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!

[WindyNights]

Point. I have thought about this before, but it didn't reflect in my recent post. I just think that Jon is going to be more himself than Cat or Berric would have us think. I don't think Jon will spend a significant time inside his wolf. As a comparison, Bran spent long periods of time in Summer and it hasn't been reflected in his personality to a large degree that we can see. I would estimate (off the top of my head) that there's been stretches of Bran in Summer for a day or two. The Reeds are very worried about him and that he's not eating. He's done this several times. So unless Jon spends upwards of a week or more in Ghost, I am not particularly worried about him getting too wolfified. He's already familiar with Ghost's mind, but it's true that knowing there's no way to escape Ghost (that he knows about) might speed up the panic and giving in to the animal. There will be some repercussions, obviously, but I don't think the wolf part will be the main problem.

I still think that him being a walking zombie is going to be the thing that freaks out most people, not any change in personality. I don't think Jon will reject his duty to the Night's Watch, I think they will reject him. OK, that was obvious, they tried to kill him. Let me re-phrase - Jon will still think that he has a duty to the Night's Watch and will continue in doing what he thinks needs doing, killing Ramsey. The Night's Watch, even those loyal to Jon, will not see him as the Lord Commander anymore because they will be scared of him at some level and they will exercise the option of, 'Well, hey, you died. Your vows are til death, so let's call it good."

About Jon sacrificing his most beloved to become AA, that scares me and I don't like to think about it. His dearest relationship is Ghost, possibly Arya if she gets in position and both of those tear me apart.

Yeah but you gotta add them both together. Bran spent too much time in Summer but he also wasn't resurrected by R'hllor at the same time. But I doubt Bran's spent one or two days in Summer straight. That's a little too much.

Also I want to point out that even though Beric was resurrected 6 different times, he was also resurrected almost immediately after he died.

I don't see Jon coming back in chapter one. There's a chance he might not come back until the middle or end of the book.

About Ghost and Arya. I'm thinking Ghost is going to have to be killed to bring Jon back. Potentially Ghost will piggyback onto Jon into Jon's body or Ghost just dies for good. We all know what a turkey-killer GRRM is.

Arya might be Jon's Nissa Nissa but it could be someone else. Maybe Rickon. That'd be pretty dark and he's actually close to Jon.

It'd serve an interesting parallel [

] to Stannis if he actually does burn Shireen. [

]

Edited March 18, 2016 by WindyNights

[Terra Nova]

Some crackpot theories though just ignore textual evidence: like, Dany being Lyanna's daughter is plainly impossible, since she's nine months younger than Jon - whose birth among other things matches with Lyanna's pregnancy -. The sometime wonky timeline doesn't help though, to be honest. The very schematic genetic laws do, on the other hand. Like, Rhaenyra's kids from her marriage to the Velaryon were clearly bastards, and nothing can convince me of the contrary XD

 

Also, Leigh Butler, who Shimpy may remember as her re-ready doppelgaenger, was still completely convinced Jon was Ned's bastard while reading Storm, and I think even later than that (but I remember clearly that she was in Storm, while I don't recall her musings in Dance). So yeah, I think even something that seems so obvious to some may be pretty obscure to others.

[Haleth]

Benjen to Ned:  I have to tell you something that mother told me before she died....

Ned:  As long as it isn't that you're actually the illegitimate son of some Lannister or something then....Oh fuck, for real? 

Benjen:  Not a Lannister,  Hoster Tully and mom apparently...

Ned:  Oh boy, I'm going to be in the godswood for a really long time, praying to all sorts of gods to keep my Lady Wife in the damned dark.  So you're my brother and you're my wife's brother?  I just...can't....

Benjen:  When I told Lyanna she screamed something about the death of honor and mom being a hypocrite and then she....

Ned: Please do not say what I think you're about to say....

Ben:  He was pretty dreamy for a harp player, Ned, you can't really blame her. 

 

*Ned signs off on another year of celibacy as his wife frosts him out for letting his younger brother run off to the Wall, despite family obligations* 

 

Ned's pants to Ned's head:  Welcome to the Clan of the Hand for another full year, Ned.  

Ned:  I hope I'm not actually married to my sister.  

That is hilarious.  The Starks are more screwed up than the Lannisters.

 

I don't read any other boards or sites so I am happily oblivious to all the theories.  But I do kinda like the idea presented here that Faegon may be Ashara's baby, handed over to Jon Connington for safe keeping.  Jon C could not be told that the kid is actually a Stark or... awkward.

 

As far as Benjen going to the Wall, Starks were brought up to believe serving at the Wall was a noble endeavor, and I would think each generation pledged one son (after the heir and the spare) to the Nights Watch.  Perhaps even after his eldest brother and father were murdered Benjen felt it was his duty to serve.  Or maybe when he saw Cat's reaction to Ned bringing home his bastard he was through with women and kids.

 

I wonder how a resurrected Jon will relate to the Others or the zombies.  He will be one zombie the Night King can't control.

