Which do you prefer GOT Books or Series?

[Good Guy Garlan]

Aeron Greyjoy is one of the most complex and unique character in the books. you don't like him, but that does mean that he is one dimensional.

May I ask why? I'm legitimately curious because in all honesty this is the first time I've seen someone say something like this

[Bridgeburners]

I find it hard to believe that the points I'm going to make weren't already mentioned in 15 pages.

Not surprisingly, I give the edge to the books. But I don't care that the show is taking a different direction, cutting out scenes, adding its own scenes, etc. In fact, I would strongly encourage it. I have nothing against D&D making it a work of their own, merely inspired by aSoIaF. I may be biased in having read the series well before the show came out, or knowing that things tend to be better in books than on television, however I am trying to remain as unbiased as possible by comparing how aSoIaF stands against its standard of books vs how GoT stands against its standard of shows. In fact, if GoT were anything like The Wire or Breaking Bad quality, I would be inclined to favour it over the books, or at least be very conflicted. But it's nowhere near them, and in this case, there's basically no contest.

I often find it hard to compartmentalize things, especially since the divisions tend to be arbitrary and overlapping, but for the sake of simplicity I'll try it here by encompassing my disdain for the show in three major points:

1) The dialogue isn't all that great. I mean, it was really good in season 1, and okay in season 2, but after that it just went to shit. The only notably good ones were just snippets taken straight out of the books (e.g. Jamie's bathtub scene), the rest are basically just dumbed down soap opera conversations with virtually no subtext that isn't completely void in subtlety, not a single complex thought or idea uttered, and for the most part, rehashing how characters feel about things in case the audience didn't pick it up. To sum it up, it's very much like D&D have seen how wide their audience has grown and, much like CNN (who assume that "breaking news" being unsubstantiated speculation of a missing plane wouldn't raise an eyebrow), feel that they need to assume a shrinking average IQ or attention span as the fan base grows.

2) For a TV show, the length of time slots do not at all justify the cast size and scope of plot. Like I said, I don't care, and in fact, encourage D&D to take creative license with the show and keep it as a loose inspiration, so I don't buy the excuse that this is only a TV show and they are limited by their budget and time slots. They should have accounted for their resources when constructing their plan for the show, and their creative licenses. The Wire has a massive cast and plot scope, and it fits everything perfectly in its 13 episode seasons of full-hour episodes (they are full hours, whereas GoT episodes are typically of the order of 49 minutes). What we get, as a result, is incredibly shallow coverage of most characters including the main ones, and contrived plot developments so that the show can rush on and keep pace with the books without feeling the need to make them organic as they are in the books.

3) D&D work too hard orchestrating the show to control the way you feel. The cinematography and soundtrack style follows the flow of a cheesy soap opera, in that it gives completely blunt and overt indications of what it wants you to acknowledge as dramatic. This cheesy effect completely ruins the realism and immersion of many of the scenes, and for me personally, has ruined some of my favourite scenes from the books. This effect also comes in their portrayal of characters. Joffrey in the book was bad in that he had a bad influence, and made you hate him for how spoiled and entitled he acted, but you were still conflicted in feeling pity for him based on knowing how he was raised, and especially during the Purple Wedding. In the show, however, they just wanted your pure unadulterated hatred of him, so they made him a one-sided evil character. In fact, they made a lot of people one-sided. I'm sure many (including myself in previous threads) already mentioned Tyrion the white knight of the show.

[Sages]

As someone who started reading GOT books after I started watching / enjoying the series I have to say, for me, the series has fallen off. Compared to the books IMO it's no contest. I wish the series had stayed truer to the books. The current season 4 is the worst for me, it's deviations have lost me. I know people say the books are always better but I didn't feel that way at first I thought both were good / interesting. Now not so much I think the producers are trying to set themselves apart from books little and it's not necessary. I was hoping they would just tell /bring the story to life on the screen. I understand a few changes that didn't matter because of time. Now though it's gotten to far of course for me. I'll still watch because I enjoy the books and like to put a face to the story book character, but I find myself not as excited as I was to see a new episode every week.

Yea no contest. The books destroy the show. Season one of the show was great though.

[Samsaptakas]

Like all men in this series, Aeron greyjoy is shaped by his culture and surrounding. As a kid, he lived in the fear and awe of his big brothers. (His elder brothers were his ideal because culture and conditioning, and what Euron did to Urion, made him afraid of him. So, he respected one brother and hated and feared other.) Aeron was party goer in his youth and he could piss farther than anyone, but I think he was simply pretending to be this persona. I believe he was always this miserable man, pretending to be something else since rusty hinges.

