[Book & Show Spoilers] Show Vs. Books (Grantland Article)

[Sphinx The Riddle]

http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/79360/the-new-gods-vs-the-old-is-game-of-thrones-better-as-a-show-or-a-series-of-books

A very interesting read that is sure to get the readers red faced... Im interested in your thoughts

[daoloth]

The very first paragraph

"I've stopped reading A Song of Ice and Fire. I read the first book before I watched the first season of Game of Thrones, and then the second before the second, but by the time the credits rolled on "Valar Morghulis," I realized something: I was ruining what was likely one of the best TV shows of all time by reading some pretty average books."

I don't know why I kept reading after this first paragraph. This was a waste of time and a painful read filled with incoherent ramblings of a pretentious fool who has little to no understanding of literature and tv and also thinks that his subjective preferences somehow are the undisputed standard for unobjectionably quality. He can't even give proper genre-specific literary references!!! Who is this guy?

Game of Thrones is by far NOT the best tv show of all time. If you take the story away a number of tv shows relegate GoT far away for its ridiculous use of sex and nudity, lack of attention to detail, some really bad acting and poorly handled storyline. Without it the show becomes quite tedious especially if you compare it to original series such as the Wire, the Sopranos, Treme, Mad Men, Six Feet Under... The show is all it is exactly because of Martin's novels and some really good casting. And a lot of hype and paid PR.

Martin's writing clearly does not fit his preferences. I can understand that - I have a lot of issues with his books too. But all in all he is a brilliant storyteller with a gritty, unique and fairly realistic setting doing something that cannot in any way be compared to Dostoyevsky for example because they are completely different things with a completely different scope. Rather you should compare it to Tolstoy or Zola or even Dickens - and then the contrast isn't really all that much. Quite honestly Martin does hold up on his own. He is certainly no literary genius in the typical sense of the word but neither really was Tolkien for example. And i we are so painfully honest with the books why can't we be equally painfully honest with this adaptation? Unless HBO paid us not to.

But I would point your attention to some other aspect of Martin's novels and the show - namely how they present certain elements of the story. Martin is very slow but detailed and realistic, you might say naturalistic. The show is often fast, simplistic and emotionally cheesy but still somewhat logical . That is the quality of for example Zadie's "White Teeth" if you contrast it with "A storm of swords". And there lies your answer. See what his picks are and it becomes quite obvious why GoT is such a "wonderful" show while the books are "average". It is simply that Mr McPherson doesn't have the intellectual capability to digest Martin properly because he is used to condensed modern superficial intellectualism in "progressive" literature which he apparently likes very much. It is also very easy to like "great" literature once someone told you it is great. I see it all the time - all those people just "loving" classical music, opera and literature but mostly because of the social connotations that come with them not for the art itself (which is particularly annoying to a person who knows a thing or two about music).

I tried posting myself on some troubling developments I noticed withing the show - namely forcibly changing the characters to make them more politically correct (for some reason) with regards to male and female characters. Mr McPherson probably would approve of those character-assassinating changes but that only would go to show what kind of a literary "expert" he really is. I don't know what happened to my post though.

[Strong Belwas!]

I would love to get into an argument with this MacPherson character. Yikes. It seems that he would prefer for the plot lines, twists and surprises to be handed to him on a silver platter. Most of his complaints are very petty (I couldn't deal with Jeyne outliving Robb), seriously? Macpherson seems to prefer a watered down story absent of descriptive details, not realizing that those details are what set the tone and atmosphere, build suspense, and allow us to "live" in Westeros. Not to mention that those details are often filled with easter eggs for readers who read the books more than once.

[daoloth]

Yeah...It would be so exciting if we could have an argument between McPherson and Strong Belwas. I wonder how it would turn out :D

[Joyful Union]

I don't know why I kept reading after this first paragraph. This was a waste of time and a painful read filled with incoherent ramblings of a pretentious fool who has little to no understanding of literature and tv and also thinks that his subjective preferences somehow are the undisputed standard for unobjectionably quality. He can't even give proper genre-specific literary references!!! Who is this guy?

