So that's Game of Thrones. Huh.

RedEyesBlackGamer

The Killjoy Detective returns!
Jan 23, 2011
4,701
0
0
Zhukov said:
GSP66 said:
Just be prepared to throw your novel across the room when the sadder parts are gotten to. Also the fourth novel is pretty weak.
Oh, I've already finished all the books, so any novel-hurling is done with for now.

I thought the fourth book was fine. Granted, not much actually happened, but that's an inevitable side effect of trying to keep so damn many plates spinning all at once.

BloatedGuppy said:
[The snip to end all snips.]
Yeah, I was wondering how they'd managed to squeeze those books, even the first two, into single seasons of TV. I'd assumed they were long seasons, like 20+ episodes each.

Ah well.

Guess I'll at least check it out, if only so I'll finally know how to pronounce "Daenerys".
Martin definitely fell into a Robert Jordan-esque rut with the last two books. More characters and subplots are introduced, characters are fleshed out, but nothing actually happens and the plot goes nowhere. I had to force my way through Dance of Dragons (Feast of Crows was the same way, but I find Westeros and its characters infinitely more interesting then the east). As for the show, I read the books first and I found the show to just not be very good. I only got through the first season. The pacing is all over the place (so many transitions, they are often rather abrupt and the condensing of material doesn't help this), some things are absolutely butchered (Dany and Drogo's relationship in the show is awful and Dany's growing affection for him comes out of nowhere), and it just feels corny, like I'm watching a big budget play.
 

RedEyesBlackGamer

The Killjoy Detective returns!
Jan 23, 2011
4,701
0
0
Zhukov said:
SecretNegative said:
The TV-show is very good, in relation to the books. Unless you're a purist who pretty much wants every single thing identical to the books, I don't think you're going to be dissapointed. There's a few changes here and there, but overall they have stucken very closely to the source material.

The second season is a bit weaker than the third and the first, most because of the pacing problems in the second book, and thus it can feel a bit jumbled. The first season is definitely the best, or all least, it's structure is the most conistent.

I'd really say Game of Thrones is the best fantasy TV-Show that has been been, everything (escept the pacing and the writing in a instances) is top notch. Really go watch it, like, right now. DO IT NAOUGH!
Oh, I've watched it.

On its own merits it's okay. Definitely watchable.

Compared to the books it's borderline garbage, redeemed by some really good casting and performances.
You just perfectly summed up my feelings toward the show. It is okay by itself, but if you compare it to the books then it just looks horrible.
 

GrimTuesday

New member
May 21, 2009
2,493
0
0
Ryan Hughes said:
GrimTuesday said:
S
Ryan Hughes said:
As far as the TV show, it has good acting, but is otherwise terrible. I find the fans of the show to be meager mongoloids hanging onto the coattails of a decent set of novels.
That was harsh... but not entirely wrong. I get kind of irritated when I hear someone say they don't want to read the books so they don't spoil the show. I find that reading the books is a far better way to experience the story, because the show is too fast paced, and you never really get to know a character like you do in the books, they are just better realized characters in the books, and because its told from a point of view style, you learn about the characters, and you get to know their hopes, their dreams, and all that helps to understand, and become emotionally attached, and its an all around a better experience, because you're far more invested in the characters.

*Edit* Interestingly enough MacDonald's poem "My Two Geniuses" is about his struggle with his opium addiction, but this was not known to either JRR Tolkien or CS Lewis, who sited the work as one of their primary inspirations for their fantasy.
Not to derail, but I don't consider Tolkien to be that good of a writer. His world is spectacularly realized, and the mythos is fantastic, but his prose are wooden and his characters fairly one dimension (Except for Boromir and Faramir, who I found to be the most nuanced characters on the books). If he was writing a history book of Middle Earth, I would think it a fantastic piece of literature, but he was not very adept at telling a story in a narrative fashion.

I also don't much care for C.S. Lewis, but that's more because I find his books to be far too preachy.
Tolkien's Characters are largely allegorical. He feared not only the industrialization spreading from London and Liverpool, but also the archetypical hero figures that became prominent during WWI and WWII, becoming modern-day Beowulf or sorts. Thus, his answer was to make the Hobbits themselves the "heroes" of the great adventure, to show that goodness not necessarily takes the form of a warrior-hero. I can understand how you see them as one-dimensional, but I simply disagree in light of this.

Quoting "Fellowship", page 131:
"When they caught his words again they found that he had now wandered into strange regions beyond their memory and beyond their waking thought, into times when the world was wider, and the seas flowed straight tot he western Shore; and still on and back Tom went singing out into ancient starlight, when only the Elf-sires were awake. . . The hobbits sat still before him, enchanted; and it seemed as if, under the spell of his words, the wind had gone, and the clouds had dried up, and the day had been withdrawn, and darkness had come from east and west, and all the sky was filled with the light of white stars."

