[BOOK SPOILERS] Nitpick without repercussion?

[Miodrag]

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

That quote you found is pure gold. If anyone here was to post something like that, he/she would undoubtedly end up crucified by show-apologists. And the situation now, if I may add, is much worse than in Pauline's time. Not just in regards to TV/movie criticism, but to journalism as a whole. That's what "The Wire" wanted to show in Season 5, with famous media subplot. And, guess what happened: Season 5 of "The Wire" - the most critically acclaimed show in the history up to that point - got butchered by the same critics that praised it for years. Is it any wander that most of those critics are working for the media, i.e. in the profession whose demise "The Wire" was trying to portray in Season 5?

[Pinkie Baelish]

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.

I beg to differ. IMO Theon's arc in season 2 was one of the season's main highlights, and it's one of the few things(along with Jaime's arc in s3) that the show got just right. Although leaving Reek/Ramsay out was a mistake, Theon committing such heinous crimes for respect, only to be betrayed by his own men(the very men he was trying to impress) was a nice touch.

[Miodrag]

I beg to differ. IMO Theon's arc in season 2 was one of the season's main highlights, and it's one of the few things(along with Jaime's arc in s3) that the show got just right. Although leaving Reek/Ramsay out was a mistake, Theon committing such heinous crimes for respect, only to be betrayed by his own men(the very men he was trying to impress) was a nice touch.

Have to say that, out of the two, I prefer Jaime's arc in Season 3 to Theon's in Season 2. Now, Lock character is a way to adapt things. I don't know did they have a single reason for cutting out Vargo, and I think Vargo would've been a delight to watch (especially interpreted by a fine actor such as Noah Taylor), but for whatever possible explanation - or maybe even without one - they did change it. But, they did pay the right to change. So, if a change is skillfully undertook, I'm OK with it. Other than that last scene in the season finale (Jaime shows up in Cersei's chambers) that, I'm afraid, may lead to a disaster next season, Jaime's arc in Season 3 was quite good (I could nitpick, of course, but in general I liked it).

Now, Theon's Season 2 arc started pretty strongly, all the additions notwithstanding (in fact, it's one of those instances in which something had to be modified in adaptation, cause otherwise no viewer would be able to understand Theon's motifs and his internal struggle, which were presented much more literary in the books). But, they endangered it first with omission of Reek/Ramsay (I still see no reason for this omission, other than juvenile attempt to keep Roose as non-suspicious as possible; if money was their problem, well, they could've cast Natalie Dormer as Ramsay and that would've solve it), and later with that final scene in season 2, when Dagmer knocks him out from behind. Now, I don't have a problem with his men betraying him, it was set-up by Robb's offer at least, but it was done in a really clumsy way (yeah, those Ironborns definitely enjoy some good speeches, right, very convincing) and I don't know when will the writers of our epoch grow tired of trying to replicate St. Crispin's Day speech. But, my biggest complaint is this: cut that scene out, and you loose nothing. The way Theon's story was continued this season, that scene, with his final speech in Winterfell, was completely unnecessary. If they removed it, nothing would be worse off. In fact, that scene only added to the confusion of the Winterfell finale. And, since the confusion wasn't resolved until the finale of this year, that scene was entirely pointless.

So, you see, even a purist and proud of it, I'm not against changes per se. I'm against stupid changes that make no sense and only hurt the final product.

[Weeping Sore]

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.

I think the high literature/ paraliterature divide is absolutely a false distinction. You make an excellent case for comparing ASOIAF with the best of literature (as for your well-observed theme of heritage, I might suggest a comparison with Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks). Critics have long "elevated" crime fiction writers like Raymond Chandler and Jim Thompson to compete in the high pantheon, and there's no reason a great writer should be disqualified for writing in the fantasy genre. After all, Herman Mellville (arguably the greatest American writer of all time) was a writer of high-seas adventure. Cormac McCarthy, one of the world's greatest living writers, has written Westerns and Sci-fi. And "theme-first" as a distinguishing characteristic of high literature is nonsensical. Charles Dickens for example (not my favorite, but critically accepted, to be sure) is about as plot-driven as they come.

