The New York Times Slams Game of Thrones Viewers

[yundex]

DnD types is another way of saying "dork". They're not exactly wrong here, get over it guys.

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

Gee, how did they ever figure out that I enjoy DND? Those clairvoyant NY Times critics and their ways!

 

[Torrasque]

Gee, how did they ever figure out that I enjoy DND? Those clairvoyant NY Times critics and their ways!

This made me lawl

Also, I am not surprised in the slightest that a big publication has no idea what people like, especially when that something has anything to do with the fantasy setting.

 

[Jaeke]

Never played D&D. Read the first book, didn't like it. Saw the first season, it was meh.

But, this "critic"... is just dumb.

 

[Azuaron]

I guess I'll have to tell my future mother-in-law (the retired judge) that she's a D&D type who only reads the books/watches the show for the sex.

Yep.

Lets put it bluntly Game of thrones isn't the greatest piece of literature in the world. Trying to say that its more than an entertaining bit of hokem is significantly overstating the case. Its a soap opera with added swords and battles and works well on those terms but thats all it is

I'm trying to find a way to say this nicely, but I really don't think I can, so I'm just going to say it: I think you have a warped view of what literature is, or you don't know enough about Song of Ice and Fire and fantasy literature in general to be making such claims.

There are a few authors who are legitimizing the fantasy genre as literature, much like Heinlein, Dick, Clarke, and Asimov did for science fiction back in the day, and Martin is one of them.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

A writer going out of their way to insult the fanbase of a genre and franchise they clearly have no understanding of or appreciation for?

I didn't know Movie Bob worked for the New York Times.

Zing! Although I don't think that the NYT article had a section complaining about how all people who play sports are mouth-breathing jocks who hate nerds.

DnD types is another way of saying "dork". They're not exactly wrong here, get over it guys.

But what is a 'dork'? Are they saying that because it has swords and a fantasy-medieval period, it automatically makes it dorky? But if it has swords and a real-medieval period, like The Tudors , it is a masterful work with clever intrigue, and a "steamy period drama" (NYT review, March 28, 2008).

We are just upset that the fact that it is openly fantasy means that it has negative connotations, while if it told the same story while pretending to be realistic it would be suddenly be more 'worthy'.

 

[Plinglebob]

It's full of sex and violence, much like the real world. The books, however, have much more of both. Just for comparison, the audiobook of the first volume alone clocks in at nearly 40 hours.

It's not a bad adaptation, though had I not read the books I don't think I'd be enjoying it as much, since I'm able to fill in the blanks.

After enjoying the first series I'm really tempted to read the books, but I don't as I've had too many films/TV series made less enjoyable as they missed stuff from the book.

OT: Arn't the viewing figures around 3 million in the US? Didn't think there were that many D&D players.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wonder if they're just trying to stir up controversy. Game of Thrones seems to be a cultural phenomenon, so it's clearly not just gaming nerds.

Interesting. When did the stereotype of "only watching for the nekkid" shift to women?

It didn't really shift. More expanded. After all, even violent romance stories tend to be the domain more of women (in terms of customer base, not in terms of what women want overall). And that's not even entirely new. Vampires have been so tied to erotica that a lot of vampire novels at LEAST as early as the 80s were appealing to women even if the subject matter wasn't particularly the romance novel that is the stereotype.

Truly, there's a lot of a market out there and not just for guys.

Though I'm not sure if this applies to GoT, having not seen it.

 

[Albino Boo]

I'm trying to find a way to say this nicely, but I really don't think I can, so I'm just going to say it: I think you have a warped view of what literature is, or you don't know enough about Song of Ice and Fire and fantasy literature in general to be making such claims.

There are a few authors who are legitimizing the fantasy genre as literature, much like Heinlein, Dick, Clarke, and Asimov did for science fiction back in the day, and Martin is one of them.