There are significant changes in his character after first rebellion. As Theon noticed, he is always dour and joyless. There is no humor left in his life. Now he talks: 'Drowned god made Ironborn to suffer.' Other Ironborn doesn't think like that. They don't miss any chance to party. How many character are there in fantasy who want to suffer, who want to live in misery as if the only happiness they could get is out of the misery?

See, I get all of this from his chapters.(I'm not good at writing essays.) Others might not. Plus he had many great quotes and title of his chapters are great as well.

[LordStoneheart]

People were conflicted about Joffrey? I find that hard to believe.

[Mark Antony]

Like all men in this series, Aeron greyjoy is shaped by his culture and surrounding. As a kid, he lived in the fear and awe of his big brothers. (His elder brothers were his ideal because culture and conditioning, and what Euron did to Urion, made him afraid of him. So, he respected one brother and hated and feared other.) Aeron was party goer in his youth and he could piss farther than anyone, but I think he was simply pretending to be this persona. I believe he was always this miserable man, pretending to be something else since rusty hinges.

There are significant changes in his character after first rebellion. As Theon noticed, he is always dour and joyless. There is no humor left in his life. Now he talks: 'Drowned god made Ironborn to suffer.' Other Ironborn doesn't think like that. They don't miss any chance to party. How many character are there in fantasy who want to suffer, who want to live in misery as if the only happiness they could get is out of the misery?

See, I get all of this from his chapters.(I'm not good at writing essays.) Others might not. Plus he had many great quotes and title of his chapters are great as well.

He has what? 2 chapters? And the Kingsmoot one being a great one. Don't really get the hate for his pov. I thought Ashas iron island chapters were significantly worse. :dunno:

[Colonel Green]

but you were still conflicted in feeling pity for him based on knowing how he was raised

I certainly wasn't. Joffrey was one-dimensionally evil, book and show.

[Frey Filet]

Can't believe this is a serious queston..

[Good Guy Garlan]

1) The dialogue isn't all that great. I mean, it was really good in season 1, and okay in season 2, but after that it just went to shit. The only notably good ones were just snippets taken straight out of the books (e.g. Jamie's bathtub scene), the rest are basically just dumbed down soap opera conversations with virtually no subtext that isn't completely void in subtlety, not a single complex thought or idea uttered, and for the most part, rehashing how characters feel about things in case the audience didn't pick it up. To sum it up, it's very much like D&D have seen how wide their audience has grown and, much like CNN (who assume that "breaking news" being unsubstantiated speculation of a missing plane wouldn't raise an eyebrow), feel that they need to assume a shrinking average IQ or attention span as the fan base grows.

This is, in my opinion, the biggest problem of the show, and it really shouldn't be a problem. Say what you will about Martin, but the man does write great dialogue. Probably because of his background as screenwriter his dialogue is practically taylor-made for tv, not only on the actual words spoken by the characters but on the little cues or actions the characters make as they talk. It's really tv-friendly and truly easily translatable to a script, which is why it baffles me that D&D don't take more advantage of it.

Like all men in this series, Aeron greyjoy is shaped by his culture and surrounding. As a kid, he lived in the fear and awe of his big brothers. (His elder brothers were his ideal because culture and conditioning, and what Euron did to Urion, made him afraid of him. So, he respected one brother and hated and feared other.) Aeron was party goer in his youth and he could piss farther than anyone, but I think he was simply pretending to be this persona. I believe he was always this miserable man, pretending to be something else since rusty hinges.

There are significant changes in his character after first rebellion. As Theon noticed, he is always dour and joyless. There is no humor left in his life. Now he talks: 'Drowned god made Ironborn to suffer.' Other Ironborn doesn't think like that. They don't miss any chance to party. How many character are there in fantasy who want to suffer, who want to live in misery as if the only happiness they could get is out of the misery?

See, I get all of this from his chapters.(I'm not good at writing essays.) Others might not. Plus he had many great quotes and title of his chapters are great as well.

I don't necessarily agree with this, but I do think it's refreshing (oh, god, what a lame pun) to see someone analyzing the Damphair, which I don't see every day

[Frey Pies]

Or you know know I might be reaching here it but it could be because its a badly written show?

If it was badly written, it wouldn't be nominated for best written, but it was.