[stillshimpy]

I think that there's actually a chance that the men of The Watch want to follow Jon because he's back from the dead, but clearly isn't a zomboni. Traditionally people coming back from the dead, intact and not craving human flesh or brains have had entire religions formed around them. So it seems like they'll be just as likely to rally 'round the one anointed by gods, etc. etc.  

 

I guess time will tell on that, but Jon being brought back seems like he'd become a figure for people to follow.  I do think he'll feel freed from the Night's Watch though.  Realistically throughout Dance he kept making decisions that were based on his identity as one of Ned's children.  A lot of his decisions were the sort of things a Warden of the North would be doing -- arranging marriages, declaring who could on the lands, sending out rescues, divvying food up amongst the town people during time of privation.  

 

I think when he wakes up he'll briefly struggle with: But, my vows!  come down on the side of:  they killed me as a traitor to the Night's Watch:....and in thinking that over, perhaps they weren't entirely wrong. 

 

Honestly the contrast between Mel of the series and Mel of the books exists before her POV.  Mel in the TV series is a highly sexualized character and the choices the actor makes don't actually line up with Mel in that Dance chapter.  The biggest shock about that was Melisandre is a sincere person (or you know....person-shaped-entity) who actually seems to genuinely care about people. 

 

In the TV Series they could reveal that Melisandre dines on a babies and it truly would not come as that big of a shock, you know?  The actor did not make a lot of "earnest, sincere, caring" choices in her performance.  She's kind of an Evil Fuckbot, not to put too a point on it.  Season five

the only time she really leavened that palpable contempt for people was a case of just barely lightening it in the Shireen-burning scene when she tells Shireen it will all be over soon.  It's kind of an approximation of kindness, decency or compassion.  She clearly doesn't give a shit about this poor kid's agony and suffering and has always looked at her like a bug anyway, but the actor took some of the hardened edge out of her usual delivery in that moment.

 

Truthfully after that Dance chapter, but even prior to that, I don't actually really dig the actor playing Mel's choices.  

 

ETA:

 

I don't read any other boards or sites so I am happily oblivious to all the theories.  But I do kinda like the idea presented here that Faegon may be Ashara's baby, handed over to Jon Connington for safe keeping.  Jon C could not be told that the kid is actually a Stark or... awkward.

 

Well that guy clearly has some way, way out there theories, but one that he posed that actually really was a gobsmacker was that Aerys might have raped Ashara at the tournament where Rhaegar crowns Lyanna, etc. etc.  since Barristan does think of her as being dishonored and then looking to Stark.   So it's actually kind of possible that Aegon will turn out to be semi-valid since he could be the product of Aerys and Ashara, or possibly Rhaegar and Ashara, since she was one of Elia's handmaids.   

 

I fully admit that starts to get really convoluted, but the thing that made me wonder if there was something else up there was that wacky theory dude, Preston does have a really solid point:  If Edric Dayne was being sincere at all, why doesn't his family HATE Ned Stark?  "Oh yeah, sure my family called me Ned and everything and there's kind of a big rumor that my dead relative, said to have committed suicide in the wake of being "dishonored" despite being Dornish , was getting down with someone with the last name of Stark...but when Ned Stark dropped by the castle with Arthur Dayne's sword and Ashara Dayne killed herself not long after, we still really liked Ned...."  . 

 

Even when I read that, I did think "What the fuck is up with that?" 

 

But I guess time will tell on that, I just thought that was fun.  Plus, since they've practically elevated Ned to sainthood with all the stuff he was willing to hide for his sister, I can also see him figuring out a way to help the woman his brother Brandon screwed, despite knowing Ned liked her (Brandon was a creep, man) . 

 

Mostly though, it's that the story told by Edric doesn't actually make any kind of emotional sense:  Oh yeah, Ned Stark!! Great guy.  Oh sure, killed a blood relative of mine and probably  caused another to commit suicide, but a nicer fellow I've seldom met! 

 

Plus I just crack myself up thinking of Ned as some sort of cursed Candid-figure, wandering the war-torn landscape, constantly finding out "Oh god, there's more, still?" when it comes to his siblings. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by stillshimpy

[WSmith84]

The difference between the two exists literally from the first chapter she's in. In the books, she offers Cressen a chance to drop the wine glass, thus saving his life. That didn't happen in the show, and the actress really plays Mel as someone who is contemptuous of everyone around her.

[Avaleigh]

I've always been fond of the idea that Aurane Waters is the real Aegon. I like the idea of Cersei who's wrong about everything spotting the resemblance to Rhaegar but it ultimately not coming to mean anything until both Faegon and Aurane are dead. Like, I'd basically like readers to find out about it in the way that they find out that Arianne was originally intended for Viserys. 

 

I think that Gerold Dayne is probably the kid of Brandon and Ashara. I don't think Ned has any bastards. The Darkstar was obviously a misfire of a character but I can't help but suspect that we're going to see more from him mainly because GRRM seems like he wanted the character to be perceived differently, so I can sort of see him trying again only next time the guy might show that he's capable of killing.

