[Book & TV Spoilers] Insightful interview with writer Bryan Cogman

[protar]

Protar - who is to judge when changes are necessary? A purist might suggest that your proposed changes are unnecessary, too. Why do we need to extend Dany's story artificially at all? Just have her be in fewer episodes in season 2. I don't see how the changes you propose do anything to make the book story more interesting, and I don't see why preserving the "mystique of Qarth" is an important goal at all, nor why your version preserves it better than what they did on the show. What your version does do is mess with Dany's character by having her agree to marry Xaro, which she never does in the book.

Your position is untenable. You oppose "unnecessary" changes but support changes when "necessary." But your judgment of what is "necessary" is rather expansive. Once you're talking about "necessary" changes you've already given up the whole game. Because no two people are going to agree about what changes are "necessary."

I'm also not sure what the "plot holes" of Dany's season 2 arc are supposed to be. There's some places where you have to connect the dots, but no actual holes that I'm aware of. I'm going to reassert that the basic problem with Dany in Season 2 is that Martin left almost nothing to work with. She has no plot there, which means that the producers would either be forced to have very little Dany this season, or to make up a plot. Your suggestion is that they make up a very boring plot that involves false accusations of stealing valuables from the Spice King and a trial by combat that has no stakes. I don't see how that would be better than what was in the show, which, while perhaps not executed perfectly, was at least an interesting idea.

Well firstly, stop getting hung up on the "spice king acusations" idea. That was not the centrepiece of the plot. The centrepiece was Xaro manipulating Dany. My trial by combat idea and even Dany's accepting Xaro's proposal could be excised. So your dodging around the main crux of my proposal is making me think that you don't have a leg to stand on.

Secondly, let me get this straight. The basis of your argument is that people have different opinions? Well bravo, what an insight. Yes people are going to disagree on what is or isn't a necessary change. That is the very nature of this whole purist vs. apologist debate so you can hardly cite it as a flaw in my argument.

Thirdly, yes Qarth had plot holes as presented in the show. Like how was Xaro able to pull off his coup without any resistance? Why didn't Pyat Pree just kidnap Dany rather than letting her go to the HOTU of her own accord? How did Pyat so easily kidnap the dragons when they absolutely pwned him later on? And isn't Dany the Queen of Qarth now? Afterall, by show logic one has only to kill the previous rulers of Qarth to become the next. The fact of the matter is that Qarth in the show had plot holes as was widely regarded as one of - if not the worst - worst arcs of the season. Whether or not you think my idea was entertaining, at least it doesn't have any plotholes.

[jlk7e]

And isn't Dany the Queen of Qarth now? Afterall, by show logic one has only to kill the previous rulers of Qarth to become the next.

I do not believe this follows at all. Getting rid of the previous rulers is necessary, but not sufficient.

Beyond that, I'll say that we have no idea whether Xaro pulled off his coup without any resistance, but it certainly seems perfectly plausible that the various guilds that seem to compose most of the 13 would submit to his authority after he and Pyat Pree have killed their former leaders. As far as kidnapping Dany, I don't see how that's a big deal - they calculated, correctly, that they'd be able to get her to go there without kidnapping her, and likely they didn't want to risk the possibility of harming her if they did resort to violence. And the dragons attacked Pyat Pree when Dany told them to. They didn't threaten him before that because Dany wasn't there. I won't say all of this was particularly well-executed, but there's no glaring plot holes.

As far as people having different opinions, you're missing my point. My point is that you can't call yourself a purist and then propose massive plot alterations. Your willingness to allow massive plot alterations means you are not a purist. Saying that you only want massive plot alterations that are "necessary" doesn't work here, because pretty much anyone can say that their massive plot alterations are "necessary" for the adaptation.

[protar]

I do not believe this follows at all. Getting rid of the previous rulers is necessary, but not sufficient.