[benalapin]

I certainly wasn't. Joffrey was one-dimensionally evil, book and show.

Nope, in the book we know that Joffrey was nearly beaten to death by his "dad" and always wanted to impress him, which is why he tried to kill Bran. He's really proud of "dad" and actually calls Tywin out on his bullshit. This does not make Joffrey sympathetic but it makes him a sad character, like Lysa. Although people definitely hate Joffrey a lot, there is some sadness in the way that he died. For the show, it's all hate

[sj4iy]

Nope, in the book we know that Joffrey was nearly beaten to death by his "dad" and always wanted to impress him, which is why he tried to kill Bran. He's really proud of "dad" and actually calls Tywin out on his bullshit. This does not make Joffrey sympathetic but it makes him a sad character, like Lysa. Although people definitely hate Joffrey a lot, there is some sadness in the way that he died. For the show, it's all hate

No, Joffrey defends his father against Tywin in the show- "My father won the real war, he killed Rhaegar while you hid under Casterly Rock" (The Rains of Castamere). He also cries when his father is dying...he never cries any other time.

He very clearly adored and idolized his father in the show.

[sj4iy]

Duplicate post.

[Miodrag]

Challenge accepted:

<snip>

Before I later reply to the rest of your points (some of which are rather interesting, though really not the answer to my challenge), let me briefly address the thing that surprised me the most: your claim that Ramsay is one-dimensional cardboard villain (?!) and, even more surprisingly, that he’s the same as Joff (?!?!).

You say Ramsay is insecure. He is not. Ramsay is the very opposite of insecure. He’s nothing if not self-confident, in his deformed way of course. Just remember the hole he crawls out of in ACOK, and in what way – fooling everyone all the time. Insecure people can’t do that. In ADWD, he insults and challenges the Lord Commander of The Night’s Watch: hardly a sign of insecurity. When hunting, he gives his victims a day’s advantage – again, no lack of confidence there (though, truth be told, he could do with some sportsmanship if he really wants a true competition). His menace is all the more terrifying because of his self-confidence. He doesn’t question himself ever. He wouldn’t know the first thing about questioning himself. That’s one of the reasons why you can’t influence his mind or intentions, unless forcibly. He doesn’t have any issue with himself, he has issues only with other people. But he doesn’t question other people: he nullifies them. He actually negates everything that makes them human. He doesn’t hate them, because I don’t think Ramsay’s depraved mind operates in emotional states like “love” or “hate”: he owns them, they belong to him, and he is to do with them or to them whatever he pleases at the moment. Literally at the moment, because elaborate plans are such a waste of time for him. You’re only safe from Ramsay if he’s directly in your power: but then pray you never lose that power, or you’ll follow Theon and become “Reek”.

Ramsay actually crossed the entire path from an insignificant bastard to a high-born son and heir, while Joff was a privileged brat that had too much power from the get-go. Joff wouldn’t last a day in Ramsay’s world. Other than they’re both psychopaths, they couldn’t be further apart. A father is the only thing Joff never had: his father (Robert) was not his real father, which was his uncle. A father is the only thing Ramsay ever had that goes for him. Of course, it doesn’t mean Ramsay wouldn’t kill his father, once no longer in father’s power. He’s probably going to try, just as Roose predicts. And when you think about it, only Roose Bolton could spawn such an all-consuming menace.

So no, Ramsay is really not a clichéd, cardboard, one-dimensional villain, because I don’t think you can find anyone like him in other stories, and you definitely can’t find anyone that even resembles him in ASOIAF. And, if I may add, if you really want Ramsay to be more of a clichéd, cardboard, one-dimensional villain, there’s his TV version for you. Honestly, it will never cease to amaze me that someone (D&D) looked at book Ramsay and thought that he needs to be altered, and then came up with TV Ramsay. (Not to mention that Iwan Rheon is a total miscast, because he wasn't frightening or intimidating in a single scene so far.)