The difference between the two exists literally from the first chapter she's in. In the books, she offers Cressen a chance to drop the wine glass, thus saving his life. That didn't happen in the show, and the actress really plays Mel as someone who is contemptuous of everyone around her.

I can understand why the show ultimately didn't show this side of her personality. It pretty much becomes meaningless when we see how ready she is to burn a kid to death for her own aims. Edric Storm got saved because Davos is an awesome person. It's the only reason he's still alive and the Edric Storm incident is why I've never been a Mannis fan. Between that and his pouting over Robert having more friends than he did without even the vaguest understanding of why makes him a character that I have little patience for outside of the wonderful humor he brings. Davos has always been the real hero in the story of Stannis. For me Stannis is a jaw grinding hypocrite of massive proportions and I've always rejected the idea that he's the only monarch or potential monarch in the story who is willing to do the right thing. He just doesn't have a lot of competition. Who isn't going to look amazingly competent in comparison to Joffrey, Renly, Balon, Tommen, Dany (in certain cases), etc. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by Avaleigh

[Chris24601]

About Jon sacrificing his most beloved to become AA, that scares me and I don't like to think about it. His dearest relationship is Ghost, possibly Arya if she gets in position and both of those tear me apart.

The thing is... that's only required if Jon is actually Azor Ahai. I don't think he is. Everything used to try and make that role into Jon's has been a stretch (i.e. blood on a banner that happens to have a star on it, salt being the tears of someone crying, etc.) whereas Dany requires zero stretching at all. She even mercy-killed her husband and drew forth three dragons (Lightbringer) from his funeral pyre under a literal bleeding star.

 

The main reason people think its Jon is because prophecy, like all magic, is a sword with no hilt and they're expecting there to be a twist on the prophesied hero and immediately jump to "they have the wrong person" version of misinterpreting the prophecy. But that's far from the only way the prophecy can be misinterpreted.

 

Let's not forget that the AAR prophecy (and The Stallion Who Mounts the World prophecy... which is basically the same with a Dothraki spin) comes from Asshai by the Shadow; home to slavers, necromancers, shadowbinders and demon worshippers (not to mention where Dany's dragon eggs came from). What does 'hero' mean to such people? From the legend itself we know that it at least involves slaughtering your own loved ones for power and if The Stallion is the same person they're also prophesied to burn countless cities to the ground and enslave the entire world (and perhaps cover the world in ghost grass... basically bringing about the end of the world).

 

The point being, I don't think Jon is Azor Ahai... I think its clearly Dany and the twist, which we're just starting to see as of the end of ADwD is that Dany isn't the prophesied hero... she's the prophesied VILLAIN (who would be a hero to the people of Asshai) who's going to burn whole nations to the ground and potentially throw off the balance between Ice and Fire permanently in favor of Fire, dropping the world into a fiery summer of drought and an unrelenting sun that never sets that could last a generation or potentially forever.

 

I think Jon is something else entirely... his blood is not entirely that of the Dragonlords nor is it entirely of the Old Kings of Winter, but a balance of the two and that is probably the part that will be most important about him in the end... and that's probably why his return isn't going to just be as a fire zombie OR an ice zombie... because then he's just a tool of one or the other of the two unbalancing forces (The Others and Dany/Dragons).

 

As to how he will come back... I'm in the mostly unchanged camp (beyond the usual trauma of near death experiences) because as has been pointed out by GRRM... fire consumes, ice preserves. With the possible exception of Mel (who may or may not be a fire zombie) we've never had a PoV chapter from someone risen by the Red God's magic so we don't even know if they even have souls still or if they're just meat robots running off the pre-recorded memories and incapable of changing or growing beyond that baseline.

 

Fire magic might restore the body, but probably consumes the soul (in part or in whole is unknown). Conversely Ice magic (i.e. warging) preserves the soul (even if the intellect is lost over time) at the expense of the body. Each alone is an imperfect life after death... but together as will probably be the one-in-a-million case of using Fire magic to restore the human body of a warg to life? Well, as Shimpy has said... someone coming back from death whole and intact is something entire religions are born from (I fully expect the Wildlings to be Jon's most fervent supporters upon his return).

[WSmith84]

But without Mel's occasional kindness, it leaves her as just a one-dimensional evil witch. Carice Van Houten's every day at work must be the same: turn up, sneer, flash breasts, sneer some more, go home.

[GertrudeDR]

Oh, I agree that Mel has gotten short-shrift, I am just not sure that she has gotten a disproportional amount of short-shrift. Every character on the show is getting stripped down and what we get doesn't match the page. I hear people complain that Brienne doesn't get anything to do, but hardly anyone complains about how they changed her character. In the show she's comfortable with soldiering and killing. In the books it's more an abstract to her and she does a wonderful job, but we see her first kill on page and it's a big deal. Show Brienne faces down soldiers without a second thought. Yara/Asha in the books is charming and you see why people follow her. So far we haven't seen that in the show, there has been no room for her humor. And honestly, look at the mess in Dorne where there is much, much pain on the part of book readers.

