Critiquing the Critics

[smegma]

Bellafante responds to her critics. She somehow seems even more clueless.

I'm not one to usually criticize critics. But she doesn't seem to understand why her review was panned.

[moot]

Bellafante responds to her critics. She somehow seems even more clueless.

I'm not one to usually criticize critics. But she doesn't seem to understand why her review was panned.

Yes. It’s remarkable that she continues to call what she wrote a “review” and not an “oped,” which is what it was. Clearly, she didn’t review the show at all. She remarked about the number of characters, the cost of production, the weather, the political wrangling. And then she gave her opinion about what types of people enjoy fantasy, and anecdotally declared that no women could sit through the show (unless there were scenes of graphic sex) because she herself didn’t know any women who liked fantasy. She made some references to Tolkein and D&D, but didn’t leave any indication that she’d actually sat through an entire episode, or even read the press kit.

Of course, she’s entitled to dislike the show and fantasy in general. (I'll leave alone her oddball assertions of boy vs. girl fiction.) But I can’t fathom how she could think that what she wrote was an actual review of the show. From what I can tell, all she saw was the trailer.

What I like about Roger Ebert is that he’s willing to take in a movie on its intentions. I’m certain there are genres of movies that don’t naturally appeal to him, but as a professional, he’s willing to check his bias at the ticket booth, and critique a movie based on the director’s intentions. Some things about critiquing are basic: does the plot gel? do the characters grow? are any of the emotions real? are the technical bits well done? if it was meant to exhilarate, does it? if it was meant to pander, does it? does the audience care about what happens to the characters? does it raise any moral issues? is it supposed to? does the writing ring true? is the editing appropriate for the material? is the acting or mugging any good? on and on…

But Ms. Bellefante did none of the critiquing one expects in a review. And then wonders why she got blitzed?

[CryFenril]

Among the reviews of the books on Amazon.com was a thread warning people not to buy the books because the series would never be finished and that the author doesn't give two flips about the books or his fans. Hatorade, anyone? :stillsick:

[Xenophon]

I hadn't seen this before: Troy Patterson (the Slate reviewer who spent most of his first viewer complaining about he hates fantasy) is back, this time with a "real review". He still doesn't seem to like GoT much, but he makes a couple good points about how the finer details of the show got muffled by the overall weighty tone.

And, re. the original subject of this thread, the comments section is filled with viciousness. Some fans apparently still need to read McNutt’s post.

[smegma]

I hadn't seen this before: Troy Patterson (the Slate reviewer who spent most of his first viewer complaining about he hates fantasy) is back, this time with a "real review". He still doesn't seem to like GoT much, but he makes a couple good points about how the finer details of the show got muffled by the overall weighty tone.

And, re. the original subject of this thread, the comments section is filled with viciousness. Some fans apparently still need to read McNutt’s post.

Wow, I still hate his writing. And he only critiques the first episode, nothing else. What a bore.

[Brude]

Reading the comments to Bellefante's more recent piece is pretty great. There's some excellent responses to her, one among them by Dan Carlson who is the Managing Editor of pajiba.com:

I think the real issue is that what was labeled as a TV review neglected to talk about acting, writing, directing, lighting, editing, scoring, or any of a dozen areas that usually go into legitimate criticism. The piece was a half-finished column, backed with no evidence but your own experience. And that's fine, there's room for that in the world. But next time, I'd appreciate it if the editors at the Times would assign a critic who would actually critique the work in question instead of merely pontificating about the network it's on. (If you're hiring, I'm available, and I know a boatload of writers who just got canned from Cinematical, too.)

Thanks for your time,

Daniel Carlson

Managing Editor, Pajiba.com

TV Critic/Blogger, Houston Press

Houston Film Critics Society

Online Film Critics Society

[Arya The Assassin]

My impression is that GoT in general has been well received by critics. There are some notable exceptions, such as the awful review in The New York Times (her 'review' failed to address the film itself -> major fail), but major trade magazines such as The Hollywood Reporter have praised the series.

