Which do you prefer GOT Books or Series?

[Daske]

I wouldn't be surprised if the ending of Theon's arc was so confusing it went over viewer's heads entirely. I mean did any of your viewers say "so I guess it was that bastard of the Dreadfort who took Winterfell at the end?"

This is a great summary of clips for clues about the RW, but the first half is more about who took and who burned Winterfell. There are a ton of clues. In fact it's stunning how obvious it is when seen all together like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Ibnoj5bAA

[Haldebrandt]

This is a great summary of clips for clues about the RW, but the first half is more about who took and who burned Winterfell. There are a ton of clues. In fact it's stunning how obvious it is when seen all together like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Ibnoj5bAA

Yeah, I'm a reader and didn't notice those clues at all. The horn, the timing, etc... went over my head. Ironically, D&D made up much of this stuff, but it turned out very GRRM-like in its subtlety, like all those theories buried throughout the books and that get discussed so much around here.

[Miodrag]

Oh, really? There are literally hundreds of examples of this, fictional or otherwise, and all of them better than the Meereen debacle.

What about Narrative in the life of Frederick Douglass, Incidents in the life of a slave girl, The Color Purple, 12 Years a Slave, Slaughterhouse-five, Schindler's Ark, The Kite Runner, 1984, Brave New World, V for Vendetta, Uncle Tom's Cabin, In the Garden of Beasts, The Book Thief, Wool, Fahrenheit 451. Even a book by dear Benioff fulfills this criteria, The City of Thieves.

For the record, I think Asoiaf could very well be considered great literature, but trying to pass it off as this completely unique thing by disregarding hundreds of works of literature is simply ridiculous

I'm not disregarding anything. I didn't say nobody ever depicted oppression: on the contrary, many works of fiction done it brilliantly. By the way, to your list I'd definitely add Django Unchained, if for nothing else then for Samuel L. Jackson's character which was a stroke of genius, and even more Zamyatin's We, which inspired 1984 and Brave New World (and is better then both if you ask me). Also, I think The Kite Runner doesn't belong in any list of quality fiction.

But, in that regard, there is something unique in both Never Let Me Go and ADWD. As for NLMG, it is about individuals that voluntarily accept the position of oppressed, they even take pride in it. It is not like other dystopian stories, where oppressed are usually unaware of their true position (most often because of some sort of propaganda). In NLMG, nobody hides anything from those poor creatures, but they still aren't able to even think about any disobedience. Due to their "education", they're perfectly happy to fulfill the purpose that was so inhumanly imposed on them, even though they do have the natural impulse for freedom, as evidenced in their desire do delay the donations. That's a very bleak novel, but, for my taste, a masterpiece, precisely because of that aspect. (The movie adaptation is also excellent, and a very faithful one.)

ADWD is unique in something else. Stories about oppression usually end with the liberation of the oppressed, which means that freedom is positioned as the final ideal, or the ultimate goal. Some philosophers and some authors do ask the question what is to be done with freedom, e.g. may freedom be abused - but, to my knowledge, that question is never asked in the context of the oppression, but exclusively in circumstances of a more-less free society. As far as stories about oppression go, everything ends with the liberation. Martin, however, goes further: the liberation itself is not the end, just like it never can be. The liberation is necessary, of course, but it never ends there. Martin seems to be asking the unique question: how free you really are once you're liberated? And the answer is grim, though realistic. Those people Dany liberated are just not ready for freedom. That's a moral paradox there: they deserve the freedom, as everyone does, but once they got it they don't know what to do with it (Meereen) or they abuse it (Astapor). That is why Dany's negotiations with Xaro are so powerful, because both sides of the coin are depicted.

Now, some readers took it wrongly, and argue that Slavers' Bay would've been better off without Dany's intervention. I'd be very surprised and shocked if that turns out to be Martin's point. Luckily, I'm positive that is not the case. First, we have Tyrion, whose presence in Essoss is so precious precisely because of his line that freedom is always a choice: to show that freedom is something you have to want in order to truly enjoy it. In other words, you have to earn your freedom, even if you got it. Even if someone presents you with your freedom, just like Dany presented slaves from those cities, it doesn't mean you don't have to earn it any more. On the contrary, you have. And second, there is an even more powerful counterexample: Braavos. Numerous times throughout the novels, we're reminded that Braavos was founded by runaway slaves, e.g. by people who took their liberty themselves - by escape, but still. And they created a society that is remarkable, advanced in comparison to both Westeros and Essos.

