[BOOK/TV SPOILERS] "Showing versus Telling"

[gogorath]

First time poster here, though I've lurked a bit and have posted once or twice over on w-i-c.

One of the most common criticisms of the series to date has been centered on the exposition in the series. Most of the comments have been focused on the quantity of them, a perceived awkwardness and a general dissatisfaction with the amount of character storyteller as opposed "showing" the information, whether in the form of flashbacks or otherwise.

I'm not going to disagree with the folks who don't like the manner in which the show is presenting the information. I think it's pretty easy to note that there are some people who enjoy character development, and they tend to like these moments. And the people who enjoy plot points and action more don't. There's no judgement here, it's preference.

However, I am going to argue a bit with the crowd that seem to think that the writers are "doing it wrong." That they are breaking the cardinal rule of "Show, don't tell" and not making appropriate use of the visual medium. I disagree.

I'm no expert. I have watching a lot of movies, tv, and read a lot of books. I've taken several screenwriting classes and have written two shorts, one in production and the other which one a prize at a very small competition and is currently in submission to a set of festivals with a bit more prestige. So I've got background and some training, but I'm still pretty much as amateur as anyone just watching.

I'm not going to disagree that that television's a visual medium and that you should take advantage of that. Show, not tell, is the rule. And that's absolutely true.

The issue here -- and the cause of the disagreement is -- what are you trying to show?

I've written shorts, and not television shows, but I imagine trying to adapt a story the size of GoT into 10 hours is not all that different a content ratio as me trying to fit a complete narrative into a ten or twenty minute short. You can either do an extremely compact full timeline, or you can show a moment (or moments) and allude to the background. You can't walk through everything step by step.

In fact, what you learn very quickly is that every scene, and indeed every line, needs to say something to forward the plot or develop the characters. And then you realize that it can't just do one thing -- scenes have to do both. You simply don't have enough time to have a lot of scenes dedicated to one thing. There will be some scenes just setting the stage, or defining a character or moving forward the basic plot. But most have to do multiple things, and none can do none. Or they get snipped.

Taking that all into consideration, let's look at one of the more maligned scenes through the lens of "what are you really trying to show/communicate?"

Ned and Jaime in the Throne Room.

A lot of folks wanted this to be a flashback -- or at least have a flashback of Aerys & Co. at some point. And we may still get one (we know it was shot). And yes, a flashback of this actual moment would be very impressive. It's a tense, fantastic visual -- and would be an amazing story in itself.

Here's the primary issue, though: what's the writer trying to communicate? Certainly there are a ton of things: demonstrating how crazy Aerys Targaryen was; justifying Robert's rebellion; giving Ned's backstory and highlighting what shaped him (and some justification for his personal treason of rebellion); and giving the Kingslayer's backstory.

And if that was all, a flashback might have been the way to go. Flashbacks tend to be as clunky and jarring as anything in terms of flow, and this one would be really difficult as you'd need to explain it pretty well since a young Jaime Lannister is the only character you'd actually be able to identify by sight. It would have definitely taken more time and exposition of its own. But it still might have been a better choice.

Except that wasn't the main communication of the scene. It wasn't just for backstory and scene setting. The point of the scene is explain the backstory but in the context of Ned and Jaime, their reactions to it, and their relationship.

What I found brilliant about this scene is the acting and reactions: Ned obviously doesn't like Jaime. And Ned isn't Jaime's type of guy. But Jaime still looks for approval? pardon? by appealing to Ned -- hey, I killed the man who tortured your family! Why doesn't that count for anything? And I think those that don't know the story are a bit surprised at first by Ned's response. There's no thanks, no understanding. Ned gives no partial credit and no understanding that there was really nothing Jaime could do but die honorably. It gives insight into why Ned chooses as he does later -- he's not stupid, he simply doesn't value life over all else.

You don't get that from a flashback. You'd need a flashback plus reactions. And that takes time. This way, we set up tension, we tell backstory, we understand Ned's honor better and Jaime's motivations -- he's a pretty simple guy motivated by feelings minute to minute and it's clear.