[Miodrag]

I think the high literature/ paraliterature divide is absolutely a false distinction. You make an excellent case for comparing ASOIAF with the best of literature (as for your well-observed theme of heritage, I might suggest a comparison with Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks). Critics have long "elevated" crime fiction writers like Raymond Chandler and Jim Thompson to compete in the high pantheon, and there's no reason a great writer should be disqualified for writing in the fantasy genre. After all, Herman Mellville (arguably the greatest American writer of all time) was a writer of high-seas adventure. Cormac McCarthy, one of the world's greatest living writers, has written Westerns and Sci-fi. And "theme-first" as a distinguishing characteristic of high literature is nonsensical. Charles Dickens for example (not my favorite, but critically accepted, to be sure) is about as plot-driven as they come.

Thanks, and, honestly, I'm glad we can discuss things normally again. (To conclude the previous affair: go on with provoking me if you feel like it, I'm not sensitive and at least you're more well-mannered in provoking than most; I just didn't like taking the moral high-ground, which maybe was or wasn't there; anyway, hope no hard feelings. And, if I may add, your post with the nails - last one having written "book purism" over it - was delivered in style.)

Now, if you don't mind, I have to ask you: why aren't you bothered some more by the show's omission of those themes? Maybe they are there, but I don't see them. Don't get me wrong, I don't question anyone's enjoyment in the show as a television product. Even with all my complaints, there are far worse TV shows than GoT is. But, my point is, this one had the potential to be the best ever, if only they managed to follow the themes of the source material. Maybe it was out of their power, maybe they were unable for variety of reasons, but, their reasoning and their explanations often strike me as phony. And, even if they're not, there is something to be said about missed potential. I mean, there's HBO, the house that excelled in making shows labeled as "the golden age" of television; and there's the source material of extraordinary depth and strength; combo of these two should make the show of all shows; something went wrong there. Maybe it's D&D's fault, as I think. Maybe it's not. But, the final product is much less than what it could've been. Agree?

And, by the way, McCarty's "Blood Meridian" was recommended to me last year on these very forums. I read it and loved it. I can see why many view it as a masterpiece. But ASOIAF is not a bit less worthy in my book. Yes, McCarty's prose is more challenging and sophisticated than Martin's usually is (though Martin can write superb chapters when situation needs it), but their takes on what makes a civilization aren't unlike. Also, ASOIAF has it's own advantages over BM: characters being much more than symbols, for starters (not that I blame McCarty for using his characters as symbols first and foremost, it fits with his storytelling style, but Martin has to receive some credit for creating an array of memorable characters of all genders, ages and social statuses).

[Miodrag]

@Weeping Sore

Recently, I finally purchased "Buddenbrooks" and "The Magic Mountain" by Thomas Mann, gonna read it before fall most likely. Somehow, Mann eluded me all this time. And guess what motivated me to go after his books: some six months ago, I was reading a review of AGOT in "The Guardian". It was from several years ago. The reviewer, a literary critic of the paper, wrote something like this: it's fun, but it's not high-literature. Further below, in the discussion with readers who were - politely, but firmly - suggesting to him that maybe there's more than meets the eye in Martin's novels, he responded with a post like this: "Well, let's not pretend he's Thomas Mann". How's that for snobbery?! Anyway, with that stupid remark, he reminded me of Mann. Now I'm eager to read him for two reasons: 1) he's among the modern greats, and 2) I definitely want to see is his work something that ASOIAF can't hold against.

[maria underfoot]

Sorry for interrupting the very interesting book dialogue, but I find this quote extremely accurate.

