climax. However, take a look at Jon's arc in season 6. We had exposition with him reuniting with Sansa and receiving Ramsay's letter. We had rising action, with Sansa and Jon rallying the North to their cause. We had a climax with the Battle of the Bastards. We had the falling action, with Jon and Sansa conversing on the battlements of Winterfell, discussing their next move. And we had resolution, with Jon being proclaimed King in the North. That is good storytelling. I could make the same case for the vast majority of the arcs in season 6. All of your critiques about the character development and continuity have to do with the writing aspect of the show.

As for logic, all I'll say is that the show has its own logic that its kept to, for the most part. It may have strayed a bit here and there, but not nearly as much as people here think.

The only law of stabbing is if you get stabbed in a vital organ, you die. Areo was stabbed in the spine, Arya, the side. It's possible the Waif's knife missed a vital organ, which helped Arya stay alive until she received medical attention. Now, even though I don't have a problem with her surviving the wound, I did have a problem with all the stunts Arya was able to do. The least she could have done was clutch her side, as running should have been painful.

We didn't get the Battle of Winterfell because GRRM's editor thought ADWD was too long. Stannis' arc in ADWD, IMO, is one of the best. The character is fully fleshed out and we begin to sympathize with the character and root for him. I really don't know what you mean by exposition, but I'm of the opinion that the less the exposition in a literary device (books, movies, TV shows) the better the product. GRRM does not do much exposition rather here and there he may have certain characters explaining past incidents or providing a description of motives but he expects the reader to identify and interpret for themselves as any smart writer would do. D&D, on the other hand, are famous for their over the top exposition. They dumb down to the audience and spoon feed the story in case the audience is too stupid to understand. In fact, the term sexposition was coined based on D&D's use of exposition during scenes depicting sex, which just shows how juvenile and amateur their skills are.  

GRRM's books do not lack a proper structure or narrative as you say. The fault, if one wants to nitpick, is that GRRM created a very expansive world with several characters, which may make it harder for him to wind down. As he's always said, he's not the kind of writer that is like an architect, who maps out their stories before hand, instead he is like a gardener and lets the story grow and progress while writing it. We as readers, after so many years, are looking for the story to conclude and wind down, and granted when characters are introduced in book 5 of a 7 book series, it makes you wonder if GRRM can wrap up the story in 2 books. But as Meera of Tarth said, even the late additions and extensive world building are interesting and good storytelling. It flows with the rest of the story seamlessly. As to GRRM concluding the series with 7 books, I believe he can and the end product will more than satisfy his readers.

D&D, on the other hand, are bad storytellers as they can't write a coherent, full formed narrative without the source material. You mentioned that the Stannis arc on the show was satisfactory for you, to me it was a perfect example of inconsistent, illogical, poorly conceived writing. D&D decided to get rid of Stannis so as to have Jon fight Ramsay, so what do they do? Invent 20 good men, stolen horses (by the way Melissandre found a horse) and rations, and a blizzard and a pile of snow, which disappears the next day. Oh and lets not forget, Ramsay's army was only walking distance away from where Stannis and his army was camped. Stannis a seasoned commander does not bother with scouts to track the enemy. No, Stannis arc, like many others was butchered at the hands of these hacks. 

As for Arya getting stabbed and running like a sprinter within days, there's no scientific way that can happen. Arya was stabbed several times in the gut and even if the Waif missed her vital organs, Arya should have either bled to death or should have contracted sepsis (considering she fell into water that might have had all the contaminants of Bravos in it). So how does Arya heal and recover? An actress whose only experience is stitching up her many lovers after she stabs them is able to stitch up Arya's many wounds and cure her with some soup and magic potions (I don't believe the middle ages, which Westeros is based on had antibiotics) from her cupboard. And then, in a short while, we see Arya dashing through the streets like a sprinter. One has to really try hard and suspend disbelief to buy this crap. 

[teej6]

26 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

That argument doesn't hold up because Martin chose to expand his story. He chose to concentrate on secondary characters, giving his main characters incomplete arcs. D&D learned from Martin's mistakes and their show has something that Feast and Dance lack: focus. That is why they will complete their story in a timely manner, whereas Martin may never finish his.

 

I saw her stabbed twice, and it's unclear how deep the knife went. I've seen characters in tv and in movies survive much worse. In fact, in this very show, Davos survived a mini-nuke, Jaime survived having his hand cut off, Theon survived his castration, etc. Arya surviving her stab wound is not outside the realm of possibility for me. I agree with the rest of it, though. She healed way too quickly.

