(Book and Show Spoilers) Does anyone think the show portrays some characters more positively then the books?

[Weeping Sore]

My purism is all consuming in the matters of adaptation; mistakes and shortcomings of the source material included. I love "The Wire", and I'd gladly adapt it into a book, or a comic-book, for example. I have some issues with "The Wire", but I would never even try to correct those issues in my adaptation. I have an issues with "Hamlet", but I'd never let my personal issues - regardless of how well founded those may be - cloud the adaptation of "Hamlet". Production realities would command me to condense or cut out some things, but I'd stay well away from correcting the source material that inspired me in the first place. If I'd wanted to 'correct' some things, or alter it not for 'correction' but for some other reason, I'd do what Coppola did with "The Heart of Darkness": he made a new story, that was heavily inspired by Conrad's. (Hence, I watched "Apocalypse Now" years ago before I read "The Heart of Darkness", but the former didn't spoil the latter for me, and I thank Coppola for that.) Or, what Coppola did with "The Godfather part II" - he took the characters and the world from Puzo's book, but used them for a whole new story. That's purism all right. He really didn't influence the 'lives' of the novels he adapted or used as an inspiration. And that's what I'm talking about: when adapting, don't disturb the 'life' of your source material. Just as Coppola examples show, there's more than one way for that. Great many authors, unfortunately, are indeed arrogantly trying to 'correct' the source material of their own choosing. Unsurprisingly, the end products are almost always just a pale shadows of the originals. ("Blade runner" is an exception; however, since Dick was heavily involved in making of the movie, it's fair to suggest he himself was aware of shortcomings of his book, so it's quite a special case, from which many drawn wrong conclusions; and, the movie was at least named differently.)

With who am I to compare Talisa? To Jeyne, a tertiary character that served nothing more than to flesh one side of Robb, the side that ultimately lead to his brutal death? They're incomparable. I don't need, and I believe I never used Jeyne, for complaining about Talisa. Same thing with many other changes. Do I need to compare that Jon-Ygritte nonsense from Season 2 to anything? Of course I don't; that's nonsense on it's own. Theon's final scene in Winterfell? Same thing - terrible writing on it's own.

Even in this thread I mentioned one thing that has nothing to do with comparison. Talisa's "You angry with me?" line. And I don't remember any of you who oppose me even addressed it.

For other misgivings I have (Mel disguising Mance, for example) GRRM has both time and opportunity to prove either me or himself

Talisa is one big divergence from the books, so anything/everything she does or says is fair game for the dogmatic purist. The line is completely stupid, though, as you say.

Now, if the showrunners plan to just have Mance burned, without the switcheroo, would you consider it an improvement? And does it matter whether GRRM signs off on the change?

[Miodrag]

Talisa is one big divergence from the books, so anything/everything she does or says is fair game for the dogmatic purist. The line is completely stupid, though, as you say.

What, because she's one big divergence from the books, I'm purist if I criticize her as a character? I'm not sure this isn't what you're saying. If it is what you're saying, I can never agree. For dogmatic purist, every change is a fair game, but I wouldn't say Talisa is like every other change.

Now, if the showrunners plan to just have Mance burned, without the switcheroo, would you consider it an improvement? And does it matter whether GRRM signs off on the change?

That particular example certainly wouldn't be an improvement, because Mance has a role to play in Winterfell later on. It can be worked around in another way, though. For example, Rattleshirt tries to rape some woman (it would show how unfamiliar with the laws wildlings are, and it would emphasize sexual tensions in The Night's Watch, members of which could, for example, feel sorry for Rattleshirt, because now they do have women among them and the temptation is therefore stronger than ever) and he's burned/shot because of it. While Mance is live and well. But, GRRM has to approve that kind of change, because he might be playing some long game with Mel's disguising powers (the jewel in her neck is very similar to the one on Mance's hand, for example).