Tolkien's prose is there if you search for it. However, it inevitably dries up during the action and battle sequences. But, when it is present, it is far superior to other fantasy writers do to the fact that Tolkien can allow the mysterious to be mysterious, eschewing the need to merely explain while concentrating on the experience of the moment. This is what I was talking about when I said that MacDonald is necessary for good fantasy writing.
The whole Hobbits being the heroes is one of the better parts of the books. It reflects the attitudes of a man that has become embittered by the horrors of war, which to him exposed the ugly side of the man of the sword. As you said, the books are about the struggle of the old ways (agriculture and the rural lifestyle so to speak) and its clashes with the of industrialism that was sweeping Europe. I understand the allegories that the characters embody, however I don't feel Tolkien truly explores his characters, but rather is content with having them be symbols for a larger picture, and while I can appreciate it from an artistic perspective, I don't feel that it makes for a compelling, emotionally involving plot. This is what makes the Hobbit better than Lord of the Rings. It is about Bilbo, and to a lesser extent the dwarfs, and his quest not only to help the Dwarfs regain their home, but also to find who he truly is as a person (or rather as a hobbit). It goes beyond allegory, and focuses on the character, and his growth, thus allowing the reader to become more emotionally attached to him, and making for a better story.

Also, when I say his prose are lacking, I mean he writes with the stiffness of a naturalist, recording every last minute detail of the world in which the story takes place. Once again, if it was a book on the land of middle earth that was a history I would be all over it, but I don't feel he is an effective story teller. This is where I feel that GRRM is better (though that isn't the point), he isn't the world builder Tolkien was, but He tells you enough to give you a vague picture, and lets your imagination fill in the rest, making the reader and their imagination an active part of the story, versus Tolkien who takes you on a guided tour where he tells you exactly what everything looks like in minute detail. The words he uses in those descriptions are all well and good, but after a while, it becomes tiresome to stop the story just to tell the reader all about how awesome the dirt path the characters are walking along for the millionth time (I'm being hyperbolic, but surely you must admit that Tolkien spends an inordinate amount of time describing things)

Lewis often comes off as "preachy," yes, but that is really often the fault of how he is interpreted and not based int he text. Did you know that after he returned from service in WWI he write a poem that called God a "blackguard?" He was not a Christian until his thirties, and he is more preaching to his own former self than to the reader, trying to correct and dissuade his younger self from the -understandably- embittering experience he had in WWI. Preachy? perhaps, but he practiced what he preached, so at least that.
I didn't know that about his poem but it doesn't surprise me considering the human propensity to blame god for the bad things that happen and the hell he went through in the trenches of WWI. I do like some of his books (I love The Horse and His Boy when I ignore the divine providence part of it), but for the most part, I feel the religious themes are somewhat heavy handed and interfere with the story.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
GrimTuesday said:
I understand the allegories that the characters embody, however I don't feel Tolkien truly explores his characters, but rather is content with having them be symbols for a larger picture, and while I can appreciate it from an artistic perspective, I don't feel that it makes for a compelling, emotionally involving plot. This is what makes the Hobbit better than Lord of the Rings. It is about Bilbo, and to a lesser extent the dwarfs, and his quest not only to help the Dwarfs regain their home, but also to find who he truly is as a person (or rather as a hobbit). It goes beyond allegory, and focuses on the character, and his growth, thus allowing the reader to become more emotionally attached to him, and making for a better story.
J.R.R. Tolkien said:
"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history ? true or feigned? with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."
I seem to recall he always fought pretty hard against the charge that his books were in any way intended to be allegorical.

Generally I agree about the quality of his prose, though. He's a beautiful writer, but his sense of pacing is abysmal. He makes Feast/Dance era Martin look like blistering page turners.

I mislike comparing authors from different eras though. Language has progressively become less formal (and less floral). Contemporary authors will always seem easier to read, and authors from a bygone era will often seem to have more elegant prose. It's worth noting that critics of the time thought the LOTR trilogy was the literary equivalent of junk food, and it wasn't until much later that the books were elevated to their current status as classics.
 

Ryan Hughes

New member
Jul 10, 2012
557
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
J.R.R. Tolkien said:
"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history ? true or feigned? with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."
I seem to recall he always fought pretty hard against the charge that his books were in any way intended to be allegorical.

Generally I agree about the quality of his prose, though. He's a beautiful writer, but his sense of pacing is abysmal. He makes Feast/Dance era Martin look like blistering page turners.

I mislike comparing authors from different eras though. Language has progressively become less formal (and less floral). Contemporary authors will always seem easier to read, and authors from a bygone era will often seem to have more elegant prose. It's worth noting that critics of the time thought the LOTR trilogy was the literary equivalent of junk food, and it wasn't until much later that the books were elevated to their current status as classics.
It really comes down to how one defines "allegory." Being an American, I tend to lump "applicability" in with allegory, as opposed to Tolkien. It is true that critics dismissed Tolkien at the time, but they also dismissed virtually every other great author in their time too. For other writers of the period, particularly those inspired by their experience in WWI, Hemingway is the only author I can think of off the top of my head who had any critical success. Georg Trakl was dismissed as a madman, only to become the poet-in-vogue now 100 years after his death. And same can be said for authors of any era: Poe, Melville, Zamyatin, the list can go on and on.

Getting back to the topic of Martin though, I disagree that he is the better writer. His prose stagnated greatly somewhere in the middle of the third novel -Storm- and has not recovered one bit. I assume because at this point he is basically his own editor, and has no one to really drive him forward. While Game of Thrones has some lovely prose -particularly the dream sequence where Bran met the three-eyed crow for the first time- I saw little of that in Storm and less in Crows and Dragons. I just think he has become complacent, and does not have the same passion for his work that he had in "Thrones." Which makes me fear for the future of the series.