Climbing the Spitball Wall - An Unsullied's Take on A Song of Ice and Fire - Reading Complete! Now onto Rewatching the Show and Anticipating Season 6!

[Protar]

Heh.  Yeah, because there isn't enough written evidence on the internet of the times I've been wrong [/typed dryly].

 

to elaborate, in case I did come across as mean: The writing of female characters in the show, compared to the books drives me up The Wall. I've long been of the opinion that ASOIAF is a greatly feminist work and that's not exactly a fringe position either. We've got a large feminist audience over at Westeros.org (a place where you must never go for it is dark and full of spoilers!). And Martin's hardly perfect sure, but compared to the show? I'll be honest Season 5 was one of the most appallingly sexist pieces of television I've ever seen. And if it was just another piece of sexist television that would be bad enough. But because it's an adaptation of books with so much exploration of sexism and patriarchy and which just has great female characters in general, it just really upsets me.

 

But that's all in the future for you. To bring it back to Season 1/A Game of Thrones - I'm not going to blame Martin for readers who decide to judge female characters more harshly than male ones. And I don't really think the show should be praised for taking the conventional route and changing female characters to be less controversial. They're supposed to be controversial - just like most of the characters are. 

 

Anyhoo, just a personal bugbear. 

[stillshimpy]

to elaborate, in case I did come across as mean:

 

Don't worry about it, I've got a pretty good sense of humor about myself, or at least I try to.  

 

As for season five, I thought it was largely shit for many of the same reasons, but I can't agree that this particular book wins any "what a great feminist work" prizes, except for Dany's arc, which is an empowerment arc.  

 

The only thing I  would be willing to say about this is that the men and women are equally flawed in this particular book, and that is a form of equality.  However, the women are flawed in these traditionally feminine ways:  Cersie: the sexual manipulator ,  skilled in emasculating and regicide as well.  Catelyn: A woman who literally can't get over the thought of her husband having ever loved another before he ever loved her (which is another moldy cliche) and whose rash, emotional and impulsive nature leads to trouble, combined with an inability to be accountable when she is wrong (dude, we know she starts to suspect she made a mistake and she just lets it go on and on rather than cop to being wrong) .  Sansa: Girliest girl to ever girl ,who betrays those she loves so she can marry "my sweet prince" (barfaloodydoo) . 

 

Then there's Arya, who is, as often as not, mistaken for a boy, but who I grant you does at least have her own agency.  

 

I don't think Martin, or any other author, or creator needs to cater to the fact that internalized sexism is a known response among audiences, but neither should he have courted it quite as much as he has thus far in this book.  Sansa's characterization is thin and consists of "I'm girl! Like a total one! Plus, I suck and chose some (obviously) horrible guy over my family" at present.  Cersei's is currently non-existent.  Seriously, she's screwed her brother, offered it up to Ned to get her way and she's literally had no character development other than to enter stage right and be evil.  Or manipulative.  Bonus points for both.  Hat-trick of "while trying to work her sexuality into the picture as leverage".   And that's all there is to her at the moment. 

 

Anyway, I'm going to stop, but at present Song of Ice and Fire isn't impressing me as a feminist work and the changes made to the female characters in this season helped if it had stood alone, which they thought it might have to.   

I'll wait and see if that changes over the course of the next few books.  

 

Also, thank you Avaleigh :-)  I'm glad I made you laugh :-) 

Edited July 6, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Protar]

Maybe it isn't so present back in AGoT. I wasn't a feminist during my first reading (funny story, this series - or rather the forum it lead me to - is one of the main reasons I changed some of my views and became a feminists) so perhaps it doesn't start out so great. But again, not a fringe view and one day when you finish the series there's a lot of writing on the matter from people far more eloquent than I. 

 

That is what I really like about the treatment of female characters though - they're not held up as idolised badasses. They are flawed and real. Just like real women have both good and bad in them, same as the men. And it's true that they are often informed by the patriarchal setting they live in. Cat and Cersei especially have a lot of internalised misogyny. But I think that lends itself to exploring those themes. 

 

When writing about any sort of social issue there's two main routes to take. You can focus purely on representation, and set your story in a world where the minority/oppressed group you're portraying has it pretty good, so they can just be characters without plots focused on their minority. Or you can make a setting where it's particularly tough on that group and use that to explore how people react to them, and how they think about themselves. Three guesses which route Martin chose ;)

 

So yes, each female character is informed by the patriarchy of Westeros. Different characters work with and against it in different ways. Do they accept it like Cat, reject it like Arya and Brienne, are they angry with it but still confined within it like Cersei. And I am so excited for you to get to

Dorne

. :)

 

ETA: By the way that's not a huge spoiler, but it does sort of hint at where some differences between the show and the books lie so...

Edited July 7, 2015 by Protar

[nksarmi]

I am relatively undecided if GRRM or the show are better at female characters.  Take Cersei for example, in the books - to me, she is just straight up evil and I hate her.  On the show, she is a complex character whom I find intriguing at times though never likable.  I had very different responses to her in the books and in the show because she really is two different people and the show version is definitely more interesting to me.

 

Sansa is another example.  In the books, I went from very much disliking Sansa to finding her tolerable.  On the show, I have grown to like her and I am interested in seeing where her story goes next.  On the other hand, I found Ayra more interesting in the books compared to the show.  I am definitely a person who dislikes Cat a lot, but I know that most of that is based on the book version of the character - not the show version.

 

However, with that said, there are many other characters who I think either make more sense in the books or who are just more interesting to me in the books - Dany is probably high up on that list.  However, the same could be said for the male characters.  So I guess - to me - the show has done a good job with some characters (making them more interesting) and a bad job with others (both male and female).  I have a hard time seeing these works as being feminist friendly but I don't see them as misogynist either.

[Protar]

Well like I said, it's got strong female characters and directly explorers sexism. That's why a lot of people see it as a feminist piece. 

 

My metric for how well written female characters are isn't just judged on how much I like them. I think Cersei's a very deep character in the books. I've never got the "complexity" of show cersei. She's just book cersei with all the interesting stuff cut out :P

[Lady S.]

Even in the first read I had sympathy for Sansa here. I'm with you, Mya. She's eleven years old. I have never been able to get behind the idea that Ned's downfall was mainly her fault. Ned had the opportunity to send his girls on ahead of him and he didn't even though he knew how dangerous the situation had become.