Just compare it to the ACOK: if that book was split in half, the murder of Renly could look as some cope-out; later on, however, we find out much more about Mel's shadow-assassins, and we're still in for some findings there, but I don't have a single problem with that narrative vehicle - and, if the book ended soon after Renly's death, I'd surely have a lot of issues with it. In short, almost everything in ASOIAF, and I'd say probably everything in AFFC/ADWD, may be just the 'victim' of unfortunate point in which ADWD ended.

But, my question to you: Why change it, even if it is a mistake? Are D&D his editors? No, they're not. In the show universe, they are almighty deities, much more powerful than an editor is in Martin's world. As he keeps saying, they can decide to land an alien ship on Westeros. But, do they have to 'improve' anything? Of course they don't. And if they feel capable of improving, well, maybe they should try what Coppola did - make a story of their own, an improved story that is only inspired by Martin's. You think they'd ever did it? Of course not. He allowed them to mess with his world and he received a truckload full of money in return. But I can't and I didn't; i.e. I can't allow nor deny them, and I didn't receive any money from their work. Which allows me to say that if they're trying to edit the source material - as it seems more and more often - they're way out of their league.

Against my personal benefit, sometimes I wish for show to overpass the novels. Just to see you guys watching D&D on uncharted territory. Yeah, they know the general direction his story is going to, and they know the endgame, but they know none of the details, nuance, dialogue, scenery... Basically, they'd be as on their own as possible. Now, the reaction to that show I'd love to see. (Don't get me wrong, I probably wouldn't watch those episodes, even if, god forbid, GRRM decides never to publish another ASOIAF book. But, I'm a lesser man than you and, in that case, I'd terribly enjoy the reactions of you all.)

EDIT TO ADD: Just saw what I wrote and it can be understood as if I prefer Coppola's film to Conrad's book, which actually isn't the case. I prefer the book, though both are extraordinary works of art.

[silentwanderer]

Osha is definitely more positively portrayed on the show or, at the very least, she was given a more positvely complex backstory what with Bruni and the White Walkers.

I suspect that part of the reason some characters are portrayed more positively is so that people don't go too many seasons disliking them before they are 'redeemed.'

The story has never given me the impression it actually cares whether the audience dislike the characters or not, redemption is more of a sily notion reserved for young adult fantasy like Supernatural or Harry Potter. The characters in Game of Thrones do have a more complex background than that: Osha's, for instance, Daario's almost naive approach to beauty and Margaery in particular as the visible face of a Lady.

[Khal-a-bunga]

http://tvtropes.org/...hp/Main/FanDumb

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HateDumb

[Miodrag]

I always thought that the fame is a burden. You know, having fans that obsess about you and all. Tiring, right...

But, now that I have my own personal fan, I don't know... It's cool in a way. I mean, yeah, he's obsessed, he keeps following my every move on this site, his world seems centered around me at this point, all that is unhealthy for him first and foremost, and his obsession can explode in hatred and rage any given moment (juts like it often does). But, he's my fan, man. He's the person whose unconditional attention I got somehow. Am I to throw it away? No way, man. No fucking way. I have to respect that. People have to respect their fans.

[six]

http://tvtropes.org/...hp/Main/FanDumb

http://tvtropes.org/...p/Main/HateDumb

The most laughable thing is that the discussion is mostly civil and acceptable between posters, till you come around flaming or insulting. I don't even agree with NotYourSir that much- I agree with some of his opinions but he's way more a purist than I am, but you do seem to try to argue with him only because his opinions are different than yours. Like I already said, it's boring and a bit pathetic, too. Find another activity, perhaps?

I always thought that the fame is a burden. You know, having fans that obsess about you and all. Tiring, right...

But, now that I have my own personal fan, I don't know... It's cool in a way. I mean, yeah, he's obsessive, he keeps following my every move on this site, his world seems centered around me at this point, all that is unhealthy for him first and foremost, and his obsession can explode in hatred and rage any given moment (juts like it often does). But, he's my fan, man. He's the person whose unconditional attention I got somehow. Am I to throw it away? No way, man. No fucking way. I have to respect that. People have to respect their fans.

