WearyTraveler

I think you might have placed this here in error. This is the Face Off forum.

Well, the series has made a point about how fucked up the world is because of the departures. It's an event that reshaped the world as we know it into something else. Sometimes we recognize it as our world, but then we're hit with some crazy thing that shows us it's a fractured, disjointed and distorted version of our world. In that version, spiritual wackos that disrupt society even more are dealt with swiftly and with full force.

Finally!!!

I think, but I may be completely wrong, that Errinwright used the Martian's ambassador device (which he pointedly looked at when he was killing the guy) to self-destroy the Martian ship. UN ships would know they didn't fire, so, they would not act. Martian ships would know that the ship self destroyed (perhaps they saw something in their screens that indicated this), so they wouldn't attack either. Or Errinwright could have sent a message saying: "mission aborted, destroy ship XYZ, don't let it fall in UN hands, but don't engage unless fired upon" and then to UN ships he could have sent another message warning that the Martian ship would be destroyed and not to engage either. It will take a while before the ships in Ganymede find out the Ambassador is dead.

Ok, I'll throw out another topic: The Lannister Brothers. Personally, I don't mind all the changes they have done with Tyrion, but I'm disappointed at Jaime's arc on the show. I guess I don't mind the Tyrion changes because, in the end, I think the essence of the character is the same. When I read the books, I get the feeling we are meant to think that Tyrion is one of the good guys and root for him, so, IMO, the show just cut away some aspects that would have made it difficult for a TV audience to root for Tyrion. Martin presented us with a guy who was thought to be a monster but behaved kindly to the Starks: he gave Jon good advice on how to deal with bullies, he designed a saddle for Bran, he even helped Catelyn in the Vale mountains when he was her prisoner. We then see how much he has been bullied and mistreated by his own father and sister, and see his vengeful side. Then he falls into the awful, sluggish, self-pitying, depression through the Eastern lands, accompanied with extensive travelogues. As of the last published book, Tyrion was on his way to Dany and perhaps on a rebuild of his character, which reached a pretty low point. On the show, Tyrion's flaws are never as bad as the book ones and we thankfully didn't get the travelling portion of his story. We'll see what awaits him in S7, but, so far I'm mostly ok with the changes. Jaime, OTH... very disappointing. Jame's ASOS chapters are some of the most introspective of any character out there. This is when we get to know Jaime on a very deep level. He starts out as a monster, and then we start sympathizing with him, understanding him. I don't think any of it justifies pushing a child out a window, but we do come to find out how Jaime ended up there, and he is severely punished for his transgression (in a karmic sort of way). We discover he actually had the same dreams Bran had: to become a Knight like Ser Arthur Dane, to fight for good reasons, to be honorable, courageous, valiant... In the books, Martin makes us hate Jaime, then he makes us pity him, then he makes us care a little, then he makes us root for the guy, and finally, when he broke it off with Cersei, he makes us cheer for him. I wish I had seen some of that transformation on the show. It's difficult to root for show Jaime because aside from giving Brienne the sword and making an attempt to keep his promise to Catelyn, he hasn't done anything to benefit others, unless they are Lannisters (praticularly Cersei), and he hasn't even expressed the book character's wish to actually become that Knight he once wanted to be. Even his Riverrun scene's motivation was changed completely.

Yes, but I haven't taken anything out of context. When asked about Sansa's arc in the last season their response is that she is a player. That's what's being discussed. And it's been referenced in context. For all the cries that those that criticize D&D must be Martin's apologists, those who laud D&D for every decision and defend their choices, even when they don't make sense, should take a good, long look in the mirror.

Me too, but in Dorne's instance I feel for D&D, bad pussy and all. They wanted to cut Dorne out, which is, IMO, a good idea. The plot reveal about Doran in the books is awesome, but Georgie boy sure took his time and meandered a lot to get us there. Meanwhile, including Oberyn was necessary, so, they were forced to do something about Dorne because once he died at the hands of The Mountain, there had to be consequences. It must have been incredibly difficult to decide how to portray those consequences on the show what plot aspects to include, which characters, how to eliminate Arianne and (f)Aegon, what to do with Myrcella, and so on. That said, their version of the Sand Snakes was awful.