Beyond that, I'll say that we have no idea whether Xaro pulled off his coup without any resistance, but it certainly seems perfectly plausible that the various guilds that seem to compose most of the 13 would submit to his authority after he and Pyat Pree have killed their former leaders. As far as kidnapping Dany, I don't see how that's a big deal - they calculated, correctly, that they'd be able to get her to go there without kidnapping her, and likely they didn't want to risk the possibility of harming her if they did resort to violence. And the dragons attacked Pyat Pree when Dany told them to. They didn't threaten him before that because Dany wasn't there. I won't say all of this was particularly well-executed, but there's no glaring plot holes.

As far as people having different opinions, you're missing my point. My point is that you can't call yourself a purist and then propose massive plot alterations. Your willingness to allow massive plot alterations means you are not a purist. Saying that you only want massive plot alterations that are "necessary" doesn't work here, because pretty much anyone can say that their massive plot alterations are "necessary" for the adaptation.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on the plotholes. Despite killing the 13, Xaro had no, or very few supporters after his coup. Certainly he didn't have enough to prevent Dany from breaking into his manse with about 2 dozen Dothraki. If Xaro can't defend his manse against even those numbers, then someone could easily have dethroned him. And their is no reason for them to not kidnap Dany. If they wanted to avoid harming her, they should have first offered to let her come of her own accord at that moment, and then when she refused to cooperate they should've taken her by force and killed her guards.

And I think it's you who is missing my point. One can still be a purist and accept changes. You seem to be under the impression that as a purist I am not allowed to accept any changes. This is not true and it's ridiculous. Obviously things have to be changed to create a succesful adaptation. Dany's arc would not have worked on TV. I just disagree with the specifics of the change. And in any case none of my proposed changes have been "massive" in this thread or any other. They include the absolute minimum amount of change needed and stay much truer to both the plot and I believe the spirit of the books than what actually transpired.

And finally your argument still comes down to: "but then people can propose their own ideas." Well guess what? We can. That is the whole purpose of this debate. Someone is perfectly within their rights to propose a massive change from the books and say it is necessary. And they could still be a purist if they believed it was completely necessary. Whether or not you agree with them or not is a different matter entirely.

[jlk7e]

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on the plotholes. Despite killing the 13, Xaro had no, or very few supporters after his coup. Certainly he didn't have enough to prevent Dany from breaking into his manse with about 2 dozen Dothraki. If Xaro can't defend his manse against even those numbers, then someone could easily have dethroned him.

You are jumping to conclusions again. We don't know how Dany got into his manse, but we have no particular reason to think it was because Xaro couldn't possibly have defended himself against two dozen Dothraki. I think we are meant to assume that he was careless because he believed himself to be secure, not that he didn't have any resources to defend himself.

And their is no reason for them to not kidnap Dany. If they wanted to avoid harming her, they should have first offered to let her come of her own accord at that moment, and then when she refused to cooperate they should've taken her by force and killed her guards.

But once you turn to violence, it's possible she'll get harmed in the mess. And, as it turned out, they made a correct judgment of what Dany would do - they didn't need to kidnap her because she came of her own accord. Pyat Pree came to the correct conclusion that he did not need to kidnap Dany to get her to come to the House of the Undying - she would come for her dragons.

And I think it's you who is missing my point. One can still be a purist and accept changes. You seem to be under the impression that as a purist I am not allowed to accept any changes. This is not true and it's ridiculous.

I am under the impression that as a purist you are "not allowed" to propose changes as significant as the ones you have been proposing, which are often in many ways quite as dramatic as the changes the producers have made. The extent of the changes you would be okay with says to me that you are not actually a purist.

Obviously things have to be changed to create a succesful adaptation. Dany's arc would not have worked on TV. I just disagree with the specifics of the change. And in any case none of my proposed changes have been "massive" in this thread or any other. They include the absolute minimum amount of change needed and stay much truer to both the plot and I believe the spirit of the books than what actually transpired.