It also seems to me that non-readers enjoy the show. In fact, a vast majority of the reviews I've read by professional critics (who haven't read the books) have been very positive. And if these reviews had been included in the score on Metacritic, its overall score would've been much higher than it currently is (79 is not a bad score at all, but "for universal" acclaim you need at least 80 points). It's worth mentioning that many of these critics have already seen at least 6 episodes of the show, so their judgement isn't merely based on the pilot.

However, I believe the important thing here is not the critics, but word-of-mouth: TV shows like this needs strong word-of-mouth if it wants to grow in popularity. Some people may be put off at first simply because they don't like fantasy (and I personally know many people who hate sci-fi and fantasy), but positive word-of-mouth can convince people that it's worth watching anyway. The producers have said that they've tried to create a series which not only appeals to die-hard fans of the novels, but also non-fantasy fans and non-book readers, and I think they've managed to achieve that goal.

I also believe that this series will get even more interesting as the plot starts to thicken, and as the characters get even more fleshed out. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the ratings increase later in the season.

[Pearson Moore]

I don't see any problem at all with fans dissecting negative or positive reviews, or the HBO series directly. This is especially true of a television series drawn from a long-existing series of novels. There is a certain flavour associated with the novels, some of which has been captured in the HBO series, and when we read a review that does not seem to acknowledge what we perceive to be the high quality of novels or episodes, those of us who have both read and watched are absolutely entitled to weigh in on a critic's words.

We are all the more entitled to our comments because of the necessary difference between novels and television series. Those who read my pre-season prediction of the direwolf scene ("Five Paths of the Maester" here: http://www.westeros.org/GoT/Features/Entry/Five_Paths_of_the_Maester/) may understand the state of disbelief I experienced when I saw a direwolf scene very different from the one in the first novel unfold on the television screen. The roles of Robb and Jon were minimised, and Bran was all but absent from the television version of the scene. Shocking! Especially since I have built my understanding of the novels on that one scene (see my analysis of symbolism and metastory in the direwolf scene in my book, "Direwolves and Dragons," here: http://winterfellkeep.com/DirewolvesDragons.aspx). In my essays I'm more or less just rolling with the punches, accepting that the television series must be inherently different from the novels. But I have to admit I was holding my breath through Episodes One and Two, and finally gave a sigh of relief only when I saw Bran open his eyes at the end of Ep. 2 (no, I don't get advance copies of the series!).

We are therefore entitled not only to point out the artistic merit or lack thereof in chapters or episodes, we are certainly also entitled to point out deviations or inconsistencies between novels and the television series. If you're familiar with the novels, you know the crucial nature of the direwolf scene; to see it changed so dramatically is just one example of a significant deviation between the original works and their visual representation. In fact, if we did not know of GRRM's intimate involvement in production, seeing such a dramatic change in the scene could justifiably signal our preliminary understanding that the television series might be expected to deviate in quality or message relative to the novels. That is certainly something worth discussing, and as we are more attuned to these things than the average television and movies critic, one could reasonably argue that it is not only within our purview to offer opinion, it is actually our duty to do so.

I see no problem with the way fans so far have been voicing their opinion. Have at it!

PM

May Day 2011

[Asha—Not Yara!]

We are therefore entitled not only to point out the artistic merit or lack thereof in chapters or episodes, we are certainly also entitled to point out deviations or inconsistencies between novels and the television series. If you're familiar with the novels, you know the crucial nature of the direwolf scene; to see it changed so dramatically is just one example of a significant deviation between the original works and their visual representation.

I didn't think it was changed quite that dramatically. Sure it wasn't word for word from the book, but over all I didn't think it deviated very significantly at all. Theon acted like an ass in the book scene and the TV show scene. There's plenty of time for the show to show Robb's friendship with Theon, but they certainly didn't always get along. There's plenty of time to show more of Robb and Jon. We know Jon's going to get a lot more scenes in the first season, and we'll see Robb in a bigger role in the second season.

Edited and changed because I misread it.

