[BOOK SPOILERS] Nitpick without repercussion?

[Miodrag]

I've seen the same sort of statements made about Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead. It does seem to be a fairly common trend these days, and even more so because Netflix and other ways allow people to binge watch a show and finish all the seasons in a few weeks, which leaves them craving the show much more, given that they haven't been pacing themselves while watching it. Case in point: I binge watched Game of Thrones after season 2, and finished both seasons in a couple of weeks. I was dying to know what happened next, which is why I picked up the books. But having watched season 3 weekly, rather than all at once, I'm not so frantic to see a new episode ASAP.

OK, false alarm. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[six]

Yes, clearly all of the mainstream and critical praise, awards recognition, and the enormous number of fans the show has garnered dictate that this is an unsuccessful adaptation. You're right; everyone else is wrong.

This is one of the most baffling arguments that some bring up. Popularity means very little; the Twilight saga are a very popular set of books/films, you can't tell me they're objectively good because they're popular and won awards. Also, for GoT awards recognition has been very limited. Success =/= a good product.

With this said, probably if I hadn't read the books I would think more highly of the show, trouble is like many other book readers, once you've read the books you can't unread them, and I find the books amazing.

I enjoy the show but nowhere near as much as the books, I have quite a few complaints mostly related to the characterisation of certain characters who now barely resemble their book counterparts and the amount of time dedicated to only a selected few, still GoT is good if you compare it to some major cack on tv, but I don't find it amazingly groundbreaking. It's another Lost, and as much as I enjoyed Lost it was very shallow and shoddy in places (and apparently according to the WGA Lost was written better than GoT rating at 27 to GoT 40).

With that in mind, I'd be interested in hearing about some adaptations you view as successful. Furthermore, what criteria do you use to judge whether or not an adaptation is successful? Fidelity to the text? An understanding of the thematic underpinning of the source material being conveyed? The very fact that you think this would be a better show if they were financially able to "copy-and-paste" the text to the screen tells me about all I need to know, but I'd be interested in hearing it, nonetheless.

I know you weren't asking me, but tbh I have a hard time understanding why you equate successful with good, since it's not the same thing at all. For me an example of a good adaptation would be Gone with the Wind, which is my favourite book ever. The film was just as good, mostly faithful to the major themes and characterisation i.e. they didn't pull a let's rewrite Scarlett to make her a sympathetic woobie like they do with the Lannisters in GoT, they allowed her to be a manipulative, envious bitch with a tragic story like in the books, and guess what... people loved her and the film anyway. Similarly, as someone else mentioned Apocalypse Now was a very good adaptation to Heart of Darkness despite the change of setting, because the characters were essentially the same, and the major themes are left intact. I just don't think we can say the same for GoT.

[teemo]

OZ was the first major drama that anyone went full scale with in terms of having 100% creative control being with the show's actual creator and not with the corporate top execs. HBO invested a fortune at the time into building a giant series of indoor sets. Prisons, kitchens, gymnasiums, office areas, and so on. And then they built an enormous cast where no character was the main focus. Every TV actor wanted to work on that show. Many took deep pay cuts just to get a small role because it was a gigantic career boost.

It's no secret that OZ is the most important show when you look at what's going on in television right now. Look at how many shows use many OZ actors. Dexter, Lost, The Wire, Sopranos, and many other shows borrowed heavily from the OZ cast.

OZ was the show that proved that you could have a serious focus on political and social issues and tackle discussions about all sorts of topic with considerable depth and not require any censorship. The first season alone covers rehabilitation versus punishment, the death penalty, prisoner's rights, prison rape, race in prison, hate crimes, political prisoners, role of religion in prison, and that's just the surface conversations.

Shows like The Wire and Sopranos owe everything. Everything. To OZ. And they of course would end up surpassing OZ with their quality of writing and sophistication and artistry. Wire and Sopranos are masterpieces as well. Superb examples of why HBO is arguably the leading company for storytelling.