And when I take all that into account, I don't really know of a similar story. Quite a few stories out there talk about oppression and fight against it, and some of those stories are truly brilliant, but what Martin did in ADWD with Slavers' Bay is not a bit worse than the best tales of oppression. And, to my recollection, it is pretty unique. You insist that Meereen storyline is a debacle, and I'm not going to persuade you that you should like or respect it. If you dislike it, you dislike it. As we all know, not so few readers share your opinion. And every complain I encountered deals with Dany: she should've been in Westeros by know, or she became stupid, or her infatuation with Daario is boring, or something similar. Now, I enjoyed Dany's character arc very much. It would've been very unrealistic had Dany managed to overcome all the difficulties resulted from her military triumph in a single book, just like her entire arc so far would've been somewhat shallow in comparison to The War of the Five kings had she transported to Westeros immediately after capturing Meereen - that would mean the entire point to her ASOS arc was to get an army. But, if viewed through wider perspective, and with an oppression as the theme that encapsulates all Esoss chapters in ADWD (Dany, Tyrion, Quentin, Barristan), Slavers' Bay storyline is a literary triumph of the highest order. (Even Quentin seems to have a certain symbolic purpose that way: he was a slave to his mission, and he died because of it.) Whether one likes that storyline or not is an entirely different question, but at least the ambition is, I'd say, undeniable.

[Miodrag]

This is a great summary of clips for clues about the RW, but the first half is more about who took and who burned Winterfell. There are a ton of clues. In fact it's stunning how obvious it is when seen all together like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Ibnoj5bAA

Once Roose says his bastard arrived late in Winterfell, at the beginning of Season 3, a viewer has no reason to suspect his words. And if a viewer believes him, the raiding of Winterfell is still a complete mystery. After all, why would a viewer think that Roose's bastard has any importance for the story, let alone that he's going to be a character? Of course, if one doesn't believe Roose that's another story, but to say that it's easy to come to the conclusion what happened to Winterfell is exaggerating.

[Daske]

Once Roose says his bastard arrived late in Winterfell, at the beginning of Season 3, a viewer has no reason to suspect his words. And if a viewer believes him, the raiding of Winterfell is still a complete mystery. After all, why would a viewer think that Roose's bastard has any importance for the story, let alone that he's going to be a character? Of course, if one doesn't believe Roose that's another story, but to say that it's easy to come to the conclusion what happened to Winterfell is exaggerating.

Erm, did you even watch that compilation I linked? You're seriously saying it doesn't explain it? Now most of us missed some of those clues when aired, but if a viewer paid enough attention then yes it is obvious. And having to pay attention is hardly something that you should fault the show for now is it?

[StarkSailorman]

Both. Off course the book is the best though.

but its nice to see the characters materialize on the screen.

[Miodrag]

Erm, did you even watch that compilation I linked? You're seriously saying it doesn't explain it? Now most of us missed some of those clues when aired, but if a viewer paid enough attention then yes it is obvious. And having to pay attention is hardly something that you should fault the show for now is it?

Yeah, watched the compilation, and saw the hole in it: Roose's explanation that his bastard arrived late in Winterfell is not something a viewer has any reason to doubt. There are some "clues", like Bolton's sigil, and that's possibly the only legitimate discovery of the video. Nice effort though, despite the conclusion being somewhat off.

[sj4iy]

Erm, did you even watch that compilation I linked? You're seriously saying it doesn't explain it? Now most of us missed some of those clues when aired, but if a viewer paid enough attention then yes it is obvious. And having to pay attention is hardly something that you should fault the show for now is it?

If the show didn't make you pay attention, people would be griping that the show was spoon-feeding them information.