 

All the characters are different in the books and the show. I will get behind people who complain about Stannis and Jaime, or dislike the show Cersei v the books, but I can't be bothered to get upset about every character's portrayal and every choice the showrunners make. It's true, Mel is not the same, but she is close enough that I can gloss that over. If I didn't, my head would explode when watching this show. And I really do like the show and want to like it more, even though sometimes they make it very hard to do so.

 

Yes, in the books Mel's first appearance is tinged with kindness, but are we interpreting that with hindsight? Does she say it as a kindness or from a position of power and maybe it's a taunt and absolute belief in her power. Aside from that, there is really not much to go on concerning Mel's personality. We get to see her zealotry and black and white view of the world. Yes, she's softer than her show counterpart, but that's not to say she's kind, period. I admit, it's been a couple of years since my last re-read, but I don't remember many instances of Mel's personality shining through until her chapter.

[GertrudeDR]

Oh, and about Jon's resurrection turning people off. Good point about religions being founded on this type of thing. and people didn't mind following Berric and in fact converted that entire band of brothers to the Red God's religion. I was more thinking along the lines of the Night's Watch specifically and how (a portion) rejected him once and wouldn't be happy about him coming back. They also have first hand experience with risen men and it's definitely not a good experience. Although if Jon's eyes don't go ice blue, they might get over that part.

 

Ah, it's fun to speculate. Or maybe it's just something to do to pass the time until the next book. Or maybe a little of both :(

[WindyNights]

I've always been fond of the idea that Aurane Waters is the real Aegon. I like the idea of Cersei who's wrong about everything spotting the resemblance to Rhaegar but it ultimately not coming to mean anything until both Faegon and Aurane are dead. Like, I'd basically like readers to find out about it in the way that they find out that Arianne was originally intended for Viserys.

I think that Gerold Dayne is probably the kid of Brandon and Ashara. I don't think Ned has any bastards. The Darkstar was obviously a misfire of a character but I can't help but suspect that we're going to see more from him mainly because GRRM seems like he wanted the character to be perceived differently, so I can sort of see him trying again only next time the guy might show that he's capable of killing.

I can understand why the show ultimately didn't show this side of her personality. It pretty much becomes meaningless when we see how ready she is to burn a kid to death for her own aims. Edric Storm got saved because Davos is an awesome person. It's the only reason he's still alive and the Edric Storm incident is why I've never been a Mannis fan. Between that and his pouting over Robert having more friends than he did without even the vaguest understanding of why makes him a character that I have little patience for outside of the wonderful humor he brings. Davos has always been the real hero in the story of Stannis. For me Stannis is a jaw grinding hypocrite of massive proportions and I've always rejected the idea that he's the only monarch or potential monarch in the story who is willing to do the right thing. He just doesn't have a lot of competition. Who isn't going to look amazingly competent in comparison to Joffrey, Renly, Balon, Tommen, Dany (in certain cases), etc.

Gerold Dayne is much too old be Ashara and Brandon's kid. He's in his late 20's whereas a kid of theirs would be closer to 18.

I dunno it almost seems kinda immoral in a certain sense not to burn Edric if you actually thought the world was on the line. And to be fair to Stannis, he still hadn't decided to do it when Davos reveals he's gone. Stannis was definitely stopped from crossing that line before he even had intent to cross it.

That's something the show got wrong where they show him crossing the line almost immediately.

Edited March 18, 2016 by WindyNights

[WindyNights]

The thing is... that's only required if Jon is actually Azor Ahai. I don't think he is. Everything used to try and make that role into Jon's has been a stretch (i.e. blood on a banner that happens to have a star on it, salt being the tears of someone crying, etc.) whereas Dany requires zero stretching at all. She even mercy-killed her husband and drew forth three dragons (Lightbringer) from his funeral pyre under a literal bleeding star.

The main reason people think its Jon is because prophecy, like all magic, is a sword with no hilt and they're expecting there to be a twist on the prophesied hero and immediately jump to "they have the wrong person" version of misinterpreting the prophecy. But that's far from the only way the prophecy can be misinterpreted.

Let's not forget that the AAR prophecy (and The Stallion Who Mounts the World prophecy... which is basically the same with a Dothraki spin) comes from Asshai by the Shadow; home to slavers, necromancers, shadowbinders and demon worshippers (not to mention where Dany's dragon eggs came from). What does 'hero' mean to such people? From the legend itself we know that it at least involves slaughtering your own loved ones for power and if The Stallion is the same person they're also prophesied to burn countless cities to the ground and enslave the entire world (and perhaps cover the world in ghost grass... basically bringing about the end of the world).

The point being, I don't think Jon is Azor Ahai... I think its clearly Dany and the twist, which we're just starting to see as of the end of ADwD is that Dany isn't the prophesied hero... she's the prophesied VILLAIN (who would be a hero to the people of Asshai) who's going to burn whole nations to the ground and potentially throw off the balance between Ice and Fire permanently in favor of Fire, dropping the world into a fiery summer of drought and an unrelenting sun that never sets that could last a generation or potentially forever.

