Which do you prefer GOT Books or Series?

[Miodrag]

Well, yeah, it's lie, don't know if it's deliberate or not, but it's still a lie. It's not a hyperbole or an overgeneralization. If you say that the sky is green that constitutes a lie. You said, "No other book touches X theme but aDwD", I said, "no, Z, Y and W are books that touch X theme too" As simple as that, I don't see where's the hyperbole here

No, I'm criticizing Martin's work, there's a difference.

Ok, fine, let's play. I don't like the Meereen storyline on account of the plot progression that slows to a crawl, the blatant Orientalism depictions, the unengaging and one-dimensional characters, the ridiculous names, the endless repetition of certain phrases, the lack of closure to that arc, the unnecessary cliffhangers, and the general overdescription. That solid enough for you?

Oh, no, I provided quite an extensive list of elements that I find ridiculous in the series. You disagreed with them, but did not prove me wrong because those are subjective opinions.

Oh, and by the way, thank you for validating my nitpicks by saying some of them are "legitimate complaints".

No, I didn't fail, I think I was quite succesful actually, if I say so myself. I don't give a fig about the scale or details, but the theme you mentioned, which I proved isn't unique. And again, that's not a slight against Martin because I did say true originality doesn't exist. But of course, that's not enough for you because you're sure Asoiaf can cure aids and feed orphans in Africa.

Look, for you it might be hard to believe, but I'm actually quite passionate about the series as well, as you can probably see by my post count and how I get involved in daily discussions in the general board.

You offered me a reality check before, allow me to return you the favor: you're the equivalent of the kid covering his ears and going "no, no, no, can't hear you". Your devotion to the books comes off as borderline delusion and immaturity in that you can't accept even the slightest criticism against the series and you praise it to the high heavens with every word. There's nothing anyone can say that will make you yield even a little because you're just dead-set on the idea that Asoiaf is untouchable, perfect and invulnerable to any criticism. I pity the next fool that engages in a discussion with you thinking it would lead somewhere.

Well, this is my stop, I want off this train. Really, had I known how downright tedious and pointless this discussion was going to be I wouldn't have even bothered to post on this thread.

Unstoppable force, immovable object, etc, etc

I’m sorry my replies angered you. Had you explained that it means so much to you, I’d go along with your complains, regardless of how unsubstantiated they actually are. I’d even contribute in the same vein. Like: Star Wars. It’s thematically very similar to Slavers Bay. There's a bad emperor, and rebels, and they're fighting for freedom. Practically, all Martin did was take away light sabers. (Not to mention the name. George Lucas. George, get it? Rings a bell? How low this Martin guy can fall, honestly!)

Seriously now, would you be so kind to think about what you’re posting from now on? You don’t know the difference between an oppression and a tyranny, between a system and an individual, between a liberation and a revolution, between a setting and a theme, between a statement that can be true or false and a lie, and, most of all, between passion and nitpicking. The only passionate thing about you in this discussion is that you passionately hate when someone disagrees with your weak arguments.

Here’s a tip: If you want to contribute to a debate, try bringing more solid arguments. Here’s another: when listing what is ridiculous in a work of fiction, try to keep in mind it’s not about you nor about what you find ridiculous, but what objectively is ridiculous. Actually, that second tip was an old one, because I already explained it to you earlier in the thread, so here’s something new as a replacement: it’s pretty much pointless to enter a discussion with an idea to make someone “yield even a little”. It really shouldn’t be about yielding. If that was my goal, to make you yield, all I had to do is nitpick your posts here. They’re full of logical holes, and I’d have a field day with them, had I nitpicked them with the same “passion” you tried to nitpick mine with. Instead, I dealt with the general point you were trying to make. Perhaps you could try that sometimes.