[Good Guy Garlan]

ADWD is unique in something else. Stories about oppression usually end with the liberation of the oppressed, which means that freedom is positioned as the final ideal, or the ultimate goal. Some philosophers and some authors do ask the question what is to be done with freedom, e.g. may freedom be abused - but, to my knowledge, that question is never asked in the context of the oppression, but exclusively in circumstances of a more-less free society. As far as stories about oppression go, everything ends with the liberation. Martin, however, goes further: the liberation itself is not the end, just like it never can be. The liberation is necessary, of course, but it never ends there. Martin seems to be asking the unique question: how free you really are once you're liberated? And the answer is grim, though realistic. Those people Dany liberated are just not ready for freedom. That's a moral paradox there: they deserve the freedom, as everyone does, but once they got it they don't know what to do with it (Meereen) or they abuse it (Astapor). That is why Dany's negotiations with Xaro are so powerful, because both sides of the coin are depicted.

But that's not a unique concept to aDwD, far from it. Look at Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, she reaches the North states but still she's not truly free. Look at V for Vendetta, Evey blows up the Downing Street but the novel ends with Finch walking through a dar street as the city rages in chaos. Look at Animal Farm, the pigs lead a revolution and bring down their oppressors only to become like them. Look at Brave New World, after John hangs himself when he realizes he was a part of the massive orgy. Look at Harrison Bergeron, he dies and people go on with their lives, oblivious that they're being controlled. Even the hack Stephen King addreses this in The Long Walk

Stories about oppression don't always end in liberation. Some critics even argue that a fundamental characteristic of dystopia is that the faulty system continues at the end. Even in real life. Not every Holocaust novel or memoir ends with the protagonists being liberated and leading happy lives, right?

You might think Meereen is brilliantly depicted and that's obviously fine, but Martin is hardly the first writer that decided to go further and show that liberation is not the end.

[sj4iy]

But that's not a unique concept to aDwD, far from it. Look at Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, she reaches the North states but still she's not truly free. Look at V for Vendetta, Evey blows up the Downing Street but the novel ends with Finch walking through a dar street as the city rages in chaos. Look at Animal Farm, the pigs lead a revolution and bring down their oppressors only to become like them. Look at Brave New World, after John hangs himself when he realizes he was a part of the massive orgy. Look at Harrison Bergeron, he dies and people go on with their lives, oblivious that they're being controlled. Even the hack Stephen King addreses this in The Long Walk

Stories about oppression don't always end in liberation. Some critics even argue that a fundamental characteristic of dystopia is that the faulty system continues at the end. Even in real life. Not every Holocaust novel or memoir ends with the protagonists being liberated and leading happy lives, right?

You might think Meereen is brilliantly depicted and that's obviously fine, but Martin is hardly the first writer that decided to go further and show that liberation is not the end.

Wow, you said this so perfectly I have nothing to add. :bowdown:

[Good Guy Garlan]

Wow, you said this so perfectly I have nothing to add. :bowdown:

Thanks :blushing:

[Miodrag]

But that's not a unique concept to aDwD, far from it. Look at Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, she reaches the North states but still she's not truly free. Look at V for Vendetta, Evey blows up the Downing Street but the novel ends with Finch walking through a dar street as the city rages in chaos. Look at Animal Farm, the pigs lead a revolution and bring down their oppressors only to become like them. Look at Brave New World, after John hangs himself when he realizes he was a part of the massive orgy. Look at Harrison Bergeron, he dies and people go on with their lives, oblivious that they're being controlled. Even the hack Stephen King addreses this in The Long Walk

Stories about oppression don't always end in liberation. Some critics even argue that a fundamental characteristic of dystopia is that the faulty system continues at the end. Even in real life. Not every Holocaust novel or memoir ends with the protagonists being liberated and leading happy lives, right?

You might think Meereen is brilliantly depicted and that's obviously fine, but Martin is hardly the first writer that decided to go further and show that liberation is not the end.