Great scene. Not as viscerally exciting as Aerys cackling while Rickard burns alive and Brandon chokes to death. But in terms of the characters in the story, much more illuminating. We are SHOWING what's important -- and Ned and Jaime are important, not Aerys and Rickard and Brandon.

I could go on: Viserys and Doreah's is fantastic character development for him along with exposition; Sansa's much maligned scene with Septa Mordane was actually more to demonstrate Sansa's upbringing, point of view and general life rather than exposition (we already knew about Aerys and co, Doreah and Viserys cover Aegon the Conqueror, and I doubt we'll need to know about Maegor the Cruel).

Anyway, I get that people want to see those scenes with Aerys. But this scene tells us more about Ned and Jaime than that scene would.

I think at the end of the day there's several components of whether you think there is too much exposition: are you character-driven or action-driven?; do you know the back-story already?; if you are a reader, are you appreciating the story for itself as a separate entity, or are you looking for specific scenes visualized?

For me, I'm character and acting-driven and I've managed to mentally separated tv from book -- like TV-Catelyn and Book-Catelyn are simply different characters (they don't need to be the same person and have the same motivations -- they just have to be consistent within the context of the tv show for me).

The result is that I love these exposition sequences as they are -- the character's reactions are like liquid gold to me.

[Kaitscralt]

Great post. Agree with you basically 100%. I've loved all the added scenes and did not mind the expository dialogue (although the Viserys scene was a smidgeon too long IMO).

I think that the majority of the naysayers here just want to see the memorable and epic flashbacks and stories that the books left out. This was our only chance to see the Mad King kill the Starks, the Tower of Joy, etc. What they're forgetting is that the show is trying to tell the story we read to a viewership, not just show the reader fan-base everything they missed in the books.

[Greylander]

Great post. I have been thinking about writing something similar for a while.

I've reached the conclusion that complaining about "exposition" is often the sign of a lazy review. Every scene or line of dialogue either works, or it doesn't. Whether or not the dialogue can be labeled "exposition" has nothing what-so-ever to do with whether it is well written, well acted, interesting, or entertaining.

99% of the maligned "exposition" scenes have not been for simply the sake of providing information, but also for development of character motivation and relationships. And gogorath points out something interesting about the Jaime/Ned throne room scene -- that a flashback would itself have required additional screen time and exposition in order to explain it, but what we really need to know is what that event means for Jaime & Ned how they see themselves and each other.

The Sansa/Septa throne scene is another example of in my opinion a great scene. People roll their eyes at the "history lesson" but those were really minor lines that simply make sense in the context. The "joffrey hates me" and "shut up" about the wolves and "I won't forgive my father" were important lines/moments in that scene, as well as "grandfather and uncle were murdered here" -- a great line and moment. We are seeing Sansa grow up and shake off her illusions -- a bit faster than in the books, but it is well done. The way Sansa & Septa interact is just enough to show us that they have a long history -- the way they speak to one another shows the Septa is more or less Sansa's nanny, teacher, and a close member of the Stark household, particularly close to Sansa -- something important for emotional impact when the Lannister's kill her later. Another nice thing about this scene is how it shows the Septa does not like to talk about ugly reality (she prefers "King Aerys" to "the Mad King" and prefers "killed on the orders of" over "murdered" -- as the Septa is clearly responsible for Sansa's education, we can see, in part, where Sansa gets her romanticism).

The Visaerys dragon skull exposition was, I think, absolutely needed and well done -- and it was needed at that time. The Targaryan connection to dragons must be established... and the bit about skulls in the throne room... well, we need to know about that in order to have a clue what we are seeing when Arya stumbles on the skulls-in-storage next episode. She will be alone and, especially after eavesdropping, quite silent... no chance for any conversation explaining the dragon skulls... unless you force it in with her asking someone about them later. The bathtub dragon skulls scene does so much more for understanding connections between Targaryens, Visaerys, dragons, their skulls, etc. etc. It even slips in an explanation of who Doreah is and and where she came from. I also suspect that it helps to set up and appropriate reaction to the hatching dragons (not just Doreah's reaction, but everyone's) -- I expect Doreah's role as one of Dany's most trusted servants to be played up on screen, and giving her this fascination with dragons will motivate intense admiration and loyalty after the eggs hatch. It is a brilliant scene.