Oh, and this

you're the equivalent of the kid covering his ears and going "no, no, no, can't hear you". Your devotion to the books comes off as borderline delusion and immaturity in that you can't accept even the slightest criticism against the series and you praise it to the high heavens with every word. There's nothing anyone can say that will make you yield even a little because you're just dead-set on the idea that Asoiaf is untouchable, perfect and invulnerable to any criticism. I pity the next fool that engages in a discussion with you thinking it would lead somewhere.

is a total... how do you call it: a lie? You know, the opposite of truth, but deliberately planted as truth? Yes, a lie, that’s it. All one has to do is read my posts in this little debate with you, and see how completely untrue this remark of yours obviously is.

[Davrum]

I don't mind the fantasy hero-trope as long as it's done well...and I think Jon has been done well. There's a reason that humans retell the same story over and over and over again down through the generations...it's because we like familiarity. It's because there are some themes that are ageless, and some lessons never get old. Learning humility and rising to face unexpected challenges are big tropes in fantasy, but that's not to say they are automatically bad for it. It's all in how the writer presents his material.

I feel the same way about it - and in fact about all tropes in all genres (yes, even romcoms). It could even be argued in plenty of instances that it actually takes more courage for a storyteller to deal in a trope or three because they have to work that much harder to weave effective drama in order to render inherently predictable elements less predictable. Many fail to walk that line, but when those who do, like GRR, manage to walk it so artfully, it can be an intensely rewarding experience.

[sj4iy]

I feel the same way about it - and in fact about all tropes in all genres (yes, even romcoms). It could even be argued in plenty of instances that it actually takes more courage for a storyteller to deal in a trope or three because they have to work that much harder to weave effective drama in order to render inherently predictable elements less predictable. Many fail to walk that line, but when those who do, like GRR, manage to walk it so artfully, it can be an intensely rewarding experience.

On the other end, we have someone like Terry Goodkind who has the amazing skill of making a fantasy trope even MORE predictable than it ever was normally. It's all in perspective XD

[Miodrag]

<snip>

You know what, I'm not done with you just yet. I wrote my previous post in a heat of the moment, but your offense actually deserves a more serious response.

For two years I've been posting on this site, which is, to be honest, the only "social network" activity I participate in. Because of my profession, I think it would be generally unethical on my side to post on sites that deal with other subjects I'm interested in (politics and social issues), because I write about those subjects professionally. Internet posts/comments are meant for readers, and we that have the opportunity to express ourselves in more formal ways should leave posts and comments to readers. That was always my stance. And that is why I lurked on this site for years, before I decided to enter the forums. The reasons I made the decision is quite simple, and very obvious from my personal adoration toward ASOIAF: this series is possibly the only work of art that provides so many precious topics for discussions that are rewarding on any number of levels. Society, politics, psychology, significance of history, significance of cultural models, importance of heritage, and so on: all that can be discussed over ASOIAF, with references not only to the story itself, but also to our world and reality. The books section is the best evidence for that. There are other works of fiction that are as great, but, sadly, they are not as popular and they don't have fans' communities. There are other works of fiction that are as popular or even more popular, but, sadly, they are never as rewarding as ASOIAF is: to tell you the truth, majority of those I find nonsensical.

Now, to my surprise, a number of posters here don't share my fascination with ASOIAF. It's somewhat odd to find such a situation (and to witness occasional bashing of ASOIAF, by members that are otherwise involved in unusually sophisticated threads that touch many of the finest intellectual issues - threads that should be a reflection of the value of the novels that brought all of us here) on a site that's supposed to gather the biggest fans of the series, but OK, stranger things happen. As a matter of fact, I tried to use it as an advantage: not only is this site an opportunity for exchanging ideas, but also for testing the objective achievements of ASOIAF. As I said already, if it stands to be tested in battle, it will be yet another testament to its greatness. In the name of that, I tried to tolerate numerous manners I despise otherwise: rudeness, aggressiveness, self-centrism, self-entitlement, even the biggest plague of modern society - conformism. Can't say I had too much success in tolerating, but at least I tried. But, the one thing that practically kills a discussion every time, is banality.

