A Game of Thrones discussion

I'm watching the tv show of GOT and they're done with season 2 now, and I want to read the books but I'm hesitant about whether to start with the first book so I don't miss anything or should I start with the third ? What do you experts think ?

Considering the sheer amount of missed events, characters, and changes that the tv series did to the books, I'd advise you to start with 1.

Yeah, definitely. The TV series is great but the books are incredible.

You should definitely start from the first book. The show is pretty great, but it doesn't even come close to how amazing the books are. Season 1 was a good adaptation, though not perfect, but Season 2 changes a lot of things, which is something I did not like.

i thought the same thing,and felt i would be boring considering ive seen the show,but i bite the bullit and started with one....and loved every bit of it as well as book two and now i am half way through book 3 and cannot put it down and keep wanting to share what happens with my family (tough keeping it to myself)

a game of thrones is a very good book. though the first season is remarkably similar, there still are a few things left out that you may want to read.

a clash of kings is a fantastic book, possibly my favorite of the series, and was done a huge disservice by the writing team on the second season of the show. even if you skip the first book, you should definitely read this one.

Listen to these people. I started reading after the first season and began with book II. This was a mistake! Now I'm almost done four, want to read five, but still need to double back and read one. Considering that this series is ongoing, who knows when I'll get around to it now.

Neither 1 nor 3.

Start with book 2. Why?

Because (having read all of them) book 1 correlates almost perfectly with the series, whereas series 2 takes a HUGE diversion from the book.

CJ

Chris-james wrote: "Neither 1 nor 3.
Start with book 2. Why?
Because (having read all of them) book 1 correlates almost perfectly with the series"

You think?
What about the Stark children's ages? The original poster will spend his/her time thinking that Bran is around 11, that Arya is the same age as him, and that Rob and Jon are 17/18, which makes lots of their actions, and the reactions and attitudes of the other characters towards them, seem really strange.
That was something that *really really* annoyed me in the TV series.

One. There will always be things missing as the story is abridged for TV or film. The later books will refer to these events or people, the adaptation won't.

I agree with everyone above, the books are a bit confusing at first anyway with so many characters and plots, so skipping any of the books will probably mean having to wiki what's going on at certain parts, or just missing things.

read 1 first. There are some things and people not mentioned in the show. My sister started with clash of kings and she was like " whos this person called blackfish?" and I was like "Gurl read book 1" besides the books have a lot of nice flash backs of the past while the show doesnt. You know more about the targaryens from the books.

Start with Book 1. I watched both the seasons of the TV show - and loved it immensely - but when I decided to read the books, I started with Book 1, and I'm very glad I did so. While the first season of the show is pretty faithful to the book, it's not a substitute for it. And Book 2 is very different from season 2.

ScarletBea wrote: "Chris-james wrote: "Neither 1 nor 3.
Start with book 2. Why?
Because (having read all of them) book 1 correlates almost perfectly with the series"

You think?
What about the Stark children's ages?..."

What's the big deal? Yeah, the children were aged up (as were the adults, for that matter), but I see it as purely practical decisions. It's hard to get good child actors, especially for the kind of intense roles that Arya, Sansa and Bran have. Also, there's the issue of Daenerys - there's no way they were going to depict a 13-year old girl getting naked and having sex in a TV show, even if the actress was actually older. The only way out was to age her up (her age isn't specified on the show, but from internal evidence, she seems to be around 17). Her age and Jon's are linked to the rebellion - they both were born during it, so if Daenerys was aged up, Jon had to be too. Robb had to be the same age as Jon.

Mitali wrote: "What's the big deal?..."

The deal, to just pick 2 examples amongst many, is that in the books you have a 14 year-old boy leading an army and being acclaimed King of the North, being followed by old battle-proven warriors who completely respect Rob's position and skills. In the TV series, you have an 18-year old doing that, which is a completely different story, since at 18 you're basically an adult.
And in the books you have a 8-9 year old girl going off on her own, being completely independent and living an adult life, while the tv series you have a 12-year old doing that, again, something that was quite normal in the Middle Ages.

ScarletBea wrote: "Mitali wrote: "What's the big deal?..."

The deal, to just pick 2 examples amongst many, is that in the books you have a 14 year-old boy leading an army and being acclaimed King of the North, being..."

First of all, try getting the figures right. Robb is nearly 16 when he leads an army, and 16 is considered 'of age' for males in Westeros, so he is nearly an adult by the standards of his culture. That is not to diminish his achievements in any way, but it's not the same thing as a 14 year old (i.e. unequivocally a boy) doing the same. Also, Arya is 10 when she is left to fend on her own. Once again, it's a fantastic achievement, but not the same thing as an 8 year old doing the same.

Second of all, I didn't say that the age change made no difference whatsoever. I simply said that it was for purely practical reasons that had to be balanced against being faithful to the books.

Also, all the child actors are already playing characters 2-4 years younger than themselves, but they are so amazing in their roles that it's easy to forgive the age discrepancies. For example, I can't imagine anyone other than Maisie Williams as Arya, and she is actually 15. While it's just possible to imagine that she is supposed to be 11-12, it would stretching the boundaries of credibility way too much to to imagine that she is 9-10. In other words, I'd much rather have an excellent actress playing the character well, even in the character's age does not match that in the books precisely.

