Game of Thrones

[Krgrecw]

Good episode. Sets up for the upcoming episodes

[Temo]

Just a gigantic upturn in quality this season. I feel like—finally unburdened by not having to think about waiting on George Argh-Argh Martin anymore—the writers have become disinterested in stalling, and instead going full tilt into their narrative.

I don't remember you being so wrong, damn.

This season has been up in action but down in content and nuance.

[bravos4evr]

yeah, but this seasons seems like a transitional one (at least so far) it's here to set us up for the big 2 seasons finale where the big wars of westeros come to a head.


or something

[jpx7]

I don't remember you being so wrong, damn.

This season has been up in action but down in content and nuance.

We're obviously watching this show from disparate angles.

[Temo]

We're obviously watching this show from disparate angles.

You need to come over here and see it from the right angle.

[Temo]

We're obviously watching this show from disparate angles.

Just to elaborate, though...

I really think GRRM wrote his story is a sneakily non-narrative format. By that I mean, he went for hyper realism (strange to say for a fantasy epic, but there it is) in the story over having a linear story. He doesn't go from Protagonist -> Antagonist -> conflict -> resolution. I'm not even really sure who the protagonists or the antagonists are.

In the books, he's constantly killing some characters, and introducing new characters, alternately narrowing the story and expanding the story. Thus, for every claimant to the throne he kills (Stannis, Robb, Balon, etc) he introduces new ones (Victarion, Euron, Griff, and so on).

I find this to be enjoyably true to life, even as it may make for a terrible narrative in many ways. Lots of people find fault with the books because of this, but I revel in it.

Anyway, the show appears to be going into a more conventionally enjoyable narrative format. And I personally don't find it nearly as interesting.

[jpx7]

Just to elaborate, though...

I really think GRRM wrote his story is a sneakily non-narrative format. By that I mean, he went for hyper realism (strange to say for a fantasy epic, but there it is) in the story over having a linear story. He doesn't go from Protagonist -> Antagonist -> conflict -> resolution. I'm not even really sure who the protagonists or the antagonists are.

In the books, he's constantly killing some characters, and introducing new characters, alternately narrowing the story and expanding the story. Thus, for every claimant to the throne he kills (Stannis, Robb, Balon, etc) he introduces new ones (Victarion, Euron, Griff, and so on).

I find this to be enjoyably true to life, even as it may make for a terrible narrative in many ways. Lots of people find fault with the books because of this, but I revel in it.

Anyway, the show appears to be going into a more conventionally enjoyable narrative format. And I personally don't find it nearly as interesting.

I have not read past the first two-hundred pages of the first book. I've tried thrice to get into the books—and what you say about Martin's skill at narrative (and, specifically, less conventional narrative structures for the fantasy novel-cycle) are exactly the reason why—but, honestly, I found his writing at the sentence level to be somewhat boring, or at least unable to snatch and hold my attention. (To be clear: I'm not denigrating Martin here, simply speaking of personal taste. And I have enough on my to-read shelf that I wasn't willing to force the issue with A Song of Ice and Fire.)

However I'm not sure, even if I'd read the books, that I'd expect the same things out of the show. And I'm ok with that. I watch Game of Thrones for fun; it's a good show, but I don't hold it in the same regard as, say, The Wire or (to cite another tv adaptation of a book) the 1981 Brideshead Revisited. And, as such, I think the show's at its best—on the terms it's set out for itself—when it establishes good pace and moves characters to new places, new problems, new intersections, rather than dwelling too much in details (which doesn't always make for good television) or lingering too long in the middle of plots (always teasing a coming-to-head). There are exceptions—for instance, I thought the Arya/Hound awkward-buddy arc really buoyed the show for a few seasons, even though they didn't "do" much—but in general the show is a creature of its medium, and it's simply not going to be able to do the same things as its source material.

Put it another way: the show is called Game of Thrones (not A Song of Ice and Fire[), and you want to see the game being played, the wheels in motion, the pieces shift across the board. Martin's already provided a robust enough world of people and places, and a world of events that defies (or at least initially defied, before we got wise) viewer expectations, that I think there's plenty of content there—even if the focus on activity leaves us to parse or infer the interior lives of some of the characters (and, indeed, I think the show does a good job using subtle choices to express interior states, succeeding by not resorting to lengthy scenes of exposition).