Tyrion/Theon isn't just supplying backstory either. It gets the whole Theon arc started. Plus it has a brilliant foreshadowing line, which all of us, as readers, should appreciate:

"There's nothing prettier than watching sailors burn alive."

The "clunkiest" exposition scene would be Littlefinger telling the story of the Clegane brothers. In fact it seems so obviously "shoe-horned" (as they say) that I have my suspicions the producers have something up their sleeves, and it will turn out to be much more significant down the line than we realize. Littlefinger is very careful and calculating. I think screen-Littlefinger had his reasons for telling Sansa that story at that time. There's a reason for everything he does. From a script adaptation perspective, I suspect the hound will take on some of the functions of other minor characters, possibly including the Kettlebacks or other Littlefinger-agents, and/or the Knight-turned-Fool (can't remember name) who helps Sansa escape. If I'm right then this story lays the groundwork for those connections. If the Hound really works for Littlefinger, it makes sense that Littlefinger know the story. If the Hound is Littlefinger's agent, then it would also make sense that, already anticipating trouble, Littlefinger wants Sansa to develop some sympathy/trust of the Hound.

My last point would be that in ASoIaF... the history is an integral part of the story and character conversations are the only way, and a perfectly natural way, to bring that history into the story.

[Hyper]

I think that the majority of the naysayers here just want to see the memorable and epic flashbacks and stories that the books left out. This was our only chance to see the Mad King kill the Starks, the Tower of Joy, etc. What they're forgetting is that the show is trying to tell the story we read to a viewership, not just show the reader fan-base everything they missed in the books.

You hit the nail on the head... This whole expectation that they should film a whole "Tower of Joy" scene is just amusing. In most cases the adaptation is going to be an abridged version of book events - any new scenes are primarily just there to deliver information about characters/events from sequences/scenes cut from the narrative. The idea that they would elaborate on vague plot points that are most likely designed to be revealed at the end of ASOIAF (or destined to be a mystery) is amusing. This is not a "True Blood" type adaptation where they have plenty of time to elaborate and add new material.

And as for as "show, not tell" - What most seem to forget is that the GRRM novels are just as guilty of of "telling instead of showing". (in a literary sense of giving quick glimpses but not the whole situation) And the novels have boatloads of exposition, with some action mixed in. Sound familiar? :P B)

[Ser Warpechowski]

Great post. Agree with you basically 100%. I've loved all the added scenes and did not mind the expository dialogue (although the Viserys scene was a smidgeon too long IMO).

I think that the majority of the naysayers here just want to see the memorable and epic flashbacks and stories that the books left out. This was our only chance to see the Mad King kill the Starks, the Tower of Joy, etc. What they're forgetting is that the show is trying to tell the story we read to a viewership, not just show the reader fan-base everything they missed in the books.

I really, really, REALLY hope the DVD´s are full of amazing scenes from the books that didnt make it into the book.

My main concerns right now is that they may cut Stanis from the series (I mean, he hasnt even been mentioned yet) and that we dont see the Tower of Joy scene.

[Arrogant Bastard]

I really, really, REALLY hope the DVD´s are full of amazing scenes from the books that didnt make it into the book.

My main concerns right now is that they may cut Stanis from the series (I mean, he hasnt even been mentioned yet) and that we dont see the Tower of Joy scene.

I doubt Stannis has been cut. He's in the HBO online viewer guide, so if he was cut from the whole story they wouldn't have bothered putting him there. Renly has hardly been in the show at this point so it's too early to mention Stannis, who won't even show up this season. Probably when Ned discoverers Cersei's secret he'll discuss the Stannis situation with Renly and Littlefinger like in the books.