Now, on to GoT itself. Let’s put all “nitpicks” aside (and believe me, there’s a legion of them in every episode, which you, as a former film student, surely notice; honestly, I never found enough time nor energy to address every acting, directing and especially writing fault I noticed; but, they are noticeable, and professional circles do notice them, because of which I’m positive GoT, with all the hype and mainstream success and critical praise it enjoys at the moment, will never be regarded as a TV masterpiece; a year or two after it ends, it won’t be respected a bit more than, say, “Lost” is nowadays). It’s not details I’m disappointed in GoT for. It’s the general tone of it. GoT simply isn’t brave enough. It doesn’t even attempt to break all the postmodern prejudices against this type of storytelling. In fact, it only confirms those prejudices: in order to be “successful”, an epic fantasy must appear less “juvenile” than it inevitably is at it’s core due to it’s genre limitations, and must be “aged up” with added nudity and foul language and shocks (even if there was a fair amount of all three in it to begin with). Now, add in all that HBO’s financial interests and goals, which, mixed with fears of a failure that were surely present at the very beginning of the project of GoT, commanded some simplifying of the story and characters, and some relying on cliches and formulaic television. That’s how I believe we got a show that is quite unbalanced, maybe even the most unbalanced in the recent history of TV.

(I’ll finish the answer in my next post, after I finish some business I can’t delay)

Yes, GOT is considered one of the best shows on TV at the moment. And it's good, let's not be unreasonably difficult. It has great acting, beautiful scenery, a beautiful soundtrack, it's done justice to some parts of the book (S1 had many great moments, and I consider it a successful adaption of the 1st book, in s3 Jaime's arc was great, the Dracarys scene was great, the RW was arguably good). But... there is a huge BUT.

If it weren't for the shock effect, and the fact that it's so different from everything else on TV and for the nudity effect, and the juvenility of it, despite the efforts against making the show juvenile (because I don't know how else to characterize the Robb/ Talisa storyline in s2), it wouldn't be anywhere near as celebrated. Suppose it got cancelled. A year from now, would the mass (not talking about book readers, but about the many non-readers) remember GOT for its perplexed, wonderfully interesting and grey characters, for its under-laying and rich themes, for the delicious plottings and politics, or for Dany's breasts, for two siblings sleeping together, for Theon getting his penis chopped off and for a pregnant woman getting stabbed in the belly?

[Joyful Union]

Suppose it got cancelled. A year from now, would the mass (not talking about book readers, but about the many non-readers) remember GOT for its perplexed, wonderfully interesting and grey characters, for its under-laying and rich themes, for the delicious plottings and politics, or for Dany's breasts, for two siblings sleeping together, for Theon getting his penis chopped off and for a pregnant woman getting stabbed in the belly?

I think you could say the same thing about almost every show though. Most people may love the little moments in The Sopranos for example, but the thing that most people remember are the big moments, like SPOLER: Tony Blundetto getting blasted with a shotgun, Big Pussy getting whacked etc.. Same for Breaking Bad, The Wire, and all the other classic shows. This even happens with Mad Men, despite it being almost all low-key character interaction, the infamous lawnmower incident get, the suicide in S5 etc all get the most attention, and are the most remembered.

[Miodrag]

Sorry for interrupting the very interesting book dialogue, but I find this quote extremely accurate.

Yes, GOT is considered one of the best shows on TV at the moment. And it's good, let's not be unreasonably difficult. It has great acting, beautiful scenery, a beautiful soundtrack, it's done justice to some parts of the book (S1 had many great moments, and I consider it a successful adaption of the 1st book, in s3 Jaime's arc was great, the Dracarys scene was great, the RW was arguably good). But... there is a huge BUT.

If it weren't for the shock effect, and the fact that it's so different from everything else on TV and for the nudity effect, and the juvenility of it, despite the efforts against making the show juvenile (because I don't know how else to characterize the Robb/ Talisa storyline in s2), it wouldn't be anywhere near as celebrated. Suppose it got cancelled. A year from now, would the mass (not talking about book readers, but about the many non-readers) remember GOT for its perplexed, wonderfully interesting and grey characters, for its under-laying and rich themes, for the delicious plottings and politics, or for Dany's breasts, for two siblings sleeping together, for Theon getting his penis chopped off and for a pregnant woman getting stabbed in the belly?

Sorry, but have to disagree. As "Joyful Union" said, The Sopranos aren't remembered nor celebrated because of the "Bada Bing". Now, if you're right, and HBO's logic in the case of GoT is similar to what you described, for me it's definitely not a reason to think of GoT any better than I do. In fact, if that was the case, HBO, with their recent history of high-drama success, definitely should've known better.