Game of Thrones is by far NOT the best tv show of all time. If you take the story away a number of tv shows relegate GoT far away for its ridiculous use of sex and nudity, lack of attention to detail, some really bad acting and poorly handled storyline. Without it the show becomes quite tedious especially if you compare it to original series such as the Wire, the Sopranos, Treme, Mad Men, Six Feet Under... The show is all it is exactly because of Martin's novels and some really good casting. And a lot of hype and paid PR.

Kind of ironic, isnt it?

[intheswamp]

The show is mediocre and very overrated. And, while I think the books are overrated as well, they are still much better than the show.

[King of the Road]

Both are probably top of their game at what they do.

Game of Thrones is without a doubt the best fantasy currently on either the big or small screen. I personally would rate it as one of the best shows, though I understand those who prefer The Wire and Breaking Bad.

A Song of Ice and Fire is, naturally, the best fantasy literature around at the present, without any serious competition in my opinion.

McPherson has clearly fallen into the trap of trying to compare the two, to do so limits one's enjoyment of either the show or the books.

[Khal-a-bunga]

I first read A Game of Thrones in 2003, at the behest of a good friend who told me it "wasn't the usual fantasy shit" (I've never been big on fantasy, in general) - and they were right. It's been a series I've loved ever since. I might be one of the few people here who actually prefers A Feast for Crows to every book in the series other than the third (Martin's prose has improved considerably, in my opinion, from the first two books in the series).

At that same time, I was majoring in film production because of my love for shows like Oz, The Sopranos, and other HBO programs. So when I heard that HBO was going to be adapting A Song of Ice & Fire, I was ecstatic. And still am. It's certainly up there with some of the greatest shows of all-time (alone with shows like The Wire, Breaking Bad, The Shield, Mad Men, Deadwood, The West Wing, The Twilight Zone, Friday Night Lights, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, and many others), and that's because of the writing, the acting, the production values, the directing, etc.

I can certainly understand that huge fans of the book take issue with the show, but I think a lot of that comes down to expectations. When I first read the books, my mind automatically went to the idea that this would be adapted for film, and I could already hear the purists complaining about all of the huge changes that would need to be made. I was one myself, though not with this series. Being the massive The Lord of the Rings fan that I was (and still am), and watching that series unfold on the big-screen while simultaneously learning about film-making made me look at those movies in a different light. And while I still wouldn't count them among the best films ever made, they're certainly among my favorite, changes and all.

Before the show even started airing, I realized that the first season would skew closest to the books, due to how easily adaptable the narrative was in it. But I honestly expected more changes than we ended up getting even then. And that's been true with every season since the first. I listen to some of the complaints about how much has been changed from the books, and I can't help but laugh. Not because there haven't been changes, but because - all in all - this series has hewed incredibly close to the source material. Closer than I had reason to expect, if I'm being perfectly honest.

And now we're waiting for the fourth season of one of the best shows I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot of shows. But does that make the show better than the books? Of course not. I've come across very few adaptations that were better than the source material (Jaws, American Psycho, a few others). But it has improved on certain aspects of the book series that I wasn't fond of. Ultimately, though, I look at them as two distinct but inexorably linked pieces of entertainment. Just as I do with the film trilogy of one of my favorite books growing up. Because, ultimately, these are companion pieces. The show doesn't take anything away from the books. In fact, it's added to my appreciation, just as having read the books adds to my appreciation of the show (though not to the same extent).

Ultimately, McPherson is simply trying too hard to compare the two instead of enjoying them both based on their own merits. The show isn't in any kind of competition with the books. And the books aren't in any kind of competition with the show. So the comparison between the two in this case (i.e. the article being discussed) is to the detriment to both (which seems to be a common thing, but usually it's the other way around).

