Which do you prefer GOT Books or Series?

[Miodrag]

But at this point I probably prefer the show. Imagination alone can be great, but there is so much on screen to be admired that is absent in a written story such as the inspired casting, acting, music, cgi, set and costume design. It's not that these are better in the show, they don't exist at all in books.

So, you think movies and TV shows are generally better than books? No nitpicking here, I'm genuinely curious. Like, no book can ever have casting, acting, music, CGI, costumes... If these things are the most important to you, does it mean you generally prefer visual mediums to written ones?

[Sun]

Up to and including ASOS/S4, I prefer the books. However, I fully expect to feel the reverse once the show starts covering AFFC/ADWD

[Cold Crashing Waves]

Some parts I like better than the books, and some parts I like better in the show. It isn't a clear one over the other.

For instance: The Jon Snow and the Wall, Daenerys, and Beric Dondarrion storylines/characters were better in the books. Jaime, Tyrion and Arya are better in the show.

[King of the Road]

I like some parts better than in the book, others not so much. I think this is the only TV series which, in my opinion, equals or betters its source material.

[zeppelincheetah]

Really I would say about equal.

I thoroughly enjoy reading the books but I feel some parts feel like a chore (Brienne and Damphair in AFFC, Dany and Tyrion in ADWD) and too often there are way too many characters to keep up with.

I love the show because it's for the most part more concise and cuts out a lot of the fat and it's great to see the characters acted out on screen.

I started watching the show. I watched seasons 1 & 2 before I read the books, then I read all 5 books prior to season 3 (and am currently re-reading them - 2/3 through affc and barely into adwd; tried to read all of affc first but got too impatient)

[SerArthurHeath]

Poor AFFC. So unloved :(

[Ice_and_Fire]

I read the books before I watched the tv show, so am biased to the books being better.

I did enjoy the first 3 series of GoT but I have been really struggling with series 4 and am finding it harder to overlook the changes. So far I think this series has been sloppy and nothing compared to previous ones.

[Lady of the Falls]

I read the books before I watched the tv show, so am biased to the books being better.

I did enjoy the first 3 series of GoT but I have been really struggling with series 4 and am finding it harder to overlook the changes. So far I think this series has been sloppy and nothing compared to previous ones.

I agree, that's why I posed the question. I really enjoyed the show at first for what they could achieve being a show an all. Of course books are better for being able to give more detail. But some of season 3 most of 4 has lost me. The changes have made no sense to me and all these wasted scenes could have been better used on other things that mattered.

[PatrickStormborn]

There's no question - the books are superior in every way, and I would hope that even the showrunners would be willing to admit that.

I mean, the show isn't even one of the best on TV. Apart from its scope, the show doesn't push the boundaries of TV at all. The writing is patchy, the characterisation is thin, there's significant issues with sexism and racism and even homophobia... So you'd have to have a pretty low opinion of the books to even compare them to the show.

I still think the show is good, within reason. When sticking to the source material or just in-line with book logic, characterisation and themes, the material is some of the best on TV. But it also has some of the worst scenes I've seen on TV (Dany in Qarth, Asha's speech over Ramsay having sex, Theon's entire season 3 "arc", Talisa, King's Landing in season 3, the Craster's Keep storyline, and pretty much every scene involving the Others, excluding the prologue).

[Seneti]

Advisory: Unpopular opinion coming up right about now: I prefer the show.

I started reading the books after season 1 and as great as they are (I love the conspiracies, the prophecies and all the foreshadowing, which is why I'm here), I can't help but feel that they are too bloated at times (particularly all throughout AFFC and ADWD). I read/watch for entertainment and "bloating" is not my idea of entertainment.

To quote a reviewer on TV Tropes: "if you ever see an author unwilling to cut: run!"

[ovis alba]

If someone would make me chose which of it I can keep watching/reading, it would be the books.

But it's not much of a fair fight as I prefer reading over watching anything in general.

So maybe better compare it within the medium: If I would have to chose only 10 books/series of books in my current shelf to keep, Asoiaf would probably make it. Given the same choice for TV shows there is a high chance it would be kicked out.

So long story short: books either way. :D

[Daske]

So, you think movies and TV shows are generally better than books? No nitpicking here, I'm genuinely curious. Like, no book can ever have casting, acting, music, CGI, costumes... If these things are the most important to you, does it mean you generally prefer visual mediums to written ones?