 

To add to which, she tattled to Cersei when Bobby was already on his deathbed and Ned had already made his bargain with Littlefinger. IIRC her last appearance in Ned's PoV is the one where he's watching Cersei's goons in the practice yard and wondering why she hasn't fled. But Sansa going to Cersei had to happen after that because she also remembers that Cersei had her shut up in Maegor's Holdfast right after, she never returned to the Tower of the Hand. The bells ringing don't mean Bobby has just died, but that Cersei has delayed their ringing for whatever Cersei reason, idk maybe she just forgot. I think that's another reason Martin removed it from his ep of s1, it actually didn't make any difference to Ned's arrest or the slaughter of his men. Basically the only thing Sansa definitely did is get herself captured by Cersei.

 

Yeah, I think GRRM had second thoughts about the Sansa scene.  I believe it was shot though as I remember an interview with Sophie Turner at the time where she talked about Sansa telling Cersei about Ned leaving.

Or that was just a sign that Sophie's read the book. Idt any of the actors, readers or not, were ever unspoiled the way shrimpy formerly was.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Lady S.

[stillshimpy]

Boy the Sansa chapter is actually difficult get all the way through, because on top of everything else, with the power of hindsight, it has that 20/20 clarity for her thought process with Joffrey.  Yes, that was difficult. 

 

Here's the thing for the first novel for me when it comes to "could you call this a form of feminism?"  As I said, male and female characters sort of equally suck.  It's not just women taking a lambasting, the men are very flawed also.  However, in the case of the female characters, they are deeply flawed or show their lesser selfs (prone to jealousy, pettiness, etc. etc. ) in ways that relate to traditional feminine roles.   The thing about feminism is that it doesn't exist so that we can judge a subset of life choices as wrong.  Feminism is about having all the choices in the world and making your own, rather than having a society make them for you.  Not about judging what is typically done by women as wrong, or changing the rules so that other choices then become the acceptable ones and flipping that coin.  

 

So at present, this is not yet a feminist tale, except for the ways in which it breaks from typical genre structures and gives equal weight and time to female characters.  I also know that Martin is about to off the metaphorical patriarchy by killing off the lead Pater in the tale, so it has potential to go its own way. 

 

 

 

By the way that's not a huge spoiler, but it does sort of hint at where some differences between the show and the books lie so...

 

I'm not reading under any spoiler tags and I appreciate your restraint in tagging where appropriate.  Thank you.  

 

nksarmi, I'm with you thus far and it has been a little surprising in more than one area:  

 

 

 

I am relatively undecided if GRRM or the show are better at female characters.  

 

I had also been sort of taking it as a given that GRRM had a lot of say or was consulted about changes and that many of them were approved.  He may have liked more than others, I'm assuming.  Also, I am aware, because whereas everyone in my life and here has been incredibly kind about not just telling me things to come, that the books to come are not as faithfully adapted to the screen.  There have been changes in this one ....Jon is the dreaming Stark, for instance, which is actually kind of a big change, but makes sense, because otherwise Bran's character would have had nothing to do and he does actually meet the three-eyed-crow in his dreams, it's just a different (and impossible to film) dream.  

 

So I await the "What now?!?" to come but on leaving out the thing about Sansa going to the queen, I think they made the right call by kind of a lot.  

 

 

 

Take Cersei for example, in the books - to me, she is just straight up evil and I hate her.  On the show, she is a complex character whom I find intriguing at times though never likable.  I had very different responses to her in the books and in the show because she really is two different people and the show version is definitely more interesting to me.

 

Also, there would be almost no point to casting someone with the acting range of Lena Headey for the character as written in the first book.  She's barely there and when she is, she practically has an ominous soundtrack trailing her heels and that's all the development she gets.   When she's just wandering around in the background of the book being the plot device with hair and a sinister air, it's fine because you can focus on other things...but villains need something to counterbalance them or they are boring as hell onscreen for any length of time. 

 

 

Sansa is another example.  In the books, I went from very much disliking Sansa to finding her tolerable.  On the show, I have grown to like her and I am interested in seeing where her story goes next.

 

Well, in the book the very first interesting thing that Sansa does is the worst possible course of action for the character to take.  That's hard to overcome.  She's not interesting and even if people can recognize echoes of "yeah, I was a silly kid prone to literary crushes too...." of their own childhood, they aren't presented fondly.  By the way, I've just assumed that Sophie Turner read the books.  She played it faithfully from jump.  

Also, I think that Martin did just make a mistake in including "went to the queen" as part of that character's trajectory.  Already knowing where the story is heading for a lot of things , it seems clear that he would have meant that to be something that ends up being part of Sansa's character development and arc.  An action that will go into forming who she is and becomes and how she changes as she grows.  I don't know yet, but I'm going to guess that it isn't about whether or not a reader is supposed to blame her, but Sansa trying to cope with feeling as if she is to blame and how she may to try avoid that (again, the character type is based on one where emotional repression as a way of life is key...and the stuff that caused women to snap like wet carrots over time) .  I don't think it was ever about asking the audience to blame her for what is to come, we know way too much about what Ned was going to undertake his own damned self and that no matter what Sansa did, Littlefinger was going to betray him.  

 

What Sansa does shouldn't end up mattering much for Ned and it won't matter much to the course of the war -- we already know her letters are going to be received as "yeah, someone made her write that because she's eleven and no eleven year old girl in that society would naturally think to instruct her mother and older brother, as well as her male relatives..." so the structure is in place for all and sundry to look at that letter and get "Oh great, so Sansa is a prisoner....and under house arrest at the very least...."  The only thing that it does impact is that she's a prisoner and can be used as leverage.  

 

 

 

On the other hand, I found Ayra more interesting in the books compared to the show.  

 

Book Arya is so lovable, and she is fascinating.  Show Arya is depicted by a young actress with enough range to keep her interesting, but she's the character I've enjoyed knowing more about the most. 

 

I do wonder if I was always just destined to be a little bit bored by Jon Snow though.  Maybe that is one area where knowing where things go in the show is actually hurting me.  I am bored stiff by Jon Snow on the show and I can happily report that whereas I like Jon in the book more....still bored by his story.  

 

At first I thought "Wow, readers must have been thrilled! This was a very faithful adaptation!"  and then I started getting to the "...or confused...because that's different enough to warrant a "Huh?"  and then a few defining aspects of the characters were either removed (Cat, Sansa)  180 changed (Dany's wedding night with Drogo) or dropped.   There are a couple of other things.   

