Like what I imagine is the vast majority of its viewers, I saw the first season of Game of Thrones before reading the Song of Ice and Fire books upon which the show is based. I had heard of them, knowing them to be a popular fantasy series, but I knew next to nothing about the plot until I saw the show. However, upon finishing season one, I quickly read through the existing books, the last of which, A Dance with Dragons, came out the same year (or perhaps the year previous) to the television show.
I did manage to spoil the biggest twist at the end of the first season for myself accidentally, but for the most part I was seeing everything with fresh eyes.
Of course, it's unlikely that I will see any more of the show without knowing at least roughly what's coming, unless they make huge changes to the narrative.
The thing that inspired me to write this post in the first place is that last night, a new episode aired, but I'm not in the middle of a mad rush to see it, even though I fully intend to see it at some point, hopefully before next week's episode comes out. Ultimately, I do know what's going to happen, pretty much, and I feel ok to even read spoiler-filled reviews of the episode online because it's not like I'm going to find much in the way of plot that will be spoiled for me, and typically a thousand-word review is not going to delve deeply into any expertly filmed scenes any farther than simply saying "look out for this."
The question, then, is whether this harms the enjoyment of the show. Would I be more engaged if I didn't know where Arya was going to eventually head, or what was going to happen with Mance Rayder and Jon Snow?
Lost, for instance, was an amazing experience to watch, even if in retrospect there were some flaws or characters who got sort of soap-opera-y drama injected into them for the sake of conflict. There were so many mysteries going on that it was a whole lot of fun to just speculate. Now granted, George RR Martin (what is it with fantasy writers with two Rs for middle initials?) hasn't finished the series, and especially after Dance with Dragons there are a lot of things to speculate about, but for the show itself, anyone who's read the books has about a two or three-season lead.
There is, of course, always danger in adaptation. By adapting a book or other original work, you actively invite a comparison between yours and theirs, and even though they wisely went with a television format to accommodate the dense plotting and multitude of characters, things still need to be cut out for time and budget reasons.
So you inevitably get the "it's not as good as the book" complaint, which I honestly think is usually a knee-jerk reaction, even in cases where it's true.
But setting aside that usual problem, there's a paradoxical element to an adaptation like this: we are happy to see visualized what we had only imagined in our heads, but we also are, by necessity, less surprised, awed, or shocked by the events of the story. I can't imagine I would feel the slightest bit let down by the use of the Wild Fire in the second season's episode about the Battle of the Blackwater if I hadn't read the book and been hoping to see the Bridge of Ships and the armies clashing on the ruined vessels clogging the bay.
Now, I really hope that announced American Gods series wasn't just a fantasy or a cruel joke. I want to see who they cast as Mr. Nancy!
No comments:
Post a Comment