[Pearson Moore]

Mellisandra,

Thank you for your kind response. I think the Stark children's input in the original direwolves scene goes to the heart of the thesis of ASoIaF, as I explain in my essay in "Direwolves and Dragons" (http://winterfellkeep.com/DirewolvesDragons.aspx). Bran's contribution, especially, I think was critical. In the narrative about Jon's direwolf, who would come to be called Ghost, GRRM writes "Bran thought it curious that this pup alone would have opened his eyes while the others were still blind." Of course, this ties in perfectly with Bran's new sight (I won't say more than that, since I don't know what the spoilers policy is on this forum). Because Bran is the only one who notices this, he is set apart--above, really--from all the others in his ability to perceive things--to see, if you will. And of course, because each direwolf mirrors its child master, Bran is making a commentary on Jon's ability to see, even if he does not yet understand what he is saying. As someone who writes for a living, I did not take lightly the changes to this pivotal scene. I believe the thesis will turn out to be nearly identical to the one expressed in the novels, but the television series is certainly going to follow at least a slightly different path to get there. All of that is fine, and in a certain sense to be expected. I don't see any major deviations so far. As I said, I "breathed a sigh of relief" when Bran's eyes opened at the end of Ep. 2.

Thanks again for your comments.

PM

[Areo]

PM,

I understand your point of view and I am sure there will be plenty of scenes where fans will feel a significant difference. This is especially true when in the books GRRM conveys feelings, omens, symbolism of some sort, romanticism if you wish (as was already pointed out in the forum regarding the King's Guard), and so on. Almost every page of the series is full of information, whether laid out or hinted at, it is multilayered. I really can't see how this can be accurately translated to the screen. In fact, the pilot being somewhat overwhelming as it is, introducing a myriad of main characters, attempting to include additional messages would have been a mistake, in my opinion, and non-readers would've had a hard time understanding it. I believe HBO can do this in later episodes when the plot starts unfolding, as viewers will be well aware of the world and the characters and better equiped to handle subtle (or not so subtle) messages. Of course, there is the personal approach to a book - every reader takes something different from it and I'm sure if we start asking hardcore fans it will turn out almost every word in the novels is heavy with meaning. While reading we all have our opinions, perceptions, etc. While watching, I think these differences are somewhat diminished as the story is now out of our heads and on the screen where it is perceived in a more similar way - not that everyone sees the same thing, but reading leaves much more to one's imagination.

So far I'm pretty happy with GoT. Some things are not quite as I imagined, some are not as well depicted, but some are even better (e.g. Dany's first wedding night made much more sense as was played in the show, many fans were shocked, but I think it was one of the best scenes in the episode). Most importantly, the overall feel is quite the same, although I cannot say whether this is true for non-readers, for them it might be quite different because they are not coming with expectations and knowledge. I reserve the right to change my opinion by the end of the season, as by then anything D&D considered to be important should be presented. Oh, that's another major thing here, the series more or less represents their views, so we cannot expect too much, right?

P.S. About the spoilers, avoid writing such in threads with [NO SPOILERS] in the name and in the rest just use the spolier tag - [sp*iler]spoilers[/sp*iler]. When you write it with "o" instead of * it looks like this:

text containing spoilers

.

[Pearson Moore]

Areo,

Interesting observations! I agree regarding GoT so far. HBO is doing a fine job of translating an epic novel to television format. They're probably doing as fine a job as any of us could have expected, so I'm actually pleasantly surprised. These projects can and do go bad--look at what happened to Pillars of the Earth, for example, when it went to television. Ken Follett's novel is a masterpiece--I've read it three times, and listened to the unabridged audio on the way to work I don't know how many times (I'm wearing out the cassette tapes in an age of DVDs!), but just TRY to watch the television version. It's horrible, really a sad mess, and should never have seen the light of day. When I look at examples like that I am very happy indeed to see what HBO has done so far. They've definitely kept the flavour of the novels. I was concerned about the direwolf scene, and what the children's low profile could mean (would the whole trust of the series change?), but I'm much less apprehensive now after the end of the 2nd episode, and looking forward to the 3rd in less than three hours. Which means a very long night, since I'm writing an essay on it. But that's okay--the adrenaline has kept me going every Sunday night. There is a strange kind of joy in seeing the characters come to life in the hands of some very capable actors.