[Branflakes]

I am a very frequent visitor to the Grantland website and almost linked that article here....however, I thought the proreader did such a poor job of expressing what we all (I assume) feel about the books that I decided against it.

However, in defense of the Grantland website....I highly encourage everyone to read the Andy Greenwald's recaps of the show. He is an avowed non-reader but I find his perspective really interesting and increases my enjoyment of the show.

http://www.grantland.com/contributor/_/name/andy-greenwald

His recap of Episode 9 "It's Like "Rains" on your Red Wedding Day was particularly good.

The podcasts he does after each episode are fantastic as well.....I think they pull them down eventually though.

[daoloth]

Kind of ironic, isnt it?

Only if your understanding of irony is as good as McPherson's knowledge of the saga - which admittedly isn't all that good. I don't think anyone could seriously dispute my claim that GoT is anywhere close to those other TV productions apart from the story - which is revolutionary precisely because it is based on the books. That is not a subjective claim although it is difficult to explain to someone not familiar with tv production so don't expect me to go there right away. Actually once you drop the fanboi attitude it is pretty self-evident. I love Firefly and SG1 but I would never claim that they were the best shows in the history of TV (although Firefly was pretty damn good in many aspects).

The problem with McPherson is that he says the books were weak - gives little evidence apart from throwing a lot of titles of books which are also not soo good to begin with. And then he says that he didn't like the books, didn't read past book two (which means that he didn't read it well enough probably - since he is a book-shunner) but somehow knows that the simplified story in the tv show is better than the detailed if slow-paced story in the books. How so if he did not read it properly? I do not claim anything remotely similar. I'm just calling him on his bulls***.

[daoloth]

The problem with McPherson and why i think this whole interview is so bad is that he has a personal preference for a particular narration style and focus - I pointed it out with his choice of the books. Your personal preference cannot determine whether something is objectively good or bad.

I would never agree that GoT is top tier.. Perhaps when it comes to fantasy and sf on tv. That is true - but it is mostly to the disappointing quality of those shows around. Mostly because they are original shows or are done way over the top like the Borgias. Rome was the only one that was at the same time similar and decent enough. GoT could be run just as Rome was. Or Deadwood for that matter. Or The Wire. But for some reason it is roughly the same story done in a primitive, cheesy and explicit manner. Take away the story and its just another Spartacus or something similar. That's the truth as much as it saddens me to say it.

I agree with Khal-a-bunga that season 1 wrote itself because of the book narrative. Clash of Kings is a difficult transition and it showed on the show. Practically every time the producers had to adjust the book to the show structure it suffered in some way because starting with book 2 Martin deliberately sets out to write an epic tale with many characters which is incredibly difficult thing to do on tv for a number of reasons. Which is exactly where the problem lies - to fully understand what the story's potential is you have to treat it as a whole. You cannot write sasons 3 and 4 based on ASoS only. You have to keep in mind that this ultimately will lead to AFfC and ADwD which will have their own backstories, flashbacks, details and so on and so forth. I don't think the producers fully understand it which is why they slaughter the characters with absurd and harmful changes. And this is why McPherson makes no sense in this interview. He thinks that ASoIaF has to be just another book that you read, then take another one, and another one. That is not how this saga works and this is one of the fundamental reasons why it was so immensely popular and succesful.

Let's be honest - it isn't the largest saga and not the biggest world. Robert Jordan takes the crown here. It isn't the only one with twists and brutal realism - there is a number of other sagas: Malazan, The First Law... Not the only one with a detailed and intricate world - Dying Earth, Zelazny. For some reason however it became the most universally acclaimed. You cant just ignore and say "naaaaaaaaah...it's crap because that's not the kind of book I like".

And yes. AFfC is undeservingly called the worst in the series. Just because Michael Bay wouldn't be able to make a movie out of it doesn't matter it isnt good.

[six]

This is of course a valid opinion, but the whole argument books vs show is so subjective, that it makes little point to even argue over it.

