GAME OF THRONES [Book and TV Discussion (US Pace)]

Dades · 13-02-2013 1:22pm

I disagree about GRRM requiring a good editor.

At the rate he puts out new books in the series, you have to savour every one. I'm more interested in the journey rather than the destination. He can be as verbose as he likes, afaic.

ixoy · 13-02-2013 2:59pm

I wonder if his passion for writing the books is waning a little bit. Aside from Wild Cards, he's got the TV production and associated tours as well as developing a new show for HBO. I imagine he's the wealthiest fantasy genre writer now (JK aside) so he doesn't even need the money. All it comes down to is how much effort he wants to put in.. and is it there?

sin0city · 13-02-2013 3:09pm

Dades wrote: »

I disagree about GRRM requiring a good editor.

At the rate he puts out new books in the series, you have savour every one. I'm more interested in the journey rather than the destination. He can be as verbose as he likes, afaic.

I agree. I really enjoy the meandering plot lines, lore and side stories. I'm crazy pedantic about flipping back through the books to see where he's mentioned certain characters/places before.

Even if you're not into that at all, I still think the books would lose a lot if stories like the knight of the laughing tree and characters like Asha and Theon Greyjoy and that lunatic Damphair were omitted for the sake of a more streamlined plot. For me, its scope and intricacy is central to why it's such a great story and why I want him to finish the books. You just can't have that kind of scale and character development on television.

sin0city · 13-02-2013 3:13pm

ixoy wrote: »

I wonder if his passion for writing the books is waning a little bit. Aside from Wild Cards, he's got the TV production and associated tours as well as developing a new show for HBO. I imagine he's the wealthiest fantasy genre writer now (JK aside) so he doesn't even need the money. All it comes down to is how much effort he wants to put in.. and is it there?

I'm sure he wants to finish the books but I'd also imagine that he wants to enjoy his success. What we consider distractions are likely what he considers having fun.

Sleepy · 13-02-2013 3:17pm

Dades wrote: »

I disagree about GRRM requiring a good editor.

At the rate he puts out new books in the series, you have savour every one. I'm more interested in the journey rather than the destination. He can be as verbose as he likes, afaic.

Ah, I'm not so sure. I think the quality of the prose has deteriorated a little in the later books. It seems the editors are giving him more leeway than they might a less successful author. Were I his editor I'd certainly have taken him to task over a lot of the repeated use of bad phrases "nuncle", "nipples on a breastplate" etc.

Dan_Solo · 13-02-2013 4:38pm

GerB40 wrote: »

Everything that happens in the series was written by GRRM so of course it makes a difference..

Well, like, sheesh, obviously it would be different.
Thought it was pretty obvious I was saying it would make little difference to the quality of the story or my enjoyment of the series. I'm not saying anything about the books as I haven't read them, but what I see on screen could be any generic "fantasy", though obviously at the human-centric relatively magic-free end of the spectrum.

Sleepy · 13-02-2013 4:51pm

Dan, what you're failing to take into account is that this series was actually born out of the frustration of being a TV writer. GRRM got so sick of writing to budgets and the constraints of TV writing e.g. casting that he wrote this epic as an "unfilmable" piece of fantasy. Were this in the hands of most TV writers, many of the big shock moments wouldn't be in it as most TV writers don't get to kill off their leading man in the first season.

Yes, someone else could finish it off if needed but it couldn't be the same. Even as it stands the series is diverging from the books on certain things (characters being changed, merged, written out altogether).

If you think Game of Thrones is "generic" fantasy, you've not read/watched much fantasy!

Reekwind · 13-02-2013 5:10pm

Sleepy wrote: »

Dan, what you're failing to take into account is that this series was actually born out of the frustration of being a TV writer. GRRM got so sick of writing to budgets and the constraints of TV writing e.g. casting that he wrote this epic as an "unfilmable" piece of fantasy

And, perhaps ironically, I think that the TV series has benefited from having these constraints. It's produced a more intimate character-driven narrative that does move along at a decent pace. But the bigger changes will come when we get to the later books when there is a lot of bloat that can be cut away

Were this in the hands of most TV writers, many of the big shock moments wouldn't be in it as most TV writers don't get to kill off their leading man in the first season.