Just ignore him, really. It's not like he's actually arguing anything.

[Miodrag]

I don't even agree with NotYourSir that much- I agree with some of his opinions but he's way more a purist than I am...

Et tu, Brute?

Just ignore him, really. It's not like he's actually arguing anything.

Thanks for support, honestly. And, if I may suggest, jump in the discussion more often. Your posts are always well explained, and I'd like to see where we disagree. After all, who knows, maybe me and my purism do give a bad name to all those who mind the show though not that much as I do.

[Mr Fixit]

http://tvtropes.org/...hp/Main/FanDumb

http://tvtropes.org/...p/Main/HateDumb

All too true. And on pretty much every show I've been a fan of.

[silentwanderer]

All too true. And on pretty much every show I've been a fan of.

I've seen this a lot amongst Night's Watch characters such as Allister Thorne (season 1), Mance Rayder's reputation (season2) and the bunch that killed Craster (season 3), which makes them look more positively on the show because they genuinely believe its to better the Watch (unlike the impression they made on the books with the exact same attitude).

[MachoGrande]

This! Well said, indeed.

(And, by the way, you could've post this way earlier and save me some trouble.)

I thought you were just fine on your own, given that you've been holding the opposition here for the last few pages almost alone ^^

Now I'm sorry to say, but this is just nonsense. What do these two sentences even mean? Everything is an interpretation. Whatever gets put to screen is the showrunner's or director's or actor's or whoever's interpretation. How can someone not portray their take on the material is beyond me. Even words that ended up on page are Martin's interpretations of his deeper thoughts and feelings. He expressed those ideas as best he could, in a manner he found the most consistent with his "inner voice", but that doesn't preclude readers from interpreting those same words differently based on their own experiences, expectations, and histories. It's an inherent part of human nature. Unless you think D&D are gods risen above the fray, I don't really get how you can expect them (or anyone) to achieve some kind of "objective indisputable truth", as if screenplay is a shapeless container conforming to whatever any particular member of audience desires of it.

Maybe you didn't read my post carefully, because I thought I had made myself clear enough - well, at least NotYouSir seems to understand me. Or I was writing nonsense, indeed.

I am aware that "Everything is an interpretation" - to a certain extent -, that's why I wrote this:

"And of course when you are adapting something you are always going to project your own views on the material. And of course this is especially true when adapting from book to film, since books have much more "blank space" which you have to fill in (like character looks, the tone of the voice etc.). But I think D&D are "filling the blanks" more than they should/ actually have to."

So I don't expect D&D or anyone to be "gods". But there is a large gap between posessing an indisputable objectivity and only portraying one's subjective opinion of a character. They first two sentences of my post do seem weird when they are taken out of context, so I had hoped to clarify my meaning by providing this example:

"A prime example for this is Tyrion: They essentially read him as a "good guy" (I kinda agree) and thus adapted him according to their interpretation. While people on this board are still challenging that notion and are able to back their view up with evidence from the text that Tyrion is actually a lot more selfish etc. than many people think. But when you are watching the show, it's hard to argue that Tyrion is anything else than a "good guy" based on what you are shown.

Stannis is another good example. His book character is quite controversial on this forum, but I've seen a overwhelming number of Unsullied, who form their opinion solely with the show, asking themselves, "Why is Davos still sticking with this guy?""

It IS possible to distance oneself from a character while adapting in order to preserve a multitude of possible interpretations. Let me try to expand on my Tyrion example: While reading, D&D thought of Tyrion, "He has done some questionable things, but they aren't really crucial, and in the end he essentially is a 'good guy'". Now isn't their "good guy"-Tyrion interpretation exactly the way they are portraying him in the show?

My point is that they shouldn't. Why not include some of those "guestionable things" Tyrion did in one form or another in their portrayal of him; with a reasoning along those lines, "We think Tyrion is essentially a good guy, and even when his questionable acts aren't crucial for his character in our view, there are some people who might see him in a different light with respect to those things he's done". And those people indeed exist; as you can see, many readers here have a very different interpretation of Tyrion, which are still grounded in the text, nonetheless. D&D shouldn't rule out those different interpretative possibilities when adapting by excluding all those controversial acts, but preserve them.