 

One thing that I'm interested to see is that I am assuming that the books can't quite just drop the "whatever became of Benjen?" in quite the same manner as the series did...until they used it to sucker punch the shit out of the audience at the end of season five.    So I'm waiting to see if there's anything resembling resolution on that particular story at any point in a coming book or this one.  Because in the show it's just weird.  Season one ends with "Find Benjen, or die trying!" for the men of the Wall and then....well, they died trying, but they also sort of failed to mention him again for a really, really long time.   

 

Something I've always wondered about was whether or not the Zombonis were just these mindless, shambling "feed me flesh" type of things.  Just typical Zombies, or if there was more to them and I've long wondered if that was what happens to Benjen.  That he's found, but he's....let's go with changed and no longer among the living, but I don't know what that will mean.  

 

That's something I'm looking forward to finding out one way or the other and again, just assuming that a book series can't really get away with the same kind of plot-line-drop.   Kind of like it was beyond obvious that the guy who played Umber had some kind of contract dispute/everyone hated working with him/he told them to zark off thing going on, I have assumed something happened where they either couldn't get the actor to agree to come back or something.   I've kind of assumed for a few seasons that it was a case of "You so find out his fate, he's just a Zombie, is all" .  

 

I think that's what makes the most sense of why the show just pretended that whole thing never happened.  They weren't ready to pull the trigger on having the Army of the Dead roll forth in the show and so they just abandoned whatever plot resolution there was to this whole, "But what happened to Benjen?"  

Edited July 7, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Delta1212]

It was several years ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, and it's not like they send out press releases detailing everything that goes on with casting issues, but the sense I got was that Greatjon Umber wasn't a major enough character to have under contract, and the actor wound up getting a job that conflicted with the shooting schedule for season two, so they just dropped his character.

The recast that really seemed like it was a train wreck in terms of inability to get along professionally was the Mountain. The original actor seemed like a nice enough guy and would go on fan sites and talk to people, but he sounded frustrated over some of his stuff getting cut from season 1 and went out and took a minor part in The Hobbit and, I think, Spartacus, I guess trying to leverage his appearance on Game of Thrones for some more roles elsewhere.

If the "discussing his disappointments about the show on fansites" wasn't a clue, it also seems like he wasn't super professional, and I kind of got the sense that the show runners got fed up with him and didn't feel like working around his schedule to get him in season 2, so they used the guy who played the White Walker in the pilot and (later) the giant with the Wildlings as a stand in at Harrenhal, and then recast the role for the fight in season 4.

It's too bad because Conan Stevens, the original actor, would have been great if he'd just stuck through it, and from later comments he made it sounds like he realized he made a mistake essentially ragequitting the show and unsuccessfully lobbied to get back on.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Delta1212

[Athena]

I do wonder if I was always just destined to be a little bit bored by Jon Snow though.  Maybe that is one area where knowing where things go in the show is actually hurting me.  I am bored stiff by Jon Snow on the show and I can happily report that whereas I like Jon in the book more....still bored by his story. 

 

Maybe we share this destiny. I actually like Jon in this first book more/find him interesting. It's not that I dislike him or the North storyline, but I'm not riveted with him as a character. I hope for your sake you do find some interest in Jon's arc. He has his moments, but I always feel I should be more much more invested in him than I am now (which is not a lot). On the show, the action helps. I'm ambivalent to Kit as an actor though.

[Protar]

Well I reckon it's best to leave the feminist discussion until a bit further in Shimpy because it's later in the show's life cycle where I became dissatisfied on that front. 

 

A lot of people find Jon Snow a bit dull. I'm not one of them, even though he's not my favourite. But he's a pretty straight laced character, he's a very standard hero in a world of more unique and morally ambiguous characters. So imo he's rather outshined by the likes of Tyrion for instance.

 

And as for Benjen, I have to go get tea now. But when I return, we'll talk about Benjen. *dies*

[Mya Stone]

I find myself liking Jon more and more upon this reread. I think, maybe, it's because I appreciate him more now. I've always been in the camp of "Jon and Dany bore me" but, and it may be because of Kit, I don't know...I just like Jon a lot more now than I did.

[ulkis]

I find myself liking Jon more and more upon this reread. I think, maybe, it's because I appreciate him more now. I've always been in the camp of "Jon and Dany bore me" but, and it may be because of Kit, I don't know...I just like Jon a lot more now than I did.

 

I've been skimming the first book a little, and in the very first scene there's something that makes a big difference to me - when Jon finds Ghost, Theon says, "that one will die faster than the rest" and Jon says, "I think not. This one belongs to me." On the show, Theon just calls it the "runt of the litter, that one's yours Snow" and Jon has no response except his emo face. I guess it's not fair, because the book has tons of time to give weight to Jon's inner emo-ness that belays confident statements like the one mentioned above, but fair or not it makes a difference in the character.

[stillshimpy]

And as for Benjen, I have to go get tea now. But when I return, we'll talk about Benjen. *dies*

 

Okay, that genuinely made me laugh out loud :-)  Hee!  

[nksarmi]

Well like I said, it's got strong female characters and directly explorers sexism. That's why a lot of people see it as a feminist piece. 

 

My metric for how well written female characters are isn't just judged on how much I like them. I think Cersei's a very deep character in the books. I've never got the "complexity" of show cersei. She's just book cersei with all the interesting stuff cut out :P

Explaining why I think she is more interesting on the show rather than the books would require tons of spoiler tags and I'm not sure I even want to do that in her thread.  I think it boils down to in the books I feel like she hates herself BECAUSE she is a woman and I think she hates women in general (as even she sees them as weaker than men).  On the show, I think she hates how her world treats women, but she doesn't hate herself or women in general.  On the show, Cersei is full of hate, but you get the feeling that if her life had gone differently that might not have been the case.  In the books, I don't get any of those layers or shades of gray from her.

[Protar]

Explaining why I think she is more interesting on the show rather than the books would require tons of spoiler tags and I'm not sure I even want to do that in her thread.  I think it boils down to in the books I feel like she hates herself BECAUSE she is a woman and I think she hates women in general (as even she sees them as weaker than men).  On the show, I think she hates how her world treats women, but she doesn't hate herself or women in general.  On the show, Cersei is full of hate, but you get the feeling that if her life had gone differently that might not have been the case.  In the books, I don't get any of those layers or shades of gray from her.