Regarding this season in particular, I've loved several trends that transcend mere action, but also arise from the increased focus on action. Sansa's emergence as a badass, resolute to lead her house and seek vengeance for it. The spark of movement, finally, in the Iron Islands, after Balon's crusty, jaundiced inertia was swept out to sea. Bran's being forced back out into the world—a good example, I think, of the show mirroring Martin's obstinate resistance to giving us what we want, and what convention dictates, opting instead for a frustration of narrative tropes (what you're calling his hyper-realism), not allowing Bran his novice-to-master training-montage (even Rocky had a montage), not providing more of those Children of the Forest details I desperately wanted, not devoting more time to exploring the previous Three-Eyed Raven (and damn: Max von Sydow, we barely got to see you). I'm also really glad that, as of last week, a girl finds herself again, as I thought a girl's Braavos scenes were the only drag so far on this season.

But ultimately—and I've probably elaborated a little too much—I'm firstly not coming to Game of Thrones as a reader of A Song of Ice and Fire, and secondly I think the show can/should/must do things differently than the books, not just with respect to details of the story, but more fundamentally in how it presents and relates its stories.

[50PoundHead]

I have not read past the first two-hundred pages of the first book. I've tried thrice to get into the books—and what you say about Martin's skill at narrative (and, specifically, less conventional narrative structures for the fantasy novel-cycle) are exactly the reason why—but, honestly, I found his writing at the sentence level to be somewhat boring, or at least unable to snatch and hold my attention. (To be clear: I'm not denigrating Martin here, simply speaking of personal taste. And I have enough on my to-read shelf that I wasn't willing to force the issue with A Song of Ice and Fire.)

However I'm not sure, even if I'd read the books, that I'd expect the same things out of the show. And I'm ok with that. I watch Game of Thrones for fun; it's a good show, but I don't hold it in the same regard as, say, The Wire or (to cite another tv adaptation of a book) the 1981 Brideshead Revisited. And, as such, I think the show's at its best—on the terms it's set out for itself—when it establishes good pace and moves characters to new places, new problems, new intersections, rather than dwelling too much in details (which doesn't always make for good television) or lingering too long in the middle of plots (always teasing a coming-to-head). There are exceptions—for instance, I thought the Arya/Hound awkward-buddy arc really buoyed the show for a few seasons, even though they didn't "do" much—but in general the show is a creature of its medium, and it's simply not going to be able to do the same things as its source material.

Put it another way: the show is called Game of Thrones (not A Song of Ice and Fire[), and you want to see the game being played, the wheels in motion, the pieces shift across the board. Martin's already provided a robust enough world of people and places, and a world of events that defies (or at least initially defied, before we got wise) viewer expectations, that I think there's plenty of content there—even if the focus on activity leaves us to parse or infer the interior lives of some of the characters (and, indeed, I think the show does a good job using subtle choices to express interior states, succeeding by not resorting to lengthy scenes of exposition).

Regarding this season in particular, I've loved several trends that transcend mere action, but also arise from the increased focus on action. Sansa's emergence as a badass, resolute to lead her house and seek vengeance for it. The spark of movement, finally, in the Iron Islands, after Balon's crusty, jaundiced inertia was swept out to sea. Bran's being forced back out into the world—a good example, I think, of the show mirroring Martin's obstinate resistance to giving us what we want, and what convention dictates, opting instead for a frustration of narrative tropes (what you're calling his hyper-realism), not allowing Bran his novice-to-master training-montage (even Rocky had a montage), not providing more of those Children of the Forest details I desperately wanted, not devoting more time to exploring the previous Three-Eyed Raven (and damn: Max von Sydow, we barely got to see you). I'm also really glad that, as of last week, a girl finds herself again, as I thought a girl's Braavos scenes were the only drag so far on this season.

But ultimately—and I've probably elaborated a little too much—I'm firstly not coming to Game of Thrones as a reader of A Song of Ice and Fire, and secondly I think the show can/should/must do things differently than the books, not just with respect to details of the story, but more fundamentally in how it presents and relates its stories.

I made it midway through Book 4 (A Feast for Crows) when the entire universe collapsed of its own weight for me. I laud all who can continue. There's a bit of Tolkien in Martin (a very little bit) in that there are characters introduced that one thinks will be important only to not be thus. If a series were modeled on the books, it would be a 3,000 episode series.

Where I do admire Martin is that he isn't set in a static hero/villain archetypes for characters. The Starks are basically good, but capable of bad. The Lannisters are generally bad, but capable of good. And so on and so on. I vacillate on whether Martin is a cynic or cold-hearted realist.