I think Jon is something else entirely... his blood is not entirely that of the Dragonlords nor is it entirely of the Old Kings of Winter, but a balance of the two and that is probably the part that will be most important about him in the end... and that's probably why his return isn't going to just be as a fire zombie OR an ice zombie... because then he's just a tool of one or the other of the two unbalancing forces (The Others and Dany/Dragons).

As to how he will come back... I'm in the mostly unchanged camp (beyond the usual trauma of near death experiences) because as has been pointed out by GRRM... fire consumes, ice preserves. With the possible exception of Mel (who may or may not be a fire zombie) we've never had a PoV chapter from someone risen by the Red God's magic so we don't even know if they even have souls still or if they're just meat robots running off the pre-recorded memories and incapable of changing or growing beyond that baseline.

Fire magic might restore the body, but probably consumes the soul (in part or in whole is unknown). Conversely Ice magic (i.e. warging) preserves the soul (even if the intellect is lost over time) at the expense of the body. Each alone is an imperfect life after death... but together as will probably be the one-in-a-million case of using Fire magic to restore the human body of a warg to life? Well, as Shimpy has said... someone coming back from death whole and intact is something entire religions are born from (I fully expect the Wildlings to be Jon's most fervent supporters upon his return).

It's hard to misinterpret "Show me your chosen one. Show me AA" and then Jon Snow's face pops up.

And Vic may or may not be undead as well.

About Jon being mostly the same when he comes back. GRRM hates that. He won't utilize that tactic.

I do think that if you’re bringing a character back, that a character has gone through death, that’s a transformative experience. Even back in those days of Wonder Man and all that, I loved the fact that he died, and although I liked the character in later years, I wasn’t so thrilled when he came back because that sort of undid the power of it. Much as I admire Tolkien, I once again always felt like Gandalf should have stayed dead. That was such an incredible sequence in Fellowship of the Ring when he faces the Balrog on the Khazad-dûm and he falls into the gulf, and his last words are, “Fly, you fools.”

What power that had, how that grabbed me. And then he comes back as Gandalf the White, and if anything he’s sort of improved. I never liked Gandalf the White as much as Gandalf the Grey, and I never liked him coming back. I think it would have been an even stronger story if Tolkien had left him dead.

My characters who come back from death are worse for wear. In some ways, they’re not even the same characters anymore. The body may be moving, but some aspect of the spirit is changed or transformed, and they’ve lost something. One of the characters who has come back repeatedly from death is Beric Dondarrion, The Lightning Lord. Each time he’s revived he loses a little more of himself. He was sent on a mission before his first death. He was sent on a mission to do something, and it’s like, that’s what he’s clinging to. He’s forgetting other things, he’s forgetting who he is, or where he lived. He’s forgotten the woman who he was once supposed to marry. Bits of his humanity are lost every time he comes back from death; he remembers that mission. His flesh is falling away from him, but this one thing, this purpose that he had is part of what’s animating him and bringing him back to death. I think you see echoes of that with some of the other characters who have come back from death.

Edited March 18, 2016 by WindyNights

[Lady S.]

As far as Benjen going to the Wall, Starks were brought up to believe serving at the Wall was a noble endeavor, and I would think each generation pledged one son (after the heir and the spare) to the Nights Watch.  Perhaps even after his eldest brother and father were murdered Benjen felt it was his duty to serve.  Or maybe when he saw Cat's reaction to Ned bringing home his bastard he was through with women and kids.

GRRM was asked once why Benjen joined the NW before Ned had enough heirs, and he reportedly refused to answer. Then the next time he was asked about it, he said "Good question. One day you will get an answer. But it will not be today." It's why people think Benjen had something to do with Lyanna's disappearance or at least was a confidant of hers and knew more than the rest of the family, and that he joined the Watch asap out of guilt, which I also think is the most likely explanation. Why else would GRRM keep it a secret and what else could the secret be?

Edited March 18, 2016 by Lady S.

[Avaleigh]

Gerold Dayne is much too old be Ashara and Brandon's kid. He's in his late 20's whereas a kid of theirs would be closer to 18.

I dunno it almost seems kinda immoral in a certain sense not to burn Edric if you actually thought the world was on the line. And to be fair to Stannis, he still hadn't decided to do it when Davos reveals he's gone. Stannis was definitely stopped from crossing that line before he even had intent to cross it.

That's something the show got wrong where they show him crossing the line almost immediately.

Interesting, I thought he was closer to twenty. So much for that theory. Even if we don't find out who his parents are I'm still convinced that we haven't heard the last of the Dorkstar. 

 

Stannis killed Penrose just to get at Edric and rejected Penrose's offer to look after Edric. I find it almost impossible to believe that Stannis wasn't going to come around to the idea of eliminating a kid that he saw as a stain on his House especially when he has this woman spinning the idea that Edric's death is necessary to save the world.