[Annara Snow]

Nope, in the book we know that Joffrey was nearly beaten to death by his "dad" and always wanted to impress him, which is why he tried to kill Bran. He's really proud of "dad" and actually calls Tywin out on his bullshit. This does not make Joffrey sympathetic but it makes him a sad character, like Lysa. Although people definitely hate Joffrey a lot, there is some sadness in the way that he died. For the show, it's all hate

I don't think there is much difference in show and book regarding Joffrey (minus his appearance) - the show did add some crimes to him and ump up his sexual sadism, but this is arguably a natural consequence of making him a few years older than he is in the book. Jack Gleeson made him hateble in the "annoying spoiled brat" way as much as in the "vicious monster" way, but he also made him suitably silly and pathetic, and also sad in some moments; the ones that come to mind are the scene after the incident at the Trident, his hurt look when Robert scolds him: "You allowed a little girl to disarm you?!" (this was, BTW, one of the minor changes from the book that I really love, in the book it's Renly who says that, mocking Joffrey, but it's a much stronger character moment when it's Robert) and his sad teary face at Robert's deathbed. Or even his hurt expression when the Hound says "Fuck the king" and leaves.

Ramsay is similar to Joffrey yes, one major difference is ramsay gets true joy out of inflicting pain on people. Joffrey is a sadist but I do not think he gets real joy from it, ramsay does. another is ramsay is smarter. Is he a genius no, but he can be quite effective strategically when he needs to be , winterfell, moat cailin. Also he enjoys getting in the thick of battle and is fearless.

Ramsey and Joffrey are similar in some aspects but completely different in others (like Roose and Tywin, which was discussed earlier in this thread). I wouldn't say that sadism is a difference, though, Joffrey also enjoys inflicting pain and revels in his power to do so. Ramsey is just better at it.

The big difference between them is the other trait you mentioned. Joffrey was really stupid and incompetent (even taking into account his age). He was just a spoiled kid who is given an almost absolute power and acts out. Ramsey is no genius, but he's not an idiot and he has a degree of cunning and strategic planning: ingratiating himself with Domeric and poisoning him, faking his own death and duping the northmen by convincing them he's Reek, ingratiating himself with Theon and convincing him to do such things as fake the deaths of Bran and Rickon, duping the northmen outside the walls of Winterfell as well as Theon and taking Winterfell easily as a result, framing Theon for the sack of Winterfell, using Theon to dupe the Ironborn; and the long torture of Theon with its psychological ramifications and the way he gradually destroys every part of Theon's identity also shows a certain talent for planning and manipulation. He's also much more hands-on (which makes sense considering his age and background compared to Joffrey) although he also has his henchmen to do his bidding. I don't think that there's any evidence of book!Ramsey being especially brave or fearless or good in a real battle (since we haven't seen him in one yet i.e. one in which he hasn't duped his enemies into thinking he's on their side) but there's no evidence of him being a big coward, either; though that's all an open question until we see how the Battle of Ice goes.

Of course, I'm not saying that Ramsey is Varys when it comes to strategic thinking, and one could say that outsmarting Theon wasn't an incredibly impressive feat, but could you imagine Joffrey making any sort of plan or outsmarting anyone in the world? It's certainly not enough for Roose, who is frustrated with Ramsey because Ramsey has poor impulse control (something that Roose certainly doesn't suffer from*) and indulges in his sadism even when it's detrimental to the reputation and therefore larger chances of long-term success in the North. (Roose, of course, doesn't give a shit about the moral or humane aspect of things, he's just concerned because of pragmatic concerns. He also indulged in his own urges at the moment when he raped Ramsey's mother, but he managed to hide it better from the other lords; this incident may also be an indication that Roose was more like Ramsey in his youth, but has gradually become less impulsive and more controlled in all his actions with age.)

The other big and obvious difference is, of course, in their social standing and background. After giving us a major sadistic monster from the high end of the social ladder - a spoiled kid who's been raised as a crown prince and becomes king at age 12, GRRM gave us one from the lower end - a lord's bastard raised by his common mother, who is determined to climb the social ladder and be acknowledged as the 'trueborn' heir to his father, and is utterly ruthless about it. (Joffrey functioned as a contrast/evil counterpart to Robb, as two completely different teenage kings suddenly thrust into position of power after the death of their father [or 'father'], down to the two of them both dying at weddings over a short space of time; Ramsey, later in the series, functions as a contrast/evil counterpart to Jon - both are defined by their status as a bastard and have a huge chip on their shoulder, and attain a position of relative power in ADWD, after one of them is legitimized and given Winterfell, while the other one refused a similar offer.) This difference in connected to the one mentioned above, since someone of Joffrey's talents and capabilities, i.e. lack of them, can only be dangerous if they are given power on a silver platter.