Obviously those working for HBO do...

Trojan · 13-02-2013 5:23pm

Sleepy wrote: »

most TV writers don't get to kill off their leading man in the first season

Unless he's played by Sean Bean and we all know he's toast before the curtain raises.

Trojan · 13-02-2013 5:26pm

ixoy wrote: »

I imagine he's the wealthiest fantasy genre writer now so he doesn't even need the money. All it comes down to is how much effort he wants to put in..

I hear Brandon Sanderson is at a bit of a loose end now...

Sleepy · 13-02-2013 5:33pm

Reekwind wrote: »

And, perhaps ironically, I think that the TV series has benefited from having these constraints. It's produced a more intimate character-driven narrative that does move along at a decent pace. But the bigger changes will come when we get to the later books when there is a lot of bloat that can be cut away

I'm not so sure, I think some of the changes have been for the best but there's so much stuff in the "bloat" of the later books that I think it'd be a shame to lose... I'm not so sure the current approach has done a huge amount for some of the characterisation either: yes, Robb's role has increased substantially but Jon's character hasn't been done any favours by it.

Obviously those working for HBO do...

To be fair, HBO aren't anything like the networks GRRM would have been writing for and, as a big fan of much of their other output, they don't shy away from killing off major characters, it's one of the benefits of their being a subscription rather than ratings based channel.

Reekwind · 13-02-2013 5:56pm

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not so sure, I think some of the changes have been for the best but there's so much stuff in the "bloat" of the later books that I think it'd be a shame to lose... I'm not so sure the current approach has done a huge amount for some of the characterisation either: yes, Robb's role has increased substantially but Jon's character hasn't been done any favours by it

Generally I think the writers have done quite well; the portrayal of Jamie and Cersei, for example, is remarkably well done given that we don't see into their heads until the third book. So while a sense of 'epicness' may have been lost, I don't think that the core story or characters has been harmed

What we don't have are the history lessons on every house (both literal and metaphorical) or valley. We, hopefully, won't have the meandering of later books. I mean, be honest, how much of Feast for Crows do you think will actually make it onto the TV? Strip out the history and condense the plot and you could probably summarise the whole book across two episodes. Even with content from ADWD spliced in

Some people love this stuff but personally I see great value in keeping a plot relatively lean and spending the time with characterisation and dialogue (both thankfully cheap for TV)

Dan_Solo · 13-02-2013 10:01pm

Sleepy wrote: »

Dan, what you're failing to take into account is that this series was actually born out of the frustration of being a TV writer. GRRM got so sick of writing to budgets and the constraints of TV writing e.g. casting that he wrote this epic as an "unfilmable" piece of fantasy. Were this in the hands of most TV writers, many of the big shock moments wouldn't be in it as most TV writers don't get to kill off their leading man in the first season.

No relevance really. Whatever he thought were the constraints of budgets and CGI in the early 1990s, it has no bearing on whether what he wrote was generic or not. Why would it?

Sleepy wrote: »

Yes, someone else could finish it off if needed but it couldn't be the same. Even as it stands the series is diverging from the books on certain things (characters being changed, merged, written out altogether).

Sure, it wouldn't be the same. That isn't to say it wouldn't be just as good. I know it's great when "your" author gets a series or movie, but what I see on screen isn't anything special. How many live action swords and sorcery TV series do you have to compare it to? Wizards And Warriors?

Sleepy wrote: »

If you think Game of Thrones is "generic" fantasy, you've not read/watched much fantasy!

And if you think it isn't generic you haven't exactly been around the fantasy block either mate.
Nothing here that hasn't been covered by anybody from Lieber, Gygax or a host other in spades. Northern earthy barbarians versus sneaky southern city types with some semi-extinct dragons and Mongolian nomads thrown in... nope, every bit of it 100% groundbreaking!

sin0city · 14-02-2013 12:41pm

Of course it wouldn't be as good if someone else finished it. Sorry, but it's just twaddle to suggest otherwise. It is his series from his imagination.

