George R.R. Martin isn’t happy with screenwriters who adapt books but “make them their own”

George R.R. Martin isn't happy with screenwriters who adapt books but "make them their own"

As a writer myself, I can empathize with George R.R. Martin‘s struggles and opinions. The creative process is a delicate balance between staying true to one’s vision and adapting to changing times. In my humble opinion, it’s important to preserve the authenticity of an author’s work while acknowledging its historical context.

Back in the early parts of this year, George R.R. Martin, the mastermind behind “A Song of Ice and Fire,” penned a blog post that delved into the grueling process of transforming a book into a screenplay. He didn’t beat around the bush when talking about how frequently these adaptations fall short of the original work. As he put it, there’s an abundance of screenwriters and producers eager to get their hands on brilliant stories, only to twist them to suit their preferences. “From every angle,” he wrote, “you’ll find more aspiring creators ready to claim masterpieces penned by the likes of Stan Lee, Charles Dickens, Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl, Ursula K. Le Guin, J.R.R. Tolkien, Mark Twain, Raymond Chandler, Jane Austen, and countless others as their own projects. No matter how legendary a writer it is, no matter how exceptional the book, there’s always someone ready to step in and rewrite the story, convinced they can do a better job.”

They never make it better, though. Nine hundred ninety-nine times out of a thousand, they make it worse.

Martin frequently sees his tales transformed for the big screen; HBO transformed “A Song of Ice and Fire” into “Game of Thrones,” and they are now adapting Martin’s book “Fire & Blood” as “House of the Dragon.” This specific adaptation has brought about significant shifts in the original content, and in my opinion, these alterations have been detrimental. Martin remains silent on the matter, but it’s hard not to speculate whether he might have anticipated such changes while writing this.

Martin expressed his thoughts on adaptations during a lengthy conversation at the Oxford Writers House. When asked about his views on this subject, he remarked, “I feel…that there’s a lack of true-to-the-source adaptations.” He explained that studios typically don’t purchase books that were poorly received and disliked by readers; instead, they opt for timeless classics, centuries-old novels cherished by many, or the latest bestsellers with a large fanbase. These works are then handed over to screenwriters and directors who often have their own ideas…Unfortunately, too many screenwriters tend to alter the stories significantly, even when adapting works by Dickens, Tolkien, Shakespeare, or other renowned authors. However, more often than not, these changes do not improve the original work, as those making the adaptations are usually not as gifted as the authors who created it in the first place.”

“Legitimate” and “illegitimate” adaptation changes

Martin delved a bit deeper in his blog post this time, offering more insight into his thoughts. For one, he believes that HBO’s latest adaptation of Philip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” series surpassed the 2007 movie version significantly. Since Pullman was unable to participate in this interview, Martin chose to discuss his series. He also clarified between modifications that are considered “legitimate” and those deemed “illegitimate,” citing an example from his time writing for the 1985 revival of “The Twilight Zone,” which aired on CBS.

In the latest installment of this futuristic TV series I’m working on, I decided to bring Roger Zelazny’s short story “The Last Defender of Camelot” to life. The tale revolves around Lancelot from King Arthur’s roundtable mysteriously landing in contemporary times. The thrilling finale sees Lancelot battling the sinister Hollow Knight on horseback, right at Stonehenge. Unfortunately, our budget didn’t stretch far enough to include real horses and Stonehenge, so I had to make a tough call. I reached out to Roger, who graciously advised me to ditch Stonehenge, which we did. I believe this alteration stays true to the spirit of the original story.

Meanwhile, Martin recalls that CBS executives were worried because the Lancelot episode deviated from the grand idea pitched for The Twilight Zone, which was centered around an ordinary person experiencing extraordinary situations. However, Lancelot isn’t an ordinary character; they feared this would jeopardize the show. As a result, Martin had to rewrite the script to beef up the part of a minor, unnamed character in the initial draft, making them a significant player in the story. Martin views this alteration as questionable or invalid.

Martin also discussed the trend of modifying stories to address “outdated perspectives” from the original authors, aiming to make them less controversial for current audiences. While there are situations where such alterations are unquestionably necessary, Martin feels that at times they can be excessively extreme. A notable example he cited was Puffin Books editing the works of Roald Dahl, an author known for books like “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and “James and the Giant Peach“. Changes such as removing words like “crazy” are, according to Martin, absurd. He expressed his viewpoint, saying, “Some of these changes are just preposterous.” For instance, he mentioned that the term “fat” was removed, which could potentially offend overweight individuals. However, Martin believes that replacing it with “enormous” wasn’t an enhancement. This criticism stems from the fact that Roald Dahl himself, before his death in 1990, explicitly requested his editors not to alter a single word of his text. As Dahl is now deceased, Martin argues that his wishes no longer matter.

If Martin had his preference, works similar to Dahl’s would be kept intact, and a disclaimer such as “This book was written in 1952 and reflects the attitudes of that era” could be added. This approach is similar to how the streaming service Max presented an introduction from film scholar Jacqueline Stewart before the movie “Gone With The Wind,” which has stereotypes about American slavery that are no longer acceptable today. Instead of altering the film, they chose to provide context for its creation and relevance in its historical time period. Roald Dahl’s books aren’t as controversial as “Gone With The Wind,” but Puffin opted for a different approach with them.

Should fantasy fiction comment on modern culture?

As a gamer, I’d say when it comes to fantasy novels like mine or even the legendary “Lord of the Rings”, whether they should address current social and political issues is really up to the author. For instance, J.R.R. Tolkien himself was against people interpreting his work as an allegory. He didn’t appreciate it when readers tried to link Sauron with historical figures like Hitler. However, there are other authors who might not share this view and use their stories to comment on real-world issues, much like George Orwell did in “Animal Farm”. It all depends on the creative vision of the writer.

But I think fantasy is bigger than that. It doesn’t have to comment on what’s going on this week or this year or even this century. Fantasy is about universal human truth, is about love and life and faith or doubt or greed and lust, all of these basic human things that are different but still the same whether it’s the middle ages or 2024 or ancient Rome or whatever. And those are the things that I like to talk about more.

Martin too touched upon his advancements with “The Winds of Winter,” the much-anticipated sixth novel in his epic “Song of Ice and Fire” series. As you might expect, his update on this topic didn’t deviate significantly from what we’ve heard before.

2024-08-21 19:43

Forza Horizon 5 ‘Hide & Seek’ Game Mode Unveiled For September