Sure they are, but when the creators say that Sansa is now a player at the same level as LF, an interpretation that is diametrically opposed to that statement indicates one of two things is happening: The statement is wrong because the creators conveyed what they wanted to say on the show by having the character act in that way The creators were not successful in conveying the message they wanted the audience to receive Pick your poison. If the creators wanted multiple interpretations, then all they have to say in interviews is that they want the audience to make up their mind as to Sansa's motives. But that is not what they do, is it? They point blank say what we are supposed to think about the character. Had they kept their mouths shut, I might have agreed with you that many interpretations are valid. But since they themselves have said who Sansa is supposed to be, then, no; I don't agree that many interpretations are valid. Any artist has an objective when they create their work and they have an expectation as to what they want people to take from it. Picasso, for example, went through many periods, and his work changed as he got older. He is, off course, most famous for Cubism, a style where the image is fractured and out of perspective. Picasso wanted to say something about his world and his time when he painted Guernica in this style, it was painted in response to the bombing of the town that gave the painting its title. He said why he painted it, and those who look at the painting and analyze it say that they get the message Picasso wanted to transmit. That is a successful artist. Some aspects of the painting are open for interpretation and have been the source of contradictory opinions such as, the meaning of the horse and bull. When asked about intent, Picasso left it open, basically saying that whatever you felt was the meaning of those elements, it was ok with him to interpret them that way. But the main point of the painting is not a source of debate. It is a criticism of war, and everyone accepts it as such. No one would dare say the opposite of that and state that Guernica is a painting that supports and praises war.* In terms of who Sansa is supposed to be (the main point of the character), if you saw what D&D intended as expressed by their own words, they succeeded, if you saw something different they failed. It's as simple as that. Meh, for me show!Sansa is worth discussing because of the train wreck that D&D have made of the character. It's like watching an accident by the side of the road, I can't look away. Book!Sansa, was frustrating for me in her naivete and her inability to see what was right in front of her nose and which her little sister (raised by the same parents in the same way as Sansa) could see right away; then, she became a bit boring (I really don't care about the Vale that much) and it's only book!LF's evil manipulations that get me through her chapters. But at least book!Sansa has a logical progression in her character's development, and so, for me, she's a better written character than the show version. I see what you did there! But, are you sure you want to open that can of worms? I mean, what can you say about "bad pussy"? /eyeroll *I had the opportunity of seeing Guernica in Madrid and it's amazing!

Then the writers need to do a better job when they explain in interviews what Sansa is supposed to be about. The creators themselves say that Sansa is supposed to be a player now, and a great one at that. And that she is supposed to be a player because of everything she has learned from LF. This is the intended message as per the creators' own words. If that is your interpretation, and you think it's supported by what you have seen on the show, then the writers conveyed a message that is not the message they intended to convey, so, they did it wrong.

Exactly! There is a way to show internal conflict in a character, there is a way to show a character is naive, and there is a way to show a character is cunning. Whatever the intent of the creators, they are only successful if the majority of the audience reads the character they way they intended that character to be read. If you have a bunch of people saying "she's conflicted", a bunch people saying "she's an idiot" and a bunch of people saying "she's cunning", then the writers didn't succeed in their intent. As a matter of fact, one should not need to ask the creators "why did character X do this, that and the other?". This should be communicated on the show. That said, if someone does ask the question to the creators and they answer it, then it's perfectly valid to use their response in any analysis one makes of the created product. Furthermore, if you ask the creators: "why did character X acted this way?" And they answer "because she's cunning", then, it's valid to say, in a discussion such as this one: "no, character X is not supposed to be confused or conflicted, she's supposed to be cunning". It would also be perfectly valid to say: "Action Y performed y character X is exactly the opposite of cunning, therefore, the creators failed in transmitting this message". At the end of the day I think that the problem with Sansa is that D&D wanted to cut short her time in The Vale, and that is a decision I support; but, in order to do that, they had to create an alternate story for her that would still keep her in the action while at the same time putting her in position to do certain book plots that are necessary for the end-game (which we have all been told will be pretty close to George's intended end, for the main characters anyway). So, because the show has Sansa back in WF with the help of LF and the Vale, we can all pretty safely conclude that book!Sansa will eventually return to WF and that the Vale army will support the North, after LF convinces the Lords of the Vale to do so. This makes sense because as it has been mentioned above, book!LF has the Vale Lords and Sansa caught in his net. On the show they decided to have show!LF manipulate Sansa into marrying Ramsay, which then caused her to mistrust LF. So far, so good, where it all breaks down is when she decides to trust LF again to get the Vale army and lie to Jon, whom she had said she trusted a few episodes early. But they need her to do this because LF has some plot purpose later on, so he has to be remain in her life and they want to have a surprise save at the end of the battle. I think the writers do the characters a disservice by flip-flopping her so much so they can have their cake and eat it too. I think she could have, if, for example, they had shown her charming her little cousin and making it so that he trusts her more than LF. They could have had a Sansa that, under LF's wing, learned so much about the game that she surpassed her teacher. Instead of going to LF, she could have gone to her cousin and convinced him to order the Vale Lords to help her reclaim the North for the Starks.