Again, that's your view. Perhaps Benioff and Weiss believe that their changes are the minimum amount of change needed to make the books work as a television show - I suspect that's more or less what they'd say. And there are many actual purists who would balk at the changes you have proposed, and say that they're unnecessary.

I'm fine with criticisms of how the show has chosen to adapt the material. What I have a problem with is your insistence that your ideas are "purist" ideas, and show that you have respect for the source material while Benioff and Weiss do not. I think that's absurd - different people have different judgments about the amount of change "necessary".

Propose changes away - but then don't say that you're a purist. Because by that standard almost everyone here is a purist, in the sense that we highly value the original source material and don't want changes to it for no reason. You are claiming that mantle for a very idiosyncratic vision of what the TV show should be like, and that's what I have a problem with.

If you just said "I don't think the way they dealt with Dany's story was effective, and I think this was a better way to do it," that'd be fine, although I still think your particular idea isn't a very good one. It's that your saying this while also attacking the motives, and that you're (imo) falsely claiming the mantle of a "purist" while doing so

[protar]

You are jumping to conclusions again. We don't know how Dany got into his manse, but we have no particular reason to think it was because Xaro couldn't possibly have defended himself against two dozen Dothraki. I think we are meant to assume that he was careless because he believed himself to be secure, not that he didn't have any resources to defend himself.

But once you turn to violence, it's possible she'll get harmed in the mess. And, as it turned out, they made a correct judgment of what Dany would do - they didn't need to kidnap her because she came of her own accord. Pyat Pree came to the correct conclusion that he did not need to kidnap Dany to get her to come to the House of the Undying - she would come for her dragons.

I am under the impression that as a purist you are "not allowed" to propose changes as significant as the ones you have been proposing, which are often in many ways quite as dramatic as the changes the producers have made. The extent of the changes you would be okay with says to me that you are not actually a purist.

Again, that's your view. Perhaps Benioff and Weiss believe that their changes are the minimum amount of change needed to make the books work as a television show - I suspect that's more or less what they'd say. And there are many actual purists who would balk at the changes you have proposed, and say that they're unnecessary.

I'm fine with criticisms of how the show has chosen to adapt the material. What I have a problem with is your insistence that your ideas are "purist" ideas, and show that you have respect for the source material while Benioff and Weiss do not. I think that's absurd - different people have different judgments about the amount of change "necessary".

Propose changes away - but then don't say that you're a purist. Because by that standard almost everyone here is a purist, in the sense that we highly value the original source material and don't want changes to it for no reason. You are claiming that mantle for a very idiosyncratic vision of what the TV show should be like, and that's what I have a problem with.

If you just said "I don't think the way they dealt with Dany's story was effective, and I think this was a better way to do it," that'd be fine, although I still think your particular idea isn't a very good one. It's that your saying this while also attacking the motives, and that you're (imo) falsely claiming the mantle of a "purist" while doing so

You clearly don't understand what a purist is. A purist is someone who wants the adaptation as close to the source material as possible. However there are certain aspects of the show where it is not possible to stay true to the source material for whatever reason, and purists can still accept this. Furthermore it is not about the quantity of change it's about the necessity. Now obviously we all want D+D to remain faithful to the source material, however the non-purists are more accepting of changes they feel are unnecessary. I feel it was necessary to make changes to Dany's story I just didn't agree with the specifics. And again: you argument still boils down to me not agree with your exaggerated view of what a purists is.

So I'm sorry, but you need some new arguments. You derail the conversation with an argument of word definitions, and the crux of your argument seems to be that people have differing opinions of what is a necessary change, and that people need to conform to your ideas to be a purist. Then you exaggerate the degree of change I proposed when it's actually very close to the books and claim that most purists would "balk" at it, with no evidence and when I have in fact had people telling me they liked the idea. So until you unload all of these logical fallacies I'm not interested in continuing a discussion with you.

[Khal Porno]

I've been rewatching the whole series as I'm rereading the books, and I have to say that I quite enjoyed the changes they made to Dany's story this season. Not much at all happens to her in Clash of Kings when you think about it, and a direct translation of her arc in that book wouldn't have been very satisfying, in my opinion.

