|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
Not too long ago on this thread, I suggested that GRRM should hand the series over to another author to finish and stay on as an editor/advisor, so I'm not exactly his greatest defender and fanboy. I also think the show did an excellent job of adaptation for 3-4 seasons and even where it differed from the books, did a nice job.
However, to suggest that the show is better than the books is crazy. If you had read the books before watching, you could see it really going off the rails in season 5 (some would say season 4) and it kept sinking lower and lower as we went on until the disaster of season 8. Sure, the show could provide awesome visuals rather than relying on words jumping off a page, so maybe a story like Game of Thrones is more suited for a visual medium, but the story in the books seemed so obviously superior to the one in the show.
Daenerys is an absolute disaster of a character in the show, especially season 8. We had various characters tell us that she was going crazy before the show actually showed us. It was a perfect example of tell not show (the opposite of what you're supposed to do as a writer). It's as if many scenes got cut. I have a hard time believing GRRM would be that sloppy on something so basic. His first-person perspective of Cersei's descent into madness may have been a bit ham-fisted, but it was still understandable. I'd assume he could do the same for Daenerys.
No, the books don't take a deep dive into the psyche of a single character like one of those other authors (supposed literary greats, I've never read their works, so I can't comment) might have. However, what we did get was at least waist-deep into their psyche so that we could understand them. We could understand how they act in a brutal world of conflict and magic. The characters who got perspectives didn't seem flat to me at all. They were actually quite nuanced. They had understandable motivations and internal conflicts that resulted in a mix of decisions with natural consequences.
If you really want to get deep into the ASoIaF world (go to youtube and watch Preston Jacobs if you want to go down that rabbit hole), there is an extreme amount of symbolism and an interconnecting plot that runs through many different storylines... something that I don't think too many of those literary greats have attempted. Having said that, most people guess that GRRM is having a hard time reconnecting some of those plotlines in a sensible way to get back to the points he is trying to hit. However, the struggle goes to show the care that is put into the books and that he's not just going to smash pieces together and call it a story like D&D did.
|
8399 Posts
I think what I read before and after reading the books formed expectations about what books should accomplish when they address certain things (like the motivation and feelings of characters).
And similarly, book readers had expectations for certain elements of the story that the show chose to ignore or sacrifice.
So the books disappointed me just like the show disappointed others.
It wasn't just philosophical literature like Dostoevsky but something as different as Shakespeare that also feels timeless and relatable, with so many lessons for people living in any age from when it was published to present day.
I was watching the show purely as a TV show. So some of the things that I'd hope 500 pages of text might contain, I didn't expect to see in 8 hours of TV. And it didn't bother me at all.
It seems absurd to me that, as sane people, so many people expected to be able to understand and empathize with Dany snapping and murdering people. It was made very clear that she might be insane. What sets her off isn't supposed to be natural and understandable to a sane person. She was either going to maintain her composure or she was going to act irrationally to the disappointment of everyone. If she snapped in an understandable way, like she would've been good except she was put into unbearable circumstances which broke her, then that'd invalidate all the development about her. If that's what people wanted, I don't understand.
If you don't like the "here's a seemingly normal person but actually they have magical Targaryen genes which means they might randomly be insane, only one way to find out!" well, that is the kind of shit an author comes up with when they don't understand real humans and has to create a world where so many actions are explained by bloodlines.
Season 8 is mostly still very high quality and good. It's just that the unsatisfying elements are so bothersome to some people that they feel the whole thing is spoiled. Some of the criticisms were plain silly too like "I couldn't see anything this whole episode so when the night king died it felt underwhelming." It's a practical issue but I'm glad they made an episode that people who watch in a dark room with a decent TV can enjoy like a movie theater, rather than do the safer thing to make sure it looked okay in all environments.
Anyway, it remains that if a budding TV fanatic asked me what some essential shows are, GoT would absolutely be on the list. While for a budding literature fanatic, ASOIAF would be a priority only for its genre.
Edit: I also find it weird the praise ASOIAF gets for weaving this complex and massive narrative. He hasn't done it until it's over. And apparently as books 4 and 5 took longer to write and are widely regarded as the two worst, and book 6 taking even longer with drafts being thrown away, it doesnt seem like he actually is able to do it. Especially weird when the same people say that all of GoT was spoiled by the last few seasons.
I honestly think if he felt like ASOIAF had anything important to say at all, he'd be more focused on completing it. But it's just entertainment, same as any other project he has the opportunity to work on.
|
t seems absurd to me that, as sane people, so many people expected to be able to understand and empathize with Dany snapping and murdering people. It was made very clear that she might be insane. What sets her off isn't supposed to be natural and understandable to a sane person. She was either going to maintain her composure or she was going to act irrationally to the disappointment of everyone. If she snapped in an understandable way, like she would've been good except she was put into unbearable circumstances which broke her, then that'd invalidate all the development about her. If that's what people wanted, I don't understand.