 

That's absolutely book Cersei. And I don't know...I just find that interesting. But yes, getting waaaay ahead of ourselves here. 

 

Because I do have to admit that Cersei (and also Jaime) in the first book are kind of non-entities. They both get a few big scenes, Jaime gets the scene where he accosts Ned and LF, and Cersei gets her chat with Ned and the subsequent coup. But other than that they aren't very present. So whatever other problems I may have with Show!Cersei, I'm completely on board with fleshing her out a bit more from jump street.

[Lady S.]

I've been skimming the first book a little, and in the very first scene there's something that makes a big difference to me - when Jon finds Ghost, Theon says, "that one will die faster than the rest" and Jon says, "I think not. This one belongs to me." On the show, Theon just calls it the "runt of the litter, that one's yours Snow" and Jon has no response except his emo face. I guess it's not fair, because the book has tons of time to give weight to Jon's inner emo-ness that belays confident statements like the one mentioned above, but fair or not it makes a difference in the character.

Yeah, I remember bringing that up in the Jon thread on the main board. Why is Jon just staring at Ghost looking confused and why is Robb staring at him and smoldering? Kit didn't help with matters in those early days of constant moping broken up by slack jawed confusion, but I feel the problem was more that this was the direction tptb wanted to go in and Kit's resting emo face was probably part of the reason he got the role.

[nksarmi]

I actually want to see what you think of Jon as the books go on because I personally think - with the exception of Sansa - all the Starks (from Robb to even Rickon) are more interesting in the books.  I've loved Jon and Arya from the start, but I'm almost positive that's book influence (though I do like the actors on the show in these roles).  I love Tyrion as well but I think that's equal parts book and show and Peter in the part.

[Haleth]

Well, dang it! I'm finished with my reread of book 1 and started on book 2. I didn't remember that

Jeyne Westerling

doesn't show up till book 3. It's going to be a long wait!

[SeanC]

I really hope people haven't been too horrible to Sophie Turner.  

There was, unfortunately, a lot of jerks who had no problem insulting her over that.  She's talked about in the past, things like finding the level of vitriol directed at her character really disconcerting, and having people come up to her on the street and tell her how much they hate her character (in at least one instance, she was hanging out with Maisie Williams -- they're best friends in real life -- and told Williams that she was her favourite, while Turner was her least favourite).

 

On the subject of Sansa's arc, I agree it's not the strongest point of the first book (and while the show cutting Sansa's journey to Cersei was probably a good thing, I think they also made a huge mistake by omitting her big scene with the Hound, which is the most interesting bit of characterization she gets in the first one) -- in particular, it feels like Martin includes two different moments that should have soured her on the Lannisters individually, when there should only have been logically room for one.  Sansa is my favourite character in the series in subsequent books, in large part because I think she's the most realistically-written of the child characters (which is also one of the things some fans hate about her), but I've never found it plausible that a child would ever trust Cersei again after the Kingsroad incident and the death of Lady (not that her blaming Arya for what happened doesn't also make sense).  But she does, seemingly just because Martin needed to include her subsequent going to Cersei at the climax.

Edited July 8, 2015 by SeanC

[Triskan]

Sophie's a very articulate woman, and a very smart one, I never get the feeling, even when she was 12/13 (the heart of the "I hate Sansa" seasons) that she took issues with the mean comments she received. She was surprised and somehow disturbed as she stated, but I never felt like she was crushed down, and I feel like she's known all along that the public reaction to her character would evolve a lot in the years to come.

 

As for Jon, well, he's one of my favourite characters, but mostly for events that happen around him. Quite the opposite from some readers here, I've always been fascinated by the mythology, stakes and atmosphere of the Wall and Beyond arcs, so Jon being our main window over them made me like him a lot... and then I grew to like him as a character of his own. Sure, sometimes, he's too much "obvious hero" for my tastes (I've already said it, but my favourite character is Theon, so not the same caliber at all), but he's a damn well-thought character still, in my opinion.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Triskan

[Shanna Marie]

Those who know me from other forums won't be at all surprised to learn that I adore Jon, but then I'm the weirdo who finds a good-hearted person trying to do good to be far more interesting than any villain, no matter how allegedly "complex" the villain supposedly is, no matter how sad the villain's backstory. I only start finding bad boys/villains interesting when they reach the point of admitting where they went wrong.

 

I think I became firmly on Team Jon the moment he advocated for saving the direwolf puppies and took Ghost as his own. I got a white German shepherd puppy when I was 14 that looked a lot like newborn Ghost, and then fully grown he looked like season one "puppy" Ghost, so I tend to picture my dog as Ghost when I read (sniff, I still miss that dog). But I also find all the Wall and Watch stuff fascinating and find political maneuvering boring.

 

Although I have some issues with Martin's writing, one thing I have to say for him is that he doesn't fall into the trap of the hero/villain double standard, in which any slip-up by someone who's trying to be good is seen as a zillion times worse than anything the villains do, while one good deed by a villain can totally redeem him and make him better than a hero who's screwed up. Martin lets his heroic characters make mistakes, have bad days, get angry, feel hurt, defend themselves, and be dumb without their heroism being questioned, as long as their intentions are more or less good. And he doesn't seem to woobify his villains or give them excuses, even when they have complexity or difficult backstories. Even though his heroes suffer terribly, I never get the sense that he thinks the villains are more "fun." He seems to genuinely care for the heroes, and he writes them in a way that doesn't put them into that "if they're not perfect, they're utter failures as heroes, but if they are perfect, they're boring" trap that so many writers fall into. Jon can be pouty, he can go a little overboard when he gets to the Wall and enjoys finally being better than everyone else, and he gets his feelings hurt easily, but I don't ever feel like that makes him any less of a good person. It just makes him human, and that balances out the "hero" stuff to make him more sympathetic. He may end up being this story's Destined, Chosen One With Magical Specialness, but he's never been the type who walks on water or is too good to be true.