The last book I read was Life and Fate by Vasily Grossman. It chronicles the similarities between Nazi anti-Semitism and Soviet anti-Semitism. The most moving segment involves and overs 40s single woman coming to understand the meaning of motherhood by looking after an orphan child on the way to death camp. That's my idea of literature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_and_Fate


I have read Martin, Heinlein, Dick, Clarke, and Asimov. They are all well written pieces of entertainment but they just don't stack up against Grossman, Tolstoy, Dickens, Thackeray and Chesterton. I read science fiction and fantasy for escapist entertainment and it does what it says on the tin, sometimes I want more than that and then I go for the classics.

 

[RaikuFA]

And now GoT fans can relate to how JRPG fans are treated by the gaming press.

Double points if you're both.

 

[Kargathia]

Interesting. When did the stereotype of "only watching for the nekkid" shift to women?

The moment it became plot convenient for the review.

More to the point: there is ample space for improvement in Game of Thrones, but this is the equivalent of describing modern art as "my niece can do that": uninformed, unargumented, unhelpful, and a total waste of time.

I have read Martin, Heinlein, Dick, Clarke, and Asimov. They are all well written pieces of entertainment but they just don't stack up against Grossman, Tolstoy, Dickens, Thackeray and Chesterton. I read science fiction and fantasy for escapist entertainment and it does what it says on the tin, sometimes I want more than that and then I go for the classics.

While agreeing with the overall sentiment I must note here that Martin is indeed one of the better fantasy writers. While easily compared to Tolstoy (mainly War and Peace) when it comes to length, scope, and amount of characters, he still is inferior in overall quality and depth. But it certainly is a big step in the right direction.

 

[yundex]

DnD types is another way of saying "dork". They're not exactly wrong here, get over it guys.

Yes, but when you go onto say things like:

"if you look forward to Joffery's scenes, there's something wrong with you,"

"your brain doesn't have [enough] neurons" to remember the large cast,

"If decapitations and regular helpings of bare breasts and buttocks are all you require of your television, step right up."

THEN you've given-up the right to have your opinion be taken seriously.
And I'm pretty sure Genzlinger says "Dungeons and Dragons types" the same way Faux News says "Bronies"

I constantly have to deal with the same things when being told the Illuminati is a crazy conspiracy by people who don't know a thing about it. It doesn't matter what anyone says, they're always right and were always wrong so the best thing to do is to just get over it and move on.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

DnD types is another way of saying "dork". They're not exactly wrong here, get over it guys.

Well it's great to hear that the NYT aren't the only ones making sweeping generalizations and lording their superior interests over other people.

Really? No women alive would watch it without the sex? I guess that all women have exactly the same interests, so that's probably true. I mean that'd be almost as crazy as girls playing video games or D&D.

 

[Sir Ryan Ward]

What? The New York Times, a failing publication from a bygone era of mono-opinionated journalism, writing a rage-invoking review of a genre, with which they have a history of pigeonholing, that is clearly meant to piss off fans and direct more traffic to their site?

I don't believe it. The NYT would never do that! They are a totally non-biased company that always employs the most level-headed writers to give fair and balanced opinions for the benefit of all members of society. They would never stoop so low as to reap a quick user-surge after a highly-anticipated premiere! Never in a million years...

 

[Scarim Coral]

Geez I take it none of them have read or seen the whole ME 3 ending reaction (the fanbase is a force to be reckoned with).
While I can understand the huge cast can be confusing but if they were bother enough to get a better grip of the show, they should of wiki the book lore to get a better understanding at who's who.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Well, that was ignorant. Though I wish Martin would tone the nudity back a tad, it's not exactly a deal breaker. I do find it funny how these reviewers mock fantasy when in fact stuff like Lord of the Rings is far beyond the D&D crowd

 

[GrandmaFunk]

Lets put it bluntly Game of thrones isn't the greatest piece of literature in the world. Trying to say that its more than an entertaining bit of hokem is significantly overstating the case. Its a soap opera with added swords and battles and works well on those terms but thats all it is

I like to view my story-telling in a much wider spectrum than just "it's either the best thing ever or it's shallow hokum".

ASOIAF is somewhere in the middle, but probably closer to the 'quality' side of things than you choose to paint it.

honestly, your comment is as dismissive and insulting as the Times articles themselves.