Are some of us taking ASOIAF too seriously?

[Ghost714]

If I had to choose between Martin's aSoIaF, and Tolkein's LOTR, I would pick aSoIaF, every single time, but......I do agree with who ever said, that they aren't really in the same category.

[Baitac]

I see your point but I think that people reactions in this forum are partly due to the fact that we talk about ASOIAF events too much and in detail. I believe that we get so "obsessed" because in *real* life we are unable to talk about these stuff so all of the enthusiasm is carried in here.

I appreciate the love and obsession for these books, otherwise I wouldn't be here. However, some forum members talk about these characters murdering or raping as if they had been real people and done it in real life.

[Dragon greyscale]

I appreciate the love and obsession for these books, otherwise I wouldn't be here. However, some forum members talk about these characters murdering or raping as if they had been real people and done it in real life.

This. It starts getting iffy when people say:

"I hate/love person X for doing so and so. There is no person...it's a character. This recurs a lot in morality discussions.

I have no trouble saying that i love the CHARACTERS of victarion and reek. Excellent characters. Would i agree with their actions? Totally different question. It's unrelated to the books. V&R only serve as illustration at that

point.

It's a reaction that is basically the polar opposite of the guy/girl in the cinema saying "that would never happen" or "that's impossible". Both these type of reactions take fiction too seriously.

[Bastard of Boston]

Wait... what... wtf ?

This is not reality ? :stillsick:

*go kills himself.* =D

Seriously! Now, what am I going to do with all the wildfire I've been stockpiling? This just really sucks.

[Evamitchelle]

This. It starts getting iffy when people say:

"I hate/love person X for doing so and so. There is no person...it's a character. This recurs a lot in morality discussions.

I have no trouble saying that i love the CHARACTERS of victarion and reek. Excellent characters. Would i agree with their actions? Totally different question. It's unrelated to the books. V&R only serve as illustration at that

point.

It's a reaction that is basically the polar opposite of the guy/girl in the cinema saying "that would never happen" or "that's impossible". Both these type of reactions take fiction too seriously.

How is having emotions towards characters "taking fiction too seriously" ? If you can't discuss a character's actions on a book forum I don't see much point in having discussions at all. Some characters give me feelings of love/hate/whatever, it's not really something I can control because feelings are pretty much irrational by definition. If I couldn't connect on an emotional level with the characters in ASoIaF I probably wouldn't be reading the series in the first place. I can dislike a character but still value his place in the narrative. I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive, or how it's somehow "less worthy" to think of characters as persons instead of literary devices.

[Baitac]

This. It starts getting iffy when people say:

"I hate/love person X for doing so and so. There is no person...it's a character. This recurs a lot in morality discussions.

I have no trouble saying that i love the CHARACTERS of victarion and reek. Excellent characters. Would i agree with their actions? Totally different question. It's unrelated to the books. V&R only serve as illustration at that

point.

It's a reaction that is basically the polar opposite of the guy/girl in the cinema saying "that would never happen" or "that's impossible". Both these type of reactions take fiction too seriously.

I absolutely agree with your position. I wish these "morality discussions" could be separated somehow. I have seen posters make the jump from you like Tyrion to you approve of rape to if you don't think rape occurs now you are blind. That sort of posts drive me crazy!

[littlespider]

Doesn't fiction give us a series of hypotheticals through which we can discuss real problems? It seems to me that Martin really does want us to think about some of the problems that his characters go through, and to carefully consider the moral quandaries they find themselves in. Also (call me a hippy, but I think this can be true), I really do think that the discussion of the plights and feelings and problems of literary characters and the plumbing of their psychologies can make us more empathetic people in real life.

But obviously, anyone who doesn't approve of Victarion is a bad person. :cool4:

[Dragon greyscale]

How is having emotions towards characters "taking fiction too seriously" ? If you

can't discuss a character's actions on a book forum I don't see much point in having discussions at all. Some characters give me feelings of love/hate/whatever, it's not really something I can control because feelings are pretty much irrational by definition. If I couldn't connect on an emotional level with the characters in ASoIaF I probably wouldn't be reading the series in the first place. I can dislike a character but still value his place in the narrative. I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive, or how it's somehow "less worthy" to think of characters as persons instead of literary devices.

Well, i never said it was less worthy. For me, fiction is about the temporary suspension of belief. As i said, the überrational approach is unwilling to suspend belief at all costs. Too serious...

The other extreme is the überemotional in which the temporary suspension part has made way for a permanent replacement of reality. This reaction takes it too serious as well.

What i'm trying to say is that, at the end of the day, a novel can give us new insights, new emotions, new ways's of understanding the world, and these effects are the purpose of literature. Literature's purpose is not literature itself.

Hopefully i'm making sense?

[Dragon greyscale]

Doesn't fiction give us a series of hypotheticals through which we can discuss real problems? It seems to me that Martin really does want us to think about some of the problems that his characters go through, and to carefully consider

the moral quandaries they find themselves in.

Also (call me a hippy, but I think this can be true), I really do think that the discussion of the plights and feelings and problems of literary characters and the plumbing of their psychologies can make us more empathetic people in real life.