[chandraReborn]

On the topic of Sansa--yeah, it's really not fair to blame her for what happened to Ned. Ned's willing to indulge Arya--getting her a fencing teacher, showing her a lot of trust and understanding for a nine year old. But Sansa is twelve, and Ned doesn't bother taking her aside and explaining what's really going on. Arya complains about leaving Syrio, Ned says "I'll pay him to come back with us," Sansa complains about leaving Joffrey, Ned says "You have to do what I say, you'll understand when you're older." For everything Ned says about lone wolves and packs and how families need to work together, he never takes Sansa, his second-oldest child, very seriously at all. If he'd told Sansa the truth, she'd probably have been more than willing to go along, especially if she believed their household was in danger. One of the things I don't think the show captures well is Sansa's genuine care for the wellbeing of others--that "Oh, wait, I've decided I don't care" scene with Septa Mordane in the TV show really goes against her character. Sansa tries to find something nice to say about everyone, and genuinely cares about the wellbeing of their people. But her dad doesn't listen to her, her dad pays more respect and attention to her sister. It's Sansa's first attempt at playing the Game of Thrones--she's trying to take her life into her own hands and scheming to get what she wants, and even though it blows up in her face, it's an important example of her proactivity.

 

After all, if her betrothal to Joffrey is broken, she'll be engaged to someone else, and there are not many noble boys her age in the North. She could end up married to someone she isn't attracted to and doesn't want. In her own way, fighting to keep her betrothal intact is a way of fighting for her right to sexual self-determination. We know Joffrey's bad news, but he's desirable from Sansa's POV, and I can't blame Sansa for preferring to give her virginity to a boy she knows and is attracted to rather than a complete, likely older stranger. So she defies the family patriarch, who is (and we all love Ned, but it's true) blindly expecting her total compliance and trust (without showing her any respect or trust) so that he, not her, can make all the choices about her life, her future, and who she will have sex with. And she seeks out another woman, who is in a position of power, and asks Cersei for help to secure her future. Sansa's plan to form connections with other women to take control of her sexuality back from the family patriarch is inherently feminist, notwithstanding how it all falls apart. It's the converse of the rebellious princess trope--a princess fighting to remain in an arranged marriage because it's the best one she can get. I don't see her concerns as childish or stupid at all.

 

TL;DR?: Ned screwed up, was a bad dad, Sansa going to Cersei shows off her will and courage, and it only falls apart because of information that was deliberately kept from Sansa by her father. 

[ambi76]

I think it boils down to in the books I feel like she hates herself BECAUSE she is a woman and I think she hates women in general (as even she sees them as weaker than men).

 

That's why a transsexual Cersei fanfic makes much more sense than a transsexual Brienne fanfic, but guess which's more prevalent? (Transgender would probably be more accurate as I don't think Cersei actually has much body dysmorphia going on.)

 

Both characters hate how they are treated because they're woman. What  Cersei doesn't get is that "being a women" might be the least of the reasons she's not treated that well in her case (and it's a pretty sucky part to begin with I concede).

Edited July 8, 2015 by ambi76

[chandraReborn]

I certainly think Cersei is dealing with some degree of gender dysphoria (so glad someone else picks up on that.) It would explain a lot of her issues, in my opinion, and she certainly shows signs. In AFFC (not really spoilers plotwise, but from AFFC)

she thinks of herself as Tywin's "true son" on multiple occasions, ad=nd she recounts wearing Jaime's clothes as a child and not understanding what made them different.

Brienne is very much cis-gendered--she actively desires to be known as female and to have female experiences. Westeros is a place with many powerful women of many kinds in its history and in its present day: Arya loves the story of Nymeria, for example. But Cersei does not look to other women as role models, rather (AFFC material) 

she thinks of herself as comprised entirely of different men: her father, her sons, Jaime (through whom she is able to live out a masculine identity, as she thinks, if I were a man, I would be Jaime, and a big part of their break-up is driven by him becoming different and denying her the masculine identity she seeks through him.

 

 

So if you view Cersei as an example of how underlying gender dysphoria can screw with your head in a society with terribly rigid gender norms, than she becomes much more interesting. 

[ambi76]

I certainly think Cersei is dealing with some degree of gender dysphoria ...

 

Which is kinda funny if you consider  (spoiler is about background information about GRRM's initial plan for the series)

that Cersei and Jaime were actually just Jaime in his first outline and ended up as "one person in two bodies".

Edited July 8, 2015 by ambi76

[SeanC]

TL;DR?: Ned screwed up, was a bad dad, Sansa going to Cersei shows off her will and courage, and it only falls apart because of information that was deliberately kept from Sansa by her father. 

I don't think it's quite that far -- Sansa is willfully blind, to a great degree; she has a very strong mental inclination to see what she wants or thinks she's expected to see.

 

That said, yes, she is ultimately a child, and it's her father's responsibility to, y'know, parent her.  Ned's handling of Sansa in AGOT really jarred me on re-reading it.  The show added a bit of dialogue to his scene with Arya where he says Sansa basically had to say what she did at the Kingsroad, which, whatever you think about it, is him expressing an opinion on the matter.  When I re-read that point for comparison, Book!Ned's thoughts on the matter are...non-existent.  He never for a moment considers that Sansa is clearly seriously misapprehending the situation they're in, nor does anything about it.  It seems like he just banks on her doing what he says at all times (presumably because she's always done so in the past, even though in this case he knows she lied after telling him the truth), and I think it's telling that GRRM has the daughter Ned takes for granted end up being the one who doesn't do what he says.

[Delta1212]

Which is kinda funny if you consider (spoiler is about background information about GRRM's initial plan for the series)

that Cersei and Jaime were actually just Jaime in his first outline and ended up as "one person in two bodies".

Oh, I am looking to the nice long talk we can have about that original plot outline once shimpy gets far enough into the series. I think everything referenced has "happened" (for want of a better term for things that never happened) by the end of book three. (Well, other than the list of characters he thought would survive to the end of the story).

Here, shimpy, so a letter that GRRM wrote to his editor way back when he'd first started the series outlined his general feeling about the direction of the first volume of his planned trilogy at that point. It actually outlines a good deal of the plot through the end of book three, except that if you think the Spitball Wall was dealing in an AU, whoo boy. This one is a doozy.

[Shanna Marie]

So if you view Cersei as an example of how underlying gender dysphoria can screw with your head in a society with terribly rigid gender norms, than she becomes much more interesting.

In a way, that makes her even more annoying to me because it reminds me of some bosses and clients I've had to deal with. I guess you could kind of call them faux feminists. I'm sure they had a tough time because they came up before women started making real strides in the business world, and they had to fight hard for everything they got. But instead of that making them want to champion other women, they talked a good show but then ended up being more sexist than any of the men I ever had to deal with. They blamed everything they wanted but didn't get on sexism, using that as a convenient excuse and refusing to ever consider that they might be wrong, might not know everything or might be incompetent. They screamed to the heavens about wanting equal treatment, but then threw a fit when they didn't get special treatment and consideration because they were women. And they stomped down hard and sabotaged the women under them because they seemed to feel that other women achieving anything would somehow lessen the specialness of their accomplishments.