* A bit more about the similarities and differences between Ramsey and Roose: While Ramsey exhibits poor impulse control and Roose, at least in the present, does not; Roose is also the poster boy for shallow emotions - he dislikes Ramsey, he liked Domeric, he has "grown fond of" Walda, but he's incapable of loving or hating, he's blase and almost indifferent about everything. Lady Dustin says something about him to that effect. Both Ramsey and Roose are incapable of normal human emotions, like love, but Ramsey is pretty passionate about some things (his rage at being called a bastard, for one thing - definitely his berserk button) and his "attachments" to some people, notably Theon and perhaps the original Reek, are very obsessive if completely twisted, since (at least in Theon's case, and Jeyne's, to an extent that she became his favorite toy) they manifest as desire to inflict pain and subjugate and revel in the power over them. Speaking of which, Ramsey is an exception to the way GRRM usually writes characters' attitudes towards animals - completely evil characters usually kill and torture animals (Joffrey disembowling cats vs Tommen's love of kittens, Gregor beheading his horse in rage vs Sandor's attachment to his horse, the Astapor slave masters forcing the Unsullied to strangle their puppies) but Ramsey is very "fond" of his bitches... in, uh, his own, very twisted and disturbing way.

ETA:

A father is the only thing Joff never had: his father (Robert) was not his real father, which was his uncle. A father is the only thing Ramsay ever had that goes for him. Of course, it doesn’t mean Ramsay wouldn’t kill his father, once no longer in father’s power. He’s probably going to try, just as Roose predicts. And when you think about it, only Roose Bolton could spawn such an all-consuming menace.

I think that, although Ramsey is trying to emulate his father and win his approval and his power derives from his father's, deep inside he would really love to kill him.

[Miodrag]

Challenge accepted:

<snip>

Part 2.

Things you don’t like aren’t necessarily ridiculous. Even bad storytelling isn’t necessarily ridiculous. For example, something may be under-explained: we can sense what was going on behind some, say, rapid action, but it’d be better if we were told so we don’t have to guess, regardless of how logical the guess appears to be. Thajt can be bad storytelling, but it doesn’t have to be ridiculous. Especially if the universe in which the action had taken place and characters that undertook the action were all well developed and built up, so it’s not so hard to fill in the blanks – it can still be the writer’s mistake that he forced readers to guess too much, but it’s not ridiculous.

Ridiculous is something that really can’t be explained in any rational way. Anyway you look at it, Locke’s “plan” for tracking Bran&Rickon, and especially his “plan” for kidnapping Bran from Craster’s, make absolutely no sense at all. Any explanation of Locke’s decision and actions is inevitably contrived, to say the least. The same thing with Yara’s attack, especially the end of it. And with Amory sending a raven to the enemy. And I could go on and on with examples from the show, but let’s stick to those already mentioned in this thread. And you can see the point.

Aeron Greyjoy is not ridiculous. First, because religious fanatics do exist in our world, and it’s only logical they exist in Martin’s, especially with as many religions as Martin invented. You may find Aeron flat or uninteresting or unimportant or whatever, but ridiculous he is not. (For the record, I never had any problem with Aeron, and I couldn’t believe the crowd at some gathering voted for Martin to read not Aeron’s chapter, but Arriane’s: however, what The Unholy Reaver wrote about Aeron is simply amazing and it greatly enriched the character for me. The Unholy Reaver, thanks!)

Same with Areo Hotah, Arys Oakheart, Darkstar, Sand Snakes, Quentin, Belwas, Vargo, Shitmouth: they are not ridiculous. First, the story can have side characters, right? Why would every single character, in a cast of literally thousands, need to be fleshed out in details? That would be ridiculous on its own! (Not that great writers didn’t try it: “One Hundred Years of Solitude” is a books in which every sentence, let alone every character, is made to be significant; not something I particularly liked, but I respect the idea and the effort; but, with all its success, it was still an experiment, not a standard for storytelling. And OHYOS is a very, very different book from ASOIAF. In ASOIAF, that style would really be ridiculous.) Second, Sand Snakes can still have some bigger purpose in the story. Just like’s Quentin’s failed mission can have significance and consequences. Perhaps you or I don’t see it yet, but in AWOW and ADOS Martin can give the meaning to all of that. It definitely wouldn’t be the first time he pulled something similar: after AGOT, one would think Theon is uninteresting and unimportant character, but it all changed in ACOK. Also, Robert didn't move the plot too much (except his order on Dany's life), but his death did - perhaps Quentin's death will have the same effect.