And, I'm not trying to be difficult, you don't have to agree with me, nor do I see any reason why would one's pleasure of watching GoT be any less because of what I or other "purists" post here - unless one's views on the show is challenged because of our criticism, but that's hardly our fault, nor anyone's fault for that matter. But, I really don't think GoT is any better than mediocre. And one of the reasons is this: you and many others praise it's acting, scenery, soundtrack... Even with all that being spot on (though I'm not sure acting is that great as people often claim), no other show is celebrated and praised for these virtues. The Sopranos were praised for writing and directing first and foremost. The Wire also. Braking Bad, Deadwood, Oz... The reputation of those shows was rooted primarily in writing. Without great writing and appropriate directing, there can hardly be great acting (which is the reason behind my complaint against some of the acting in GoT).

One's certainly entitled to enjoy whatever one likes, be it scenery or acting or soundtrack. But, TV shows, just like movies, just like theater, just like novels, are measured by their writing first and foremost.

[Weeping Sore]

I just didn't like taking the moral high-ground, which maybe was or wasn't there; anyway, hope no hard feelings. And, if I may add, your post with the nails - last one having written "book purism" over it - was delivered in style.)

Now, if you don't mind, I have to ask you: why aren't you bothered some more by the show's omission of those themes? Maybe they are there, but I don't see them. Don't get me wrong, I don't question anyone's enjoyment in the show as a television product. Even with all my complaints, there are far worse TV shows than GoT is. But, my point is, this one had the potential to be the best ever, if only they managed to follow the themes of the source material. Maybe it was out of their power, maybe they were unable for variety of reasons, but, their reasoning and their explanations often strike me as phony. And, even if they're not, there is something to be said about missed potential. I mean, there's HBO, the house that excelled in making shows labeled as "the golden age" of television; and there's the source material of extraordinary depth and strength; combo of these two should make the show of all shows; something went wrong there. Maybe it's D&D's fault, as I think. Maybe it's not. But, the final product is much less than what it could've been. Agree?

If my initial posts gave the impression that I thought I was morally superior, that was certainly not my intent - the "nails" post was meant to be a parody of that, obviously.

At some point through reading ASOIAF, I came to the conclusion that Martin's work is a flawed masterpiece. It's great, but it's not perfect, in other words. I think it boils down to Martin's need for a more aggressive editor. This is in no way to disparage his talent, for example, perhaps my favorite novel, Thomas Wolfe's Look Homeward, Angel, (544 pages) originally titled O Lost...

(wiki quote)

was over 1100 pages and 333,000 words long and considerably more experimental in character than the final edited version of Look Homeward, Angel. The editing was done by Maxwell Perkins at Scribner's, the most prominent book editor of the time, who also worked with Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Initially, Wolfe expressed gratitude to Perkins for his disciplined editing. (end quote)

So I actually look toward the series in the hopes that some improvements might be made (w/r/to judicious cuts), along with the expectation that most screen adaptations do not live up to great source material. More often, great movies are adaptations of more middling books (Mario Puzo's Godfather, Robert Bloch's Psycho, B. Traven's The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, for example)

Books that have a lot of great internal monologue like ASOIAF present a challenge, obviously- (ADwD's Reek chapters, Ned's chapters in AGoT, etc.) This is the reason Dostoevsky is essentially unadaptable (there has literally never been a good film made from a Dostoevsky novel, and likely never will be) The solution of voice-over is so frowned upon in most circles that it is almost never used. (Though, is there a better argument for using voice-over than Scorcese's masterpiece, Casino?)

Luckily, ASOIAF has A LOT going on externally, great dramatic events, great dialogue, great action. It could never be a theatrical movie, and it is being adapted in pretty much the only way it ever could be, as (hopefully) 80 episodes of premium cable.