Game of Thrones falls well short of those shows though. The depth of books has been replaced by a shallow adaptation that panders to an unsophisticated and immature audience. Just look at how simplified and in the open Littlefinger is. At how the moral ambiguities of book Tyrion are repeatedly whitewashed. At how Stannis lacks any nuance. How Renly and Loras being gay was made so obvious that no one can possible miss it. How they allow the actors to change entire character dynamics (Dany being repeatedly raped by Drogo). Osha....Asha...not for our viewers who are apparently mind numbingly stupid....let's go with Yara.

The show's writers are hacks. They are not David Simon. They are not David Chase. They have no original attachment to this work. This is GRRM's world and they are playing in it. They remind me of the scene in AFFC where Sweet Robert (or Robyn on the show....another simplified change) smashes Sansa's (Alayne) snowfort. Sansa takes all this time to construct the castle of her dreams and the entitled child smashes it into ruins. D&D take GRRM's work and dumb it down to where it panders exclusively to casual viewers who have no appreciation for a work like The Wire or Sopranos.

With something like The Wire you have David Simon spending an entire season comparing the war on drugs to the war on terror. Saying with one character that "sometimes when you fight...you fight on a lie". The character is talking about fighting against a rival gang for killing one of their men, even though that man was killed by one of their own based on a personal vendetta. But one of their own is still dead...so they'll blame it on a rival gang and fight them based on a lie. They have to show their power. The real life parallel was that GW Bush in 2003 invaded Iraq on a lie. The lie being that Iraq had dangerous WMDs. You had to figure it out on your own in the show.

love it! great post. totally agree. what i said except a 1000x worded better.

[David Selig]

But I agree with all of you: the TV show is undoubtedly shallower than the books. MUCH SHALLOWER. But hey, it's the most complicated and internally intertwined books ever written we're talking about.

This is a joke, right?

[Miodrag]

This is a joke, right?

Well, ASOIAF surely is among the most complicated and internally intertwined books there are. With this many that well developed POVs, it merits it's place in the elite in that regard. It's possibly unparalleled even. I believe I don't know of anything that dwarfs ASOIAF in that aspect. I'm open to suggestions and counter examples, of course.

[Le Cygne]

There's this, too, again Pauline Kael (from 1971, so we can add the internet to the mix):

In most cases, the conglomerates that make the movies partly own the magazines and radio stations and TV channels, or, if they don't own them, advertise in them or have some interlocking connection with them. That accounts for a lot of the praise that is showered on movies...

In some cases, [filmmakers] add virtually nothing, and diminish and cheapen what was in the original, and yet the fraction of the original they manage to reproduce is sufficient to make their reputations...

[The Mondrian Oak]

This is a joke, right?

I'm not comparing them to "Crime and Punishment" or "Die Blechtrommel", lad. aSoIaF is a fantasy series, of course it's not comparable to great classics. I'm just speaking about the plot: hundreds of characters interacting. Simple as that.

[Miodrag]

I'm not comparing them to "Crime and Punishment" or "Die Blechtrommel", lad. aSoIaF is a fantasy series, of course it's not comparable to great classics. I'm just speaking about the plot: hundreds of characters interacting. Simple as that.

And why is it incomparable to great classics? Because of fantasy elements in it? And what about Shakespeare, with his witches and ghosts that influence major plot points in his plays? What about Homer? What about the series of Latin American writers that were famous for including so many fantasy elements in their "magic realism" (Marques as the prime example)? Would the story be any stronger without dragons and wraiths (which was Martin's initial idea, if I remember correctly)?

Or you think ASOIAF is incomparable not because of supernatural elements, but something else?

[David Selig]

I'm not comparing them to "Crime and Punishment" or "Die Blechtrommel", lad. aSoIaF is a fantasy series, of course it's not comparable to great classics. I'm just speaking about the plot: hundreds of characters interacting. Simple as that.