To me, none of GRRM's main characters have incomplete arcs. They are all well fleshed out and properly developed. Now you can argue that in the next two books, GRRM may not be able to do full justice to the secondary characters considering he has only 2 books left, but we'll just have to wait and see about that. I believe he can and will. D&D's storylines (if you can even call them that) is incomplete, incoherent, illogical, and lacks any form of narrative continuity. As to them finishing in a timely manner, yes of course they will because I don't really think they cared about the story beyond the Red Wedding. I doubt they've even read AFFC and ADWD. In one interview, Benioff didn't even know that Sam was a POV character. Besides, GRRM has only told them how the main characters arcs will end and asked them fill in the blanks, which they know their limited skills are incapable of doing. So of course they want to end the story. 

And you are right, Arya gets stabbed only twice but the second wound was quite deep and the Waif twisted the knife in Arya's gut, enough to kill a person wouldn't you say? Jamie was half dead when he was brought to Qyburn and Theon was most likely attended by a Maester after his castration as Ramsay wanted him alive. 

[Meera of Tarth]

40 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

That argument doesn't hold up because Martin chose to expand his story.

Ending a book with cliffhangers is something very normal in a story that is set up in multiple books. Having an expanded story, it is very difficult that all the stories will have a finished ending or end (all of them) in cliffhangers. The main characters from the Northern storyline, such as Jon, ended in a cliffhanger, which is satisfying in my opinion. Let's not forget that Asha's story which is with Stannis' also ends in one so I don't see the point in saying the book has a flaw there because of those "incomplete" arcs.

Quote

He chose to concentrate on secondary characters, giving his main characters incomplete arcs. D&D learned from Martin's mistakes and their show has something that Feast and Dance lack: focus. That is why they will complete their story in a timely manner, whereas Martin may never finish his.

Well, as I said, not all the main characters had incomplete arcs. Jon had a complete arc, Bran had a good one, Arya's arc is "so complete considering these books are the middle ones, Cersei is complete also, as it is Jaime's. Danys' I'd say it's kind of compelte, her story in Meereen is completed. On the other hand, we see that Sansa's, Tyrion's might not be considered completed for the book, but the others, they are in my opinion.

Seconday Characters that are expanded: Oh, I like secondary characters, as many readers do. So I am afraid can't find a counterargument to the non-focused arcs for the main ones because I actually think it's a refreshing thing. More when we take into account than in this story since Ned's death nothing is what one seems, main characters might have a shorter story than secondary ones, who might have bigger roles in the ending, while being expanded in the books from the middle, that are the ones we are talking about. In fact, I think the show made a mistake giving so many importance to the "main" ones in the latter seasons instead of getting the things more balanced like in the books.

As for that it takes a lot of time to finish the books, that's something all the readers regret, but I would not like a simple version of the story, and that's why I think the adaptation should be better, like the books.

Finishing with less quality is not always better than not finishing at proper time with much more quality. However, I'll say than if the next book is not published before s7 I'll be disappointed as a reader.

Quote

I saw her stabbed twice, and it's unclear how deep the knife went. I've seen characters in tv and in movies survive much worse. In fact, in this very show, Davos survived a mini-nuke, Jaime survived having his hand cut off, Theon survived his castration, etc. Arya surviving her stab wound is not outside the realm of possibility for me. I agree with the rest of it, though. She healed way too quickly.

I saw it went very deep. We saw a close shot of it.

We agree with the 2nd the bolded then.

[Meera of Tarth]

 

36 minutes ago, teej6 said:

 

As for Arya getting stabbed and running like a sprinter within days, there's no scientific way that can happen. Arya was stabbed several times in the gut and even if the Waif missed her vital organs, Arya should have either bled to death or should have contracted sepsis (considering she fell into water that might have had all the contaminants of Bravos in it). So how does Arya heal and recover? An actress whose only experience is stitching up her many lovers after she stabs them is able to stitch up Arya's many wounds and cure her with some soup and magic potions (I don't believe the middle ages, which Westeros is based on had antibiotics) from her cupboard. And then, in a short while, we see Arya dashing through the streets like a sprinter. One has to really try hard and suspend disbelief to buy this crap. 

Arya's thing is so huge in my opinion. I'd say that I'd have liked to see just being stabbed once, or that magic had played a part on her healing, given that Braavos' arc is about magic. How would Lady Crane have had access to those potions to heal internal wounds and stop hemorrhage would be still be a big thing to respond, but at least, it would have been a better explanation, that just: it happened because we wanted to shock the audience (=aka she is used to heal her lovers and has some medicine in a cupboard), and then return to normality, or, jump even more, cut the waif, kill WF, etc.