 

So Cersei seems to have pretty much decided that being a woman is the sole reason she didn't get everything she wants in life. She's not entirely wrong, as she surely would have been treated differently if she'd been a man, but at the same time, that convenient excuse gives her a firm set of blinders that keep her from seeing any of her own flaws. Meanwhile, she doesn't really want other women to succeed, especially if they manage to pull off what she didn't and prove to be powerful players while being women.

 

I wonder how close Lena Heady is to what Martin envisioned. I liked the suggestion earlier in the thread of a young Michelle Pfeiffer because there's a hardness to TV Cersei from the start that seems pretty obvious, while I think in the book she's supposed to be someone who doesn't let that show on the surface at first -- She gives every appearance of being the perfect beautiful queen, and only later does it become obvious that she'd cut a bitch. There's never any doubt with TV Cersei. I think Ned warning her in the book makes more sense if you imagine it that way, if you can think of him seeing her as being something of a victim in all this, a fragile woman whose only real sin is loving the wrong person and who's suffering from the fact that the consequences of her sin affect the entire realm. If you picture someone more ethereal and porcelain perfect, that works. TV Cersei is so obviously tough and hard that he looks like a complete idiot for not being sure of exactly what she'll do with his warning.

[Autarch]

I think Cersei's a very deep character in the books. I've never got the "complexity" of show cersei. She's just book cersei with all the interesting stuff cut out :P

 

I agree with others that have said that show Cersei has more likeable traits (on the surface at least) compared to book Cersei. But while show Cersei is definitely portrayed in a more positive light (she's a bit more empathetic, if only because she isn't as consistently harsh in her treatment of others), I think this has actually worked against her overall characterization. For instance, show Cersei goes from one extreme to the other, showing a softer side but then, when the plot calls for it, being as narcissistic and acidic as only book Cersei can be. But I still wouldn't say her overall motivations are any different: she views everyone not in her family--inner circle really, since we know this isn't true of ever family member--as enemies. And really, there should be no reason why show Cersei is like that, but she is, because they've tried to soften her up some without actually going anywhere with it.

 

One reason I think was a bad idea was in their portrayment of Joff.

A lot of his actions in the show mimic ones in the book, however, in the book I think it's made clear, whereas in the show it is not, that book Joff is the way he is, and continues to be the way he is, because of Cersei. Just count how many times in the book you hear him speaking Cersei's words or parroting her views. It's actually adds an interesting facet to the story when you realize that Joff may have died but survives, in a way, through Cersei.

 

I certainly think Cersei is dealing with some degree of gender dysphoria (so glad someone else picks up on that.) It would explain a lot of her issues, in my opinion, and she certainly shows signs. In AFFC (not really spoilers plotwise, but from AFFC)

she thinks of herself as Tywin's "true son" on multiple occasions, ad=nd she recounts wearing Jaime's clothes as a child and not understanding what made them different.

Brienne is very much cis-gendered--she actively desires to be known as female and to have female experiences. Westeros is a place with many powerful women of many kinds in its history and in its present day: Arya loves the story of Nymeria, for example. But Cersei does not look to other women as role models, rather (AFFC material) 

she thinks of herself as comprised entirely of different men: her father, her sons, Jaime (through whom she is able to live out a masculine identity, as she thinks, if I were a man, I would be Jaime, and a big part of their break-up is driven by him becoming different and denying her the masculine identity she seeks through him.

 

 

So if you view Cersei as an example of how underlying gender dysphoria can screw with your head in a society with terribly rigid gender norms, than she becomes much more interesting. 

 

Nothing to add, only want to say that this is so spot on. If Martin wasn't purposely going this route then it was a serious accident in his characterization of Cersei, which seems silly given how he repeatedly hammered that home. 

Edited July 9, 2015 by Autarch

[Hecate7]

I agree there is no subtlety in the show either, but my point was that in the particular case of Renly and especially Loras, Martin portrays them as more developed characters than walking stereotypes.

 

Yes, with the result that people debated for years over whether they were gay. It wasn't clear enough to many fans, and so I think there was probably a conscious choice made to allow the real nature of their relationship to be a little more obvious.

[ambi76]

Yeah, that word of god/gay was neccessary is something I hold against GRRM here too. A bit too coy for my taste with his "well l can hardly call them gay in universe". No, but you could really just have came out (hahah) at some point and said they're fucking.

[Protar]

I think given that neither are POVs it would have been a bit cumbersome to make it explicit. And though I did miss it the first time around, looking back I don't really see how I could have. Some of the references to their relationship are pretty damn obvious. 

[Avaleigh]

I agree with others that have said that show Cersei has more likeable traits (on the surface at least) compared to book Cersei. But while show Cersei is definitely portrayed in a more positive light (she's a bit more empathetic, if only because she isn't as consistently harsh in her treatment of others), I think this has actually worked against her overall characterization. For instance, show Cersei goes from one extreme to the other, showing a softer side but then, when the plot calls for it, being as narcissistic and acidic as only book Cersei can be. But I still wouldn't say her overall motivations are any different: she views everyone not in her family--inner circle really, since we know this isn't true of ever family member--as enemies. And really, there should be no reason why show Cersei is like that, but she is, because they've tried to soften her up some without actually going anywhere with it.

 

One reason I think was a bad idea was in their portrayment of Joff.

A lot of his actions in the show mimic ones in the book, however, in the book I think it's made clear, whereas in the show it is not, that book Joff is the way he is, and continues to be the way he is, because of Cersei. Just count how many times in the book you hear him speaking Cersei's words or parroting her views. It's actually adds an interesting facet to the story when you realize that Joff may have died but survives, in a way, through Cersei.

 

 

Nothing to add, only want to say that this is so spot on. If Martin wasn't purposely going this route then it was a serious accident in his characterization of Cersei, which seems silly given how he repeatedly hammered that home. 

I'm going to make my response brief because I know that we're jumping ahead a little but I disagree about the parental dynamic with Joffrey and Cersei (and Robert).