If you look at the part of your post I emphasized, you'll see that it's essentially different from what Martin depicts in ADWD: in dystopian stories the system usually survives, but in Slavers Bay it didn't. In Animal Farm, the oppressing class was replaced, but the oppression itself remained. That is hardly the same as what we have in ADWD, because I can't even imagine Slavers Bay going back to the way it was before Dany: she definitely changed things for good, the system didn't survive, the oppression is over, and yet, the oppressed are still not free in true sense of the word, they don't know what to do with their freedom. And don't tell me every corrupt or manipulative or exploitative system is an oppression - it is not. V's fight for the conscious of citizens is really not the same thing as fighting an oppressive system that is slavery. Nor is any slave's escape to freedom comparable to the epic war on slavery Dany fights. None of the examples you provided asks the question: how free you really are once you're liberated? In your examples, either the oppressed were not truly liberated at the end, or their liberty was not really taken away from them in the first place. If you insist, Matrix is better for comparison than your examples (but even Matrix doesn't go as far as ADWD).

You're obviously keen on proving me wrong, which is fine, I guess. And it should be easier than it looks for now. I mean, I haven't read all the books in the world nor watched all the movies ever filmed. Probably nobody ever has. Hence, if you continue searching through all the stories that ever dealt with the fight for freedom in any form, chances are that, sooner or later, you may find something that analyzes the same question Martin does in Slavers Bay. If that happens, I'll gladly consume that story. It may even turn out a great one. But, it will take nothing from Martin's accomplishment in ADWD. Even if he isn't the first who asked that question, he asked it powerfully, without compromises, cutting to the bone, providing numerous angles, creating legitimate doubts, and ultimately giving what he thinks is an answer: Tyrion's line.

For the record, and your examples included: I'm still to hear about any such storytelling attempt, let alone success.

[Good Guy Garlan]

Well, now you've changed your tune slightly. You narrowed your requirements and made them more specific. Before, you mentioned oppression stories in general. Now you want an example of oppressed people escaping from the oppressed system but doing it just like Dany? Well, that's a tough match, but I maintain that the works I mention reflect that

None of the examples you provided asks the question: how free you really are once you're liberated? In your examples, either the oppressed were not truly liberated at the end, or their liberty was not really taken away from them in the first place. If you insist, Matrix is better for comparison than your examples (but even Matrix doesn't go as far as ADWD).

Harriet Ann Jacobs asks that question in her narrative. It's one of the definiting themes of her narrative. You say she's not comparable to Dany? I said she is. She showed incredible strenght to escape and endure slavery and later became one of the most fervent and influential advocates against that system.

You say the other examples aren't comparable? What is Astapor if not Animal Farm? The oppresed overthrew their oppresors and later became the very thing they hated? Snowball the Pig is Cleon the Butcher King of Astapor. What's the difference between the sheer chaos Quentyn witnesses in Astapor and the one Finch experiences at the end of V for Vendetta? It's the same kind of chaos, the one that follows the collapse of a system. What is Yunkai if not Aistrip One from 1984 or the dystopic London at the end of Brave New World? After whatever disturbance the system started again, just like Yunkai recaptured the slaves and took arms against Dany once more.

You can find any differences you want to make aDwD more unique, and it obviously is unique in that it has original elements. But proposing that Martin was the first author to ever develop the theme of "how free you really are once you're liberated?" when authors have written about it countless times is just a lie. Hell, "A Clockwork Orange" is the quientessential novel in this regard. And funnily enough, I wouldn't even say that question really is the defining theme of Slaver's Bay, but to each his own.

I mean, I haven't read all the books in the world nor watched all the movies ever filmed. Probably nobody ever has. Hence, if you continue searching through all the stories that ever dealt with the fight for freedom in any form, chances are that, sooner or later, you may find something that analyzes the same question Martin does in Slavers Bay.

Yeah, that's why I personally avoid throwing around hyperboles or overgeneralizations, but that's just me

And for the record, I'm not trying to diminish Martin's work. No work of fiction is 100% original because true originality doesn't exist.