Also, as McPherson says "But you've read all the books. You can't unread them.", and I think this is an important bit to keep in mind when people complain about the tv show not being up to scratch. If you've read the books and liked them, you have little choice on how you see the show.

[Khal-a-bunga]

Only if your understanding of irony is as good as McPherson's knowledge of the saga - which admittedly isn't all that good. I don't think anyone could seriously dispute my claim that GoT is anywhere close to those other TV productions apart from the story - which is revolutionary precisely because it is based on the books. That is not a subjective claim although it is difficult to explain to someone not familiar with tv production so don't expect me to go there right away. Actually once you drop the fanboi attitude it is pretty self-evident. I love Firefly and SG1 but I would never claim that they were the best shows in the history of TV (although Firefly was pretty damn good in many aspects).

The problem with McPherson is that he says the books were weak - gives little evidence apart from throwing a lot of titles of books which are also not soo good to begin with. And then he says that he didn't like the books, didn't read past book two (which means that he didn't read it well enough probably - since he is a book-shunner) but somehow knows that the simplified story in the tv show is better than the detailed if slow-paced story in the books. How so if he did not read it properly? I do not claim anything remotely similar. I'm just calling him on his bulls***.

I'm very familiar with television production, having worked on a show called The Black Donnellys through an internship in 2006, and several other shows that never went to series. I'm also an avid fan of good television, and would disagree with you wholeheartedly. I'd disagree with you on a point-by-point basis, except you haven't actually made any points. Blanket criticism, which is oft relied upon here, isn't actual criticism. That would imply specific examples, reasoning, comparisons with elements from other works that you consider both better and worse. The same kind of thing you're lambasting McPherson for... Perhaps your understanding of irony isn't as clear as you think.

[The Mountain That Posts]

That article gave me cancer.

The books are incredible, the show is a pile of dung that is only saved by it's excellent acting, locations and soundtrack. When it comes to the plot, dialogue, characters themselves, etc. this show is a disgrace to the books.

[Joyful Union]

But for some reason it is roughly the same story done in a primitive, cheesy and explicit manner. Take away the story and its just another Spartacus or something similar. That's the truth as much as it saddens me to say it.

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with this "truth". I'm sorry, but this show really isnt much like Spartacus. The production levels arent nearly the same. Spartacus is all greenscreen, and it looks it too. None of the sets or costumes have nearly the level of intricacy that this show has. Most of the cinematography is natural in GoT. The show looks every bit of its 50 million dollar budget. I dare say it is one of the best looking shows on television.

I also dare say that the acting is of significantly higher calibre. Does Spartacus have anyone of Peter Dinklage's, NCWs or Michelle Fairley's calibre? Or Alfie Allen, Dianna Rigg, Maisie Williams? The shear number of incredibly gifted actors on this show is astounding.

I dare say there are many other aspects of the production that are also superior to shows like Spartacus, if all the technical plaudits and awards the show has received are anything to go by.

I do love Spartacus and shows like Spartacus, but it's not nearly the same level.

Also, the notion of taking away the story is bizzare. The Wire is awful without it's story. So is almost any show. The story is what makes most scripted drama. Ofc GoT is much worse without it's story.

[David Selig]

This is a pretty bad article. The premise is flawed from the start.

If you are going to compare ASOIF with Hemingway and Cormac Mccarthy, it's only fair to compare GoT with the movies of the all time greats like Hitchcock, Orson Welles, Bergman and the current best movie directors. it's the same art form. Why bother with GoT when you can watch Citizen Kane or The Dark Knight?

Then there's the fact that such rankings within the type of media are irrelevant for your enjoyment out of it. If you enjoy the books more than the show, what does it matter if you think there are 10000 books and only 1-2 better TV shows?

