The New York Times Slams Game of Thrones Viewers

[Hosker]

I'm sure I'll get over it eventually.

 

[Yokai]

This would be the same New York Times who opened their review of Zone One (a rather dense, cerebral zombie apocalypse novel) with, and I quote, "A literary novelist writing a genre novel is like an intellectual dating a porn star."

NYT doesn't give two shits about any media they consider beneath their standards, which apparently encompasses anything you wouldn't find law professors discussing on their downtime.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

I don't understand the whole 'dungeons and dragons' or sex stuff. Granted I have never watched the HBO adaptation of the Song of Ice and Fire but I seem to recall it was mostly political plotting and intrigue. Sure there was sex, and sure there was battles but I don't recall that taking center stage to all the intrigue.

Political plotting and intrigue take centre stage in the TV series as well, the reviewer clearly can't pay attention outside of the violence and sex which makes up a small amount of the show.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Well, he's right about one thing- the only Joffrey scene you should be looking forward to is

Spoiler

the one in season 3 where the monstrous little shit dies an agonising death by poison.

Oh, and maybe the one where he embarrasses himself by cutting himself on the Iron Throne and runs off in wussy tears in front of his entire court. That'll be cathartically amusing. Evil little shit.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Remember how everyone hated it when Tony Soprano's girlfriends ran around without their tops on and his openly sexist behavior? Or all the complaints when that sort of thing happened all the time in Deadwood?

No? Me neither, come to think of it.

Yeah, but those were in respectable TV shows! Not in a show for NERDS!

(Currently reading Clash of Crowns. It is amazing.)

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

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.

Wow, I didn't know that I could actually retch from seeing too much pretentiousness in a single moment.

Nothing pretentious about speaking the truth. I've read a fair bit of Heinlein and Asimov. Asimov was quite obviously a scientist first and a writer...somewhere very far down the line. He made for entertaining reading but he was not high literature by any stretch. But that's fine, he was a writer of hard science fiction and that requires you be a scientist first and a writer second.

Heinlein was an odder sort. He was neither scientist nor psychiatrist. That did not stop him from spouting any number of odd opinions about both topics over the course of his long career. He was as often very far off base as he was spot on. His major strength in science fiction was not in his knowledge of physical or social sciences but in the all important ability to ask strange questions and speculate on what the answers might be.

Both men had a rather course prose compared to the literary giants mentioned here. I happen to like their style, but I refuse to delude myself into thinking that they are high literature.

It's not -not- liking Heinlein or Asimov that I thought was the terribly pretentious part. It's the implication that anything that isn't crushingly depressing or over a hundred years old isn't -real- literature. Of course, if you want crushingly depressing, A Song of Ice and Fire delivers it in spades anyway.

 

[Sonicron]

Only "D&D types" would like GoT? Yeah, that makes total sense. Must be why my dad (age 76) is a bigger fan than me, and that's saying something.
Pro-tip, NYT: Don't hire hacks.

 

[CarlMin]

Okay so this is just ridiculous, and I'm not talking about Bellafante's review here. I really can't believe how the 'Game of Thrones' Fans can get up in flames about what is essentially a subjective opinion posted in a daily newspaper.

Because really now, as much as true that it's pretty unprofessional of New York Times to post a review with such sweeping generalizations, I have hard time siding with the rabid superfans who are currently bombing the critic with hate mails.

 

[Azahul]

It's not -not- liking Heinlein or Asimov that I thought was the terribly pretentious part. It's the implication that anything that isn't crushingly depressing or over a hundred years old isn't -real- literature. Of course, if you want crushingly depressing, A Song of Ice and Fire delivers it in spades anyway.

I'm going to start by saying that I definitely don't believe it's impossible for genre fiction to be literature. However... A Song of Ice and Fire really isn't it. At its best, the series is a decent character drama and an average story of political intrigue, at its worst it comes across as erotic fiction and is seriously hard to struggle through. Everything it tries to do, I'd say The Wheel of Time does better, whether it be political intrigue, an epic fantasy story, a large cast of complex characters with often conflicting motivations, or just a different fantasy world from the normal roster of elves, dwarfs, and dragons (well... you get the picture ).

These are all my personal feelings, of course, but when most of the "intrigue" in The Game of Thrones just boiled down to "Littlefinger did it", when Cersei turned out to have no real motivations beyond just being batshit insane, and when Martin chooses to gloss over most of the battles but zoom in with great detail on every sex scene, I found it hard to take the series seriously.

 

[karchevs lawyer]

to OP and related:

It continues to shock me how out-of-date the thinking of the New York Times staff was, is, and possibly will be.

We are entering a new age of cultural relativity in America and across the globe. Those who do not recognize this had better start looking forward to a pension....

 

[Callate]

Given the series garnered enough fans to warrant a second season with an extended budget, apparently there are an awful lot of "Dungeons and Dragons types".

And one might not want to anger them. Many of them have swords.

 

[jklinders]

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.

Wow, I didn't know that I could actually retch from seeing too much pretentiousness in a single moment.

Nothing pretentious about speaking the truth. I've read a fair bit of Heinlein and Asimov. Asimov was quite obviously a scientist first and a writer...somewhere very far down the line. He made for entertaining reading but he was not high literature by any stretch. But that's fine, he was a writer of hard science fiction and that requires you be a scientist first and a writer second.

