It's been nearly a decade since Game of Thrones ended, but the series still has a remarkable ability to generate discussion. Book fans will probably never agree on what went wrong with the final season, or exactly when Game of Thrones lost its way, but there is one element where there isn't much argument: many of the characters were dramatically altered from George R. R. Martin's books.
This is hardly a criticism in itself. Any adaptation is going to make changes, and many of these make perfect sense, like the merging of characters to streamline the narrative (Bronn/Jacelyn Bywater or Jorah Mormont/Jon Connington). Many characters were perfectly translated from page to screen, but others were changed so dramatically that they feel like entirely different people. Since many fans are show-only, they might not know Martin's original intention for these characters and just how different they are.
Ellaria Sand isn't exactly a major player in the HBO show or A Song of Ice and Fire, but what's striking about the show's portrayal is how fundamentally different she is from her book counterpart. Both versions begin broadly the same: Ellaria is in a relationship with Oberyn Martell, they have four daughters together (called the Sand Snakes), and she is devastated by Oberyn's death at the hands of the Mountain. From there, the two versions differ significantly. In the aftermath of Oberyn's death, Book Ellaria is the voice of reason among the more volatile factions in Dorne.
She is appalled by the Sand Snake's lust for revenge against the Lannisters, understanding that another round of bloodshed will only perpetuate the cycle that got Oberyn killed in the first place. Her speech on the futility of revenge is one of the best-written passages in the books, because it gives her an unusually measured, mature perspective on Westerosi politics. The TV version, though, leads the charge against the Lannisters, somehow avenging Oberyn by killing his brother and nephew and ultimately setting in motion a chain of events that destroys House Martell. In other words, she ultimately demonstrates the exact kind of misguided, short-sighted thinking that her book counterpart takes pains to warn against.
The King-Beyond-the-Wall is an almost mythic figure as the wildling leader who successfully united thousands of rival tribes and brought them south of the Wall. As such, Mance Rayder's first appearance was always going to be a big deal. When wildlings capture Jon Snow, he is taken to be questioned by Mance. Thrown into a room full of Wildling leaders, he naturally assumes that the most imposing, serious warrior must be Mance, but he's wrong.
Mance is instead an unassuming man in the background, idly singing and playing a lute. It's a brilliant piece of misdirection that immediately informs the audience that he's charismatic, wily and disarming, and his history with the Night's Watch and the Starks gives him a connection to the world beyond the wildlings.
Game of Thrones' Mance is a perfectly fine character, and Ciaran Hinds brings an earthy gravitas to the role, but he's a much less intriguing figure. He's a serious, capable leader as opposed to the subversive, calculating man behind the curtain. It's not a disastrous change, and given the curtailing of this storyline, it makes sense, but it is a slightly disappointing approach to one of the books' most interesting characters.
There are actually two Tully men who are misrepresented in HBO's show. Brynden "Blackfish" Tully is transformed from a dry, formidable but well-meaning military commander into an irascible, ill-tempered old man. His nephew, Edmure, fares even worse. In the books, Edmure is a little pompous and perhaps a bit vainglorious, but he's fundamentally decent, which is a rarity in Martin's fantasy world. Most importantly, he genuinely cares about the people he's responsible for.
سەرچاوەی فەرمی بە زمانی ئینگلیزی: https://gamerant.com/why-game-of-thrones-characters-different-asoiaf/