But obviously, anyone who doesn't approve of Victarion is a bad person. :cool4:

Totally agree. Both on victarion and becoming empathic towards others through novels. Watch out for the raider hippies!

[Ghost714]

When I read a book, or watch a show, or even a movie, I get very "into it". I put myself in that place, into that charecter, I try to feel and think exactly the way they would(that's why I love the way GRRM writes, he explains everything with so much depth, that it is very easy, to "dive into" his world of aSoIaF).

So yes, I get mad when a character gets mad, sad when a charecter gets sad etc... For me to read these books, and to put myself in the world of aSoIaF, it's almost like an escape from reality, it's kind of like taking a mini vacation from the real world.

I have also done a lot of stage acting, so maybe I "get into charecter" to much, I don't know... But if that means I take it all to seriously....then I don't really care lol. Because for me, where is the fun in reading, if you can't take it seriously, and get into the book.

I also like the "real world" insight you can get from these books. And I think that a lot of the stuff in the books , you can apply to your day to day life.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If an author can't elicit an emotional response from you — positively or negatively — about a character, then he or she isn't a good writer. Period. It's because people are so invested emotionally in this series that it's so great, and vice versa. If you're not invested in it, what's the point?

[Fredward]

Doesn't fiction give us a series of hypotheticals through which we can discuss real problems? It seems to me that Martin really does want us to think about some of the problems that his characters go through, and to carefully consider the moral quandaries they find themselves in. Also (call me a hippy, but I think this can be true), I really do think that the discussion of the plights and feelings and problems of literary characters and the plumbing of their psychologies can make us more empathetic people in real life.

But obviously, anyone who doesn't approve of Victarion is a bad person. :cool4:

I would have called you cray-cray like not even a dag ago, but yesterday I watched the music video for The A Team by Ed Sheeran and I now totally find myself empathizing/sympathizing with drug users when I didn't before, or not nearly as much at least. That's a really sad music video... So yeah I do think fictional stuff can help as empathize with real life problems/people, aSoIaF is like an exercise in humanity.

THAT BEING SAID though, there's a difference between sympathizing with a fictional character and for instance creating a petitioning for better human rights in Westeros. Which, honestly, I wouldn't put past some people. :P

[Dragon greyscale]

If an author can't elicit an emotional response from you — positively or negatively — about a character, then he or she isn't a good writer. Period. It's because people are so invested emotionally in this series that it's so great, and vice versa. If you're not invested in it, what's the point?

Hmm, i agree to the extent that investment is a little broader than emotional identification/repulsion. It's also about other narrative elements.

IMO, grrm's strong point is not his characterization, but probably his world-building and plot building. I'm not saying i find his characters flat, it's just that the appeal of the series also lies the way story elements are interwoven, its vastness and its moral ambiguity.

This is where asoiaf differs, I think.

Consider all the plot speculation/crackpot theories on these boards. They're more about plot than character. Of course, a lot of topics also deal with "who do you like" issues; i'm just saying that the appeal of the series goes beyond these character emotions as well.

[will_im_not]

I've noticed that if I'm talking to someone and I find out that they don't like ASOIAF, I seem to not like them as much. I know that it's logically bullshit, and that the personal preferences of a TV show should have nothing to do with how I like a person's personality. But I guess I do it anyways.

I've read the whole series and am reading it again, watched the show twice, have the board game, bought beer mugs with some house sigils, and me and some friends are even considering learning basic Dothrakai.

I'm probably a bit too obsessed with this series.

[Ran]

Just to go back to the OP:

I think there's many reasons why someone might be disappointed with the show. Perhaps their favorite scene has been ditched in favor of a a bit of sexposition. Perhaps their favorite character has been changed in ways they don't agree with (for my part, I feel the show did a poor job with Catelyn, giving her a very homebody-ish start that felt very conventional). Perhaps their favorite storyline in a book is getting changed, and indications are the changes may be radical (Anozie's remarks about stopping with ACoK because it was too different from what he was doing on the show certainly implies it).

Let me give an example, which will require spoilers:

When the producers have dubbed George a "master storyteller", you imagine they look long at hard at what they change... but then, you know, they decide that Richard Madden is such a good, charismatic actor, of course Robb is going to be on screen a lot more than he was in A Clash of Kings.

That's not a choice they make out of respect to this great story, though. Martin's decision to leave Robb almost entirely off screen, with our only hearing garbled reports of his doings, was unconventional, and it was also very smart; Robb's daring and exploits become half-legendary that way, and every other storyline south of the Wall is being affected by these mixed-up reports and their results. And yet it doesn't negatively impact people's perception of Robb later on when he's back on screen, very much -- most people are still really caught up in his attempt to keep his kingdom, hence the huge outpouring of shock when the Red Wedding happens.

What they've chosen instead seems, from outside at least, as a very safe and conventional choice: hot young charismatic guy will be on screen more, and hey, now they can work a romance into the story, because apparently this season is the "season of romance". When you read A Clash of Kings, did the word "romance" ever enter your thoughts as a major factor in that book?