Listen, I'd stay and split hairs with you all night long (not really), but it just so happens I have a certain HBO show to watch

[Yojimbo]

ADWD is unique in something else. Stories about oppression usually end with the liberation of the oppressed, which means that freedom is positioned as the final ideal, or the ultimate goal. Some philosophers and some authors do ask the question what is to be done with freedom, e.g. may freedom be abused - but, to my knowledge, that question is never asked in the context of the oppression, but exclusively in circumstances of a more-less free society. As far as stories about oppression go, everything ends with the liberation. Martin, however, goes further: the liberation itself is not the end, just like it never can be. The liberation is necessary, of course, but it never ends there. Martin seems to be asking the unique question: how free you really are once you're liberated? And the answer is grim, though realistic. Those people Dany liberated are just not ready for freedom. That's a moral paradox there: they deserve the freedom, as everyone does, but once they got it they don't know what to do with it (Meereen) or they abuse it (Astapor). That is why Dany's negotiations with Xaro are so powerful, because both sides of the coin are depicted.

Now, some readers took it wrongly, and argue that Slavers' Bay would've been better off without Dany's intervention. I'd be very surprised and shocked if that turns out to be Martin's point. Luckily, I'm positive that is not the case. First, we have Tyrion, whose presence in Essoss is so precious precisely because of his line that freedom is always a choice: to show that freedom is something you have to want in order to truly enjoy it. In other words, you have to earn your freedom, even if you got it. Even if someone presents you with your freedom, just like Dany presented slaves from those cities, it doesn't mean you don't have to earn it any more. On the contrary, you have. And second, there is an even more powerful counterexample: Braavos. Numerous times throughout the novels, we're reminded that Braavos was founded by runaway slaves, e.g. by people who took their liberty themselves - by escape, but still. And they created a society that is remarkable, advanced in comparison to both Westeros and Essos.

And when I take all that into account, I don't really know of a similar story. Quite a few stories out there talk about oppression and fight against it, and some of those stories are truly brilliant, but what Martin did in ADWD with Slavers' Bay is not a bit worse than the best tales of oppression. And, to my recollection, it is pretty unique. You insist that Meereen storyline is a debacle, and I'm not going to persuade you that you should like or respect it. If you dislike it, you dislike it. As we all know, not so few readers share your opinion. And every complain I encountered deals with Dany: she should've been in Westeros by know, or she became stupid, or her infatuation with Daario is boring, or something similar. Now, I enjoyed Dany's character arc very much. It would've been very unrealistic had Dany managed to overcome all the difficulties resulted from her military triumph in a single book, just like her entire arc so far would've been somewhat shallow in comparison to The War of the Five kings had she transported to Westeros immediately after capturing Meereen - that would mean the entire point to her ASOS arc was to get an army. But, if viewed through wider perspective, and with an oppression as the theme that encapsulates all Esoss chapters in ADWD (Dany, Tyrion, Quentin, Barristan), Slavers' Bay storyline is a literary triumph of the highest order. (Even Quentin seems to have a certain symbolic purpose that way: he was a slave to his mission, and he died because of it.) Whether one likes that storyline or not is an entirely different question, but at least the ambition is, I'd say, undeniable.

Very well put, I would also just like to add how GRRM managed to also show Dany's/others hypocrisy towards 'slavery' aswell and how people can willing put on the 'collar of slavery' without even knowing they are wearing a 'collar', all at the same time without being to overly overt about it. I feel, it was shown when Dany banish's Jorah.

Now Jorah is a man who has always been a 'slave', just it wasn't until aDwD till he actual wore a collar and was branded as one. Look at what he does for his wife for instance, he actual sells men into slavery so he can keep on providing wealth and material goods for her, so in return she will continue to supply love and affection towards him, Jorah at this point has willing become a 'slave' for love, which in turn leads to showing Westeros's own hypocrisy on slavery. Now I think we all can agree Ned Stark was an honorable and decent man, infact he wanted Jorah's head because he sold men into slavery but if Jorah had just sent thoughs men to the Night's Watch no one in Westeros (apart from the three poachers I would imagine) would have spoke out against it. And what is the Night's Watch if not slavery? A order in which you must serve for life, not allowed to have families or children and if you run away you will get your head taken off by 'honorable and decent' men like Ned Stark. Yep, that sounds like slavery to me. Jorah then has to run away and be exiled from the home that he loves, because of slavery both for being a slaver and for being a 'slave' himself.