In this case right here, what you tried is the very example of banality. You read that I praise how unique Slavers Bay sub-plot is in dealing with slavery/oppression, and, in order to prove how wrong I am (or, in your own words: that I lie!), you listed all the stories you consumed that deal with either slavery or some other kind of social anomaly that can be considered an oppression. And you did it without thinking it through. Cause if you did, you'd see that they really aren't a match. It doesn't mean they're necessarily weaker than ASOIAF, but they just don't ask the question Martin seems to be asking with Slavers Bay: how free people really are when someone else liberates them? (Yes, I rephrased the question this time, because putting the previous wording in the context that fleshed out the true meaning obviously wasn't clear enough for you.) Tales of slaves that struggled and fought for and ultimately took their own freedom (by escape) are not a match, not only because of the scope and scale, but also, more importantly, because their protagonists earned their freedom, while liberated slaves in ADWD obviously didn't and therefore they don't seem to know what to do with it (which is why Dany, rightfully, so often thinks they'd be lost without her, just like Astapor and Yunkai proved). Dystopian stories you listed are also very different from ADWD, because they're about the battle for society's conscious, whether on an individual or a communal level (e.g. battle against collective brainwashing, most usually), which, if you insist, parallel Jon's ADWD story more than Slavers Bay (only, in case of Jon, he's not fighting some almost palpable authoritarian figure a la Big Brother, but ancient traditions that even he himself doesn't find entirely useless).

In short: none of your examples actually deals with the question I recognize as the central one in Slavers Bay narrative in ADWD. And one can see it pretty clearly, if one thinks about it a little.

You know, in the meantime I recalled three novels that actually touch the same question like Slavers Bay narrative, only in a rather different approach. First one is Coetzee's Disgrace, the central theme of which is: what happens in a society that was suddenly freed from oppression. There are great differences, however, because Disgrace is a novel focused on a small group of characters, and the situation is somewhat comparable to Astapor before masters returned to power (which is why it may be not only bleak, but also very depressing, though not necessarily unrealistic), but not to Meereen. Waiting for the Barbarians, also by Coetzee (and even better than Disgrace in my opinion), deals with the same question tangentially, though the oppression - expressed as aggressive racism - is the central theme of the novel: we're not shown how those that are liberated enjoy their freedom, but at least we see that freedom is not an easy gift, even though it's the most valuable one. And then, there's Konrad's Heart of darkness, in which it is briefly shown the despair and anger Kurtz's departure lefts the tribe in. That is also tangential to the central theme of the novel, which is the damage oppressors suffer for their actions (and, truth be told, those claims Konrad's novel is somewhat racist are possibly not completely unfounded, though it is a great literature by many standards), but I can't say it wasn't touched in a manner that is somewhat comparable to Slavers Bay. And an honorable mention goes to Django Unchained, in which DiCaprio's character briefly touches the subject of do the slaves earn to be free.

There, three novels plus one movie that are more comparable to Slavers Bay than anything you provided. That just shows how "thorough" and "meaningful" your search was. And I can't stress this enough: I'd be the happiest man in this discussion, if your or anyone's search resulted in at least one story I didn't hear of that resembles Slavers Bay, because, as you can probably guess by now, I have a penchant for stories about freedom. But no, you decided to take the banal approach and try only to prove me wrong. And not by offering some alternative explanation for Slavers Bay narrative and its dominant theme, which could result in a very rewarding clash of opinions, but instead by trying to rebut the most insignificant claim I made about Slavers Bay narrative: that it is unique. As if this is some sort of competition, in which you'll get a prize if you prove me/someone wrong. That sort of agenda is, sadly, what destroys most of discussions in these forums.

Now we're done.

[Mr Fixit]

Now we're done.

Whew, Jon of the (Evil) Dead is going to be so relieved now that he has your permission to retire. I love it how you manhandled him. Almost... sexy.

