I'm sure some version of this phrase has come up somewhere in connection with the series (books and TV), but it bares repeating. It's an odd one, and kind of shocking to some, but it fits, I think.
Misery-porn.
It means just what you'd imagine.
It fits the series to a T. It's always shocked me just how popular the series (books and TV) are because they're just endless scenes of human misery, suffering, and degradation. Sure it's generally well-written endless scenes of human misery, suffering, and degradation, but it's still endless scenes of...
I honestly do get that all drama--to a degree--is about putting characters through the wringer and seeing how they react, of course it is. But misery-porn raises things to a whole new level. Not to mention the whole heap of Schadenfreude that goes along with works like this. But hey, that's what misery-porn is all about. Some people really enjoy this kind of thing, others don't.
I think there's a fairly strong correlation to make between the state of a person's life and their enjoyment of misery-porn. When things are going great, they don't mind a bit of misery-porn. When their life slides a bit (low to midland) they bottom out in interest to the genre, but if their life really bottoms out but still have access to these kinds of things then they just might watch to see someone else get a kicking for a change. That article with Wendig is a fairly public showing of a bit of a slide and the man's interest bottoming out.
I disagree with the bold and the misery-porn moniker in regards to the books. Don't follow the show so if anyone will argue for it, have fun yo.
Martin is pretty aware that you can't overstuff it with misery and, for me personally, it is very visible in the Jon Snow storyline due to sheer genius of creating Dolorous Edd.
Bear with me now because I'll use this example to outline it. It applies to almost any storyline that is stuffed with misery in ASOIAF.
You have Jon Snow who is in a miserable and bleak place. Pretty much everyone on the wall is miserable because honestly, people who are there by choice have grown bitter through degradation of he NW and being surrounded by less than honourable people and more than a half are criminals forced to be there. Jon lost some people he liked. He is carrying a lot of responsibility, is constantly opposed and stressed, and he is stuck between rock and hard place. He is leading a band of broken and forgotten men that are hardly fit to occupy those duties 9/10 times. Just remember what Jeor Mormont thought about the most prominent people under him like Marsh and Thorne. It is no wonder Jon is miserable.
And that's fine. As a main, Jon Snow needs his dosage of angst and development though suffering because their world is a pretty messed up place not unlike the Middle Ages of our world and the place he is at is one of the most bleak and miserable ones in their world. There is a valid reason why it is so grounded in character development and recent events as well as the setting. But angst and stress and all that tend to get too much at times. They tend to get tedious. They have to happen in this case because the events are such, but they are boring to read about for too long at times.
Now, enter a lovable side-character. Most of the time, we tend to see Edd as a running commentary. A wisecracking side kick that we can quote and at whose remarks, we can crack a laugh and we don't really think much about his role in the story. He doesn't impact the events much because he is a grunt. He doesn't hold much power, he doesn't play any game, and doesn't seem interested in it. So what would be the point of introducing such character? Just for few laughs and quotable parts?
It's so simple it's brilliant. It is to break the monotony of misery surrounding the NW. And Edd's deadpan, dark, and sarcastic humour is just the thing needed to break it without terribly clashing with it. He both fits and disrupts the state because no matter how bleak and miserable and all the place is, there are still some laughs to be found in it and just keep going.
Also, in the books, Theon's torture isn't as vividly shown. We find out more about it through retelling and at time we are told about it, we are also introduced to Barbrey Dustin with her own agenda and Lord Manderly soon enters the stage too with his jolly persona that we know is hiding some sh*t in the sleeve. Even the things that happen to Jayne Poole are more referenced than described. Even at Red Wedding, in books, you don't have the scene with Robb's wife which is actually the one completely gruesome part of it for me because the rest is well, killing. It is supposed to be bloody. You feel the scene more for the Catelyn's pain than description of gore.
In the books, there is simply too much going on with well-written side-characters and their stories that the misery and suffering of the POVs and mains is contrasted with some light in it and balanced out to a degree. It is also balanced out by the sheer complexity of the characters so that they are multidimensional in a way that they don't have to constantly be in one mindset. It is still a dark place, but there are a few candles here and there. I best noticed this while contrasting the books with the show because there is the absence of Edd being such deadpan snarker and for it, Jon's storyline just got so tedious that it became a chore to watch. Same for scenes of several other characters. I wasn't outraged by the show to the point of quitting. I felt it was a chore because the candles were taken out and things simplified to the point where the misery was the point of it all and not a tool for development.
I also agree with Jo regarding the last paragraph. It is a dangerous hasty generalization and thus fallacious in nature.
the gist of it is, for him, the tv series has become too unremittingly grim and he's out.