As to the OP, I agree. Most of the expository dialog does more than just tell us about the past. I'm not sure why the Sansa Septa Mordane scene is so maligned; the exposition it revealed wasn't crucial and seemed to me more as showing her background and studies.

I agree that the Littlefinger Sansa Hound story felt completely unnatural and only as a way of revealing the Hound's backstory so next episode it makes sense why he defends Loras against Gregor. I hope the poster is right that more comes out of it.

[The Fenris Wolf]

Don't have much to add, other than to commend the OP on an outstanding and thought-provoking post. I myself have been guilty of bitching about the heavy exposition in the show, but you've definitely prompted me to look at it from a completely different angle. Thanks for taking the time to post such a thoughtful commentary.

[ingsve]

I think the only way flashbacks could work is if each books got a full 22 episode season like network shows have where they would have more time to show the backstory as well. It would be interesting to copy the Lost formula where you have a separate narrative that is shown through flashbacks. If I were a billionaire I could see myself finansing something like that out of my own pocket and then just take the possible loss just to get a chance to see it.

[Tywin's bastard]

A very good post by the TS and it's very much in line with my opinions, although with more technical knowledge as I have never educated myself in these subjects. I always felt that the suggested flashbacks would show less and, more importantly, what's lost would be what's the most important. The important parts are the current characters and their relationships and you need to flesh both those aspects out. Ned and Jaime will have been very important to do as much as possible of, given what's likely to happen in the next episode.

My main concerns right now is that they may cut Stanis from the series (I mean, he hasnt even been mentioned yet) and that we dont see the Tower of Joy scene.

I'd say that there's no risk whatsoever that Stannis will be cut. He's one of the most important characters in the story as so many events are based on what he does and what he has rights to. Not to mention that Davos seems to be D&D's favorite character. That they haven't mentioned him yet in the show is irrelevant because he's not really important in the first book until Ned wants to give the throne to him. I've heard the actors talk about Stannis in several interviews as well.

[Lord Varys]

Stannis has to be mentioned when Ned discovers the incest, and decides that he is Robert's true heir. They can't possibly change that. I really hope they are going to build him up after that, as a real menace, as of yet unseen, to the apparent Lannister domination. Meaning that we should really get Barristan Selmy's and Tywin's line about him.

But I think it would have worked as well, if they had introduced him early on as an absent member of the Small Council and as a guy who worked together with Jon Arryn.

[The Anti-Targ]

Exposition saves time and money. But mostly it saves money. It's just one of those things you have to do. No point in bitching about it, as long as it's mostly well done. So far so good, mostly.

[Balefont]

The Tower of Joy scene, as much as I'd love to see it, most likely would not work. The only way I could see it done would be as a delirious dream sequence when Ned is in his fever. Other than that, I think it would be jarring to the non-reader viewer and also out of line as we haven't had any flashbacks thus far in the series.

To the characters, the past is the past they, the characters, have a pretty good idea at this point what happened in the past. I like how there are no flashbacks and any history is being filled in with snippets from a character here and a character there. Viewers will keep tuning in to follow the, as Larry Williams says, "breadcrumbs". Just like we, as readers, were drawn to turn the page and keep reading.

I always like Ned's POV chapters because of how little they revealed but oh how they could entice you hints!

[Kaitscralt]

Even if they do the Tower of Joy scene, there is no reason to waste money filming the battle. They'd likely just cut to inside with Eddard and Lyanna.

Amongst other things, Howland Reed would likely need to be recast later in the series since I doubt an actor hired for a flashback scene will be available 3+ years later. We've not even met him in the books yet, and then people would be mad that Howland Reed's character is not the same one from the most memorable, fan-favorite scene ever. Unless we never meet Howland Reed, but I doubt that.

[Ser Warpechowski]

Just give a helmet to Howland Reed.

LOL, I mean, The Tower of joy scene is the only one Ive directed inside my head completely.

[gogorath]

Thanks for the kind words. I've been thinking on it for a while. I promise future posts will be less well thought out and more emotional.