When Jorah at first got exiled to Essos, he actually lost his 'collar' and became his own free man, but he soon turned to missing his homeland and started to pine for it, so when Vary's offers Jorah the chance to return home with a royal pardon, Jorah once again put's on a new 'collar of slavery', but instead of for love, this time it a chance to return from exile. So he begins to spy and report on Dany. Jorah soon lose's this new 'collar' he wears once he falls madly in love with Dany, who herself was a slave (sure she fell in love with Drogo, but it doesn't change the fact she was sold to him by her brother). So Jorah once again puts on his old 'collar' for love.

Now we are introduced to another sort of 'slave'; Barristan. Sure, Barristan doesn't wear a collar for all to see, but he does wear a 'white cloak'. Infact, Barristan was already freed from his 'slavery' when Cersei/Joffery removed him from the King's Guard, he was made free from his lifelong, unquestionable servitude but he didn't see this as a chance for freedom for himself, he infact saw it as a great insult, that he was denied his 'collar' (whitecloak). So he went to seek out his 'collar' from someone else i.e. Dany.

So when Whitebeard reveals himself to Dany as Barristan the Bold and tells her of Jorahs betrayal, she allows them to 'chose' between going down the sewers of Meereen as a chance for forgiveness and redemption or banishment. Both men 'chose' to go down the sewers but they really didn't have a choice to begin with, they are both being lead by two different 'chains', Jorah's being his powerlessness to his love for Dany and Barristan powerlessness to his love for duty. So when they both return, Barristan asks Dany for her forgiveness, she gives it and allows Barristan once again to wear his 'whitecloak' aka his 'collar'. But when it comes to Jorah he refuse's to ask for Dany's forgiveness, he thinks he is owed it for is love for her and his already faithful service, because a 'slave' can't ask for anything he/she can only be givin it. Dany wants to forgive Jorah, but can't because she thinks it will undermine her regency (a 'collar' within itself and one of the highest forms of being a slave master, it not like people get to choice who to serve under Kings or Queens) so she banish's him, which is a form of freeing Jorah and at the same time showing Dany's hypocrisy because she wants from him what she been fighting against, unquestionable loyality aka slavery.

Next time we see Jorah is through Tyrion, one of aSoIaF freest men, he captures Tyrion and imprisons him, making Tyrion his slave so that he can take him back to Dany in order to win Dany's favour again and to put on his 'collar'. The differance is this time Jorah actually becomes a slave when he, Tyrion and Penny are captured by slavers. Yet Jorah doesn't come to true despair and hopelessness until he finds out Dany remarried, knowing that his love for Dany would/could not be returned to him drove him to utter despair, the thought of loseing the 'collar' he loves drove him to this, not the actual iron collar he wore around his neck and the brand marking him as a slave to his face. So GRRM has managed to show as the simularities between actual slavery and love, no one gets to choice to be in love as no gets the choice of not being a slave, it just one form has a 'collar' you don't even know you wearing and the other is an actual collar you bear and it depends on the person if they are happy or not to wear a 'collar' or if they even know they are wearing one in the first place, because what is slavery if not the ablity to chose for oneself? The only words I can describe that form and skill of writing is utter brillance.

[Davrum]

Both. Off course the book is the best though.

but its nice to see the characters materialize on the screen.

It seems television will always struggle to allow its characters and plotlines the amount of room to breathe that books allow, but most book readers I know also acknowedge problems with the books, and the show seems to be taking steps to smooth over those kinks. Some characters, like Tywin and Oberyn, are improved from the books in their living, breathing screen versions, but others, particularly Jon, have suffered during the adaptation process.

Each medium has their strengths and weaknesses - each has things about them which delight and frustrate us. To be honest I still feel so lucky the show exists at all that I have a hard time criticising it too much, because it could be so, so, so much worse. I thank all the gods who'll listen that we don't have to choose.

[Davrum]

For the record, I think Asoiaf could very well be considered great literature, but trying to pass it off as this completely unique thing by disregarding hundreds of works of literature is simply ridiculous

True. GRRM has said himself, as recently as the current Rolling Stone interview, he doesn't think of A Song of Ice and Fire as a wildly original work.

"I'm proud of my work, but I don't know if I'd ever claim it's enormously original."