LOL! I always wonder how people who wear that deal with a runny nose, or with those buggers that refuse to budge. Can't imagine it's easy! :D

So, we're supposed to coddle him now, poor little lamb?

ShowSansa, unlike BookSansa (as of the last book), has many reasons to distrust LF, and many reasons to trust Jon. Heck! she even says in one episode that he's the only one she could trust. She has known Brienne for a lot less time than either LF or Jon, but she seems to trust her just fine. I'm sorry but ShowSansa is not a very logically constructed character. There is absolutely no reason why she wouldn't tell Jon in the eve of battle, SPECIALLY, that there's an army at the ready. What exactly is happening around them to make her think that Jon will betray her? How exactly does it benefit her to hide this army from Jon? On the show, there was no compelling reason for Sansa to hold back this information, except to have a surprise save at the end of the battle. That's lazy writing, IMO.

It's not an all or nothing proposition, though. Mao could have been recruiting people for an experimental study to treat/cure the disorder (like we currently do with new drug treatments) and Prax's daughter could be one girl who happened to already be living in the same place where the "study" was being conducted. Another, more sinister alternative, is that Mao and his Martian backers could have intentionally introduced the genetic mutation to pregnant mothers in Ganymede. After all, we don't know how long they have been working with the protomolecule. Or, it could just be left unexplained forever. A small contrivance to serve the plot. I'd be ok with that. It's not a very big deal if I ca come up with plausible explanations in my head.

If that were true, she would have immediately told Jon and his council that the she had appealed to LF to bring the Vale army. If she was so scared about everyone's fate, including her own, she would have acted as quickly as possible to bring as many troops as possible to her (and Jon's) aid, not keep that information to herself, risking that the troops would never arrive in time to save anyone, including her. Then, she would have worked with Jon on a plan to delay the battle with Ramsey until the Vale army got there, or to try to trick Ramsay with some games of their own. If she's the one that knows Ramsay so well, she could put that knowledge to work to their advantage. Let's say this happened, let's say they devised a great plan together, let's say they are succeeding at provoking Ramsay psychologically (because Sansa knows him so well, she knows exactly what buttons to push), but Ramsay, angry at the situation plays his own manipulation card. Let's say he shows them Rickon about to be hanged from WF's very walls. Jon rushes to help him, his men follow. All hell breaks loose. Davos orders their main army to follow Jon into battle. Sansa flees and is being chased by Ramsay's goons. No one can help her but herself. She can't fight so she will have to use her wits. It seems she's managing to lose her pursuers, but she falls from the horse and is surrounded by Ramsay's men. Jon's main strength, meager as it is, attacks with fervor. We get our pitched battle. When it looks like everything is lost for Jon and his men, Ramsay orders the last of his troops to come out of WF for the final strike. Jon and his men will surely die now.... and then, surprise! Sansa returns with the Vale army and with the men who were surrounding her when she fell off her horse. The men Ramsay has just ordered out of WF attack him from behind as the Vale army rushes them from above. Ramsay escapes and locks himself in Winterfell (after this, we can still get all the scenes of Jon and Ramsey and the giant, and so on). We learn after the battle that the people surrounding Sansa when she fell off her horse were Glovers, or Manderleys, or Umbers; it turns out their leader was convinced by her speech when she and Jon first appealed to them, but they wanted to keep tabs on Ramsey's plans, so they decided to pretend they were still with him and find out everything they could from within. Ramsay was suspicious, though, so he didn't share with them his plans for Rickon and ordered them to remain inside WF taking only a few of them with him to the battle, with his most trusted guys in charge of the doors, until he called them out when he thought the battle was won. The guys he had originally taken to battle with him took the opportunity to chase Sansa to escape and actually protect her. That would support all your points. In addition, it would show us Jon's military prowess, Sansa's player status and diplomacy skills, and keep some of the Northern loyalty to the Starks from the books. But that's not what happened. Reading the unsullied episode threads, there are plenty of people confused by Sansa's actions throughout the season (some of the dialog @anamika quoted is actually mentioned as a source of confusion) and baffled at Jon's lack of military strategy when he had actually shown more sense at The Wall fighting Wildlings. Same result, different characterization, more consistency with what D&D say they want to convey and what they actually show on the episodes they put out.

My pleasure. I've found that the wiki I linked is a good source for all questions regarding ASOIAF

I don-t think we-re talking huge undertakings here. In some respects we are talking about D&D actually being consistent with their own words and in others we are talking about doing things that are unnecessary to carry out the same vision they say they have. Off course I'm not a writer, but that doesn't mean that I can't think of ways in which a writer's work can be improved. And this applies to all professions. Fresh eyes and all that. Just because a person is not in a particular field, it doesn't mean they can't look at that field and have valid input. Saying that someone who is not a writer can't contribute is simply making a strawman to shoot down, but the strawman does not reality reflect. But, we're now straying too far from the point of this thread, IMO, so, I'll leave it at that.