I wrote my post mainly in response to people saying, "Poster X, don't be mad because D&D's interpretation of this character differs from yours, since your interpretation doesn't have to be the correct one!". Then it boils down to a game of 'who has the correct interpretation?' My point is, Poster X's interpretation (assuming it's reasonable, of course) of this book character should be a possible one to draw from the show's portrayal of the character.

Enough now, I've used the word "interpretation" far too often now. And I'm not even sure I've made more sense to you... ^^

[Mr Fixit]

MachoGrande, thanks for your clarification. Those two sentences were somewhat misleading though.

[six]

Now I'm sorry to say, but this is just nonsense. What do these two sentences even mean? Everything is an interpretation. Whatever gets put to screen is the showrunner's or director's or actor's or whoever's interpretation. How can someone not portray their take on the material is beyond me. Even words that ended up on page are Martin's interpretations of his deeper thoughts and feelings. He expressed those ideas as best he could, in a manner he found the most consistent with his "inner voice", but that doesn't preclude readers from interpreting those same words differently based on their own experiences, expectations, and histories. It's an inherent part of human nature. Unless you think D&D are gods risen above the fray, I don't really get how you can expect them (or anyone) to achieve some kind of "objective indisputable truth", as if screenplay is a shapeless container conforming to whatever any particular member of audience desires of it.

To a degree. It's their take, but a less biased approach would help. It's the fact that it becomes extreme e.g. the Lannisters being the showrunners' favourites turn the show into The KL Show, while the unfavourites are actually sidelined. To want more balance in that sense, isn't nonsense.

Et tu, Brute?

Thanks for support, honestly. And, if I may suggest, jump in the discussion more often. Your posts are always well explained, and I'd like to see where we disagree. After all, who knows, maybe me and my purism do give a bad name to all those who mind the show though not that much as I do.

Thank you! I don't think you give a bad name to purism at all btw- you're not here to fan-please the posters who like the show as it is, and I'm enjoying reading the conversation. I read your article about season 2 (it was yours, yes?) when Khal-a-bunga posted it, and I thought it was very interesting. I'm also fairly unhappy with some of the show's decisions, although my complaints are mostly with the way some characters are portrayed and the blatant favouritism towards certain characters. More basic :laugh:

[Mr Fixit]

Just compare it to the ACOK: if that book was split in half, the murder of Renly could look as some cope-out; later on, however, we find out much more about Mel's shadow-assassins, and we're still in for some findings there, but I don't have a single problem with that narrative vehicle - and, if the book ended soon after Renly's death, I'd surely have a lot of issues with it. In short, almost everything in ASOIAF, and I'd say probably everything in AFFC/ADWD, may be just the 'victim' of unfortunate point in which ADWD ended.

This is pretty much spot-on. ADwD's stopping point is really unfortunate, I must say, though I liked that book in spite of its flaws. With Stannis ante portas of Winterfell and all hell about to break loose in Meereen, imagine ACoK ending right before Blackwater or AGoT just as Ned is about to executed. Not to mention the obvious fake out regarding Jon. The book is truly diminished by all those cheap-ish cliffhangeresque setups. Martin should have edited the book down a couple hundred pages, however painful that would've been, and concluded the story properly.

[Miodrag]

This is pretty much spot-on. ADwD's stopping point is really unfortunate, I must say, though I liked that book in spite of its flaws. With Stannis ante portas of Winterfell and all hell about to break loose in Meereen, imagine ACoK ending right before Blackwater or AGoT just as Ned is about to executed. Not to mention the obvious fake out regarding Jon. The book is truly diminished by all those cheap-ish cliffhangeresque setups. Martin should have edited the book down a couple hundred pages, however painful that would've been, and concluded the story properly.