I would say probably so on average for me, but it varies. I wouldn't say that acting, music, sets etc are more important that the story or whatever images a good author can summon up with just words, but they can add extra layers that provide at least as equal an immersive experience. For example, that great line at the end of the first book '... and for the first time in hundreds of years, the night came alive with the music of dragons'. An evocative line for sure, but the actual baby dragon screech you hear at the end of the first season was so 'right', so exciting yet at the same time spine-chilling that I believe it can be treated as equal in quality as the words. And I think you can stretch that comparison to many other aspects of book to screen translations, especially with the casting and acting in GoT which has had to be stellar to overcome the PoV limitations of the book when you have to remove a whole chunk of what people are thinking.

As much as I believe GRRM is near genius for creating and developing ASoIaF by himself I think that the skill that goes into weaving all the various additional elements required into a visual and auditory medium requires almost as much talent. I simply don't buy the bad writing, bad changes line - yes, some things work better than others on screen but the books are also very uneven in quality too, with some storylines and characters working better than others. Some people even totally skip certain characters' chapters when re-reading because they find them so boring or lacklustre. And yet they still love the books.

From all I've read here over the years, it seems to me that the main difference between those who prefer the show and those that prefer the books is not actually which one is objectively better, which is impossible to prove anyway, but which of the two they most love and therefore can forgive the most sins.

[sj4iy]

From all I've read here over the years, it seems to me that the main difference between those who prefer the show and those that prefer the books is not actually which one is objectively better, which is impossible to prove anyway, but which of the two they most love and therefore can forgive the most sins.

^This. While I often love books, there are occasions where I can see that a movie or show has genuinely improved upon its source material. "The Shining" being one that I will watch any day of the week over reading the book. I think that once we get into next season and start covering AFFC and ADWD, the show will really outshine the source material.

[lakin1013]

Ice_and_Fire, on 13 May 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

I read the books before I watched the tv show, so am biased to the books being better.

I did enjoy the first 3 series of GoT but I have been really struggling with series 4 and am finding it harder to overlook the changes. So far I think this series has been sloppy and nothing compared to previous ones.

I also prefer the books, having read them all. But one thing new for me, as also mentioned by Ice_and_Fire, regarding the TV series, is my diminishing engagement with this season. For example,Tyrion's trial.... Reading it, I was riveted. Watching it, I was a bit bored and found it a wee bit over the top. As others have noted, some of the changes seem stupid and I have a hard time figuring out the reason.

I do think the show is telling a wonderful story and for the most part, succeeding. The casting is wonderful and the visuals do give me mental pictures like Kings Landing, Winterfell, dinners, and fashions. But I am almost always going to pick the books, whether it be LOTR or ASoIaF, just a medium I prefer.

[Daske]

^This. While I often love books, there are occasions where I can see that a movie or show has genuinely improved upon its source material. "The Shining" being one that I will watch any day of the week over reading the book. I think that once we get into next season and start covering AFFC and ADWD, the show will really outshine the source material.

I think Blade Runner is the adaptation I've liked the most, and Phillip K. Dick was a genius.

[Tellus Explorer]

I love the books, always have and I think the show is a decent visual for such art (too bad HBO keeps changing stuff -_- )

[sj4iy]

I think Blade Runner is the adaptation I've liked the most, and Phillip K. Dick was a genius.

My favorite adaptation was the BBC's miniseries of Pride and Prejudice. It was perfect, and that is one of my favorite books of all time.

[Miodrag]

From all I've read here over the years, it seems to me that the main difference between those who prefer the show and those that prefer the books is not actually which one is objectively better, which is impossible to prove anyway, but which of the two they most love and therefore can forgive the most sins.

Sorry, but have to disagree. It is possible to prove which one is objectively better. At the very least, time will tell. It’s not very likely that in, say, 30 years, both books and the TV show will be equally respected. Now it is perhaps somewhat harder to see which story is better, written one or the filmed one, but that will change in time, no doubt about that.