[sj4iy]

True. GRRM has said himself, as recently as the current Rolling Stone interview, he doesn't think of A Song of Ice and Fire as a wildly original work.

"I'm proud of my work, but I don't know if I'd ever claim it's enormously original."

Yeah, Jon Snow is about as fantasy-typical hero as you can get.

1. Unknown birth

2. Strange magical powers

3. Neutral Good

4. Great leader

5. Probably the son of Kings

That doesn't mean I don't like Jon's character (really like it a lot, in fact), but I would be the last person to say that Martin was being original when he came up with Jon's arc.

So many people confuse "It's one of my favorites!" with "It must be one of the greatest books ever written!" I like the books a lot, but they aren't the greatest story ever written. But that's okay, they don't HAVE to be. As long as they are telling a great story and entertaining people, who cares? Patrick O'Brian is one of my favorite authors and he writes historical naval fiction. I love it, I think it's easily one of the best series I've ever read, but I don't pretend that it belongs up there with Mark Twain, Harper Lee, Jane Austen or John Steinback. TS Eliot's "The Wastelands" still stands as the one poem I've ever hated reading...but I can also see why it's considered one of the most important pieces of poetry in the 20th century. Our likes and dislikes don't always coincide with the 'great' and the 'bad'.

[Good Guy Garlan]

True. GRRM has said himself, as recently as the current Rolling Stone interview, he doesn't think of A Song of Ice and Fire as a wildly original work.

"I'm proud of my work, but I don't know if I'd ever claim it's enormously original."

Great quote! :thumbsup:

Yeah, Jon Snow is about as fantasy-typical hero as you can get.

1. Unknown birth

2. Strange magical powers

3. Neutral Good

4. Great leader

5. Probably the son of Kings

That doesn't mean I don't like Jon's character (really like it a lot, in fact), but I would be the last person to say that Martin was being original when he came up with Jon's arc.

So many people confuse "It's one of my favorites!" with "It must be one of the greatest books ever written!" I like the books a lot, but they aren't the greatest story ever written. But that's okay, they don't HAVE to be. As long as they are telling a great story and entertaining people, who cares? Patrick O'Brian is one of my favorite authors and he writes historical naval fiction. I love it, I think it's easily one of the best series I've ever read, but I don't pretend that it belongs up there with Mark Twain, Harper Lee, Jane Austen or John Steinback. TS Eliot's "The Wastelands" still stands as the one poem I've ever hated reading...but I can also see why it's considered one of the most important pieces of poetry in the 20th century. Our likes and dislikes don't always coincide with the 'great' and the 'bad'.

Great post! I agree so much

[JagLover]

This is a bit more tricky for me than saying the books are better in every area.

The books provide the back story (for the most part sadly lacking on the show). They also give a decent idea of the campaigns fought. I would challenge any Unsullied to give a coherent account of Rob's campaign. They also give most scenes their proper depth and perspective.

On the other side of the ledger however, the show has been spot on with casting and with most of its production designs. So seeing it on the screen is often more vivid than the books. When the show gives time to a scene with the required setup as well it can exceed the books. For example the Red Wedding, The purple wedding, the trial, but also smaller scenes like the hound at the inn, Theon at the Iron islands, or Jamie and Brienne in the bath.

In general then the books are better but the show is capable of exceeding them, and with better writing and more focus on the key characters it would be doing so more consistently.

[Daske]

Yeah, watched the compilation, and saw the hole in it: Roose's explanation that his bastard arrived late in Winterfell is not something a viewer has any reason to doubt. There are some "clues", like Bolton's sigil, and that's possibly the only legitimate discovery of the video. Nice effort though, despite the conclusion being somewhat off.

I'm sorry but one of the overall points of the compilation was that you could tell that Roose was a wrong'un too if you really paid attention and therefore it was possible (although not easy) to predict that there would be a betrayal. Yes, he wrong-footed the audience (as he did to Robb) - but it was not meant to be easy to pick up on else the RW would have been no surprise at all to anyone, player or viewer. You say the show has no subtlety, yet when they do plant these little seeds of clues apparently it's too hard for the viewer to work out what is happening. Make your mind up!