Still not true. There are other series with more characters interacting. WoT. Malazan. Certainly others.

[The Mondrian Oak]

And why is it incomparable to great classics? Because of fantasy elements in it? And what about Shakespeare, with his witches and ghosts that influence major plot points in his plays? What about Homer? What about the series of Latin American writers that were famous for including so many fantasy elements in their "magic realism" (Marques as the prime example)? Would the story be any stronger without dragons and wraiths (which was Martin's initial idea, if I remember correctly)?

Or you think ASOIAF is incomparable not because of supernatural elements, but something else?

No, you're right, I didn't explain it properly: it's not about fantastical elements.

This is a rather complicated concept to express: to me great classics are books about a theme, or a concept; the story is just a device to develop the theme. aSoIaF, as often happens in paraliterature, focuses on the story, then develops concepts, if any.

Which of course does not make them one inch less enjoyable; I love George's books to bits. I just think they're a step below non-paraliterature classics.

This is the summary of the summary of what I think.

[Miodrag]

No, you're right, I didn't explain it properly: it's not about fantastical elements.

This is a rather complicated concept to express: to me great classics are books about a theme, or a concept; the story is just a device to develop the theme. aSoIaF, as often happens in paraliterature, focuses on the story, then develops concepts, if any.

Which of course does not make them one inch less enjoyable; I love George's books to bits. I just think they're a step below non-paraliterature classics.

This is the summary of the summary of what I think.

Well, not denying your right to view it as you like (as if I could deny it, right?), have to say I see few themes George likes to explore in ASOIAF. Heritage being one of them, especially in the tale of Ned Stark, which starts with Starks finding direwolves (the animal of their sigil) and Ned being very against the idea of keeping them at first, continues with Ned leaving his family in order to serve his friend (that's a rather simplified view, but not wrong, I hope), and ends in a chapter after Ned's execution, with Bran telling Osha how Ned broke family's tradition by burying Brandon and Lyanna into the crypt even though they didn't belong there. Those are details, but they are there. It's probable GRRM is trying to tell us something with that. Yeah, he made Ned an just, honorable and brave man. But, the entire story of his demise can be viewed through the lens of his loyalty to family's tradition. He didn't want to be disloyal, but he couldn't help it (being brought up at The Vale and all). Martin's theme may be - even the best of men, like Ned Stark, are lost when disconnected from their roots. (Theon takes over that theme, but in somewhat other direction, in later books.)

Or how about Arya's story? An agent of death encounters her and offers her help. She accepts. But, there was a price. It was never spoken of, but it was there nevertheless. That story reminds me of Faustian legend all right. And, compared to great many other renditions of that legend, this one is remarkable in that the price is never verbalized. Like, of course there's a price, even if Mephistopheles (Jaqen) doesn't speak of it. How's that for a theme?

That's just two examples. I recognized an important theme in most of the storylines in ASOIAF. Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe they are there. I really don't think GRRM's just writing story for the sake of writing an interesting story. If that was the case, his characters wouldn't appear so vivid and rounded as they undoubtedly are.

[The Mondrian Oak]

Well, not denying your right to view it as you like (as if I could deny it, right?), have to say I see few themes George likes to explore in ASOIAF. Heritage being one of them, especially in the tale of Ned Stark, which starts with Starks finding direwolves (the animal of their sigil) and Ned being very against the idea of keeping them at first, continues with Ned leaving his family in order to serve his friend (that's a rather simplified view, but not wrong, I hope), and ends in a chapter after Ned's execution, with Bran telling Osha how Ned broke family's tradition by burying Brandon and Lyanna into the crypt even though they didn't belong there. Those are details, but they are there. It's probable GRRM is trying to tell us something with that. Yeah, he made Ned an just, honorable and brave man. But, the entire story of his demise can be viewed through the lens of his loyalty to family's tradition. He didn't want to be disloyal, but he couldn't help it (being brought up at The Vale and all). Martin's theme may be - even the best of men, like Ned Stark, are lost when disconnected from their roots. (Theon takes over that theme, but in somewhat other direction, in later books.)