If you don't like the "here's a seemingly normal person but actually they have magical Targaryen genes which means they might randomly be insane, only one way to find out!" well, that is the kind of shit an author comes up with when they don't understand real humans and has to create a world where so many actions are explained by bloodlines.
You put your own morale compass as the only one that has ever counted, and that all Sane people should act and think like you. And find it unrealistic when they don't. If you look at how people in the world of today is killing and starting wars because of religion or believes.
For me Dany starts for as a scared young girl that is told she will one day become the ruler of half the world. Is forced into marriage and kinda raped to begin with. She then becomes powerful and wants to do good, but commits darks act to do it. She becomes twisted and mistrusting (because he experience many betrayles be the people closed to her and just seeing the horrors of war). This twisted leads her to seeing anyone not agreeing with her as Evil. She also feels special and chosen, and come on she can control dragons so u can understand her. So if she is special, Dany would feel she is right.
Regarding genes, many mental illness can pass to next generation.
My problem with the genes part of the books. Is that besides the Targyreans incest gene pool. All the other families uses marriage to link them together, so the genepool should be kinda muddied out.
|
Oh man. There is no "best" in literature and no "tier list". Good genre fiction is good genre fiction and has qualities that "high art" doesn't possess. When David Foster Wallace was asked to make a list of the "greatest American writers" or sth like that I think he put Stephen King first. That's because he a) genuinely admires what Stephen King does and b) because he wanted to troll the guys asking authors to make a canon list which is just evidently stupid. Of course, a short story by Kafka has universal qualities that genre fiction might lack, e.g. an instinctive precision in the choice of words that's maybe only equaled by the musical genius of the great composers. And yes, I am not arguing that all writing is of the same "quality", it's just that you should set out to engage a piece of art in what it is trying to accomplish: The Harry Potter books (especially the first 4) are obviously not as elegantly and poetically written as sth like The Wonderful Adventures of Nils Holgersson by Selma Lagerlöf, on the other hand there is few fiction as wonderfully and playfully creative in its little world-building ideas as Harry Potter and I wouldn't hesitate to call it great or special in its own way. The same is true for ASOIAF (especially the first 3 books, but even 4 and 5 have some very strong storylines like the Northern Conspiracy etc.). There is few fiction in general which has as expertly crafted a plot as the events leading up to the end of book 3. It's just plain good fantasy drama in a grounded setting: actions have consequences, there are great betrayals, interesting scheming, good pacing etc. And characters might not be put under the psychological microscope of a Virginia Woolf but they still have their believable struggles/motivations/ and distinct voices. There is a whole heap of genre fiction out there which isnt even comparable to that.
Now the show on the other hand has nothing particularly special going on. Even the first 4 season were in my opinion already greatly dumbed down and tailor made for a mass market - still very watchable and entertaining though. But shows like Better Call Saul, Fargo, Twin Peaks or classics like the Wire/Sopranos etc did all more original stuff in their own right. Season 5-8 are completely forgettable... there is nothing interesting to engage with there, it is - according to the creators meant for "Soccer Moms"... what an idiotic, empty and belittling statement
|
I mean you yourself say that not all art is of the same quality, so apparently one can indeed order it on some level, that is all i wanted to say when i used 'tiers' to illustrate that idea. While i agree with basically anything you say here, i think it's still true that there indeed are qualities in art which are more valuable than others, which give more back to the audience than say 'lore' does. Typically what we consider 'high art' is better at distilling these aspects than other work, that is why it's considered 'high art'. There surely is a form of elitism going on, who 'decided' what 'high art' is throughout history? But i definitely believe that there is more to it than simply the subjective experience one has, and even that experience will most likely be deeper and more meaningful if one just is open to invest a little more into say nabokov than one would into rowling.
I also agree with you about the show, but if one truly just looks at it and says 'the show is in the top x percentile of shows', it's probably true that the books won't manage to be in the same (or better) percentile when looking at literature. Now ofc this assumes one can make an even broad listing like that at all (which i think is kinda doable).
But i also think that it would be not saying much, i believe in inherent qualities moreso than trying to statistically present it.
|
8399 Posts
but they still have their believable struggles/motivations/ and distinct voices.
i guess that's where i dont understand because i dont find them believable at all. i dont know of people like the ones in these books. in all the other books i've read i dont see other authors' characters like the ones in these books. it is common for authors to purposely create characters that aren't like any people we know or to behave unlike any real actual people, but when they do that it's usually for some other purpose. GRRM's purpose, i think, is just to create these epic storylines and drama. but if you cheat by bending characters every which unbelievable way, then it's not an accomplishment deserving of any admiration
im fine with the existence of frivolous art but i think you're being a little too generous when you call this guy's work frivolous. i think he's trying hard and failing. it's not fair that all of art can fall back to the bastion of "well art doesnt have to have a point or be constructive or good in any way at all. it exists for its own sake." that may be true but it's not a valid response to criticism. i mean if it is receiving praise for something and receiving criticism for something else, and we say the praise is valid but the criticism isnt, that doesnt make any sense
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