PM

[lokisnow]

Orson Scott Card slams the writers of GoT, praises GRRM

What I find most interesting about all this is that one of the projects Benioff and Weiss were on before AGOT was Ender's Game, they were working on it while Petersen was shooting and editing Poseidon, iirc, and their's was the version of EG that was closest to getting made. I wonder if some of Card's rage was directed at them because he particularly hates having anyone else work on his baby. Considering how skilled they are at conveying the feel of AGOT, I imagine their version of Ender's Game was incredible--which would probably mean Card would hate it (and D&D) all the more. :-p

[Liadin]

Bellafante responds to her critics. She somehow seems even more clueless.

I'm not one to usually criticize critics. But she doesn't seem to understand why her review was panned.

Unfortunately, I think the truly nasty responses just overshadowed the reasonable ones for her--which, if people were sending you vitriolic mail about something you wrote, is probably how you would respond. Now she thinks the people hating on her review are all anti-feminists (regardless of gender) eager to pan "girl fiction" (i.e. romance and chick lit) in response to her criticism of "boy fiction" (i.e. SFF). And some of the people responding to her did put it that way. Well, they're morons, but that doesn't make her original review any less wrongheaded.

[silkymoonshine]

Pajiba posted a [pretty shitty] review of the season of GoT yesterday. The writer raises some good points, but in the worst and most obnoxious way possible. I mean, really, he wanted the bad guys to lose and the good guys to win in the very first season? I don't even think that labels such as 'good guy' and 'bad guy' fully applies to ASoIaF.

1) If you have to kill all the cool characters (Syrio, Drogo, Mark Addy) the season needs to end with a roast beast size order of comeuppance for the bad guys.

I agree. My biggest problem with The Wire was that, at the end of the first season, drugs still existed.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at June 27, 2011 3:27 PM

Loved this comment. (They have a pretty strict no book spoilers policy, so beware if you would like to comment.)

[Sega AM2]

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-c-2011-04-27-208184.112113-Thrones-Catching-Fire-Snacks-Poems.html

Orson Scott Card is dead on with his assessment of the show only two episodes in. He called that sex would be used poorly throughout the series. The comments below accuse him of jumping the gun and that the show is only two episodes in and they might tone down the sex. Looks like Card was right though, HBO ramped up the sex even more, and most of the scenes are gratuitous and non-canon. Here's the money quote:

But the screenwriters, perhaps compensating for their utter inability to find a filmic replacement for the deep-penetration viewpoint of Martin's writing, have taken any excuse for nudity and sex and blown it up into full-fledged, if soft-core, porn.

Moments that are fleeting or merely referred to in passing in the book are inflated into scenes that stop the story cold. Where Martin gave us a glimpse, these writers call for a lingering, jiggling closeup. The result is that the actors and George R.R. Martin are demeaned and diminished.

Combine that with the screenwriters' aforesaid incompetence at creating character and relationship in a script, and what you have is a deeply ruined adaptation.

The more I think about the show the less I like it compared to the books. "Deeply ruined adaptation" I wouldn't even call harsh at this point and seems pretty fair. I would love if some reporter asked GRRM about the changes made and the sexposition and see what his take is on things.

[Ran]

I often find that Card is a wonderful anti-critic with anything that crosses his foibles.

GRRM has indicated he's very pleased with the work of the producers, and I don't think he has any particular objections to the use of sex and nudity (though I'd think he, too, may have thought the Littlefinger sexposition scene to be poorly conceived and somewhat redundant). Since, after all, he uses it in his own work -- Card has mentally edited the novels to what he's comfortable with, but it's not reality.

[Grogsmash]

"Deeply ruined adaptation" I wouldn't even call harsh at this point and seems pretty fair.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a more ambitious or successful adaptation than GoT at this point.

[Asha—Not Yara!]

I personally can't stand Orson Scott Card, and to call this a "deeply ruined adaptation" is laughable, but coming from him not too surprising. He's refused to let any of his books be adapted if I recall right.

[Padraig]

Orson Scott Card is dead on with his assessment of the show only two episodes in.

He certainly didn't think it was a deeply ruined adaptation.

most of the scenes are gratuitous and non-canon

And the non-canon thing is very debatable. Viserys did have sex with Doreah in the book. We know Cressen had sex with prostitutes. Theon certainly didn't lack for sex.

And as people have said, if you ignore the LF scene, the gratuitous tag can be debated also. GRRM certainly wasn't shy about sex. But TV is a visual medium.