The show has made changes based on the inherent limitations of adapting for the screen. The show has made some minor improvements. The show has made some changes to add gratuitous nudity/sex. The show has made some changes for no apparent reason, to neutral effect. The show has made some changes for no apparent reason, to detrimental effect. The show has made some changes that are minor improvements in the short term, to long-term detrimental effect. The show has made some changes that are detrimental in the short term, to possible long-term improvement. The show is not the books, it just can't be. I'm willing to enjoy it on its own terms, and I'd be more than willing to nitpick, if there weren't already so many people here doing it for me, with more gusto.

[Masamune]

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).

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.

+1 and stuff.

Argumentum ad populum seems to be a common recourse for those who defend GoT. Sure, maybe it is better than half the crap on TV these days but as an adaptation it's been on the downturn since the end of Season 1. Which is why it's perfectly understandable for fans of the source material to criticize the quality of the show itself, because D&D are effectively expressing something 'wrong' with the books, in deed if not in thought.

[maria underfoot]

Sorry, but have to disagree. As "Joyful Union" said, The Sopranos aren't remembered nor celebrated because of the "Bada Bing". Now, if you're right, and HBO's logic in the case of GoT is similar to what you described, for me it's definitely not a reason to think of GoT any better than I do. In fact, if that was the case, HBO, with their recent history of high-drama success, definitely should've known better.

And, I'm not trying to be difficult, you don't have to agree with me, nor do I see any reason why would one's pleasure of watching GoT be any less because of what I or other "purists" post here - unless one's views on the show is challenged because of our criticism, but that's hardly our fault, nor anyone's fault for that matter. But, I really don't think GoT is any better than mediocre. And one of the reasons is this: you and many others praise it's acting, scenery, soundtrack... Even with all that being spot on (though I'm not sure acting is that great as people often claim), no other show is celebrated and praised for these virtues. The Sopranos were praised for writing and directing first and foremost. The Wire also. Braking Bad, Deadwood, Oz... The reputation of those shows was rooted primarily in writing. Without great writing and appropriate directing, there can hardly be great acting (which is the reason behind my complaint against some of the acting in GoT).

One's certainly entitled to enjoy whatever one likes, be it scenery or acting or soundtrack. But, TV shows, just like movies, just like theater, just like novels, are measured by their writing first and foremost.

I don't see where we disagree. I praise some aspects of the show, because I think that they are praise-worthy, as do a lot of other people. But in essence, we agree on poor writing. I don't think that the writing of GOT is more than average, as I said, I think that the producers are distancing themselves from politics and plotting, they're oversimplifying everything, for the sake of nudity, shock effect, juvenile love stories (Talisa and Robb, Tyrion and Shae) and to make some characters, like Dany or Tyrion, more likable to the audience, but less complicated and flawed than Martin made them out to be.

I believe, as you said, that the success of Got and the hype around it will be ephemeral. That when 10 years have passed, people will not go back to it for the plot, for the writing, for the characters, but they'll mainly remember it for aspects that I mentioned.

[Weeping Sore]

oops snip

[Miodrag]

@Weeping Sore

Speaking of voice-overs and Scorcese, how about "Goodfellas"? That's my favorite among his films. Or, how about "Blade Runner", which I always preferred with voice-overs, as originally showed. In one of previous discussions, on some thread, I wrote that the solution for GoT could've been what "The thin red line" did: multiple voice-over, but only one character per episode (all POVs from the books would be used, naturally, but some new ones might be added), and no more than 3-4 times per episode, all in small amounts (2-3 sentences in average). Would be refreshing, I guess, and I can't see why would any writer be embarrassed for using something like that.