[Khal-a-bunga]

I've been rewatching the whole series as I'm rereading the books, and I have to say that I quite enjoyed the changes they made to Dany's story this season. Not much at all happens to her in Clash of Kings when you think about it, and a direct translation of her arc in that book wouldn't have been very satisfying, in my opinion.

I agree. Perhaps it makes us assume things that should have been more clearly spelled out, but that's not really such a big deal to me as long as there aren't any gaping plot holes that can't be explained with a little conjecture.

[Punchslap]

A purist is someone who wants the adaptation as close to the source material as possible.

I'm missing how that's a useful definition (both sides of the debate can say that's their position). I get that you want the show to be more like the books--more power to you. You have every right to be unhappy with the show whether anyone agrees with you or not, but why the endless debate? None of the people you argue with are going to change their minds. I've essentially given up on the threads about the TV show here because of this debate--it has become absurdly acidic.

[protar]

I'm missing how that's a useful definition (both sides of the debate can say that's their position). I get that you want the show to be more like the books--more power to you. You have every right to be unhappy with the show whether anyone agrees with you or not, but why the endless debate? None of the people you argue with are going to change their minds. I've essentially given up on the threads about the TV show here because of this debate--it has become absurdly acidic.

The apologists are the ones, who let the changes slide even if things could've been protrayed as in the books, and sometimes claim that the show version is better than the books! There are also going to be different subsets of the purists depending on how strict they are which might be the source of any confusion.

And this is a discussion forum. It is designed for debating. And furthermore, this forum as a whole is dedicated to the books. If there's no debate the subforum is going to default to loads of people just gushing about the show even if it fails to respect the source material. That doesn't seem right to me. If someone feels that the source material is being mistreated, why shoud they not let it be known? Just so you don't have to see it? Why do the apologists always say "lets stop this debate" even though they are part of it? Why are the purists the ones expected to cut it out?

I do realise that things can be acidic, but rather than stopping the debate entirely I think we just need to try and be more reasonable.

[Punchslap]

I do realise that things can be acidic, but rather than stopping the debate entirely I think we just need to try and be more reasonable.

I agree wholeheartedly that people need to be more reasonable. I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be debate, but rather the tone of the debate when it comes to the show lacks civility. Most of the threads I see about the books lack this kind of acrimony which is proof positive posters on this site can disagree without insulting one another. I have no idea why this particular topic makes people so discourteous. It's perfectly acceptable for people to have differing opinions--you can like the show, you can hate the show. There are a myriad of interesting discussions that could be had about HBO's effort, but it seems impossible to do so here without angry hyperbole coming from those with entrenched viewpoints on both sides. Anyway, I don't want to derail the conversation here, it just disappoints me enough to comment on it.

[Khal Porno]

Wait, how does being someone who "lets changes slide" make you an "apologist?" It seems to me that that's a term that's designed to be derogatory and dismissive of alternate viewpoints. I feel like the series has been TREMENDOUSLY respectful of the books, the changes they've made have been minor and not altered the overall story in any significant way. I think we're extremely fortunate that we didn't get a PG-13 movie with all the best stuff cut out or changed around.

[jlk7e]

You clearly don't understand what a purist is. A purist is someone who wants the adaptation as close to the source material as possible. However there are certain aspects of the show where it is not possible to stay true to the source material for whatever reason, and purists can still accept this. Furthermore it is not about the quantity of change it's about the necessity. Now obviously we all want D+D to remain faithful to the source material, however the non-purists are more accepting of changes they feel are unnecessary. I feel it was necessary to make changes to Dany's story I just didn't agree with the specifics. And again: you argument still boils down to me not agree with your exaggerated view of what a purists is.