[Temo]

I have not read past the first two-hundred pages of the first book. I've tried thrice to get into the books—and what you say about Martin's skill at narrative (and, specifically, less conventional narrative structures for the fantasy novel-cycle) are exactly the reason why—but, honestly, I found his writing at the sentence level to be somewhat boring, or at least unable to snatch and hold my attention. (To be clear: I'm not denigrating Martin here, simply speaking of personal taste. And I have enough on my to-read shelf that I wasn't willing to force the issue with A Song of Ice and Fire.)

However I'm not sure, even if I'd read the books, that I'd expect the same things out of the show. And I'm ok with that. I watch Game of Thrones for fun; it's a good show, but I don't hold it in the same regard as, say, The Wire or (to cite another tv adaptation of a book) the 1981 Brideshead Revisited. And, as such, I think the show's at its best—on the terms it's set out for itself—when it establishes good pace and moves characters to new places, new problems, new intersections, rather than dwelling too much in details (which doesn't always make for good television) or lingering too long in the middle of plots (always teasing a coming-to-head). There are exceptions—for instance, I thought the Arya/Hound awkward-buddy arc really buoyed the show for a few seasons, even though they didn't "do" much—but in general the show is a creature of its medium, and it's simply not going to be able to do the same things as its source material.

Put it another way: the show is called Game of Thrones (not A Song of Ice and Fire[), and you want to see the game being played, the wheels in motion, the pieces shift across the board. Martin's already provided a robust enough world of people and places, and a world of events that defies (or at least initially defied, before we got wise) viewer expectations, that I think there's plenty of content there—even if the focus on activity leaves us to parse or infer the interior lives of some of the characters (and, indeed, I think the show does a good job using subtle choices to express interior states, succeeding by not resorting to lengthy scenes of exposition).

Regarding this season in particular, I've loved several trends that transcend mere action, but also arise from the increased focus on action. Sansa's emergence as a badass, resolute to lead her house and seek vengeance for it. The spark of movement, finally, in the Iron Islands, after Balon's crusty, jaundiced inertia was swept out to sea. Bran's being forced back out into the world—a good example, I think, of the show mirroring Martin's obstinate resistance to giving us what we want, and what convention dictates, opting instead for a frustration of narrative tropes (what you're calling his hyper-realism), not allowing Bran his novice-to-master training-montage (even Rocky had a montage), not providing more of those Children of the Forest details I desperately wanted, not devoting more time to exploring the previous Three-Eyed Raven (and damn: Max von Sydow, we barely got to see you). I'm also really glad that, as of last week, a girl finds herself again, as I thought a girl's Braavos scenes were the only drag so far on this season.

But ultimately—and I've probably elaborated a little too much—I'm firstly not coming to Game of Thrones as a reader of A Song of Ice and Fire, and secondly I think the show can/should/must do things differently than the books, not just with respect to details of the story, but more fundamentally in how it presents and relates its stories.

Some quick hits here, I'm not going to try to be super organized with this:

- Your point about sentence structure is interesting; I've heard from many people (like 50Pound above) who are put off by the spiraling details of the work ("collapsing in on itself" is a good way of putting it, to quote 50Pound). But I've never heard that the writing itself lacked readability. And I know you're a fairly literate guy, from what I remember.

- The Wire is an interesting comparison. I think that show was excellent in showing the world through the lens of systems analysis. It blurs protagonists and antagonists, it shows how every action has an effect on every other "node" within the system and beautifully narrates the interesting human stories that arise from that kind of "loopy" causation. I think it's fair to say that Game of Thrones (the books) attempts to do the same thing in a different setting but fails to do it as well as The Wire did-- of course, comparing it to possibly the best TV show of all time is a tough comparison. The show, in my estimation, has thus far decided to do away this type of effort altogether.

- I do love the immense amount of detail in Martin's world. Both narratively and the scenes he paints. I like that he describes what people are eating and how it's prepared. That he always mentions the climate of the various lands. That he painstakingly describes every house's heraldry to the last stitch. I can understand if that's a bit much for most people. Where it does matter however is when he deals with things like the problem with foreign rulers, like he did for a looooong time with Dany in Meereen. As Martin himself complain about Tolkien:

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

Martin also spoke about Tolkien’s treatment of war:

The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that.