Or how about Arya's story? An agent of death encounters her and offers her help. She accepts. But, there was a price. It was never spoken of, but it was there nevertheless. That story reminds me of Faustian legend all right. And, compared to great many other renditions of that legend, this one is remarkable in that the price is never verbalized. Like, of course there's a price, even if Mephistopheles (Jaqen) doesn't speak of it. How's that for a theme?

That's just two examplea. I recognized an important theme in most of the storylines in ASOIAF. Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe they are there. I really don't think GRRM's just writing story for the sake of writing an interesting story. If that was the case, his characters wouldn't appear so vivid and rounded as they undoubtedly are.

I totally agree with you: which is why aSoIaF books are the best paraliterature (I'm really overusing this term today) books I have ever read. Which of course leads them to being the best fantasy books ever written; far superior to Tolkien, to me.

The themes are there, the characters are full rounded, their interactions go like shit off the shovel.

But, I believe you'll agree, what matters is the story; themes and concepts, if not secundary, are at least not given the same amount of attention as the plot. In those books I consider classics, the story is just a symbolic device to develop the theme, a way to flesh out a conceptual debate.

Yeah, I'm the most pretentious wanker on the Italian soil right now.

[Miodrag]

@The Mondrian Oak

Just to add: your concept of high literature is same as mine. I just don't think ASOIAF is paraliterature, though it is often labeled like that, which irks me to no end. Not speaking of you, but I have a feeling people often peg it as theme-less precisely because of a rich plot and explosive story. Who knows, you may be right in labeling it as such, cause the series isn't even finished yet. But, what if GRRM is the first writer after god knows how many years, who's trying to make thematic story that is also addictive and interesting? Wouldn't that be a remarkable attempt in it's own right? And, if he succeeds, wouldn't that be a literature triumph?

Dostoyevsky is my all-time favorite author, for a variety of reasons, but his books are definitely interesting and addictive, and they are plot-heavy compared to great many postmodernist literature.

[Miodrag]

I totally agree with you: which is why aSoIaF books are the best paraliterature (I'm really overusing this term today) books I have ever read. Which of course leads them to being the best fantasy books ever written; far superior to Tolkien, to me.

The themes are there, the characters are full rounded, their interactions go like shit off the shovel.

But, I believe you'll agree, what matters is the story; themes and concepts, if not secundary, are at least not given the same amount of attention as the plot. In those books I consider classics, the story is just a symbolic device to develop the theme, a way to flesh out a conceptual debate.

Yeah, I'm the most pretentious wanker on the Italian soil right now.

Wouldn't say secondary, but it is true that George reveals his themes through characters and plots, and not through his narration (which doesn't exist in the strict sense of it, because he himself took completely back seat to his characters). Can't say I blame him for that, because the series is more and more theme-heavy as it goes on (which is, I suspect, one of the reasons ADWD isn't that popular among the fans), but I can see why some readers like you would mind it a little. The story is of paramount importance for GRRM, but in my eyes it doesn't take anything away from his work if he manages to deliver strong and text-supported themes along the way. Themes are there. Maybe too subtle - now, that's a debate I'd like to participate in, but this isn't a thread for it - but they're three nevertheless.

I'm glad we agree over lot of things, and only differ in, let's say, matters of a personal taste.

[The_Lone_Direwolf]

Good points man, and as you mentioned earlier the links to Shakespeare are certainly there, I see them all the time.

As for themes and methaphors how about the Direwolf and Stag killing each other, Ned should never have teamed up with Robert.

To the disaster of both Houses.

The boy Robb who doesn't want to be king, he just wants to save his father but is put there by his bannermen.