No, my argument boils down to the fact that your definition of what a "purist" is is useless. It's not that I disagree with your definition of a purist. It's that anybody can say that they only want changes that are "necessary," and that it's completely a matter of opinion what changes are "necessary." I suppose that, ultimately, it's kind of inevitable that opinions will differ on who is a purist, because almost nobody actually demands a 100% translation of everything in the books into the TV show, even to the extent that this is conceivable given the differences in media. But I think it is reasonable to say that there are purist arguments, and that a purist argument is one which criticizes the TV show for deviating from the book, when the person making the argument believes that the way it happens in the book should have been replicated in the TV show. This seems to me to be a totally reasonable description of what a purist argument is. Some such arguments may be good, and some may be bad, and almost nobody is going to be in favor of every purist argument. But to be in any way meaningfully a "purist" argument, it needs to be an argument that the show should have followed the book closely. For example, it would be a purist argument (and one I've actually made), that the show should have introduced Jeyne Poole as Sansa's friend in King's Landing last season. Or it's a purist argument that Dany's dragons shouldn't have been stolen, or that Jon and Qhorin's narrative should have more closely followed the books, or that Weasel Soup should have been included, or that Asha's name shouldn't have been changed, or that the removal of Lady Tanda and her daughters from the story is a travesty, or that the excision of all the northern politics from Bran's story in Season 2 was unfortunate, or whatever. It is not a purist argument to say that Dany should have been accused of stealing from the Spice King.

Because what you are suggesting there is that change is necessary to adapt the story to television, and that this particular change is a good way to elaborate on the themes in Martin's story in ways that don't interfere with the development of the plot going forward. But that's precisely the non-purist kind of argument, and the same kind of thing that Cogman is actually talking about having to do in the interview that started this thread, and that Benioff and Weiss have also sometimes discussed. You're no longer making a purist argument at that point. You're disagreeing about questions of interpretation, and disagreeing, perhaps, about the degree of changes that are required, but you're not really saying that the story should have been more like the book. If that is purism, then the term is devoid of all meaning - Cogman can just as easily claim that he is a purist, and that, in fact, all the changes made by the TV show have actually been "necessary" to bring the story to the screen.

And while this argument that we've been having has, indeed, been partly one of semantics, I don't think it is, at its root, a disagreement over semantics. We disagree about the extent to which the creators of the show should be given leeway to present the story in their own way for television. I'm willing to let them make the difficult decisions about how to adapt the story, and (mostly) follow where they lead. I'm happy and willing to criticize particular decisions - I don't think the Jon story worked very well this past season, for example - but I'm willing to grant the idea that the creators are acting in good faith to create a, relatively speaking, very faithful adaptation of a series of novels I like a great deal. You, on the other hand, have a very clear idea of how you think the story should be adapted, and take any deviations from that as evidence that the creators are not acting in good faith, that they want to tell their own story that is not Martin's. Given this disagreement, I think it's reasonable to point out that in your own vision for what should happen, you are making many of the same kinds of decisions about adaptation that the creators have had to make.

[Khal Porno]

And I think they would (and have) argue(d) that the changes they've made HAVE been necessary.

[protar]

No, my argument boils down to the fact that your definition of what a "purist" is is useless. It's not that I disagree with your definition of a purist. It's that anybody can say that they only want changes that are "necessary," and that it's completely a matter of opinion what changes are "necessary." I suppose that, ultimately, it's kind of inevitable that opinions will differ on who is a purist, because almost nobody actually demands a 100% translation of everything in the books into the TV show, even to the extent that this is conceivable given the differences in media. But I think it is reasonable to say that there are purist arguments, and that a purist argument is one which criticizes the TV show for deviating from the book, when the person making the argument believes that the way it happens in the book should have been replicated in the TV show. This seems to me to be a totally reasonable description of what a purist argument is. Some such arguments may be good, and some may be bad, and almost nobody is going to be in favor of every purist argument. But to be in any way meaningfully a "purist" argument, it needs to be an argument that the show should have followed the book closely. For example, it would be a purist argument (and one I've actually made), that the show should have introduced Jeyne Poole as Sansa's friend in King's Landing last season. Or it's a purist argument that Dany's dragons shouldn't have been stolen, or that Jon and Qhorin's narrative should have more closely followed the books, or that Weasel Soup should have been included, or that Asha's name shouldn't have been changed, or that the removal of Lady Tanda and her daughters from the story is a travesty, or that the excision of all the northern politics from Bran's story in Season 2 was unfortunate, or whatever. It is not a purist argument to say that Dany should have been accused of stealing from the Spice King.