The anti-Targ brings up another good point as well. Extra sets, extra scenes, extra actors, extra days shooting all costs money. There's been some obvious places where cash likely cut down on what you'd have wanted to do (the Tourney, at least for one episode, for one), but it's completely understandable.

There's a budget. It's set -- and frankly raising it creates a larger risk of losing the show. They can spend it across many things -- acting, crew, locations, sets, direwolves, battle scenes, etc. It's a tough job to have to pick and choose where to invest and where to cut because you want to spend it elsewhere.

The same is true of number of scenes.

(The Tower of Joy has been so built up that I almost fear for them if they shoot it. There's some nice lines to start, but, man, that would have to be an incredible set and a helluva sword fight).

[Ser Kevan Raley]

I knew from the beginning that there was going to be a lot of exposition on the TV adaptation. I'm actually pleasantly surprised at how well it has worked thus far. They have avoided the dreaded "as you know" in the dialogue.

As for filming some flashbacks, well it is a question not only of money but also about how much visual info a non-reading audience can swallow. Also, in the books, some flashbacks are pretty vague, especially Ned's as to what happened at the Tower of Joy. I'm not sure they could do that on screen without revealing too much (if R+L=J is true).

[gogorath]

One last point: the place where "Show, Don't Tell" will more likely apply -- that is, the place where story-telling should change because of the medium -- is in situations where current characters are "off-screen" in the books.

I can think of a couple of Robb's victories as examples: they could take advantage to show us the Whispering Wood and his forays west into Westerling territory. Not saying they will, but Robb has quite a bit of action happen off-screen because of the POV dynamic; he may actually gain stature here with that dynamic gone. We may even see some smaller things if the writers choose -- say, like the end of Syrio's fight or the end of the Battle of the Blackwater after Tyrion blacks out.

[j52y]

I do hope that they talk about the Tower of Joy scene, though. And they really need to show or talk about Lyanna making Ned promise. I feel like that would be an easy scene to put in the series, and whatever that promise was, it haunted Ned until the day he died.

[Ser Kevan Raley]

I think they could possibly get away with a Tower of Joy scene, if they show a dreamy, distorted Ned memory while he's in the dungeons. That would allow for something not too revealing.

[Snow Wight]

The "clunkiest" exposition scene would be Littlefinger telling the story of the Clegane brothers. In fact it seems so obviously "shoe-horned" (as they say) that I have my suspicions the producers have something up their sleeves, and it will turn out to be much more significant down the line than we realize. Littlefinger is very careful and calculating. I think screen-Littlefinger had his reasons for telling Sansa that story at that time. There's a reason for everything he does. From a script adaptation perspective, I suspect the hound will take on some of the functions of other minor characters, possibly including the Kettlebacks or other Littlefinger-agents, and/or the Knight-turned-Fool (can't remember name) who helps Sansa escape. If I'm right then this story lays the groundwork for those connections. If the Hound really works for Littlefinger, it makes sense that Littlefinger know the story. If the Hound is Littlefinger's agent, then it would also make sense that, already anticipating trouble, Littlefinger wants Sansa to develop some sympathy/trust of the Hound.

My largest problem with giving this scene to LF, instead of the terror inducing confession from the Hound in the books, is that it weakens one of the foundational steps in the relationship (not in a San/San shipping sense, but in terms of interrealtionships between characters) between Sansa and the Hound, and that's crucial in Sansa's development and learning about what life is really about - not the song she believes it to be at the beginning.

Her three main teachers in this are the Hound - who shows her the ugly underbelly of life beneath the fairy tale songs, LF - who directly teaches her of court intrigues and manipulation, and oddly enough Cersei - who she learns much from by observation, and probably in a contrasting way to the woman she wants to become.

I'm assuming they're going to put much more of this in LF's basket and downplay the S/S storyline, which may make sense for story streamlining purposes.

Also - yes, great point by the OP. TV is a visual medium, books are not. They are very different animals and require different storytelling tools. Comic books are much more akin to TV and movies, but by the very nature of the different media, you have to go about things different ways.