 

I see Mel's rationalization of wanting to burn Edric to be the same as any fanatical cult leader who suddenly thinks that somebody needs to die in order to save the world. Wasn't the plan to use Edric to help wake a dragon? How does that guarantee that the world will be save? I just never bought the idea that Edric's death will accomplish what Mel wants it to accomplish especially when we see that she's wrong and misguided about so much especially the idea that Stannis is AAR. 

[stillshimpy]

It's true, Mel is not the same, but she is close enough that I can gloss that over. If I didn't, my head would explode when watching this show. And I really do like the show and want to like it more, even though sometimes they make it very hard to do so.

 

It's a fair point, but I think the reason behind the complaints is that it turns Melisandre into cliche.  A beautiful, powerful woman, who is evil and uses her sexuality AND THAT'S ALL FOLKS. 

 

It's trading on some really unpleasant stereotypes.   It's one thing to remove layers from a character.  It's kind of another to turn a character into stock footage from a particularly unimaginative central casting department. 

[Delta1212]

It really would be kind of funny if Jon were Lyanna's and Faegon were Brandon's. The one raised in hiding as a Stark is a Targ and the one raised in hiding as a Targ is a Stark.

[WindyNights]

Interesting, I thought he was closer to twenty. So much for that theory. Even if we don't find out who his parents are I'm still convinced that we haven't heard the last of the Dorkstar.

Stannis killed Penrose just to get at Edric and rejected Penrose's offer to look after Edric. I find it almost impossible to believe that Stannis wasn't going to come around to the idea of eliminating a kid that he saw as a stain on his House especially when he has this woman spinning the idea that Edric's death is necessary to save the world.

I see Mel's rationalization of wanting to burn Edric to be the same as any fanatical cult leader who suddenly thinks that somebody needs to die in order to save the world. Wasn't the plan to use Edric to help wake a dragon? How does that guarantee that the world will be save? I just never bought the idea that Edric's death will accomplish what Mel wants it to accomplish especially when we see that she's wrong and misguided about so much especially the idea that Stannis is AAR.

You're misremembering. Stannis wanted Storm's End and to parade Edric in King's Landing to confirm to people that Cersei's kids aren't Robert's. Penrose didn't trust him.

Also Stannis doesn't hold anything against Edric.

"Your own wife begs as well, lord husband." Queen Selyse went down on both knees before the king, hands clasped as if in prayer. "Robert and Delena defiled our bed and laid a curse upon our union. This boy is the foul fruit of their fomications. Lift his shadow from my womb and I will bear you many trueborn sons, I know it." She threw her arms around his legs. "He is only one boy, born of your brother's lust and my cousin's shame."

"He is mine own blood. Stop clutching me, woman." King Stannis put a hand on her shoulder, awkwardly untangling himself from her grasp. "Perhaps Robert did curse our marriage bed. He swore to me that he never meant to shame me, that he was drunk and never knew which bedchamber he entered that night. But does it matter? The boy was not at fault, whatever the truth."

Might Stannis have burned Edric? Probably. But we shouldn't judge people on what they might do versus what they actually do. And Stannis chose to let Davos live when legally he should've been executed, abandoned trying to get Edric back and sailed to the Wall to help the Nightt's Watch.

Stannis is a prickly jerkass but he has good intentions.

It's a fair point, but I think the reason behind the complaints is that it turns Melisandre into cliche. A beautiful, powerful woman, who is evil and uses her sexuality AND THAT'S ALL FOLKS.

It's trading on some really unpleasant stereotypes. It's one thing to remove layers from a character. It's kind of another to turn a character into stock footage from a particularly unimaginative central casting department.

Loras comes to mind. (Never forget)

[Avaleigh]

I do think it's interesting that GRRM thinks that Mel is among his most misunderstood characters. 

 

I'm still not entirely clear why Penrose felt that Stannis couldn't be trusted with Edric and am guessing/fanwanking that Cressen wrote and said enough to make Penrose feel uneasy. One thing I got from Penrose's brief appearance in Clash is that the man has great instincts. He also knew it was bullshit when he was told that Brienne murdered Renly when most everyone even Loras is willing to believe otherwise. 

 

I agree with you though that it's not fair to judge Stannis on what didn't happen with Edric. Show talk

The initial horror I felt at Edric's close call just kind of exploded when everything happened with show Shireen and it's made me look at the Edric stuff with a less forgiving eye.

 

 

One of the things that Catelyn points out is that Edric isn't really going to sway anyone. The people who believe Stannis already believe him and the people who are Team Lannister are still going to fight for the Lannisters if it's in their interest to do so. All of Catelyn's kids look like Tully's save Arya and she points out the the appearance factor is only going to do so much. 

[Terra Nova]

One of the things that Catelyn points out is that Edric isn't really going to sway anyone. The people who believe Stannis already believe him and the people who are Team Lannister are still going to fight for the Lannisters if it's in their interest to do so.