[Miodrag]

^^ I was positive you'd see it that way.

[Frey Pies]

It's obvious that no one's opinion is going to change. Instead of writing entire essays on ASoIaF (very good ones, I might add), why don't you guys do something more productive? :)

[Miodrag]

^^ What's more productive? Glorifying D&D for "dedicating their lives to this project"? Or for the silence over Rains of Castamere's end credits (one of my favorites, actually - people really think some genius mind was needed to make that decision)? Or for "streamlining" that absurd mess Martin confuses with novels? Or for "surprising" us book-readers with changes from the source material? Would that be productive enough for you?

[Faceless Man Friday]

Both. The medium is the message. The Books are great books. The show is a great TV show. The major differences between the two is the major difference between a book and a TV show. Valar dohaeris.

[Mladen]

Wow, if people think that only ASOIAF can offer them the great diversity of topics for discussion, I imagine the list of books they have read is rather short. ASOIAF is undoubtedly one of the greatest series in fantasy genre in recent history, and I have no doubt that it will survive the test of time. But, comparing it to the likes of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Hugo etc. in literary importance, versatility of topics and yes, even quality is truly hilarious. This may not be popular opinion, and don't get me wrong, but these proclamations of love towards ASOIAF as such unique literary masterpiece are so alike when adolescents measure their penises to see who has the bigger one. It's just sad. You can appreciate ASOIAF and analyze it extensively and on very high level without making of it something that it isn't.

Another thing that seems very prominent on this thread is its' bashing of TV producers. And although, myself, as Sansa fan, am not pleased with their work, the job they have done should not be diminished. I personally hate any sort of either glorifying or unsubstantiated criticism. The inability of people to see when both producers and author of series made mistakes, and recognize them is something that we should fight against. Neither side is infallible and the differences are great to be put in such one dimensional box of GRRM vs. D&D. So, many of you here should take a step back and have more objective view towards the both book and TV series. For let's face it, D&D did some things rather great.

What we usually forget is that Martin is not bound by thousand little things TV producers are. From budget to actors, sets and special effects, and many other things we simply don't see or mind. Artistic integrity is one thing, but unlike Martin, they have to juggle with so many things which makes their job significantly more difficult. This, however, is not some excuse for their mistakes. They made many mistakes in terms of some characters and that should be acknowledged. But, also, they elevated and enhanced the importance of some stories, gave a dimension or two to GRRM's characters where it didn't exist. Sometimes they were successful, and it was nice to see like in case of Queen of Thornes, Cersei, Tywin, Oberyn, and sometimes it was a huge failure like with Margaery who was transformed into Anne Boleyn (much easier given that Dormer played Boleyn in The Tudors) or Catelyn. Sometimes, their medium allowed us more fulfilling experience of ASOIAF world, especially in music department, with several musical versions of "Rains of Castamere" that are absolutely amazing. Then the tunes of "Mhysa", "Winterfell" and "Goodbye Brother" are also something that truly deserve all the praise. The auditory element is something we forget from time to time. We have actually heard how Dothraki and Valyrian sounds, and there is no one who can tell me that hearing "Dragon is not a slave" in Valyrian and reading the line where it is stated Daenerys speaks Valyrian is the same. Then there are costumes, who sometimes hit the note and sometimes are meh. I would have loved to see Sansa's white and silver dress at her wedding with Tyrion, or Margaery's rose cape on hers. But, even Martin isn't Tolstoy. His dresses are nice, but they are far from legendary Anna's dress at Moscow ball when Tolstoy spent months researching to describe it. Some things are done better, and some aren't.

So, I do believe that extreme glorifying of either side is counterproductive. Naturally, most of is prefer the books, for Martin's and our imagination are not constricted with the thousand things I mentioned. Therefore, there is something inherently wrong and unfair with mere comparison TV vs books. For every adaptation has brought something new. And just like I will never be able to erase the Rohirrim ride at Pelennor fields, I think there are and will be some moments where this adaptation will prove to be absolutely and undoubtedly memorable.