Regardless of how the books are going to be looked at then, my prediction is that the show will not age well. Once all the fuss passes, once there are no advertising campaigns, once those “Inside the episode” videos become practically meaningless, I predict the show will lose much of the reputation it now has. Just like it happens to every show of that quality: Lost, Prison Break, The X-Files, 24, Homeland... GOT’s reputation is not of the most solid fabric, unlike the reputation of The Sopranos. Younger people probably don’t know how powerful that show was, but I remember it clearly. It was groundbreaking in every sense of the word. And the proof of that came last summer, in a very sad form: when James Gandolfini died, it was the top news for days all over the world. Gandolfini had no major or significant or memorable film roles. He played in some popular movies, but as a supporting role. As one critic wrote, Hollywood never knew what to do with him. So, his only claim to real fame was the role of Tony Soprano. But, it was so powerful a role, and he played it so masterfully, that it became a phenomenon like no other. For millions and millions of viewers from all around the world, Tony Soprano/James Gandolfini became almost a kin. To say he was a household name is an understatement. When basketball Dream Team came to my town (Belgrade, Serbia) prior to Athens Olympics in 2004, we were allowed to speak with the players after their practice, and while I was interviewing Richard Jefferson, he was replying mechanically, without thinking. He wasn’t even looking at me. If you were to ask him then and there am I white or black, he wouldn’t know. Athlete’s arrogance in its most usual. At one moment, because he was with the New Jersey Nets at the time, I asked him did he meet Tony Soprano. Man, everything changed instantly. He suddenly turned toward me and forgot about the basketball and everything else. We chatted about The Sopranos for good 15 or 20 minutes: theorizing, analyzing, predicting... He knew everything about the show. Literally everything. (He was bad at predictions, though, because he was certain Tony would end up in jail.) He was so deep into analyzing characters and themes, I think I never met such an obsession in a professional athlete, and I interviewed any number of them. At the end, it was me who had to halt the conversation (to catch other players), because Jefferson wouldn’t! That was the power of The Sopranos, that’s how influential the show was.

Movie and TV industry didn’t know what to do with Gandolfini, but the people knew. And when he died, people grieved. He’s hardly the first actor to die before his time, and yet, his death was, like I said, the news all over the world. All because of Tony Soprano: that’s how strong is the legacy of that character and that show.

About the legacy of The Wire: ever since it aired, every damn show is compared to The Wire. In order to be regarded as great, a show has to hold its own against The Wire. I mean, that show was financially saved because of the critical praise (even though it received no award). How’s that for a legacy!

GOT’s legacy won’t come close, regardless of the popularity at the moment. As with anything this popular, it is overrated, but that’s going to pass. Even acting is overrated. I mean, people go on and on about how great a job actors do in GOT. But, did you see The Sopranos? Did you see Tony and Carmela fighting? Did you see Tony “grooming” Christopher? Did you watch Christopher’s jealousy over Tony and Adrianna? What about The Wire? What about Bubs, or Stringer, or Omar? I could go on forever. As far as acting goes, GOT is nothing special, really. And besides, acting itself is overrated, if you ask me, because the writing is the basis of any greatness. And in regards to writing, GOT is not even near the best written shows or movies.

That’s about the show. As for the books, much depends on the last two novels, of course, but, if preview chapters from AWOW are any indication, Martin will deliver. And in that case, the legacy of ASOIAF will become only stronger. It is already amazingly powerful, which is indicated by, among other things, this site – especially by the more serious discussions from the books section. In terms of themes, characterization, plot and the setting, ASOIAF is second to no literary achievement. Among the living authors I’ve read, Martin and Mario Vargas Llosa are my absolute favorites. Pamuk is great, Coetzee too, Ishiguro, Pelevin... but ASOIAF (along with Llosa’s The War of the End of the World and Conversation in the Cathedral) is the best contemporary literature I’ve read. For example, McCarthy’s Blood Meridian was recommended to me on this site. I read it, and liked it very much, its a powerful and important novel that I regard a masterpiece. But, it’s not a match to ASOIAF – thematically, philosophically, plot wise, characterization wise, ASOIAF is simply better (McCarthy’s prose is definitely more sophisticated than Martin’s, but I’d never say Martin’s prose is bad, and it’s certainly good enough for delivering this story). I know Blood Meridian is hailed by many theorists (especially by Harold Bloom), and rightfully so, but I only regret that those theorists will probably never read ASOIAF.

All we have to do is to look at Martin’s influences: Goethe, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, and I suspect Dostoevsky (I’m not even sure Martin read anything from Dostoevsky, but there are quite a few similarities between them), to see how big is Martin’s ambition. For now, ASOIAF is largely unrecognized by literary theorists, but it fascinates historians, philosopher, sociologists, psychologists... It is just a matter of time before literary theorists recognize it as a masterpiece it is. If Martin completes the saga in style, by the legacy it will easily outshine any other fantasy out there, LOTR included (and Tolkien was a legitimate contender for a Nobel Prize) and great many other works usually regarded as classic literature.