About ASOIAF and editing, can't say you're right or wrong, because: 1) English isn't my language, so possible stylish imperfections didn't affect me that much when I was reading ADWD, and the rest of the series I read in Serbian first; and Serbian translation is excellent, when you read it you have the impression it's the original text, that it was somehow written in Serbian originally, which is always a sign of a good translation; and 2) working as an editor in few newspapers and magazines earlier in my career, I learned to appreciate other author's "inner voice", no matter how strongly I'd like his/her voice to be different than it is; when I was young and inexperienced, I used to edit articles of journalists to the point of turning them into something completely different, but nowadays I think that was wrong and today I always try to edit/change/cut as little as possible. Of course, novels are completely different ballgame than newspapers. And, truth be told, there isn't a novel, no matter how respected and valued, that couldn't be edited some more. In that sense, ASOIAF could also be improved, I guess, but, if it's up to me, I'd restraint from improving it whenever I can. Like, who knows what tomorrow brings? Maybe I cut out something that would've be adored 50 years from now. Of course, the nature of the editing business is to try determine what's needs to stay and what not, and in the hands of an editor as skillful as Perking guy you mention is, a material is likely to be improved.

Now, that's concerning style. Concerning plots and characters, I'd be an even bigger purist. Not because of the purism itself - though there is that, no doubt - but because of this effect: whenever I saw "Sam" at the headline of the chapter, I was like "oh, no", because he was the one character from the novels who I never was particularly interested in. He didn't bother me as a side character, but as a POV... well, I was positive he's going to bore me to death. And yet, at the end of his chapters, I always wanted more. More Sam, that is. So, maybe I just can't be entirely objective, but there's not a single character or plot or storyline I'd cut out. Not even Dorne, for which I'm still not sure what's the purpose of. Martin can prove me wrong at the end, but for now I have complete faith in his storytelling. And, I like big books. There's much to enjoy in the novels that are compact and tight like "The Great Gatsby" is, for example, but my choice would often be huge novels, at least those in which I feel going through some of the slower/slogging parts is eventually rewarded even beyond expectations.

But, your points seem credible, though I don't necessarily agree with them. And your view on ASOIAF as a flawed masterpiece is quite interesting. And refreshing, because I believe I never encountered it before.

About the show, I'd go along with your description of all the changes in the show - with minor disagreements, of course (sorry, but I still don't see any improvement, though several important changes didn't hurt either). But the tone of the show is something I can't get over. They cut out - by accident, or who knows why - too many lines that would direct more careful viewers toward bigger themes, and at the same time wouldn't trouble nor confuse casual viewers. For example, Ned's and Petyr's mutual jabbing when later brings former to Cat (when she's in KL in AGOT) is a perfect set-up for everything Petyr does later in the series. But, they cut that scene out, and instead they "fleshed" him out in that ridiculous scene with two whores. Decisions like that set the tone of the series, even though unsullied viewers have no idea what's missing. Or, Ned-Jaime swordfight. Nothing wrong with wanting to show how dangerous Jaime is with a sword, but, truth be told, it's not what they managed. Viewers weren't amazed with Jaime's (or Ned's) skills after that scene. If they went with the books version, and with some powerful acting both Bean and Waldau are more than capable of, and some nicely edited close-ups on their faces in the moment Jaime gives the order to execute all Ned's man but leave Ned alive, now, that would make Jaime probably more menacing than with what they did. And what's to say about Tywin but scolding Amory for informing the enemy of troop movements? Or about TV-Qhorin?

OK, this is turning into a rant, so I'll stop now. And your conclusion about the show was fair enough, undoubtedly.

[Miodrag]

Sorry, I misunderstood your post. My bad.

[Khal-a-bunga]

+1 and stuff.

Argumentum ad populum seems to be a common recourse for those who defend GoT. Sure, maybe it is better than half the crap on TV these days but as an adaptation it's been on the downturn since the end of Season 1. Which is why it's perfectly understandable for fans of the source material to criticize the quality of the show itself, because D&D are effectively expressing something 'wrong' with the books, in deed if not in thought.

So are you saying that fans of the show can't also love the source material? Because the general line of thinking seems to be that if you think the show is great television, than that is somehow indicative that you lack respect or admiration for the books. My position is that they are, always have been (even in season one), and always will be separate entities, and should be judged as such. It's one thing to hate the fact that your favorite line from the novels was left out, or that they didn't focus on an aspect of a certain character that you found important while reading the books (yet) - it's an entirely different thing to say that the adaptation is a failure because of these things. Venture outside of the close-minded world of Westeros.org, and you'll find that the show often does convey the things that we all loved about the series to viewers who have never read the books. That information is often conveyed, by necessity, in a different manner (or on a different time line) and with less detail than it was in the novels, but that's to be expected.