[Miodrag]

What is truly hilarious is when people who think that characters like Cersei, Tywin, Olenna or Oberyn (or anyone, really) are faithfully portrayed - or even improved! - in the show, claim that they figured ASOIAF out completely, and they're therefore certain in their own capability to determine the ultimate quality of ASOIAF. Chances are, their snobbish selves didn't properly understand even those classics they so like to use as an armor for their snobbery. They would probably never manage to explain why Tolstoy in his late years said that Anna Karenina and War and Piece are his weakest works - regardless of do they agree with him or not. They most probably wouldn't be able to explain why some theorists prefer The Kreutzer Sonata to Tolstoy's earlier works - regardless of do they agree with theorists or not.

Those people sometimes present themselves as fans of this or that ASOIAF character, but in reality they're not, because they don't mind when the show omits scenes that don't portray their favorite characters in the most favorable light. Hence, how do they interpret their favorite characters is anyone's guess, actually.

But, they're always willing to piss on anyone who considers ASOIAF something more than just an excellent fantasy, let alone a masterpiece of literature. Not that they need any argument to make their case. They're happy with conformism: Martin isn't Tolstoy. Simple is that. As if other great writers of our day and age are Tolstoy. As if someone must be Tolstoy in order to be equally or similarly or comparably great. As if many authors of the 20th century didn't already manage to be not in the least like Tolstoy, and yet great on their own.

However, when there's a comparison between the books and the show, those people always find irrefutable arguments: music, costumes and special effects. Nothing extreme about that, of course.

[sj4iy]

Wow, if people think that only ASOIAF can offer them the great diversity of topics for discussion, I imagine the list of books they have read is rather short. ASOIAF is undoubtedly one of the greatest series in fantasy genre in recent history, and I have no doubt that it will survive the test of time. But, comparing it to the likes of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Hugo etc. in literary importance, versatility of topics and yes, even quality is truly hilarious. This may not be popular opinion, and don't get me wrong, but these proclamations of love towards ASOIAF as such unique literary masterpiece are so alike when adolescents measure their penises to see who has the bigger one. It's just sad. You can appreciate ASOIAF and analyze it extensively and on very high level without making of it something that it isn't.

Another thing that seems very prominent on this thread is its' bashing of TV producers. And although, myself, as Sansa fan, am not pleased with their work, the job they have done should not be diminished. I personally hate any sort of either glorifying or unsubstantiated criticism. The inability of people to see when both producers and author of series made mistakes, and recognize them is something that we should fight against. Neither side is infallible and the differences are great to be put in such one dimensional box of GRRM vs. D&D. So, many of you here should take a step back and have more objective view towards the both book and TV series. For let's face it, D&D did some things rather great.

What we usually forget is that Martin is not bound by thousand little things TV producers are. From budget to actors, sets and special effects, and many other things we simply don't see or mind. Artistic integrity is one thing, but unlike Martin, they have to juggle with so many things which makes their job significantly more difficult. This, however, is not some excuse for their mistakes. They made many mistakes in terms of some characters and that should be acknowledged. But, also, they elevated and enhanced the importance of some stories, gave a dimension or two to GRRM's characters where it didn't exist. Sometimes they were successful, and it was nice to see like in case of Queen of Thornes, Cersei, Tywin, Oberyn, and sometimes it was a huge failure like with Margaery who was transformed into Anne Boleyn (much easier given that Dormer played Boleyn in The Tudors) or Catelyn. Sometimes, their medium allowed us more fulfilling experience of ASOIAF world, especially in music department, with several musical versions of "Rains of Castamere" that are absolutely amazing. Then the tunes of "Mhysa", "Winterfell" and "Goodbye Brother" are also something that truly deserve all the praise. The auditory element is something we forget from time to time. We have actually heard how Dothraki and Valyrian sounds, and there is no one who can tell me that hearing "Dragon is not a slave" in Valyrian and reading the line where it is stated Daenerys speaks Valyrian is the same. Then there are costumes, who sometimes hit the note and sometimes are meh. I would have loved to see Sansa's white and silver dress at her wedding with Tyrion, or Margaery's rose cape on hers. But, even Martin isn't Tolstoy. His dresses are nice, but they are far from legendary Anna's dress at Moscow ball when Tolstoy spent months researching to describe it. Some things are done better, and some aren't.