 

This is perfectly true, and we have a very apt example in Tyrion, who knows or at least strongly suspects from the start and yet keeps on working on enforcing Joffrey's rule.

 

And yet, Stannis' letter did reach the smallfolk, leaving a lasting effect since Cersei's been howled 'brotherfucker' all the way from the Sept to the Keep. Or, way back in Clash, the riot after Myrcella leaves for Dorne, while caused by hunger and fear, also presents a case where people hail other kings (King Bread!) or call Joffrey 'an abomination born of incest'. Same goes for the preachers Tyrion hears talk to the Kingslanders. And there are after Blackwater prisoners who choose death over the royal pardon - especially the one who points out Joffrey being cut by the Throne -.

 

It may seem little, but frenzied mobs in ASoIaF have already torn royals to shreds, or even dragons. Tommen may be the next to experience it, 'abomination born of incest' as he is.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Terra Nova

[GertrudeDR]

It's a fair point, but I think the reason behind the complaints is that it turns Melisandre into cliche.  A beautiful, powerful woman, who is evil and uses her sexuality AND THAT'S ALL FOLKS. 

 

It's trading on some really unpleasant stereotypes.   It's one thing to remove layers from a character.  It's kind of another to turn a character into stock footage from a particularly unimaginative central casting department. 

 

An entirely fair point. I guess that particular trigger hasn't hit me because I am kinda fan-wanking her sexuality as a tool of her religion. She is very eager to get naked at the drop of a hat, but it's always employed when she's got magic on her mind, not straight out manipulation. In the show, has she ever tried to sway Davos with her sexuality? She gets all hot for people with King's blood which she can use to perform ... stuff. She shut Stannis down real damn quick when he was all used up.

 

Something that did provoke a strong response from me from the new trailer

was Yara kissing a woman. It's not that I mind changing someone's sexuality if it doesn't matter to the story, but why did they feel the need to make her gay (if that is indeed what is happening). That's reducing her to a cliche as well - tough chick is butch lesbian. And with the way they've handled Loras, it threw up immediate warning flags for me and had me shaking my head.

Edited March 19, 2016 by GertrudeDR

[Alayne Stone]

Didn't one of the writers say that Brienne was also a lesbian? Bryan Cogman, I want to say. Nevermind the fact that there is textual AND show evidence that suggests the opposite (Jaime Lannister's "We don't choose who we love" line, duh.) It's definitely problematic that the only female warriors in the show are reduced to such stereotypes. Next thing we know they will reveal Obara to be the same.

 

IIRC the part where Mel attempts to seduce Davos into creating a shadow baby with her was not used in the show. It's been a while since I've seen season 2, but yeah ... I think the show has stuck exclusively to Mel only attempting to seduce those with King's Blood.

[Audreythe2nd]

Didn't one of the writers say that Brienne was also a lesbian? Bryan Cogman, I want to say. Nevermind the fact that there is textual AND show evidence that suggests the opposite (Jaime Lannister's "We don't choose who we love" line, duh.) It's definitely problematic that the only female warriors in the show are reduced to such stereotypes.  

What? No. Bryan Cogman nor any other writer for the show that I'm aware of has ever said this. And they have clearly written Brienne as heterosexual, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. Any assumption of Brienne being a lesbian that I've seen has come squarely from inattentive audience members, not those actually associated with the show.

[WindyNights]

What? No. Bryan Cogman nor any other writer for the show that I'm aware of has ever said this. And they have clearly written Brienne as heterosexual, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. Any assumption of Brienne being a lesbian that I've seen has come squarely from inattentive audience members, not those actually associated with the show.

It was a director, Alex Graves, that said she was gay.

An entirely fair point. I guess that particular trigger hasn't hit me because I am kinda fan-wanking her sexuality as a tool of her religion. She is very eager to get naked at the drop of a hat, but it's always employed when she's got magic on her mind, not straight out manipulation. In the show, has she ever tried to sway Davos with her sexuality? She gets all hot for people with King's blood which she can use to perform ... stuff. She shut Stannis down real damn quick when he was all used up.

Something that did provoke a strong response from me from the new trailer

was Yara kissing a woman. It's not that I mind changing someone's sexuality if it doesn't matter to the story, but why did they feel the need to make her gay (if that is indeed what is happening). That's reducing her to a cliche as well - tough chick is butch lesbian. And with the way they've handled Loras, it threw up immediate warning flags for me and had me shaking my head.

It's very strongly implied in the text that Stannis and Melisandre have sex for fun. No magic involved. Well I dunno if Mel finds it fun but at the very least Stannis does it for fun.

[Terra Nova]

Alex Graves is also convinced that Tyrion grew in King's Landing, that Tysha, his first wife, died, that Tormund was in love with Ygritte and, before Season 5 started to be filmed, told Sophie Turner she was 'getting a love interest'. 