- Honestly, a lot of what the show is diminishing/rejecting/ignoring from the books right now IS the really intense Game-playing aspects of the story. They're opting instead to just tidily set people in motion to go to places and resolve things, rather than schemes building on schemes and schemes being effected by and changed by other character's schemes. (Dorne, especially, suffers from this)

- Maybe I just miss the books and this being the first season not originating from book material really annoys me.

[Temo]

I made it midway through Book 4 (A Feast for Crows) when the entire universe collapsed of its own weight for me. I laud all who can continue. There's a bit of Tolkien in Martin (a very little bit) in that there are characters introduced that one thinks will be important only to not be thus. If a series were modeled on the books, it would be a 3,000 episode series.

Where I do admire Martin is that he isn't set in a static hero/villain archetypes for characters. The Starks are basically good, but capable of bad. The Lannisters are generally bad, but capable of good. And so on and so on. I vacillate on whether Martin is a cynic or cold-hearted realist.

Yea, read above for that Martin quote on Tolkien. I decided I liked the guy a lot when I read that.

And everytime he introduces a new character (like Griff, if you've read that far into it), I have to say I groan as much as the next guy but I appreciate him for it anyway. I might just be a masochist.

[chop2chip]

- Honestly, a lot of what the show is diminishing/rejecting/ignoring from the books right now IS the really intense Game-playing aspects of the story. They're opting instead to just tidily set people in motion to go to places and resolve things, rather than schemes building on schemes and schemes being effected by and changed by other character's schemes. (Dorne, especially, suffers from this)

I'm not entirely sure if the show has diminished scheme building.. There are some plot lines (e.g. Tyrion's) that seem like they are going to have adverse affects. There just isn't enough time (23 episodes as of the beginning of season 6) to continue developing new schemes. At some point, even GRRM is going to have to bring his story to resolution at which point his narrative structure will have to shift from scheming (unless he wants to leave a lot open plot threads, which is entirely possible I guess).

The "problem" with the show is that the War of the Five Kings is over and there simply isn't enough time to replant the seeds of the next war that isn't the war of Ice and Fire (Young Griff, Dorne, Stannis in the North etc.). Personally, I'm very happy about that because as a book reader I have already accepted that the show is going to show me how the story ultimately ends, but I'm still going to have all of this untouched book territory that will ultimately explain everything in greater detail (and likely very different and better detail) of how that end came to be.

[Temo]

I'm not entirely sure if the show has diminished scheme building.. There are some plot lines (e.g. Tyrion's) that seem like they are going to have adverse affects. There just isn't enough time (23 episodes as of the beginning of season 6) to continue developing new schemes. At some point, even GRRM is going to have to bring his story to resolution at which point his narrative structure will have to shift from scheming (unless he wants to leave a lot open plot threads, which is entirely possible I guess).

The "problem" with the show is that the War of the Five Kings is over and there simply isn't enough time to replant the seeds of the next war that isn't the war of Ice and Fire (Young Griff, Dorne, Stannis in the North etc.). Personally, I'm very happy about that because as a book reader I have already accepted that the show is going to show me how the story ultimately ends, but I'm still going to have all of this untouched book territory that will ultimately explain everything in greater detail (and likely very different and better detail) of how that end came to be.

That's fair, actually. I'll just have to separate the books and the show I suppose. But I used to think the show was at least as good, if not better than the books. No longer.

[bravesnumberone]

Last three episodes are probably gonna be insane. They seem to be hinting hard at the arrival of another major character.

[Krgrecw]

Last three episodes are probably gonna be insane. They seem to be hinting hard at the arrival of another major character.

Who do you think? Send me a PM with the name if you don't want to post it.

[bravesnumberone]

Who do you think? Send me a PM with the name if you don't want to post it.

Stoneheart?

[Tapate50]

Stoneheart?

There was a reference to the brotherhood without banners last week. Quite possible... That would be hard to leave out but up til now they seemed to have lost that arc. I do like the blackfish getting back into the program.

[BlackwaterPark]

There was a reference to the brotherhood without banners last week. Quite possible... That would be hard to leave out but up til now they seemed to have lost that arc. I do like the blackfish getting back into the program.

I really don't know where they are going to go with the Blackfish/Lannister feud out of nowhere.

[Tapate50]

I really don't know where they are going to go with the Blackfish/Lannister feud out of nowhere.

The Vale should be getting its hands dirty at some point in that I'd imagine

[50PoundHead]

The Hound--my favorite character--returns!

[acesfull86]

I watched all 57 episodes in a span of 15 days. Going to be brutal to wait a week for the next one (not to mention 9-12 months for the next season!)