Warning! Here Be Spoilers!
Back in the days when the Lord of the Rings reigned supreme at the multiplex I experienced an epiphany. While watching the Return of the King I had my first real disappointment with how a book was interpreted on screen. I had decided to read the books when the Fellowship of the Ring first came out and much to my surprise actually finished the trilogy before the release of the last film. (I am a notoriously slow reader) So the scene that stuck in my craw was when Aragorn enlists the supernatural aid of the Dead Men of Dunharrow. Now don’t get me wrong I have no real complaints about how Peter Jackson and the genius geeks at WETA workshop realized the undead oathbreakers, my only real problem was that they looked different then I had imagined them.
Now it would be easy to write this off as another example of the oft repeated cliché “The book is always better.” But aside from experiencing firsthand how the Ghosts of the White Mountain looked different in my mind’s eye, what I really learned was that any adaptation, be it film or television, will always fall short due to the fact it can’t compete with a reader’s imagination (one would hope anyway). And as a film and TV junkie I’ve come to the conclusion it’s better to read the book after watching the movie or the show because the book is indeed always better. The show that really got me thinking about this was none other than that zeitgeist behemoth Games of Thrones.
I first spied a copy of George R.R. Martin’s Game of Thrones with Boromir….er I mean Lord Eddard Stark on the cover at a local Barnes and Noble.
Now it would be easy to write this off as another example of the oft repeated cliché “The book is always better.” But aside from experiencing firsthand how the Ghosts of the White Mountain looked different in my mind’s eye, what I really learned was that any adaptation, be it film or television, will always fall short due to the fact it can’t compete with a reader’s imagination (one would hope anyway). And as a film and TV junkie I’ve come to the conclusion it’s better to read the book after watching the movie or the show because the book is indeed always better. The show that really got me thinking about this was none other than that zeitgeist behemoth Games of Thrones.
I first spied a copy of George R.R. Martin’s Game of Thrones with Boromir….er I mean Lord Eddard Stark on the cover at a local Barnes and Noble.
With vanilla latte in hand, I sat down with a copy and read the Prologue – a little test I like to do before buying a novel – needless to say the first foray in the A Song of Fire and Ice saga passed with the flying colors of a unicorn farting rainbows. The first thing I noticed was how cinematic the book felt, then I geeked out on the familiar tropes of a squad on patrol. Ser Waymar Royce felt like a textbook example of a Ensign Newbie
as his inability to listen to misgivings of an experienced veteran of the Night's Watch ends up getting both men killed.
What's most intriguing about reading Games of Thrones is how each chapter focuses on one particular character and usually ends with a twist or turn, almost like short stories unto themselves. So it came as no surprise when Martin related that his experience writing for television (His largest credit being the 80's Beauty and the Beast) and learning how to write those little cliffhangers that get viewers to come back after the commercial break directly influenced how he wrote GOT. So it's also no wonder the series adapts so well to television.
Now when I read the part where Khal Drogo, like some evil Djinn, finally grants Viserys Targaryen the crown he'd wished for and the self proclaimed 'Dragon' gets more than he bargained for, I had a rare Holy Bloodriders Batman! moment as a reader. It was visceral and most all satisfying. Would it have felt like that way watching it for the first time on the show? I'll never now.
as his inability to listen to misgivings of an experienced veteran of the Night's Watch ends up getting both men killed.
What's most intriguing about reading Games of Thrones is how each chapter focuses on one particular character and usually ends with a twist or turn, almost like short stories unto themselves. So it came as no surprise when Martin related that his experience writing for television (His largest credit being the 80's Beauty and the Beast) and learning how to write those little cliffhangers that get viewers to come back after the commercial break directly influenced how he wrote GOT. So it's also no wonder the series adapts so well to television.
Now when I read the part where Khal Drogo, like some evil Djinn, finally grants Viserys Targaryen the crown he'd wished for and the self proclaimed 'Dragon' gets more than he bargained for, I had a rare Holy Bloodriders Batman! moment as a reader. It was visceral and most all satisfying. Would it have felt like that way watching it for the first time on the show? I'll never now.
But it somewhere after reading that chapter that I started watching the show and subsequently shelved the book because I found the show less engaging when I knew what going to happen. It was also around this time that I suspected Lord Eddard Stark's fate was sealed and it made it hard to finish the book. But I had resolved myself to finish the book because honestly it just damn good. And so....ahem...3 seasons later I finally did. Inspired by the book Steal Like and Artist by Austin Kleon I decided to review the things as a writer I deem worthy of theft.
What I took away from Martin's writing was an affinity for his prose and his world-building. Both are deceptively simple on the surface and accessible. Recently I've read the first pages of a couple revered sci-fi novels that were front loaded with world building exposition and it immediately turned me off. Ironically Martin starts his saga with a line of dialogue (which I've heard someone say you're not supposed to)
What I took away from Martin's writing was an affinity for his prose and his world-building. Both are deceptively simple on the surface and accessible. Recently I've read the first pages of a couple revered sci-fi novels that were front loaded with world building exposition and it immediately turned me off. Ironically Martin starts his saga with a line of dialogue (which I've heard someone say you're not supposed to)
"We should start back," Gared urged as the woods began to grow dark around them. "The wildlings are dead."
Already you have a sense of foreboding and I don't know a thing about the wildlings, the Night's Watch or the Wall. And when Martin finally does mention the Night's Watch a few paragraphs later it's through the back-story of the Gared after his commanding officer questions his manhood. So what I learned from this is that world building is best doled out in doses and experienced through the characters that inhabit it. Another aspect of Martin's writing I hope to purloin is his great description. One particular passage that stood out for me was the description of the ruins of Moat Cailin.
Immense blocks of black basalt , each as large as crofter's cottage, lay scattered and tumbled like a child's wooden blocks, half-sunk in the boggy soil.
But the one part of the book that made it worth reading after watching the show was a passage were Maester Luwin gives a history lesson to Bran about the Children of the Forest. In another author's hands it would feel like a info dump but by interspersing it with the wildling Osha's insistence that they aren't just stories the exposition serves a purpose. And here's where reading the book helps expand on watching the show. In the series the audience is introduced to the concepts of the Godswood and the heart tree AKA wierwood by the Starks holding to the worship of the Old Gods. But the book expands on this mythology when Luwin explains that :
Their wise men were called greenseers, and carved strange faces in the weirwoods to keep watch on the woods.
Here I can see how Martin 'stole' from the pagan myth of the Green Man. The passage goes into greater detail about the Pact between the Children of the Forest and the First men and the later arrival of the Andals (read Anglo-Saxon) and is worth reading, I love how Martin incorporates the history of Westoros with a sense of verisimilitude, which he does by stealing from history. Is it coincidence that both the Dothraki and the Mongols drink fermented horse's milk. I think not. So in the end what I learned most from reading Game of Thrones is what's worth stealing which of course the answer is everything. Because to steal from one source is plagiarism, but steal from multiple sources is art.