So, I do believe that extreme glorifying of either side is counterproductive. Naturally, most of is prefer the books, for Martin's and our imagination are not constricted with the thousand things I mentioned. Therefore, there is something inherently wrong and unfair with mere comparison TV vs books. For every adaptation has brought something new. And just like I will never be able to erase the Rohirrim ride at Pelennor fields, I think there are and will be some moments where this adaptation will prove to be absolutely and undoubtedly memorable.

Very nicely stated :)

[LordStoneheart]

What is truly hilarious is when people who think that characters like Cersei, Tywin, Olenna or Oberyn (or anyone, really) are faithfully portrayed - or even improved!

I've seen it split between people who think Cersei and Tywin are better on the show for being more "deep" and people who hate it because its not akin to the books. I'm more in the second category. Cersei in the show is so far removed from the book Cersei that I hate calling her Cersei. I'd rather just call her Rebecca. she's more Rebecca than Cersei to me.

[Yojimbo]

I've seen it split between people who think Cersei and Tywin are better on the show for being more "deep" and people who hate it because its not akin to the books. I'm more in the second category. Cersei in the show is so far removed from the book Cersei that I hate calling her Cersei. I'd rather just call her Rebecca. she's more Rebecca than Cersei to me.

:rofl:

I've been calling Jon, Dances with No Nothing for a while now, once he become LC he will get promoted to Chief No Nothing.

[Miodrag]

I've seen it split between people who think Cersei and Tywin are better on the show for being more "deep" and people who hate it because its not akin to the books. I'm more in the second category. Cersei in the show is so far removed from the book Cersei that I hate calling her Cersei. I'd rather just call her Rebecca. she's more Rebecca than Cersei to me.

People miss a lot in these books, which is not surprising, given the volume and Martin's penchant for subtlety. I, for one, missed R+L=J. Annara's post from earlier in this thread, about Joff being a contrast to Robb while Ramsay is a contrast to Jon, is not something I've thought about before, but when I read what she wrote, it all made sense, and it made me take one more look at ASOIAF's structure. What is odd, when people simply disregard the complexity and subtlety of ASOIAF, and pretend that they absolutely own the novels so much that they're absolutely certain nothing could ever escape them.

For the record, subtlety, especially combined with such a complexity, may be a weakness of ASOIAF. For example, before internet very few people would would know about R+L=J, and therefore the general enjoyment of readership would be less than it is now. When too many of your readers miss too much of what you're trying to say, then you might be doing something wrong. But, that kind of subtlety is the standard in modern storytelling (and don't get me wrong, I like it more often than not), so ASOIAF is hardly the first work to deserve some criticism in that regard. And, who knows, in AWOW and ADOS Martin can round up everything in some brilliant way, which would erase any need for such a criticism. (Again, I'm not calling for the dismissal of subtlety.)

About Tywin and Cersei, their depth in the books is hardly hidden. Some readers possibly forgot how developed their characters were in ACOK (Cersei) and ASOS (Tywin) - and it's only natural to forget aspects about a 1.000 page book you read a year or two ago - and they think the show "improved" them, but it's really not the case. Quite the opposite: too often they're all over the place in the show. Which is why your suggestion about Rebecca will be seriously considered.

:rofl:

I've been calling Jon, Dances with No Nothing for a while now, once he become LC he will get promoted to Cheif No Nothing.

Kudos. I love Dances with Wolves, by the way.