My conscience won't let me start with anything but the first book anyways , but I was ambivalent about it , so thanks all I think I will start with 1 and see how things go

I've watched the first season of the show, then after that I've decided to read the books, after reading the first book I realized that the show sucks! Now I'm on book three, and I did not and will not watch the second season.. I even regret watching the first season!

Go with the books! They're freaking awesome!

You have to start with book 1. As many have said even thought season 1 did a very good job following the story there is still stuff left out and things that will come up later that will only make sense if you read books 1 and 2.

I read the books, listened to them on audio more than once and watched the first season several times. I can tell you that am still amazed at the tidbits and details I am still picking up from other sources that I had either missed or forgotten. You would do yourself a disservice to start anywhere but the beginning. It has been an amazing ride, I wouldn't want to have miss any of it.

u gotta start with book 1

I watched HBO for seasons 1 and 2, and listened to audio of books 3 and 4. I read books 1 and 2 about 2007 so forgot many details but book 3 is great and it's easy to pick up and continue the HBO version of the story.

start with the first book!

Start with Book 5. :)

Mitali wrote: "ScarletBea wrote: "Mitali wrote: "What's the big deal?..."

The deal, to just pick 2 examples amongst many, is that in the books you have a 14 year-old boy leading an army and being acclaimed King ..."

'Kay the ages are important because the level of capacity to deal with the events in the story is important and the author chose those ages.
If the young actors can't play younger than themselves then they aren't so good at acting; the characters' ages at the end of the series--which is being made in a much shorter time than the story covers--are the critical ones.
There were not 14 to 16 year olds leading armies in the Dark and Middle Ages for the very good reason that they were not physically strong enough to get respect; unless they had older, better lords as generals and lieutenants and were figureheads. If you are 16 and think that you would really be able to beat a 26 year old in a physical contest--and you are not Mike Tyson--you are wrong.
Arya does some outstandingly stupid things, and if she were not a child evoking some protective reactions from adults around her she would not have survived them. Unfortunately 15 year olds do not evoke the same protective reactions from adults, a 15 year old Arya would have died very quickly.
One of the nice things, to me, in the books is that the author has NOT got children behaving as would adults, or even adolescents, in their given circumstances.
Daenerys, it seems clear to me, is abused by her brother, is sexually involved too young (Shakespeare agrees with me), is exposed to a good deal more cruelty even under her husband's protection (her brother's death is pretty appalling in ordinary human terms) and is pretty well crazy once her protector-husband dies, as one would expect from a barely-adolescent girl trying to cope with all that. Actually the Lolita echoes in this part of the story are squashed just as they were in the movie, when they aged Lolita up.
So ages are important...it's fine you prefer visuals, but defending the television series against the books on a book site is kinda silly, isn't it?

In my opinion you should start with book 1. You would be surprised at the difference between the books and the series.

book 2. you'll never enjoy book three if you dont read book 2

Read book 1 regardless if you've already seen season 1. All the details & in depth description of people & places is completely different from the series.

Read them all, I was in your exact position, and I still thoroughly enjoyed book 1 & 2. Also book 3 is so amazingly good I feel you might not be able to enjoy it as much as it deserves to be enjoyed if you didn't read 1&2 previously.

Bea wrote: "Mitali wrote: "ScarletBea wrote: "Mitali wrote: "What's the big deal?..."

The deal, to just pick 2 examples amongst many, is that in the books you have a 14 year-old boy leading an army and being ..."

To nitpick: yes, there were child leaders in the middle ages. Joan of Arc, for instance, commanded the French armies when she was only 17. If people would follow a 17-year-old girl, I'm sure they'd follow 16-year-old boy! Muhammad bin Qasim was put in charge of his uncle's armies at the age of 15, and within a couple of years had conquered Sindh and Punjab. Further back in time, for example, Alexander was suppressing revolts against his father when he was only 16. Closer to the events of the book, Richard II (i.e. Aerys Targaryen) famously suppressed the Peasant's Revolt when he was only 14 - he lead negotiations with the peasants, and when the peasant leader (Wat Tyler) was killed, he avoided bloodshed by proclaiming himself the leader of the rebels - they accepted this and dispersed. He then retracted his pardons, and personally lead the army to Essex to stamp out the last rebels. Stephan of Cloyes, meanwhile, attempted to lead an army of 30,000 men to liberate the Holy Land - an impressive achievement for a 12-year-old, although they only got as far as Marseille before hunger and disillusionment set in (it wasn't an organised army, only a volunteer force, and had no formal funding, so they had to beg food as they went).

Just a few of the most famous examples. Hopefully enough to show that a 16-year-old leading an army would have been, while very unusual indeed, not completely unknown. Especially when, as in Robb's case, the boy is backed up by older and more experienced advisors.

S-The-Great wrote: "I'm watching the tv show of GOT and they're done with season 2 now, and I want to read the books but I'm hesitant about whether to start with the first book so I don't miss anything or should I sta..."

I was wondering the same thing when I saw your post!!

After going through all the discussions here.. I am definitely gonna start with book 1 (I am done watching both the seasons!)