yeah what the above said. If you can't be bothered to read the first book why read the others at all. Just watch the show. I only started reading the books after season 1, including the first one. I'm glad I did
On June 12 2012 01:03 xsksc wrote: I've just finished the first book, and I was wondering if the first season is based 100% on the first book, or should I expect it to spoil the other books in the series? Is season 2 based on book 2 etc?
No not really. You should be okay. The first series is about 95% accurate to the first book. I want to say that the story of the Hound and the Mountain is told in the 2nd book, but in the show Littlefinger tells the story during tourney to celebrate Ned's being named the Hand of the King. I could be wrong about that though. The show has a character named Ros who doesn't appear in the books at all. She's used for exposition. Things that were said in various character's minds in their POV chapters are instead said to her, usually while she's naked. They invent an actual Dothraki language so it's not just "Khal Drogo says something in a harsh tongue which Dany doesn't understand, but Jorah Mormont explains it" There might be a few things from book 2 pulled into season 1 at the end regarding the aftermath of Ned's execution. For the most part though, it was dead on accurate. I've been telling friends who were interested in reading A Song of Ice and Fire to watch the first season and then pick up the story from book 2 without bothering to read book 1. They're that close.
No they are not. Enough difference to warrant a read. Unless you friends are lazyasses that don't like to read.
I have to agree, without the insult part.
The books are quite different, some parts for the first 2 books were left out of the first two seasons, and some stuff from later books was added.
lol so many people insulted. looks like todays kids cannot tell a difference between a insult and a taunt...
nobody is insulted, you were just being unnecessarily abrupt and tone doesn't carry over text
anyway personally i'd read most of book 1 (but hadn't finished) when i watched all of season 1, and if you're really strapped for time or just "having the complete experience" is not a huge priority for you, book 1 is totally skippable imo. i did finish book 1 afterwards, but didn't really feel like i got too much more out of it
completely different story with book 2 though, that's a must-read
If you have access to book one, you have to read the Bran chapters. Season one covered everything in the first book very well, with one exception, the direwolves. I didn't find Bran's POV chapters that interesting, but he's an incredibly important character and a 30 sec dream sequence in 2 seasons doesn't really explain the significance of Starks-direwolf thing. All other chapters can be skipped. A key character does get introduced in the Catelyn chapters, but the producers have already casted him for season 3.
Book 2 cannot be skipped. Certain events happen completely differently and even more characters (including the one from season 1) are left out this season. You will see why a character like Ros gets the hate she does when event after event gets shoved into a exposition involving her.
On June 12 2012 01:03 xsksc wrote: I've just finished the first book, and I was wondering if the first season is based 100% on the first book, or should I expect it to spoil the other books in the series? Is season 2 based on book 2 etc?
No not really. You should be okay. The first series is about 95% accurate to the first book. I want to say that the story of the Hound and the Mountain is told in the 2nd book, but in the show Littlefinger tells the story during tourney to celebrate Ned's being named the Hand of the King. I could be wrong about that though. The show has a character named Ros who doesn't appear in the books at all. She's used for exposition. Things that were said in various character's minds in their POV chapters are instead said to her, usually while she's naked. They invent an actual Dothraki language so it's not just "Khal Drogo says something in a harsh tongue which Dany doesn't understand, but Jorah Mormont explains it" There might be a few things from book 2 pulled into season 1 at the end regarding the aftermath of Ned's execution. For the most part though, it was dead on accurate. I've been telling friends who were interested in reading A Song of Ice and Fire to watch the first season and then pick up the story from book 2 without bothering to read book 1. They're that close.
No they are not. Enough difference to warrant a read. Unless you friends are lazyasses that don't like to read.
Yes, my friends are lazy asses that don't like to read. So what. Many people are intimidated by a thousand page novel, let alone a series of several thousand page novels. That doesn't make them stupid or lesser people. Just like it doesn't make me smart or a better person having read all the books either.
On June 12 2012 01:03 xsksc wrote: I've just finished the first book, and I was wondering if the first season is based 100% on the first book, or should I expect it to spoil the other books in the series? Is season 2 based on book 2 etc?
No not really. You should be okay. The first series is about 95% accurate to the first book. I want to say that the story of the Hound and the Mountain is told in the 2nd book, but in the show Littlefinger tells the story during tourney to celebrate Ned's being named the Hand of the King. I could be wrong about that though. The show has a character named Ros who doesn't appear in the books at all. She's used for exposition. Things that were said in various character's minds in their POV chapters are instead said to her, usually while she's naked. They invent an actual Dothraki language so it's not just "Khal Drogo says something in a harsh tongue which Dany doesn't understand, but Jorah Mormont explains it" There might be a few things from book 2 pulled into season 1 at the end regarding the aftermath of Ned's execution. For the most part though, it was dead on accurate. I've been telling friends who were interested in reading A Song of Ice and Fire to watch the first season and then pick up the story from book 2 without bothering to read book 1. They're that close.