[Khal-a-bunga]

Your premise is flawed, as well, though. You can't really compare a classic movie like Citizen Kane to a television show. I mean, you can, but it's not exactly a good comparison. And I'm kind of flabbergasted that you'd put the aforementioned movie and The Dark Knight together like that. For one thing, The Dark Knight is pretty awful. For another, Citizen Kane is revered in the film community mainly for its technical innovations (though there were other films to use elements implemented in the movie prior, this one seems to get all the credit as it is the most well-known). But beyond that, television and movies aren't all that comparable as far as your statement is concerned. Shows like The Wire and The Shield would be more apt comparisons.

Agree wholeheartedly with your second point, though.

[Joyful Union]

This is a pretty bad article. The premise is flawed from the start.

If you are going to compare ASOIF with Hemingway and Cormac Mccarthy, it's only fair to compare GoT with the movies of the all time greats like Hitchcock, Orson Welles, Bergman and the current best movie directors. it's the same art form. Why bother with GoT when you can watch Citizen Kane or The Dark Knight?

I agree that the article is flawed, but can you really compare a TV Show with a Movie? I can understand comparing GoT to all time greats like The Wire and saying it comes up short, but it seems unfair to compare a long form serialised show to a classic movie. I suppose they are both visual mediums.

[David Selig]

I agree that the article is flawed, but can you really compare a TV Show with a Movie? I can understand comparing GoT to all time greats like The Wire and saying it comes up short, but it seems unfair to compare a long form serialised show to a classic movie. I suppose they are both visual mediums.

Well, if you can compare ASOIF to Hemingway's works (which are on average something like 15-20 times shorter than the series so far), I don't see why you can't compare a TV series to a movie. Same medium, different length.

As I said in the edit of the previous post, it's pretty pointless comparison anyway.

[daoloth]

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with this "truth". I'm sorry, but this show really isnt much like Spartacus. The production levels arent nearly the same. Spartacus is all greenscreen, and it looks it too. None of the sets or costumes have nearly the level of intricacy that this show has. Most of the cinematography is natural in GoT. The show looks every bit of its 50 million dollar budget. I dare say it is one of the best looking shows on television.

I also dare say that the acting is of significantly higher calibre. Does Spartacus have anyone of Peter Dinklage's, NCWs or Michelle Fairley's calibre? Or Alfie Allen, Dianna Rigg, Maisie Williams? The shear number of incredibly gifted actors on this show is astounding.

I dare say there are many other aspects of the production that are also superior to shows like Spartacus, if all the technical plaudits and awards the show has received are anything to go by.

I do love Spartacus and shows like Spartacus, but it's not nearly the same level.

Also, the notion of taking away the story is bizzare. The Wire is awful without it's story. So is almost any show. The story is what makes most scripted drama. Ofc GoT is much worse without it's story.

I think you completely missed the point. No amount of props and budget can fix a poorly handled story. It can't even guarantee quality of scenography, costumes and casting across the continent. Unless you think that Essos is handled properly. And this is my biggest complaint.

Nowadays people focus too much on special effects, decorations,nonsense like whether Daario has his blades or not. What about the fact that many of the scenes are simply badly done while others are quite surprisingly well done. Also there is a tendency of quality - scenes that are based on the books and are easily adaptable are mostly done well. Scenes which had to be reworked or made up entirely are usually often poorly handled. And you are not fair to Spartacus either. Starz is no HBO and the budget does make a difference. But do you really think that Spartacus would be a better tv show if it had 50 mil per season to get some more extras and replace cgi with real stuff? Now if you think that...

well... Then perhaps I should ask you whether you think that Dark Knight Rises is such a great movie.

You might be right about the actors though - not that I completely agree about the performances but you can't blame the messenger for the message. Someone wrote their lines and told them how to act. Besides the one actor that actually does the trick for me is Jack Gleeson.

Also I mentioned Rome - some aspects like accent, language etc was handled better in that show. In GoT it is all circus novelty I guess... Still I thought at least some americans get the idea of how accent and language stratified society in England for example. Details like that ..that cost little and can make the show an entirely different experience.