It's funny that those of you who openly acknowledge a bias against the show take the position that you are somehow more correct in your assertion than those who think highly of it. What makes that the case? If your argument is that the books are better than the show, I think a well-deserved 'no shit' is in order. But some of us don't think in terms of the two working against one another, and as such, our arguments aren't framed with that (lop-sided) mentality. My enjoyment of the books has been increased by watching the show, mostly as a result of the dimensions added to nearly every character who didn't receive a P.O.V. in A Song of Ice & Fire. My enjoyment of the show is obviously enriched by having read the books in the first place.

As far as the Argument ad Populum comment - Evidence is not proof. I'm not citing the awards recognition the show has garnered*, the critical acclaim, or the popularity amongst viewers** as proof of anything, but rather as evidence that many of the opinions here are not shared by people whose affiliation with the source material isn't as personal as our own. Just as it's unreasonable for posters here to conclude that the largely negative reaction to the adaptation here is proof of anything. This is a site dedicated to the world Martin has created - it'd be unusual for the general consensus to be positive. But the vitriol the series has garnered here is a bit absurd (though it should be noted that, if you look at the rating threads for each individual episode, the consensus is largely positive), and the fact of the matter is that what's presented in the show is often ignored or mis-categorized in lieu of broad generalizations.

* http://en.wikipedia....Game_of_Thrones

** http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944947/

[Miodrag]

Venture outside of the close-minded world of Westeros.org, and you'll find that the show often does convey the things that we all loved about the series to viewers who have never read the books. That information is often conveyed, by necessity, in a different manner (or on a different time line) than it was in the novels, but that's to be expected.

Really? Any example, in form of a link maybe? I'll wait. In the meantime, try reading this review of Season 3 finale. Especially the part about Dany. Perhaps you'll find out GoT isn't that crafty in conveying books' themes, or show-invented themes, or some other themes. Also, I'd recommend reviews in "Atlantic" and Allan Sepinwall's. While they all like the show, nobody among them recognize some thematic brilliance you refer to so often.

It's funny that those of you who openly acknowledge a bias against the show take the position that you are somehow more correct in your assertion than those who think highly of it.

We do? Oh, that must be terrible. Shame on us. On the other side, you always seem to take the position that you are somehow less correct in your assertion than those you're debating. Cause, like, that's the proper nature of participating in a debate, right? To assume you aren't correct?

My enjoyment of the books has been increased by watching the show, mostly as a result of the dimensions added to nearly every character who didn't receive a P.O.V. in A Song of Ice & Fire.

I could direct you once again to that article in The New Yorker. Especially the part about why the author likes that Dany is so recognizable. But, it could look as if I'm trying to take the position that I'm somehow more correct than you, and I just learned it's bad to do such a thing.

[Khal-a-bunga]

@ NotYouSir

Let me direct you to these reviews of the series, all of which discuss the characters, the plot, the themes, and the various technical aspects (writing, directing, editing, etc.)...

David Sims of the A.V. Club: http://www.avclub.co...es-newbies,176/ Non-reader.

Todd VanDerWerff of the A.V. Club: http://www.avclub.co...es-experts,175/ Reader.

Alan Sepinwall from Hitfix: http://www.hitfix.co...-thrones/recaps Non-reader.

Andy Greenwald from Grantland: http://www.grantland...family-business Non-reader.

Sean T. Collins from Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingst...or/sean-collins Reader.

James Hibberd of Entertainment Weekly: http://tvrecaps.ew.c...ame-of-thrones/ Reader.

James Poniewozik of Time: http://entertainment...e-of-thrones-2/ Reader.

What The Flick?! reviews: http://www.youtube.c...ew=46&flow=grid One reader, three non-readers.

ThinkHeroTV:

One reader, one non-reader.