No they are not. Enough difference to warrant a read. Unless you friends are lazyasses that don't like to read.
Yes, my friends are lazy asses that don't like to read. So what. Many people are intimidated by a thousand page novel, let alone a series of several thousand page novels. That doesn't make them stupid or lesser people. Just like it doesn't make me smart or a better person having read all the books either.
In his defense you writing
I've been telling friends who were interested in reading A Song of Ice and Fire to watch the first season and then pick up the story from book 2 without bothering to read book 1. They're that close.
Doesn't sound like your friends are lazy-asses, it sounds like you were trying to provide a testament on how similar the plot-lines are. He was pointing out that if you're truly interested in the story, the complexities a book provides go far beyond general plot-line that a show can convey.
On June 13 2012 01:02 Gene wrote: but I would like to highlight the point that you get more insight. For instance that moment where Stannis's maester dies after drinking the poison. In the book it would get like its own 10 minute scene. just as an example.
One can easily start at the second book, but would still benefit from the first book.
I didn't say it was recommended to start at the 2nd book, just that it was possible. Also the scene you describe above is from the second book, it's the opening chapter of the second book I think. I don't at all think you should skip the second book and start at the third. There were many important cuts and changes that happened in the second season that would leave a reader confused if he/she tried to start at the third book.
On June 12 2012 01:03 xsksc wrote: I've just finished the first book, and I was wondering if the first season is based 100% on the first book, or should I expect it to spoil the other books in the series? Is season 2 based on book 2 etc?
No not really. You should be okay. The first series is about 95% accurate to the first book. I want to say that the story of the Hound and the Mountain is told in the 2nd book, but in the show Littlefinger tells the story during tourney to celebrate Ned's being named the Hand of the King. I could be wrong about that though. The show has a character named Ros who doesn't appear in the books at all. She's used for exposition. Things that were said in various character's minds in their POV chapters are instead said to her, usually while she's naked. They invent an actual Dothraki language so it's not just "Khal Drogo says something in a harsh tongue which Dany doesn't understand, but Jorah Mormont explains it" There might be a few things from book 2 pulled into season 1 at the end regarding the aftermath of Ned's execution. For the most part though, it was dead on accurate. I've been telling friends who were interested in reading A Song of Ice and Fire to watch the first season and then pick up the story from book 2 without bothering to read book 1. They're that close.
No they are not. Enough difference to warrant a read. Unless you friends are lazyasses that don't like to read.
Yes, my friends are lazy asses that don't like to read. So what. Many people are intimidated by a thousand page novel, let alone a series of several thousand page novels. That doesn't make them stupid or lesser people. Just like it doesn't make me smart or a better person having read all the books either.
I've been telling friends who were interested in reading A Song of Ice and Fire to watch the first season and then pick up the story from book 2 without bothering to read book 1. They're that close.
Doesn't sound like your friends are lazy-asses, it sounds like you were trying to provide a testament on how similar the plot-lines are. He was pointing out that if you're truly interested in the story, the complexities a book provides go far beyond general plot-line that a show can convey.
I'd agree with that. There are things that are missed by not reading the books. I basically said it was possible to watch the show and skip book 1 because many of my friends are intimidated by a thousand page book, let alone a series of thousand page books. The important thing though is that I did get a few of my friends to pick up the books. Some watched the first season, then picked up at book 2 and then went back to book 1. My mother, who used to be a voracious reader, but got out of it as she got older, watched the first season, then started at book 1. A couple of friends started at book 2 and never went back. The important thing is that they got it. And everybody who can be introduced to this story should be, because it's one heck of a story.
Have been really enjoying the show, long been a fan of the books, actually drawing to pass the time between episodes/seasons on my tumblr, things like Khal Drogo:
On June 13 2012 01:02 Gene wrote: but I would like to highlight the point that you get more insight. For instance that moment where Stannis's maester dies after drinking the poison. In the book it would get like its own 10 minute scene. just as an example.
One can easily start at the second book, but would still benefit from the first book.
I didn't say it was recommended to start at the 2nd book, just that it was possible. Also the scene you describe above is from the second book, it's the opening chapter of the second book I think. I don't at all think you should skip the second book and start at the third. There were many important cuts and changes that happened in the second season that would leave a reader confused if he/she tried to start at the third book.
yeah, agree that it's possible to start with 2nd book, I first read 2nd 3rd and 4th book before I read 1st since they didn't have it at that time in my book store, pretty much got all the story, so it was just minor details I got when I finally read 1st one