Because what you are suggesting there is that change is necessary to adapt the story to television, and that this particular change is a good way to elaborate on the themes in Martin's story in ways that don't interfere with the development of the plot going forward. But that's precisely the non-purist kind of argument, and the same kind of thing that Cogman is actually talking about having to do in the interview that started this thread, and that Benioff and Weiss have also sometimes discussed. You're no longer making a purist argument at that point. You're disagreeing about questions of interpretation, and disagreeing, perhaps, about the degree of changes that are required, but you're not really saying that the story should have been more like the book. If that is purism, then the term is devoid of all meaning - Cogman can just as easily claim that he is a purist, and that, in fact, all the changes made by the TV show have actually been "necessary" to bring the story to the screen.

And while this argument that we've been having has, indeed, been partly one of semantics, I don't think it is, at its root, a disagreement over semantics. We disagree about the extent to which the creators of the show should be given leeway to present the story in their own way for television. I'm willing to let them make the difficult decisions about how to adapt the story, and (mostly) follow where they lead. I'm happy and willing to criticize particular decisions - I don't think the Jon story worked very well this past season, for example - but I'm willing to grant the idea that the creators are acting in good faith to create a, relatively speaking, very faithful adaptation of a series of novels I like a great deal. You, on the other hand, have a very clear idea of how you think the story should be adapted, and take any deviations from that as evidence that the creators are not acting in good faith, that they want to tell their own story that is not Martin's. Given this disagreement, I think it's reasonable to point out that in your own vision for what should happen, you are making many of the same kinds of decisions about adaptation that the creators have had to make.

The crux of your arguments is still the fact that you disagree with my definition of purism. And I think you hit the nail on the head at the start of your post. These arguments on what a purist is arise because there is no set divide between purist and apologist:it's a sliding scale. I've seen purists complaining that Syrio had hair and apologists suggesting the Cat survive the RW. And I've seen everything in between. Just because I suggest one thing from a non-purist perspective it does not mean I'm not one. I think you'll find that I mostly wanted the plot arcs to stay very close to in the books, maybe with things cut out, but little in the way of actual changes to the plot. Dany's arc is the only one were I believe a different arc from the book was needed and my suggestion is actually much closer to the source material than what was in the show. It simply expanded upon two aspects of Dany's book arc (her negotiations with the merchants and Xaro's marriage proposal.) and linked them together for drama.

[protar]

Wait, how does being someone who "lets changes slide" make you an "apologist?" It seems to me that that's a term that's designed to be derogatory and dismissive of alternate viewpoints. I feel like the series has been TREMENDOUSLY respectful of the books, the changes they've made have been minor and not altered the overall story in any significant way. I think we're extremely fortunate that we didn't get a PG-13 movie with all the best stuff cut out or changed around.

And you have every right to that view, but I disagree. I feel that D+D have not respected and/or misunderstood the source material and that while the story is broadly similar in that the main events are ticked off, their context of these events is often ruined by changes to the journey and I feel that the characterisation and the atmosphere of the books have not been translated well into the show.