The first season felt very much like an adapation of the book, a few tweaks and cuts and additions not withstanding. The second season, it's starting to seem that they're taking license to put a very different spin on certain parts of the story, and some of that spin seems to be moving in the direction of safe, conventional storytelling where Martin was daring and unconventional, rather than because they've some brilliant plan that'll improve on the template they have.

And, the other reason someone might be bugged by these things... all this new stuff they're adding? There's a finite running time. What are they going to cut to expand two or three storylines extensively? The show will cop to adding things, but the degree to which things have been cut from their adaption of A Clash of Kings remains largely a mystery.

All that said, there are valid reasons for changes to happen, even from the perspective of those that greatly enjoy the novels: budget may not be there, or not enough time, or need to compress this part of the story to be able to fit that part in the story.

[Ghost714]

I've noticed that if I'm talking to someone and I find out that they don't like ASOIAF, I seem to not like them as much. I know that it's logically bullshit, and that the personal preferences of a TV show should have nothing to do with how I like a person's personality. But I guess I do it anyways.

I've read the whole series and am reading it again, watched the show twice, have the board game, bought beer mugs with some house sigils, and me and some friends are even considering learning basic Dothrakai.

I'm probably a bit too obsessed with this series.

Lol there is no such thing, as being to obsessed, when it comes to aSoIaF. I probably spend on average of 4-5 hours everyday, doing something related to aSoIaF(keep in mind this isn't 4-5 hours all at one time, it's spread out through out a 24hour time period). When I say doing things related to aSoIaF, I mean reading the books, listening to the audio books in my car, discussing the books on these boards, or discussing the books in person with friends, family, or my girlfriend.

But I still work and hangout with my girlfriend and stuff. I don't sleep that much,(it's 5am where I am at right now lol). But I wouldn't say that I am "to obsessed" with aSoIaF.

[The GRRumbler]

Just to go back to the OP:

....;.

This. Pretty much what Ran said.

My personal view about the adaptation and what really bothers me about it is that while this series in the books has been daring, unconventional and, because of that, felt like a whole new approach to fantasy to me, in the TV series, it seems like they're just trying to take it the "safe way", they're making a version that's less subtle, more explicit in the storytelling, kinda spoonfeeding the viewer with the story, wich is dissapointing to me because that's not the kinda thing i would expect from HBO, from my past experience.

They made a show a while i go, The Wire, and from the political/dramatic content of it, and the big number of characters and plots hapening and interfering with each other, i was expecting a lot more from their adaptation of Game of Thrones, maybe i was just expecting too much of it.

[Lord Barristan]

People take many things in this world way to seriously. Whether its star wars, lord of the rings, harry potter, or ASOIF people can care about whatever they want. Talk about sports that people live and die with... those are just game and people DIE at soccer matches in south american, europe, and africa from time to time, and those are just worthless games.

So I'll just say, I was most looking forward to the sack of winterfell/introduction of Ramsay as well as the Reeds, and the fact that they are out makes me extremely disappointed. And I seriously doubt the show will have any twists capable of topping the ones GRRM has already given us. If you really like a book, you have a right to be disappointed with the film adaptation. Many of us on these boards have read the series through multiple times, thats a lot of time invested in something.

And honestly, I don't care about Qarth. The only scene worth showing in Qarth is the House of the Undying, arguably the most important in the whole series, and it seems unlikely we'll see that. I'm very doubtful they'll be able to make Qarth interesting to the book readers. Maybe have Ser Barristan show up earlier and do some bad ass things, but he does enough of that later in the series.

There is way too much other stuff going on to focus on Qarth... Would prefer Reek or Reeds or more time with Stannis and Davos and Melissandre than Robb. The battles are going to be cool, but he's going to die eventually. I know Cat dies too, but we see so much important stuff from her POV especially the meeting between Stannis and Renly and Renly's shocking death.

Like what new twists could they add? Theon dies? That wouldn't be a twist that would be so, so, so disappointing. I would be angry about that. I mean having black lorren substitute ramsay is pretty stupid i feel. Black Lorren dies in Book 2 and never returns while Ramsay becomes one of the most evil villains. Why not just have Ramsay in the series and not Black Lorren?

Or maybe they could have Stannis die instead of Renly, but then why did they have a Dillane come in for just one season... they got Dillane because Stannis is in the series for the long hall. We know he'll at least be in book 6.

I'm sorry i just don't see any twists they could take that would surprise me in a good way... maybe i am wrong, hopefully i am wrong because i do want the show to be awesome, i'm just skeptical when i read the direction of season 2

[Roose Seal]

Or maybe they could have Stannis die instead of Renly, but then why did they have a Dillane come in for just one season... they got Dillane because Stannis is in the series for the long hall. We know he'll at least be in book 6.

Maybe for the same reason they got Sean Bean ?

(i hope to r'hllor not)

[HyacinthGirl]

The only scene worth showing in Qarth is the House of the Undying, arguably the most important in the whole series, and it seems unlikely we'll see that.

I'm almost certain we'll see the House of the Undying vision scene, otherwise Dany might as well just not go to Qarth?