At the end, I can only agree with Patrick Stormborn: if you think the show is comparable to the books, you probably have a very low opinion of the books to begin with. Which is OK, of course, nobody will die because of differing opinions. My only concern is that, because of all this “the show is faithful to the books” noise that is created by TV critics, fewer literary theorists will make a decision to read ASOIAF. They’ll watch some episodes of the show, perhaps they’ll like it to a degree, but chances are they’re not going to think very highly of its source material, at least not highly enough to read it, because they wouldn't know better. Just remember how happy was Salman Rushdie to say that GOT is pure rubbish, some two or three years ago. I’m pretty sure not even his arrogant self would say something like that for the books – he could very well think so, but he’d probably never risk with telling it like that in public, which is one of the benefits of the solid reputation a work of art can gain.

I think Blade Runner is the adaptation I've liked the most, and Phillip K. Dick was a genius.

Dick was a genius, but Do Androids... is one of his weakest novels. I’m even surprised someone recognized a good premise in it, but someone thankfully did, and we got Blade Runner, which is a very good movie, indeed. A Scanner Darkly and The Man in The High Castle are excellent novels and true testaments to Dick’s talent.

[Caerl Targaryen]

Poor AFFC. So unloved :(

I've actually grown to really like AFFC. It doesn't work that well without ADWD, however. But that makes sense given that ADWD is technically the other half of AFFC.

I can absolutely understand the disappointment when it first came out, especially since it took so long and it came out after the brilliant ASOS. By themselves I don't think the books are the strongest in the series but I suspect the things they set up will be highly important for the last two books. Once we know where everything is headed, I think the very transitional AFFC and ADWD will be appreciated more. Only time will tell of course.

[sj4iy]

Sorry, but have to disagree. It is possible to prove which one is objectively better. At the very least, time will tell. It’s not very likely that in, say, 30 years, both books and the TV show will be equally respected. Now it is perhaps somewhat harder to see which story is better, written one or the filmed one, but that will change in time, no doubt about that.

Regardless of how the books are going to be looked at then, my prediction is that the show will not age well. Once all the fuss passes, once there are no advertising campaigns, once those “Inside the episode” videos become practically meaningless, I predict the show will lose much of the reputation it now has. Just like it happens to every show of that quality: Lost, Prison Break, The X-Files, 24, Homeland... GOT’s reputation is not of the most solid fabric, unlike the reputation of The Sopranos. Younger people probably don’t know how powerful that show was, but I remember it clearly. It was groundbreaking in every sense of the word. And the proof of that came last summer, in a very sad form: when James Gandolfini died, it was the top news for days all over the world. Gandolfini had no major or significant or memorable film roles. He played in some popular movies, but as a supporting role. As one critic wrote, Hollywood never knew what to do with him. So, his only claim to real fame was the role of Tony Soprano. But, it was so powerful a role, and he played it so masterfully, that it became a phenomenon like no other. For millions and millions of viewers from all around the world, Tony Soprano/James Gandolfini became almost a kin. To say he was a household name is an understatement. When basketball Dream Team came to my town (Belgrade, Serbia) prior to Athens Olympics in 2004, we were allowed to speak with the players after their practice, and while I was interviewing Richard Jefferson, he was replying mechanically, without thinking. He wasn’t even looking at me. If you were to ask him then and there am I white or black, he wouldn’t know. Athlete’s arrogance in its most usual. At one moment, because he was with the New Jersey Nets at the time, I asked him did he meet Tony Soprano. Man, everything changed instantly. He suddenly turned toward me and forgot about the basketball and everything else. We chatted about The Sopranos for good 15 or 20 minutes: theorizing, analyzing, predicting... He knew everything about the show. Literally everything. (He was bad at predictions, though, because he was certain Tony would end up in jail.) He was so deep into analyzing characters and themes, I think I never met such an obsession in a professional athlete, and I interviewed any number of them. At the end, it was me who had to halt the conversation (to catch other players), because Jefferson wouldn’t! That was the power of The Sopranos, that’s how influential the show was.

Movie and TV industry didn’t know what to do with Gandolfini, but the people knew. And when he died, people grieved. He’s hardly the first actor to die before his time, and yet, his death was, like I said, the news all over the world. All because of Tony Soprano: that’s how strong is the legacy of that character and that show.