[jlk7e]

The crux of your arguments is still the fact that you disagree with my definition of purism. And I think you hit the nail on the head at the start of your post. These arguments on what a purist is arise because there is no set divide between purist and apologist:it's a sliding scale. I've seen purists complaining that Syrio had hair and apologists suggesting the Cat survive the RW. And I've seen everything in between. Just because I suggest one thing from a non-purist perspective it does not mean I'm not one. I think you'll find that I mostly wanted the plot arcs to stay very close to in the books, maybe with things cut out, but little in the way of actual changes to the plot. Dany's arc is the only one were I believe a different arc from the book was needed and my suggestion is actually much closer to the source material than what was in the show. It simply expanded upon two aspects of Dany's book arc (her negotiations with the merchants and Xaro's marriage proposal.) and linked them together for drama.

Apologist is a derogatory description in a way that "purist" is not, and, furthermore, it makes no sense to describe as an apologist somebody who is proposing changes that the show runners almost certainly will not make. How is it "apologism" for Benioff and Weiss, for example, to suggest that Osha should be the one to take Bran beyond the Wall, when, in fact, Benioff and Weiss are going to bring in the Reeds for that purpose? This gets to a larger issue, I think, which is the idea that we have a continuum between "purist" at one end and "apologist" at the other. An apologist can only mean someone defending the work of Benioff and Weiss and the show in general. But that leaves no space for how to refer to someone who proposes changes that are not actually made by the show. People have made all kinds of proposals for much more radical changes than Benioff and Weiss have made - I've seen suggestions that Arya should have gone to Braavos at the end of Season 2, that Bronn should be the one to try to kill Tyrion, that Roose Bolton ought to have been the one to sack Winterfell and that Ramsay should cease to exist as a character. I don't see how any such changes can be described as "apologism" - they are much more radical changes than what Benioff and Weiss have done. Nor do I think that people proposing changes for the future can be described as "apologists" - proposing that, say, Astapor and Yunkai should be combined. Because an "apology" is a defense of somebody. How is proposing changes that may not even occur to be seen as defending the showrunners? I think "adaptationist" is a better definition of what we're talking about, because it doesn't imply a specific relationship between proposing changes and defending the actual TV show.

Beyond that - of course you're right that there's an enormous range, but I guess my point is not that I disagree with your definition of a purist, but that I kind of disagree with the idea that people should be categorized as either "purists" or "adaptationists". All of us have "purist" tendencies, and all of us have "adaptationist" tendencies. Any particular argument may be "purist" or "adaptationist," but both of those tendencies have no specific relationship to the show. Your argument seems to be that, so long as an argument attacks changes made by Benioff and Weiss, it is a purist argument. But I don't think that's true - if you are, instead, proposing different changes, that seems like an adaptationist argument to me.

Basically, I think you're conflating two separate distinctions: purist vs. adaptationist, and show-liking vs. show-disliking (or giving-Benioff-and-Weiss-the-benefit-of-the-doubt vs. denouncing-Benioff-and-Weiss-for-disrespecting-and-misunderstanding-the-books). There may be correlations between the two, but they're not the same thing.

[protar]

Apologist is a derogatory description in a way that "purist" is not, and, furthermore, it makes no sense to describe as an apologist somebody who is proposing changes that the show runners almost certainly will not make. How is it "apologism" for Benioff and Weiss, for example, to suggest that Osha should be the one to take Bran beyond the Wall, when, in fact, Benioff and Weiss are going to bring in the Reeds for that purpose? This gets to a larger issue, I think, which is the idea that we have a continuum between "purist" at one end and "apologist" at the other. An apologist can only mean someone defending the work of Benioff and Weiss and the show in general. But that leaves no space for how to refer to someone who proposes changes that are not actually made by the show. People have made all kinds of proposals for much more radical changes than Benioff and Weiss have made - I've seen suggestions that Arya should have gone to Braavos at the end of Season 2, that Bronn should be the one to try to kill Tyrion, that Roose Bolton ought to have been the one to sack Winterfell and that Ramsay should cease to exist as a character. I don't see how any such changes can be described as "apologism" - they are much more radical changes than what Benioff and Weiss have done. Nor do I think that people proposing changes for the future can be described as "apologists" - proposing that, say, Astapor and Yunkai should be combined. Because an "apology" is a defense of somebody. How is proposing changes that may not even occur to be seen as defending the showrunners? I think "adaptationist" is a better definition of what we're talking about, because it doesn't imply a specific relationship between proposing changes and defending the actual TV show.

