I haven't seen Game of Thrones yet and likely won't for a while. It isn't screening here until July, on pay TV. Which I do not have. DVDs, I guess. Stupid Australian programming.
I admit, I'm not sure I'll want to watch the whole thing - although the previews look freaking awesome (PUPPIES!!!) I had Game of Thrones sitting on the shelf for a few months before I picked it up - and then I bought the rest of the series and read them all within about two weeks. Fascinating but ye gods, the unrelenting bleakness. Don't become fond of any character! If you're lucky they might just die, instead of being tortured, raped, tormented, manipulated, driven mad ... these books have ALL THE HURT. And no comfort. (Well, maybe, occasionally, there is a little, teeny, tiny crumb of comfort. Maybe.) But I did appreciate that in the books bad things happened to good people and the definitions of 'good' and 'bad' were ... complicated.
Yes, that ridiculous NYT review was utterly ridiculous
'Boy fiction'? The fuck? And why the hell would I want to watch Sex and the City? Not my style at all.
I direct you to an awesome response from pandarus.
Apparently some people are claiming the books are even 'feminist'. Are these books feminist fiction? Uh no. I wouldn't call them that. They are set in a pseudo-medieval Europe wherein woman are treated as inferior, the pawns and playthings of men. Within this framework, GRRM writes some wonderful three-dimensional female characters. Some are manipulated, others manipulate. Or both. These books have a vast array of characters. Among them are some strong, capable, intelligent women. Who are generally regarded as the pawns and playthings of men.
Does this make the books feminist? No, it just mean that GRRM doesn't save all the characterisation for the men and the women are more than one-note background characters.
That really shouldn't be so surprising. *sigh*