New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

You know, by this point I’ve expressed my general fondness for serialized mythology programming. I’ve also explained my belief that the best television has to offer is on cable networks these days. This time, I’d like to evidence that I’m not just a whore for off-network, acclaimed, novelistic, genre oddities. There are two new shows, heralded by critics, appearing on prestige cable outlets, and neither of them really tickle my fancy. They should. They’re right up my alley, but as much as I tried to like them, I really just don’t. Now I’ve certainly criticized mythology shows in the past. I’ve not liked Heroes, FlashForward and The Event, to name a few. I’ve had lukewarm affection for Chuck and True Blood. But none of those shows hit the airwaves with the glowing critical backing that Game of Thrones or The Killing enjoy.

Thrones in particular is one I should dig. It has the rabid following of which I usually am a part. The thing has a Lord of the Rings like fan base, obsessed with the world and all of the details therein. I certainly am a fan of Middle Earth, yet this Westeros bores me. Of course, I read Rings, so I was familiar with Tolkien’s worlds before Jackson’s acclaimed films came along. But that really should make no difference. The show should exist on its own merits and not need the novels to back it up.

See, the thing is about HBO programming, they do have a more novelistic approach than most other television, and by this, I don’t mean serialized arcs. They tend to handle exposition far differently than most other television. This is gonna get a little academic, fair warning.

HBO’s signature shows, The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, and so on dole out exposition very slowly. They will often introduce characters or big moments en media res, or right in the thick of things, often with little explanation as to who many of the characters are, what they want, or how they relate to the characters we all know and love. Then, as the narrative progresses, we begin to understand the situation and its place in the overall scheme.

This works fine while reading, because the reader can pause to regain their bearings. In visual storytelling, the narrative moves forward at its own pace and withheld exposition risks leaving the viewer behind. As a result, most television lays out its exposition in a more straightforward fashion. There’s nothing wrong with this simpler approach, it just has the potential to be a bit dull and rote. En media res is more exciting, but more challenging for the viewer to acclimate. This is one of the reasons that HBO’s programming is so novelistic and gets such praise for not dumbing itself down to audiences.

When dealing with a familiar world like that of The Wire or The Sopranos, there is a built in life vest for viewers. Yes, this new situation might have thrown me off guard, but I understand the world of organized crime enough that I can stay afloat until I get the hang of it. When dealing with a fictional world like Westeros, such an approach lacks the life vest. It’s not that the broad strokes aren’t clear, it’s that the details which the fans of the novels so enjoy get lost to the virgin viewer. The downside to this is that by the time things start to clarify, by about episode five or six by all accounts (I wouldn‘t know, I could only endure the first four), newbie viewers have likely gotten bored.

Continued:       1       2