And of course that some characters are going to be introduced “late in the game”. Was Martin supposed to introduce everyone at the beginning of AGOT?! Of course not. Some of the recently introduced characters might ultimately prove unnecessary, but at this point we don’t know it yet. It doesn’t mean they’re all introduced skillfully, truth be told: for example, I have some doubts about Aegon, but there’s more than enough ways his appearance can be very justified. However, even if it does turn out Aegon was introduced without proper build-up, it still doesn’t make him nor his arc ridiculous. Badly introduced? Yes, in that case. Ridiculous? No, not really.

About cliffhangers: that’s just a consequence of reading the fourth/fifth novel in a seven-books series. But, even if you mind them – which may be a legitimate complain, of course, and I’m also not a fan of few of them, though only because of the style (Ned’s chapter in which Varys hints at the murder of Jon Arryn craves for a closing line or two of Ned’s thoughts if you ask me, which is, for comparison, exactly what Martin did in the chapter in which Ned finds Gendry) – they’re never ridiculous.

Resurrections: not really overused. Beric, Cat and The Mountain: three characters, out of dozens and dozens of slain. I don’t think that’s too much. Especially because Beric’s arc shows the resurrection in ASOIAF is not some cheap vehicle to bring characters back into story. At the end, he chose death over yet another resurrection. About “false deaths”: Sandor and Brienne, and probably Jon. That’s it, as far as I can remember. Is that really too much? In a saga of this size? And please don’t bring up Davos, because his “death” is just a legitimate usage of the “unreliable narrator” storytelling technique.

Slavers’ Bay: what is ridiculous there? Daario’s beard? What, a man can’t have blue beard? And a woman can’t fall for a man with a blue beard? Or shaved heads? Come on, Martin isn’t writing a sitcom for “Fashion TV”, but an epic story, part if which is a slavers’ heaven modeled after actual historical (mostly Middle Eastern) examples. Characters there are flamboyant, Martin deliberately made them “over the top” in that regard, because people sometimes are “over the top” in that regard, especially in a decadent civilization that refuses to change. One doesn’t have to look further than France before The Revolution, to see how flamboyant and “over the top” in their own lifestyles people can be. Sorry, but I don’t see what is ridiculous about Slavers’ Bay characters.

All in all, the only things from your list that can turn out ridiculous at the end, are Mel’s spell that protects Mance, and Aegon if he is a game-changer as some predict. I’d also add possible faith of Jon, because that is some risky storytelling territory there. But, it all depends on the last two books. For each of those three cases, Martin can provide more than suitable explanations or developments. And we do know – or, at least, I do – he’s very capable of that. For now, those cases are still not properly explained, but it does seem Martin plans on delivering some explanations, so it’s far too early to call them ridiculous.

Anything else you find ridiculous?

[Miodrag]

I think that, although Ramsey is trying to emulate his father and win his approval and his power derives from his father's, deep inside he would really love to kill him.

We agree that Roose's life is definitely not something Ramsay wouldn't move against in the future, depending on circumstances. I wouldn't say Ramsay would necessarily love to kill him, because in my eyes Ramsay's mind operates differently and his desires are not reflected in usual love/hate emotions. My take is that Ramsay wants to be his father. That is his ultimate goal, possibly the main driving force behind everything his deformed self does. And he is always closer and closer to his goal. To accomplish the mission, he's going to have to kill Roose, of course. But, whatever the motivation is (and it's only nuances we differ in, I'd say), we agree that the thought of killing his father already crossed Ramsay's mind. And, between your post and my post, I really can't understand how can any reader find Ramsay one-dimensional or cardboard or cliched.

[Hath4]

I think were the show really messed up was the cutting of the reek/ winterfell subplot. in the books ramsay is the man who both tempts theon to evil, then punishes him for it. it makes their relationship even more twisted. in the show theon just sort of falls into the hands of ramsay and the deeper relationship is lost.

[Vivianne]

Books!! the depth of characters and complexity of their thoughts are so much easier absorbed.

[Ignorant Bog Woman]

Here we have two guys (D&D) creating a show based on the source material they don't particularly like or understand, and a man (GRRM) who wrote the said source material and is now working for a TV adaptation he doesn't like or respect too much. It is strange relationship, but, truth be told, not unheard of, considering the amount of money it keeps bringing.

Get the fuck out of here. [aka: citation needed]

Having a different interpretation doesn't mean they misunderstand something. Also, they must work within the confines of the medium.

And I don't see any basis for them not liking the source material. I don't think they would have been willing to do all of this if they didn't have an admiration for the novels (them being novelists themselves).