lol @ so many people being surprised that the books are better and more detailed than the show. That's pretty much the case with all good source material.
I'll even go as far as saying that I believe there is a bit of confusion here. Is it really that the books are better than the show, or are many of you just now figuring out that as far as storytelling goes books are a better medium than television? The problem with the comparisons being made here is that many people are claiming that the books are better than the show for reasons that don't really pertain to the quality of the show itself. By that I mean that books, in general, allow for more descriptiveness and exposition than tv. If you're saying that you like the books more than the show for that reason, then you're not really putting the show's quality as a tv show up against books' quality as literature. You're essentially evaluating the merits of books for telling a story vs a tv show.