Heinlein was an odder sort. He was neither scientist nor psychiatrist. That did not stop him from spouting any number of odd opinions about both topics over the course of his long career. He was as often very far off base as he was spot on. His major strength in science fiction was not in his knowledge of physical or social sciences but in the all important ability to ask strange questions and speculate on what the answers might be.

Both men had a rather course prose compared to the literary giants mentioned here. I happen to like their style, but I refuse to delude myself into thinking that they are high literature.

It's not -not- liking Heinlein or Asimov that I thought was the terribly pretentious part. It's the implication that anything that isn't crushingly depressing or over a hundred years old isn't -real- literature. Of course, if you want crushingly depressing, A Song of Ice and Fire delivers it in spades anyway.

The point of my post...you have missed it. It is not the type of story written that literature makes but the quality of the prose written. Heinlein would have laughed at the idea of being a literary giant. He had no pretensions whatsoever on the quality of his work in the grand scheme of things. Asimov I'm not as sure about. They are both very storied and revered authors but the actual work they did was pretty rough around the edges. They were very light on the kind of things that make good lit. Like characters that are not intended as archetypes of some kind of social agenda but strong in their own rights. Well defined character and setting descriptions. Subtlety. Honestly, can you say you have ever read a book by Heinlein that did not make you feel like you were beaten half to death by his opinions on some subject or another? A better author would have been a little less anvilicious about it.

Dune was literature IMHO. Not really a pleasant read but it had a strong story in it's own right as well as a complicated social agenda that didn't leave me feeling I was beaten to death by the man's opinions. Asimov was fairly subtle but was way too barebones in his style. Heinlein had more style but too little subtlety. I enjoy reading them all but let's not lower the bar too low on what constitutes lit. Lord of the Rings is considered a good standard of Lit by some. I can't stand it myself but that's just opinion. It is neither depressing nor old by any standard.

 

[Alssadar]

"What Game of Thrones needs if it is to expand its fan base beyond Dungeons & Dragons types is what most of the United States didn't get this year: a hard winter," Genzlinger writes. "Life in this particular fantasy land consists of seasons of indeterminate length, and since the series began there have been references to an impending winter of fearsome power."

Yes. Skip over a couple books worth of information--heck, my friend, who is on the first book, says its getting late autumn--and just get right to the winter. Time moves fast in TV land and we should alter everything for that. Just ignore all the characters and plot development, we need a pompous newpaper to respect it.
And really? Just for the sex? I mean, that's a plus, but the political intrigue and vast mystery surrounding the Wall, the fate of the entire continent, as well as the entire vast diversity of characters' personalities in a human perspective on fantasy that is grimdark and realistic.
-A current-Book-2 Nerd rage.

 

[tetron]

I just find it funny that the NYT is spewing out all this inane nonsense about this show that's receiving massive critical acclaim. Don't these people read the news ?

 

[dragonswarrior]

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.

*artfully raises a carefully manicured eyebrow* So... Just taking Asimov as an example. Inventing robotic laws and then placing human beings in a situation where a mind reading robot who is prevented from causing humans damage is forced to constantly lie to protect the humans feelings until it self destructs because of its inevitable failure is merely... entertainment?

You understand my point. The motherhood death camp thing is a very poignant moment I'm sure, but just because a story involves robots or dragons does not automatically mean it doesn't have it's own share of greatness in the same vein. Frequently, I find that fantasy or science fiction is far better at communicating great ideas and sublime instances and etc. simply BECAUSE it is not constrained by this silly thing we call reality.

If you want an "excepted" example, see Toni Morrison's Beloved. One of the best damn vampire stories ever made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beloved_%28novel%29

Basically what I am getting at here is that there is a difference of opinion. Respect mine, and I will continue to respect yours.

Edit: dammit that should be accepted not excepted... silly me.

 

[Taunta]

"are anyone [other than a fan of the Dungeons & Dragons aesthetic], you will hunger for HBO to get back to the business of languages for which we already have a dictionary."

Since when is all fantasy=bad? I'm sorry, NYT writer, do you have the inability to think outside the box and become uncomfortable when someone stretches your worldview a little bit?

Also, I didn't even know I liked D&D. Huh. Well apparently I do now.

 

[Frotality]

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

yeah, id like to know this as well. i know you like to keep men guessing ladies, but you cant just go and reverse a whole cultural dynamic on us.

man, what is it with journalism nowadays? FOX is more popular than ever, the whole gaming industry misinterprets fan backlash as wanting a "happy" ending, and now this. you do know that your job is to gather facts and information AND THEN give opinions on them, right? the first part is kind of important.

 

[Farther than stars]

Interesting. I'm not a big fan of fantasy myself and tend to more thoroughly enjoy modern-day or science fiction stories. I never got into Dungeons and Dragons and I highly doubt that I will, but still I enjoy watching a Game of Thrones, partly because of its cast of rich and diverse characters, but also because of the lively aesthetics of the various settings.
Furthermore, I do look forward to the scenes with prince Joffrey, but only out of hope that I get to see him die a slow and cowardly death. I am not usually in the business of wanting to watch people die a slow and cowardly death, but for Joffrey I'll make the acception. Grrr...