Basically, I think that Cersei and Robert are both responsible for the way that Joffrey turned out. There are multiple points in the books where it is clear that Joffrey is attempting to emulate Robert as opposed to Cersei and Tywin even comments about how irritated he is that Joffrey has picked up certain things from Robert. Joffrey tries to have Bran killed because it's what he thinks Robert would want. Cersei doesn't factor into that boneheaded move at all.

[stillshimpy]

so I think there was probably a conscious choice made to allow the real nature of their relationship to be a little more obvious.

 

Dude, a Little? They practically went full-on The Birdcage on the situation. Only if they'd had Loras dancing while saying, "Fosse, Fosse, Fosse, Madonna, Madonna, Martha Graham, Martha Graham..." could they have been more freaking obvious in it.   Plus, they apparently borrowed the Foley Artist from Jackie Chan's fight scenes to add in the scraping and slurping, so yeah, only a neon sign with a rainbow flag could have been more "They're here, they're queer, do you get it?"  

 

Whereas in the book, I don't know that I would have picked up on it much thus far.  

 

I'm several more chapters in.  Including Death Ortho and his Zomboni Stylings -- yes, yes, I know Wight.  Not into that name.  Don't think I'll use it for a bit -- shambling around, being undead but apparently targeted.  That is something I'm looking forward to learning.  If the ...Wight/Zomboni (I'm trying) ...was mindless, how would it know to go for Mormont?  I'm hoping the Zombonis have some kind of sentience.  

 

That was a good chapter, although Sam's characterization bugs me a bit.  I've seen pictures of George R. R. Martin so it's not like I suspect him of disliking people of size, but jeez, I could do without reports of the independent life of Sam's chins every time he utters something.  Although I am appreciating that Book Sam seems to do more than be pervy and fall down a lot in this first installment.  You know, I'm pretty sure Ravens don't speak, but okay. Corn! Corn! Corn! it is.  

I did discover that Osha is not a show construct and that the Umber Meat Moment was a faithful retelling of a moment from the book.  I enjoyed much of that, but it's primarily sad stuff.  

 

Nice to see that the attempted murder by wine merchant wasn't nearly random as it seemed in the series.  That Dany had been going to the bazaar area almost daily, so the wine merchant would have reason to believe he'd encounter her sooner or later.   Some of this stuff must have been so fun the first time around.  That moment when Drogo announces that he will sail the sea and take the Throne, etc. etc.  ....or, you know, discover death by sepsis and magicks.  One, the other.  Also, the show apparently saw fit to deprive me of manticores.  I am not well-pleased by that decision. 

 

Onwards to what I am sure will be a chapter that will test my patience with Catelyn again.  Although I suspect now that she isn't stubbornly clinging to the "hostage, man who tried to kill my son....despite several salient points he made about what kind of idiot sends someone with their own damned knife....and further evidence that my sister is over the cuckoo's nest and maybe I shouldn't have trusted her coded letter judgment...." stuff I'll be able to go back to liking her a bit more.  I don't know how I would have reacted to all of that had I not already known "So, your husband...yeah, he's a dead man-not-quite-walking...your entire freaking family is pretty much doomed by all of this....so you might want to get thee back to Winterfell to enjoy your remaining days..."   

 

We shall see :-)  

 

I can't really comment on Cersei's characterization or its intent in this first book.  Whatever Martin was trying to do with her, he wasn't doing a lot in this particular installment.  

Edited July 9, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Lavignac]

1) That was a good chapter, although Sam's characterization bugs me a bit.  I've seen pictures of George R. R. Martin so it's not like I suspect him of disliking people of size, but jeez, I could do without reports of the independent life of Sam's chins every time he utters something.  Although I am appreciating that Book Sam seems to do more than be pervy and fall down a lot in this first installment.  You know, I'm pretty sure Ravens don't speak, but okay. Corn! Corn! Corn! it is.  

 

2) Also, the show apparently saw fit to deprive me of manticores.  I am not well-pleased by that decision. 

 

1) I believe I heard ravens can mimic some human-voice words, like magpies or parrots... But to be honest, if you can target a raven to a distant castle of choice (rather than a HOMING pigeon) then I guess the intelligence expectations shouldn't be limited to real-world ravens.

 

2) Actually, a manticore did appear onscreen. Barristan saved Dany from one, delivered by warlock-girl. And their venom was mentioned as a usable poison a few times.

[ambi76]

Some of the references to their relationship are pretty damn obvious.

 

Of course they are, (not in AGOT, shimpy, but ACOK and ASOS should do the trick) Protar, but you really have to actually care about Renly and Loras in the first place, which let's face it, 85% of fandom probably do not. Then again (spoiler about the Dunk & Egg prequel short stories shimpy, not sure if/when you want to read them) when I read

that people didn't get that Daemon Blackfyre II was gay in The Mystery Knight I just boggle. It was like GRRM was going: "So you dumb farks didn't get the Renly/Loras thing? Now take that!"

... And folks still didn't get it. GRRM: "My readers, thick as a castle wall." Probably. :P

Edited July 9, 2015 by ambi76

[Delta1212]

Interesting fact about ravens, yes they can mimic human speech to a degree. Poe wasn't just pulling that out of his ass. Corvids (crows, ravens) are also exceptionally intelligent in real life.

We're talking ape-like intelligence, including spontaneous problem-solving and tool use, including solving complex, multi-stage problems without being trained. It's a really fascinating subject.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Delta1212

[Protar]

I do hope you read the Dunk and Egg novella's at some point Shimpy. They're a series of short stories set in Westeros about 90 years ago. They provide some cool insight into the world's history and there's a few links to ASOIAF.

[Delta1212]

If you do decide to read them, I might read along with you. I've been meaning to forever but they aren't the most convenient to get ahold of and I haven't really much effort into tracking them down.

[Avaleigh]

If you do decide to read them, I might read along with you. I've been meaning to forever but they aren't the most convenient to get ahold of and I haven't really much effort into tracking them down.

Guys, let me know if and when you plan on doing this because I haven't read them either and would love to be able to read along with others. 

Edited July 9, 2015 by Avaleigh

[ambi76]

I've been meaning to forever but they aren't the most convenient to get ahold of and I haven't really much effort into tracking them down.

 

Yeah, that sucks majorly if you don't want the comic pardon graphic novel version but I think a compilation of the three has been finally released in English or will be soon. I had to read them in German (ugh; not a fan of some modern translation customs), because I'm not that patient and the foreign language versions all came out a year or so earlier for some reason.