There are two other people currently in this conversation, both of which expressed a dislike for certain choices, and then the post about the purists appears, logically, it follows you're calling one or both of us purists. If that was not your intention, then those observations didn't have a place in this current conversation. I put forth all my posts in the Book 6 thread, as well as, all my posting history in this subforum, for anyone who wants to explore it, so they can see that I sometimes agree with D&D and sometimes not; there's plenty of criticism of Martin in there, for whoever wants to find it. Since during the hiatuses there are only a few of us around here, I've also had the opportunity to get familiar with some posters and their opinions, and I will say that while I have sometimes deeply disagreed with SeanC, I'd never say she's a book purist. And what we are saying is that we can envision plenty of scenarios where all of that could be accomplished without sacrificing characterization. At least of the principal characters, such as Jon and Sansa.

The proposed scenario does not negate a pitched battle. As the old saying goes, there are many ways to skin a cat. They could have arrived at the same type of battle scenario without making Jon look stupid or Sansa shifty, which also made her partially responsible for the deaths that came before she got the Vale army to the battle, since she hid from Jon the fact that she could get the Vale army in the first place.

Or once the requirements of the experiment were identified, Mao's company set out to find as many children with the disorder as they could across the entire system, and brought them and their parents to Ganymede under the pretense that they were working on a cure.

I sort of take offense at being lumped with Martin purists just because I don't like a choice D&D made. Sometimes I think the story is better as written by Martin, other times, I'm quite happy to let D&D flex their creative muscle. To me, Hardhome is a great example of D&D putting something there that the books didn't have which turned out great. I also think they were wise cutting Aegon (the one supported by Varys and Illyrio), Quentyn and Arianne out of the story, and I liked that they condensed the Slaver Bay plots so that we don't suffer through endless hours of Danny learning to be a Queen. But, sometimes D&D have made very poor choices, and I don't think pointing those out or stating that one thinks a book plot was better than what was presented by the show means that one is a Martin worshiper. The sand snakes and Ellaria were a bust, and just horrible characters with nothing to contribute but the tired cliches of what some people think are bad-ass women. Jaime has had very little character development for a long time now, Jon is diminished to elevate Sansa, the Northeners are portrayed one rung above hillbillies, Sansa is smart one day and dumb the other, and so on. It doesn't have to be about hating/loving a character. It could simply be that for some of us it was better written in the book, a counter argument shouldn't include such generalizations as to the motivation of the opinion itself.

She's not asking for the show to do the same thing scene by scene, but I do think there's an underlying desire to at least not change the characterizations. For example: The Northern Lords and clans support the Starks always, not just after they win against Ramsay Jon is not an idiot in terms of military strategy If desertion from the NW was such a big deal in episode 1 of the show (and in the books) how come no one is asking Jon about his breaking his NW vows? Things like that

You can check the poll I posted, which is from more than 1,500 book fans with a pretty accurate distribution and knowledge. I also went to IMDB and checked out how many facebook likes some characters got. Here's what I found: Dany 570 Tyrion 357 Jon 172 Arya 155 Ned 111 Cersei 102 Jaime 79 Sansa 63 Theon 52 Bran 27 Catelyn 24 Davos 24 Sam 13 But my point is not to say the opposite of what you say is true either because even though I have found some evidence that supports such a conclusion, I know none of it is scientifically kosher, and that means I can't make grand asseverations about these results either. My point is that nobody knows for sure whether character A or character B are the most liked/hated by TV fans/book readers. Whatever our own preferences and opinions are (and those of our closest friends), they do not apply to the rest of the population. And any measurement done online (such as both sets of data I have provided), only represents the portion of the fandom that has access and likes to be involved in internet communications, which, again, does not include the entire population or all the fans by a long, long shot. Sorry, it just bothers me because that's how these things later become "truth" without them necessarily being so. And they only serve to spark arguments that nobody can win.

No problem by me, I was already thinking the other day how long I'd need to wait after the current season is over to get the next one. But, I'm greedy like that.

Again, I have to ask, according to whom? Is there a survey, a poll, something out there that lends credence to this wide asseveration? Sorry, but I have found too many a fan projecting their own views onto everyone else, or deducing that since their opinion, which they discuss and share with like minded people because we tend to gravitate to those that think similarly to us, is the majority's opinion. So, I sort of need to see a bit more factual evidence to believe grand generalizations such as "he is the least liked POV character in the first 3 books". IMO, having read a lot of fan forums and such, Theon, Catelyn and even Sansa could be in the running for that title. ETA: I actually did some research and found this poll done among book readers before the show even started. http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/493986/results