And various podcasts, featuring readers, non-readers, and combinations of the two: http://player.fm/fea...game-of-thrones

There are also these episode analyses written by a contributor for Winter Is Coming: http://winteriscomin...t/tag/analysis/

And some great discussions on the series from a collection of non-readers over at the CHUD forums: http://www.chud.com/...-3-spoiler-free

You aren't "more correct" than anyone. More biased, surely, and by your own admission. And I'm not "more correct" than you are. Just less biased and less overtly negative. So stop acting like you've made any salient points here; you've barely made any points at all. In fact, the article you posted essentially works against the point you were (seemingly) trying to make, while also ignoring that Dany's story isn't complete, and the repercussions for her campaign against slavery are still to come. The first comment on that review sums it up nicely (other than the political reference, which was petulantly made by the author in her review)...

The final paragraph of this amuses me to no end, because seriously? If that's what you think Dany's storyline is, you're in for a pretty rude awakening come Season 4 and beyond. This is GOT we're talking about here---do you really think it's playing the Great White Savior trope straight? Uh, no. It's inverting it, hard.

Dany's been doing some truly idiotic things, it's just that we as viewers don't apply our critical thinking skills to her actions because we know slavery is bad and because the inevitable consequences of Dany's actions just haven't yet caught up with her (but oh, how they will). She marched into a completely foreign culture with fabulous intentions but zero actual plan beyond "tell everyone they're free!", and her incredible lack of foresight is going to come back to bite her. She has no way to feed this massive influx of people, no new economic system to replace the one she's just destroyed, nor has she any way to transport her new army (and certainly not her army + the massive number of freed slaves) to Westeros. Slavery is certainly not confined to Slaver's Bay, so she's made a plethora of brand new enemies that she's completely unprepared for---her army is good, but it's not THAT good.

You can't end slavery in a day (or a week), especially not in a place which is economically dependent on it (and culturally intertwined with it). Dany (the actual George W. Bush figure here) swooped in as a "liberator" but conveniently forgot to think of plans for what comes after she tells everyone they're free---she seems to figure that she'll just smash things and then everything will work out fine because her intentions are good. In another fantasy series, that might be true. But actions have consequences in GOT, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Dany's about to learn that firsthand.

[Miodrag]

@ NotYouSir

Funny, but not surprising, that you would pick a review from The New Yorker, as much has been made about how their reviews of the show. In fact, entire articles have been written about them. Here's one:

http://io9.com/58984...f-thrones-again

As far as I know, The New Yorker isn't the same as New York Times. I posted a link to The New Yorker. You replied with a link about New York Times being biased against GoT. Yeah, it must be me, with my points barely made...

In another news, the Hitfix guy, a non-reader one: that's Allan Sepinwall. Whose reviews I recommended to you in my post. I recommend someone to you, you recommend him back to me... My barely made points again, right?

And, thanks for collecting so many reviewers. Now, this may surprise you, but I often read them. Didn't read each and every one of those reviews, but many of them. And, I can't remember a single one in which bigger ASOIAF themes - only conveyed differently for the show - were discussed. These reviews are often more recaps than analysis, which is fine, I guess. And those recaps are sometimes quite an entertaining reads (though, I have to admit Hibberd from EW was funnier during the first season than later on), while What The Flick?! is usually interesting to watch (and, by the way, four of them are, with Sepinwall, perhaps closest to proper analysis of episodes, and they all strike me as genuinely and passionately in love with the show). Sean T. Collins is a strange case, because he's so minutial when talking and writing about books, while not nearly so when writing about the show.

But, if I may notice, you couldn't find any example of show inspiring discussions on all those "phantom themes", i.e. themes we purists from close-minded world of Westeros.org find entirely absent from the show, while you keep repeating they're there, only we don't see them cause we're biased. Themes like, for example, religions of Westeros and their importance in the story.

[Miodrag]

@Khal-a-bunga

(about the stuff you edited/added in your last post in the meantime)

The first commenter of the review is obviously a book-reader. Talking about what's going to happen in Dany's storyline in the future. And how the reviewer will be proven wrong. And this proves... what exactly? That book-reading people know more about where's Dany's story heading than show-only people? Is that the lesson of the quote you posted?!