Edited July 9, 2015 by ambi76

[SeanC]

Yeah, that sucks majorly if you don't want the comic pardon graphic novel version but I think a compilation of the three has been finally released in English or will be soon. 

A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms will be released in October.  You can preorder it on Amazon now.

[Protar]

That was a good chapter, although Sam's characterization bugs me a bit.  I've seen pictures of George R. R. Martin so it's not like I suspect him of disliking people of size, but jeez, I could do without reports of the independent life of Sam's chins every time he utters something.  Although I am appreciating that Book Sam seems to do more than be pervy and fall down a lot in this first installment. 

 

I think that lessens off after a bit. A lot of people interpret Sam as being Martin's author avatar (as well as a homage to Sam Gamgee). Other authors might put in heroic, mary sue self-inserts. But Martin knows that he'd be the fat dude getting all squeamish over dead bodies. 

[Mya Stone]

Hmm. I've always read Tyrion as GRRM's voice - self-depreciating, sarcastic.

Shimpy, are you still delaying Ned's final moments?

[Protar]

Hmm. I've always read Tyrion as GRRM's voice - self-depreciating, sarcastic.

 

I'm sure he puts different bits of himself into different characters. I recall Martin saying that Tyrion has his wit, only much faster. Obviously all of Tyrion's quips were made by Martin, but Tyrion spews them out whereas Martin takes months to think of them. But I think Sam is supposed to be Martin's idea of how he would actually be were he plonked into Westeros as a young man. 

[SeanC]

But I think Sam is supposed to be Martin's idea of how he would actually be were he plonked into Westeros as a young man. 

He's said as much, I believe.

[stillshimpy]

Hmm. I've always read Tyrion as GRRM's voice - self-depreciating, sarcastic.

 

That's what I assumed from long before reading the book.  It's part of the reason I had absolutely no fear that Tyrion was going to die in season four, which made the season sort of pointless from my perspective.  

 

As for Sam being Martin's avatar in this, I don't think that's as likely.  It isn't unusual for authors to put in a character who basically speaks and shares their viewpoint, even when they aren't the highly idealized Marty Stu, but they usually are not lacking in development.  My chief complaint about Sam in this book is that aside from being almost amusingly cowardly (dude, he's seriously closer to phobic than someone who is just consumed by fear at every turn) , he likes books and I get tired of hearing about how incredibly, terribly, remarkably and repetitively large the poor guy is, complete with constant updates of his wiggling face parts.  

 

I think Sam's certainly an interesting take on how someone who just wanted to stay home with books and snacks might fare in this world, and more importantly, what might become of a son who so completely outside the realm of what was deemed useful in land such as Westeros.  He doesn't really seem to have any of the standard earmarkings of an author inserting his own avatar into a story though for the simple reason that Sam seems repelled by that world, almost entirely.  

 

George R. R. Martin wouldn't be.  Or else he has self-loathing issues :)  Tyrion's book-loving, constant snarking , observant, insightful but decidedly ill-suited to the physical demands of that world persona seem a more likely match to an author's avatar, but I could be wrong. 

 

I finished the first book, Mya Stone.  It played out about as I might expect.  Arya's chapters are the most poetically written and her plight was the saddest.  Although, I can't help but notice that she wasn't busily setting off for the Wall at the end of the book.  

 

I glad that Martin took a pass on the most obvious device of having Ned's death chapter be from his own POV and I felt very sorry for Sansa at the end.  

 

I finally got to the "There be Bookwalkers!" dead giveaway passage with Mirri and I do wonder why that was the one thing no one could seemingly keep straight as not having been in the show.  I had more than a little bit of an eye-roll going for Dany breast-feeding the dragons at the end.  More than a bit of overkill on that, but it was still a very interesting passage.  

 

I was allowed a few more moments of liking Cat as she helped Robb figure out how to wage his various battles and then again when Ned has died and she has to live with the fear that she brought so much of it about herself.  I mean, it's impossible for me not to pity her a fair amount.  I did appreciate meeting her brother and father though...and sort of wonder why the show made the choice to make Edmure out to be a near fool. 

 

I also appreciate learning that one of my favorite comedic moments from the show just flat-out doesn't exist in the book:  Catelyn trying to describe the Frey girls to Robb, who was far more "Oh freaking joy....what do they look like?" in the series.  

 

I am still a Sansa defender, although I can understand why she's a bone of contention in the fandom.  Ned confesses to treason specifically because Varys makes it clear Sansa will be killed if he does not.  In the show they made it less blatantly clear and it seemed more about sparing them grief and living for them, not buying back Sansa's life.  

 

But the book ends much as the first season did and I am actually hoping there is more "it was like this in the book, vs. that in the series" in the second book, because the differences between the first season and the first book were relatively minor....to the extent that reading the book wasn't quite as engaging as I had hoped it would be.  I learned a new detail here and there that was fun, but mostly it was either an expansion upon, or a confirmation of a lot of things I already knew.  

 

It also seems like the series added some really good moments between Catelyn and Robb that were well worthwhile.  

[SeanC]

But the book ends much as the first season did and I am actually hoping there is more "it was like this in the book, vs. that in the series" in the second book, because the differences between the first season and the first book were relatively minor....to the extent that reading the book wasn't quite as engaging as I had hoped it would be.  I learned a new detail here and there that was fun, but mostly it was either an expansion upon, or a confirmation of a lot of things I already knew. 

The depatures from the books become greater and greater every season.  Season 2 is not nearly as distinct from the source as Season 5, but it's definitely more pronouncedly different than Season 1 (virtually always to its disadvantage).

 

Not a spoiler as to contents, but merely the characters whose stories are the most changed for the worse, without further elaboration:

Catelyn, Sansa, Jon and Dany's stories, especially.

Edited July 12, 2015 by SeanC

[Protar]

Yeah Season 1 is 90% faithful. The big divergences start from Season 2 and grow with each season. So there'll be plenty of increasingly juicy surprises for you to read about. 

 

By the way, what where your thoughts on Shae? And the battle at the green fork in general? Shae's character, and skipping the battle were some of the larger changes in Season 1 (though obviously the latter was necessary for budgetary reasons).

[Haleth]

You will learn a lot in the second book, Shimpy. Not so much divergences from the show but quite a bit of background that explains why things are as they are.

I'm looking forward to a discussion of the second book. I noticed something I hadn't before that was a big red flag for one character and I can't wait to talk about it.