As to whether it's generic or not, it's only generic in so much as all high fantasy is generic. That's like saying a crime writer is writing generic novels. In any event, without having read the books your opinion on the series is half baked. It's like judging Tolkien's work on the movies alone.

Nody · 14-02-2013 12:53pm

sin0city wrote: »

Of course it wouldn't be as good if someone else finished it. Sorry, but it's just twaddle to suggest otherwise. It is his series from his imagination.

As to whether it's generic or not, it's only generic in so much as all high fantasy is generic. That's like saying a crime writer is writing generic novels. In any event, without having read the books your opinion on the series is half baked. It's like judging Tolkien's work on the movies alone.

Are you trying to tell me that Legolas is not snowboarding on a shield in the books?! :eek:

As a side note I had a discussion with a youth a few years ago who read Tolkien after seeing the movies and complained how the books were "wrong" because they did not include what happened in the movies...

sin0city · 14-02-2013 1:10pm

Nody wrote: »

Are you trying to tell me that Legolas is not snowboarding on a shield in the books?! :eek:

As a side note I had a discussion with a youth a few years ago who read Tolkien after seeing the movies and complained how the books were "wrong" because they did not include what happened in the movies...

Trying...to...restrain myself...from launching into an elitist sounding diatribe. They didn't even have Tom Bombadil ffs.

Reekwind · 14-02-2013 1:21pm

sin0city wrote: »

Of course it wouldn't be as good if someone else finished it. Sorry, but it's just twaddle to suggest otherwise. It is his series from his imagination

But Westeros is no longer his exclusive property. You could argue that the books would suffer if written by anyone other than GRRM but the TV series is already its own creature. The show has diverged from the source novels in small, but increasing, ways and it's far from absurd to suggest that the writers can create a great narrative that does the (potentially) unfinished series justice

Trying...to...restrain myself...from launching into an elitist sounding diatribe. They didn't even have Tom Bombadil ffs.

A classic example of where cutting is good. Whatever flaws the LOTR films may have had, the absence of Tom Bombadil was not amongst them

What works in print (and I don't believe that Bombadil ever did) does not necessarily translate well on the screen. The author of the adoption has to decide what to keep, what to ditch and where to improvise so that the essence of the original work, not the details, crosses across to the new medium satisfactorily. That's what determines whether an adoption is great or not, not the retention of minor subplots or specifics

sin0city · 14-02-2013 1:45pm

Reekwind wrote: »

But Westeros is no longer his exclusive property. You could argue that the books would suffer if written by anyone other than GRRM but the TV series is already its own creature. The show has diverged from the source novels in small, but increasing, ways and it's far from absurd to suggest that the writers can create a great narrative that does the (potentially) unfinished series justice

A classic example of where cutting is good. Whatever flaws the LOTR films may have had, the absence of Tom Bombadil was not amongst them

What works in print (and I don't believe that Bombadil ever did) does not necessarily translate well on the screen. The author of the adoption has to decide what to keep, what to ditch and where to improvise so that the essence of the original work, not the details, crosses across to the new medium satisfactorily. That's what determines whether an adoption is great or not, not the retention of minor subplots or specifics

Fair point regarding the completion of the television series.

As regards Tom, I was replying to the books being "wrong" and understand why he wasn't in the movies. It was an example of how much is lost when books are adapted.

I cannot believe you have no love for Tom Bombadil in the books and like LOTR. He is one of the best characters in the trilogy in my opinion.

Reekwind · 14-02-2013 3:09pm

sin0city wrote: »

I cannot believe you have no love for Tom Bombadil in the books and like LOTR. He is one of the best characters in the trilogy in my opinion.