To be put in a position of great power but making the mistakes that all teenage guys do as they learn except in this case with tragic and far reaching consequences.

And Theon... Theon. If there is one guy who belongs in the world of Shakespeare it is the misguided, screw up Prince of Winterfell that is Theon Greyjoy.

[Miodrag]

@The Mondrian Oak

You Italian? Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" is the second next on my "to read" list. I heard it's a peculiar one. If you read it, how much did you like it?

[The Mondrian Oak]

Wouldn't say secondary, but it is true that George reveals his themes through characters and plots, and not through his narration (which doesn't exist in the strict sense of it, because he himself took completely back seat to his characters). Can't say I blame him for that, because the series is more and more theme-heavy as it goes on (which is, I suspect, one of the reasons ADWD isn't that popular among the fans), but I can see why some readers like you would mind it a little. The story is of paramount importance for GRRM, but in my eyes it doesn't take anything away from his work if he manages to deliver strong and text-supported themes along the way. Themes are there. Maybe too subtle - now, that's a debate I'd like to participate in, but this isn't a thread for it - but they're three nevertheless.

I'm glad we agree over lot of things, and only differ in, let's say, matters of a personal taste.

Yes, me too, really. On a final note, I really like ADWD! I honestly loved all books. I'm currently re-reading all of them (I finised ASOS this morning) and I'm loving them even more. I hope George manages to write a worthy conclusion of this magnificent story, so i can re-re-read all books in a row!

[Miodrag]

Good points man, and as you mentioned earlier the links to Shakespeare are certainly there, I see them all the time.

As for themes and methaphors how about the Direwolf and Stag killing each other, Ned should never have teamed up with Robert.

To the disaster of both Houses.

The boy Robb who doesn't want to be king, he just wants to save his father but is put there by his bannermen.

To be put in a position of great power but making the mistakes that all teenage guys do as they learn except in this case with tragic and far reaching circumstances.

And Theon... Theon. If there is one guy who belongs in the world of Shakespeare it is the misguided, screw up Prince of Winterfell that is Theon Greyjoy.

About Robb, it's all explained in Cat's thoughts when he accepts Walder Frey's terms in AGOT. She thinks something like this: she was never proud of him as then and there, cause a boy can fight wars, but it takes a man to accept the responsibilities of a husband. Well, unfortunately, it turned out he wasn't ready for the challenge after all. Robb was a great leader, great warrior, great strategist, but he wasn't a husband and a patriarch of a family, not yet. But, it's Cat's tragedy that keeps haunting me. There's a reason War of the Five Kings arguably starts with her (kidnapping Tyrion) and definitely ends with her (Red Wedding). She is the central figure of the first three books, in my eyes at least. Back to topic, that's one of the aspects show ruined blasphemously.

[Miodrag]

And Theon... Theon. If there is one guy who belongs in the world of Shakespeare it is the misguided, screw up Prince of Winterfell that is Theon Greyjoy.

This. So much. Theon's arc is nothing short of brilliance. And, once more back on topic, what they did with it in the show is so far very disappointing for me, despite some good start with that plot last season.

[The Mondrian Oak]

@The Mondrian Oak

You Italian? Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" is the second next on my "to read" list. I heard it's a peculiar one. If you read it, how much did you like it?

I am! And yes, of course I read it! Ahah! I really think you should read it . It's wonderful, very intriguing, deep, well written (italian pride mode on, eheh). Although I read it in italian, so I have no idea of how good the translation is. But I know Eco carefully chooses his translators (his official spanish translator was one of my university teachers), so I'm sure it will be good. I believe you'll like it, since it is a very good combination of story AND themes (50-50, I'd say), just as we were saying earlier.

And, if you ever come to Italy, you should visit the ruins of the castle where the film was set, Rocca Calascio, which is at the top of a mountain only one hour from where I live. http://bfox.files.wo...cio_foto_09.jpg Breathtaking, and very ASOIAF like!