By 'unfortunate point' I thought more of the series as a whole, than of ADWD as a book. Like, even with big battles in Winterfell and Meereen included, much would remain unresolved, simply because the series would still be two books away from conclusion. We're, however, completely in agreement that ADWD would be better with those two battles: 1) because those battles are probably going to be all kinds of sick madness a la The Battle of the Blackwater Bay, and, along with Stannis vs. Asha battle, those would elevate ADWD to probably the most violent installment in the series, which would've turn around this 'middle part' feeling upside down; and 2) because it would definitely relax cliffhanger-heavy ending of ADWD.

Now that you mentioned them, cliffhangers are something I may have an issue or two with. There was a thread about twists and cliffhangers in the series, and someone posted that those were OK and helpful early on, but now it's becoming a little tiring and annoying. I don't necessarily disagree with that notion. However, I'm not sure the complain will stay once the series is completed. Like, I have no issues with cliffhangers in first three books, so maybe it's just the await for conclusion that annoys me at this point. But, maybe there is just too damn much cliffhangers overall. We'll see.

[Miodrag]

I read your article about season 2 (it was yours, yes?) when Khal-a-bunga posted it, and I thought it was very interesting.

Yes, it was mine. See the advantage of fandom? I mean, me posting a link to it might look like self-promotion; not that it would necessarily stop me, but it's always better when someone else does it for you.

[fede989]

Even in this thread I mentioned one thing that has nothing to do with comparison. Talisa's "You angry with me?" line. And I don't remember any of you who oppose me even addressed it. Which is OK, you don't have to, this is internet, the home of the truly free and truly brave, but it isn't exactly fair when, in the same thread only several days later, you claim 100% of the flaws I find are ascribed to divergences from the books.

Isn't that line on the episode that George wrote? Not that it makes any difference, they could have changed it if they thought it was dumb but to be honest I didn’t have much of a problem when I first watched that scene. Of course it wasn’t the most intelligent observation but people don’t always make the most intelligent observations when they feel uncomfortable, as I assume Talisa was with Robb incredulous stare.

[Mr Fixit]

By 'unfortunate point' I thought more of the series as a whole, than of ADWD as a book. Like, even with big battles in Winterfell and Meereen included, much would remain unresolved, simply because the series would still be two books away from conclusion. We're, however, completely in agreement that ADWD would be better with those two battles: 1) because those battles are probably going to be all kinds of sick madness a la The Battle of the Blackwater Bay, and, along with Stannis vs. Asha battle, those would elevate ADWD to probably the most violent installment in the series, which would've turn around this 'middle part' feeling upside down; and 2) because it would definitely relax cliffhanger-heavy ending of ADWD.

I would also add that ADwD should've been completed with the battles for reasons of elegance, even if it is approaching things from a somewhat meta perspective. If we think of ASoIaF as a three-act story, ADwD was obviously meant to be the end of the "middle part" or Act II (just as ASoS was the end of Act I). With all players moved into position, three seemingly separate stories -- War of the Five Kings, Night's Watch, and Daenerys -- are beginning to get folded into a single overarching narrative. Now, we still have ways to go before we truly enter Act III somewhere deep inside Winds of Winter. It's just so damn inelegant, even if it won't matter (I hope) in the long run.

Now that you mentioned them, cliffhangers are something I may have an issue or two with. There was a thread about twists and cliffhangers in the series, and someone posted that those were OK and helpful early on, but now it's becoming a little tiring and annoying. I don't necessarily disagree with that notion. However, I'm not sure the complain will stay once the series is completed. Like, I have no issues with cliffhangers in first three books, so maybe it's just the await for conclusion that annoys me at this point. But, maybe there is just too damn much cliffhangers overall. We'll see.