Beyond that - of course you're right that there's an enormous range, but I guess my point is not that I disagree with your definition of a purist, but that I kind of disagree with the idea that people should be categorized as either "purists" or "adaptationists". All of us have "purist" tendencies, and all of us have "adaptationist" tendencies. Any particular argument may be "purist" or "adaptationist," but both of those tendencies have no specific relationship to the show. Your argument seems to be that, so long as an argument attacks changes made by Benioff and Weiss, it is a purist argument. But I don't think that's true - if you are, instead, proposing different changes, that seems like an adaptationist argument to me.

Basically, I think you're conflating two separate distinctions: purist vs. adaptationist, and show-liking vs. show-disliking (or giving-Benioff-and-Weiss-the-benefit-of-the-doubt vs. denouncing-Benioff-and-Weiss-for-disrespecting-and-misunderstanding-the-books). There may be correlations between the two, but they're not the same thing.

My mistake, I was using the term apologist where I should've been using adaptationist (or whatever term you're using for those who are ok with, or who encourage changes.). However my point remains that even though this specific proposal was an adaptationist one I'm still mainly a purist, as Dany's arc is the only one I'd suggest any major changes to. Imo the other arcs could've been presented pretty much as in the books with one or two things cut/changed.

[Reek rhymes with Geek]

Well I'm finding it harder and harder to believe they care about the source material so sometimes I just think that must be the case.

The absolute most optimistic scenario I can think of is that they are passionate about the books, but that they are very casual readers and therefore have catastrophically misinterepreted the source material.

Disagree. Even if they are perhaps not as passionate as many of the readers on this forum are, they are clearly surrounded by staff who have read the novels multiple times--don't tell me that wasn't a prerequisite for being on the writing staff! The guy in the interview even said that his initial job was to read the books over and over again--why if not to make sure they were adapting the material to the best of their abilities?

Also, stating that they are "catastrophically misinterpreting the source material" implies that there is a single correct interpretation of that material. There are many many many different ways to look at these texts--a different writing staff would produce a very different show simply based on their own interpretations. Certainly plot details are plot details, but do not assume that there is one correct way to interpret the story.

[Khal Porno]

So which changes are so incredibly radical that they ruin the story?

[protar]

Disagree. Even if they are perhaps not as passionate as many of the readers on this forum are, they are clearly surrounded by staff who have read the novels multiple times--don't tell me that wasn't a prerequisite for being on the writing staff! The guy in the interview even said that his initial job was to read the books over and over again--why if not to make sure they were adapting the material to the best of their abilities?

Also, stating that they are "catastrophically misinterpreting the source material" implies that there is a single correct interpretation of that material. There are many many many different ways to look at these texts--a different writing staff would produce a very different show simply based on their own interpretations. Certainly plot details are plot details, but do not assume that there is one correct way to interpret the story.

The fact that they have read the books does not mean they are full-on fans of them. I suppose it depends on your definition of what constitutes a fan. If your definition is just anyone who thought it was a good story then sure D+D are fans, but I think you need a bit more dedication and understanding of the books to be considered a fan. D+D are certainly dedicated but I don't know that they understand the books. As for Cogman reading the books multiple times, it was as you say, part of his job. That's not passionate, that's mechanistic. I mean it's necessary but it's no substitute for having a true fan of the books.

And no, there is not only one interpretation of the books I agree. But that does not mean everything is a valid interpretation. When they're saying things like "Jon has no father figure" and "Jaime is a monster", when they present characters like Cat and Sansa as unlikeable and weak because they're not all girlpower and stuff, that is a misinterpretation of the source material. And what's more if they stuck closer to the books, then the multiple interpretations would remain, meaning they could continue with their deluded fanfic, whereas we can likewise interpret things as we see fit.