I'd hate Tom if that didn't mean wasting any more time thinking about him. But that's not the point

You might love Bombadil, you may hate him but I don't believe that anyone would seriously contest that the insertion of 15-30min of hobbits dancing in the woods would have enriched the films. Again, it's a case of the film having to be evaluated on its own merits, as opposed to how it differs from the books

sin0city · 14-02-2013 4:33pm

Reekwind wrote: »

I'd hate Tom if that didn't mean wasting any more time thinking about him. But that's not the point

You might love Bombadil, you may hate him but I don't believe that anyone would seriously contest that the insertion of 15-30min of hobbits dancing in the woods would have enriched the films. Again, it's a case of the film having to be evaluated on its own merits, as opposed to how it differs from the books

Alright, steady on about Tom! What's not to like? He is funny, happy, mysterious and ridiculously powerful. He is a part of middle earth and yet removed from it and he plays with the ring like it's a toy. You might want to read some non-fiction if you hate Tom Bombadil. He embodies a lot of what is great about fiction/fantasy.

I get what you're saying about judging the films on their own merits but I don't think a movie/television adaptation of a book is ever judged solely on its own merits. You can't sever the movie from its source and in reality people always talk about which they thought was better and how they compare.

Dan_Solo · 14-02-2013 4:37pm

sin0city wrote: »

Of course it wouldn't be as good if someone else finished it. Sorry, but it's just twaddle to suggest otherwise. It is his series from his imagination.

As to whether it's generic or not, it's only generic in so much as all high fantasy is generic. That's like saying a crime writer is writing generic novels. In any event, without having read the books your opinion on the series is half baked. It's like judging Tolkien's work on the movies alone.

Which is why I, like duh, made no evaluation of the books at all and quite directly specified I was commenting on the TV series.
I'd hate to base my opinion of GRRM's books based on the reading skills of his fans.:rolleyes:

stampydmonkey · 17-03-2013 1:07am

damn you GRRM..would you ever just finish the bloody books..massive void I need to fill.

bar lord of the rings I haven't read many books like these. anyone recommend a similar series of books that are complete that'll tie me over for a while?

Zapp Brannigan · 17-03-2013 1:55am

stampydmonkey wrote: »

damn you GRRM..would you ever just finish the bloody books..massive void I need to fill.

bar lord of the rings I haven't read many books like these. anyone recommend a similar series of books that are complete that'll tie me over for a while?

Malazan: Books of the Fallen.

fitz · 19-03-2013 9:58am

stampydmonkey wrote: »

damn you GRRM..would you ever just finish the bloody books..massive void I need to fill.

bar lord of the rings I haven't read many books like these. anyone recommend a similar series of books that are complete that'll tie me over for a while?

Zapp Brannigan wrote: »

Malazan: Books of the Fallen.

This.
Be warned though....Erikson may ruin other writers for you.
I had serious difficulty reading other stuff after him.
It all seemed so rudimentary.

Nody · 19-03-2013 10:20am

Zapp Brannigan wrote: »

Malazan: Books of the Fallen.

Can someone clarify the order here please; looking at what's published listed here in what order should the novels be interjected between the books?

Zapp Brannigan · 19-03-2013 5:04pm

Nody wrote: »

Can someone clarify the order here please; looking at what's published listed here in what order should the novels be interjected between the books?

This one listed to the right seems okay.

SuperInfinity · 19-03-2013 10:02pm

fitz wrote: »

This.
Be warned though....Erikson may ruin other writers for you.
I had serious difficulty reading other stuff after him.
It all seemed so rudimentary.

lol.

fitz · 20-03-2013 8:52am

SuperInfinity wrote: »

lol.

Seriously.
And I'm not just talking about plot or character development.
Authors that I previously devoured, I couldn't read anymore. I started to notice weaknesses in the writing styles, how they'd pace things, language use....
It felt like I was reading bad young-adult books.

As to the order, read them in the order published, as per recommendations from Erikson and Esselmont.

NothingMan · 20-03-2013 4:09pm

I found the first Malazan book on my mams bookshelf after failing to find it in shops. Don't know where she got it but can't wait to start it.

mcgovern · 20-03-2013 5:44pm

Quick one, I finished Midnight Tides, should I read Night of Knives, or Bonehunters next? I'm seeing conflicting opinions online.

GAME OF THRONES [Book and TV Discussion (US Pace)]

Comments