Thing is the first three books were self-contained in their structure. Each storyline, while obviously building upon what came before and laying foundation for what's to follow, has a natural starting and endpoint within each book. Whatever cliffhangers were present served to whet one's appetite in anticipation of further developments which were swiftly delivered. (Though Arya in AGoT and Jaime in ACoK were a bit manipulative.) The last two books set whole droves of stuff into motion but delayed resolving any of them satisfactorily. It's a simple truth that Martin ran out of pages available in a single book and didn't have time to fiddle with ADwD anymore due to the decision to coincide its publishing with the show for synergy.

[Miodrag]

Isn't that line on the episode that George wrote? Not that it makes any difference, they could have changed it if they thought it was dumb but to be honest I didn’t have much of a problem when I first watched that scene. Of course it wasn’t the most intelligent observation but people don’t always make the most intelligent observations when they feel uncomfortable, as I assume Talisa was with Robb incredulous stare.

Yes, that was GRRM's episode. Until proven otherwise, however, I choose to believe he didn't write that scene, just like he didn't write the bear scene, but it ended up in his episode. Last year, for example, I immediately thought something's wrong when I saw Stannis running first in every segment of the battle. Like, that's not how he made Stannis a bad-ass in the books, why would he do it this way now?

I mean, even it turns out it was he who scripted "You angry with me?" I'm still going to find it terrible. And, truth be told, GRRM the screenwriter is still a mystery to me. I wasn't delighted with 01x08, which was also his episode. Some of the dialogue there was too banal. Example:

Theon: Are you scared? Robb: I must be. Theon: Good. Robb: Why is that good?

Now, Robb's question shouldn't be there. It makes him only stupider to those viewers who already figured out what is Theon going to say, and it's not like Theon discovers some unheard of wisdom here, so a fair portion of viewers probably figured it out. Even without Robb's question, Theon would go on and say what he wants to say, so nothing would be lost, but the dialogue would flow more elegantly. It's a detail all right, but one that bothers me nevertheless.

But, even with all this, I still find it hard to believe GRRM wrote anything that involves Talisa.

[Joyful Union]

But, even with all this, I still find it hard to believe GRRM wrote anything that involves Talisa.

I can easily believe it. I truly don't think Martin cares as much about Talisa as many people think. In fact, I don't even believe he cares as much about ASOIAF as many fans.

Even if he did have any objections, the dumptrucks full of money surely quelled any complaints.

[Miodrag]

I can easily believe it. I truly don't think Martin cares as much about Talisa as many people think. In fact, I don't even believe he cares as much about ASOIAF as many fans.

Even if he did have any objections, the dumptrucks full of money surely quelled any complaints.

Whenever she's brought up, he politely, but firmly, reminds everyone that it was his idea to change the name, because it was a different character all around. Money probably helped him to live with all the complaints he might have with the show. But, even without money, he doesn't strike me as someone who'd publicly complain about the guys he chose to adapt his work.

How much he himself values his own work is a different matter. I don't think the greatest authors in the history of literature thought their novels masterpieces. Dostoyevsky, for example, is recorded saying that he isn't sure any of his works will be read 50 years after. In his later life, Tolstoy renounced some of his works: he once said "The War and Piece" and "Anna Karenina" are the worst books he ever wrote. There are counter examples, like Faulkner (for "As I lay dying" he immediately said it's tour de force), but majority is not even concerned with lasting legacy. Like, if it's good, it's going to last, but I had to write it anyway. But, in terms of devotion and dedication, I'd say GRRM thinks/hopes he's doing something quite extraordinary. Take a look at this quote, which someone posted in a thread about stuff that are impressionable only on rereads. It's from Bran IV in AGOT, his first chapter after he's awake from coma, and when we meet Hodor for the first time:

"Hodor," he said again. Theon Greyjoy had once commented that Hodor did not know much, but no one could doubt that he knew his name.

Now, that line has to be as meticulous as they come. There is no reason for anyone to even notice that line during first read. It is meant to stand out only on reread, only after a reader knows Theon's ADWD arc. In my book, that's pure geniality at work, and also the proof that Martin's thinking way ahead and that he's playing the longest game possible, so he probably is aware of the potential his story has, and he probably cares for that potential.