About the legacy of The Wire: ever since it aired, every damn show is compared to The Wire. In order to be regarded as great, a show has to hold its own against The Wire. I mean, that show was financially saved because of the critical praise (even though it received no award). How’s that for a legacy!

GOT’s legacy won’t come close, regardless of the popularity at the moment. As with anything this popular, it is overrated, but that’s going to pass. Even acting is overrated. I mean, people go on and on about how great a job actors do in GOT. But, did you see The Sopranos? Did you see Tony and Carmela fighting? Did you see Tony “grooming” Christopher? Did you watch Christopher’s jealousy over Tony and Adrianna? What about The Wire? What about Bubs, or Stringer, or Omar? I could go on forever. As far as acting goes, GOT is nothing special, really. And besides, acting itself is overrated, if you ask me, because the writing is the basis of any greatness. And in regards to writing, GOT is not even near the best written shows or movies.

That’s about the show. As for the books, much depends on the last two novels, of course, but, if preview chapters from AWOW are any indication, Martin will deliver. And in that case, the legacy of ASOIAF will become only stronger. It is already amazingly powerful, which is indicated by, among other things, this site – especially by the more serious discussions from the books section. In terms of themes, characterization, plot and the setting, ASOIAF is second to no literary achievement. Among the living authors I’ve read, Martin and Mario Vargas Llosa are my absolute favorites. Pamuk is great, Coetzee too, Ishiguro, Pelevin... but ASOIAF (along with Llosa’s The War of the End of the World and Conversation in the Cathedral) is the best contemporary literature I’ve read. For example, McCarthy’s Blood Meridian was recommended to me on this site. I read it, and liked it very much, its a powerful and important novel that I regard a masterpiece. But, it’s not a match to ASOIAF – thematically, philosophically, plot wise, characterization wise, ASOIAF is simply better (McCarthy’s prose is definitely more sophisticated than Martin’s, but I’d never say Martin’s prose is bad, and it’s certainly good enough for delivering this story). I know Blood Meridian is hailed by many theorists (especially by Harold Bloom), and rightfully so, but I only regret that those theorists will probably never read ASOIAF.

All we have to do is to look at Martin’s influences: Goethe, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, and I suspect Dostoevsky (I’m not even sure Martin read anything from Dostoevsky, but there are quite a few similarities between them), to see how big is Martin’s ambition. For now, ASOIAF is largely unrecognized by literary theorists, but it fascinates historians, philosopher, sociologists, psychologists... It is just a matter of time before literary theorists recognize it as a masterpiece it is. If Martin completes the saga in style, by the legacy it will easily outshine any other fantasy out there, LOTR included (and Tolkien was a legitimate contender for a Nobel Prize) and great many other works usually regarded as classic literature.

At the end, I can only agree with Patrick Stormborn: if you think the show is comparable to the books, you probably have a very low opinion of the books to begin with. Which is OK, of course, nobody will die because of differing opinions. My only concern is that, because of all this “the show is faithful to the books” noise that is created by TV critics, fewer literary theorists will make a decision to read ASOIAF. They’ll watch some episodes of the show, perhaps they’ll like it to a degree, but chances are they’re not going to think very highly of its source material, at least not highly enough to read it, because they wouldn't know better. Just remember how happy was Salman Rushdie to say that GOT is pure rubbish, some two or three years ago. I’m pretty sure not even his arrogant self would say something like that for the books – he could very well think so, but he’d probably never risk with telling it like that in public, which is one of the benefits of the solid reputation a work of art can gain.

Dick was a genius, but Do Androids... is one of his weakest novels. I’m even surprised someone recognized a good premise in it, but someone thankfully did, and we got Blade Runner, which is a very good movie, indeed. A Scanner Darkly and The Man in The High Castle are excellent novels and true testaments to Dick’s talent.

ASoIaF will never be considered 'classic literature'. It's a great story, yes, but it is not transcendent or anything like that. And most people agree that out of the 5 books written so far, the 3rd is the best and the next two have their moments, but books 2, 4, and 5 are not great literature by any standards. The show does a great job of tightening and merging story lines that became too cluttered in the books, and while I can't foresee how it will be accepted 30 years from now, I doubt the books will fare much better. The show could turn out even better than the books. We don't know, all we can do is judge on what we have now and worry about legacy later. I don't have a low opinion of the books, but I do see that they have their flaws. It's not an unfair criticism, either- some people will not mind the flaws, just as I don't mind the flaws in the show.