He also said that he didn't want Tyrion and Jaime to part in bitterness so he lobbied for that scene to be changed; I call BS on this, since it fits too well with the St. Tyrion approach of the showrunners, and since it's not the first time we have conflicting accounts regarding some decisions (like the cut to Theon's face during Sansa's rape: Sophie Turner said she was fine to be filmed and she was in fact, Cogman says the cut was already there in the script, and someone else later, maybe Cogman itself, said instead that Alfie Allen's terrific acting convinced them to pan on his face).

 

ETA: ah, that infamous comment on Lady Stoneheart belonged to him, too:

 

To bring back Michelle Fairley, one of the greatest actresses around, to be a zombie for a little while – and just kill people? It is really sort of, what are we doing with that?  How does it play into the whole story in a way that we’re really going to like?

Edited March 19, 2016 by Terra Nova

[GertrudeDR]

It's very strongly implied in the text that Stannis and Melisandre have sex for fun. No magic involved. Well I dunno if Mel finds it fun but at the very least Stannis does it for fun.

That is book Mel. Show Mel, not so much.

[Audreythe2nd]

It was a director, Alex Graves, that said she was gay.

 

Oh, lol. Him. Yeah, I looked up the quote you are referring to, and the funniest part about it is that in literally the same breath that he says (the bathtub) scene was like filming between a knight and a lesbian, he acknowledges about four times - in that interview and another or extended version of that interview - that Jaime and Brienne are in love and just don't know it... so I don't think that word means what he thinks it means, lol.

 

He also said that he didn't want Tyrion and Jaime to part in bitterness so he lobbied for that scene to be changed; I call BS on this, since it fits too well with the St. Tyrion approach of the showrunners, and since it's not the first time we have conflicting accounts regarding some decisions 

Ok, this I know isn't accurate (even if he said this was the case in one interview, he contradicts himself in the commentaries). While he was glad that Tyrion and Jaime didn't part in bitterness, I'm pretty sure he said that it was one of the D's who simply told him (paraphrased), "You know what happens in the books between the two of them... what if here instead Jaime kisses him and they said goodbye?"

 

Graves was a (mostly) excellent director, but man does that guy have a mouth on him.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Audreythe2nd

[OhOkayWhat]

Audreythe2nd, I do not know a lot about the Jaime-Tyrion scene, but your comment about Alex and his vision of the Jaime-Brienne  scene is VERY interesting, and I think you are right. This is the part in the interview about that, i think:

 

 

 

 

This show has afforded you the opportunity to do all kinds of sequences, like the Altman riff at the wedding, or the very quiet Jaime/Brienne scene at the baths, or these huge action set pieces like the sacking of Astapor, the duel between the Hound and Beric. As a director, what's it like to work on a show that lets you do all these things?

 

Alex Graves: Well, it's heaven. One, the writers are friends. They're great to have around. The scripts are incredible. It's impossible not to become obsessed with the books and what Martin wrote once you read it. And as a director — I grew up loving "Star Wars" and "All the President's Men" — so I get to do a bit of each. It's perfect. It's like you're getting to direct "The Lion in Winter" with sci-fi mixed in. It's a blast. Everything anybody would love to do, it's got. And the scene with Jaime and Brienne in the bathtub is like you're shooting a film with a lesbian and a knight, she's a knight, he's a knight, they're in love and don't know they're in love; where else would you get to film a scene like that?

 

(Note: it seems i do not know how to include a link and to make it to be "clicky" at the same time, but the quote is from a Hitfix.com webpage with Alan Sepinwall interviewing Alex Graves about Joffrey wedding)

 

 

 

 

I think the "is like" and the "they're in love and don't know they're in love;" are, as Audreythe2nd noticed, very interesting if we put it together with the "with a lesbian" part of the answer. That is the reason i agree it is not like his answer means that Brienne is gay, and instead i think his answer is kinda confusing but at the same time more complex.

Edited March 19, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[Lady S.]

Oh, lol. Him. Yeah, I looked up the quote you are referring to, and the funniest part about it is that in literally the same breath that he says (the bathtub) scene was like filming between a knight and a lesbian, he acknowledges about four times - in that interview and another or extended version of that interview - that Jaime and Brienne are in love and just don't know it... so I don't think that word means what he thinks it means, lol.

Yep, but he has the same problem with the words rape and consent, so really not a surprise he doesn't understand this aspect of female sexuality either.

[OhOkayWhat]

Terra, first, thank you about your advice about quoting, I will try to use it now with something you wrote in the middle of your comment:

 

..... since it fits too well with the St. Tyrion approach of the showrunners,.....

 

I have read a lot of people using the "St.Tyrion" phrase and maybe the way you use it is not the same than theirs but I really do not get the whole "St.Tyrion" (I guess St=Saint).

 

There is not "St.Tyrion", or "WarriorTyrion" or "FunnyTyrion" or "EvilTyrion" in the show. He is simply: Tyrion. He belongs to another version of Planetos, it is simply that. Since the very beginning the Cercei, Tyrion, Sandor, Sansa, etc. of the show ARE different beings than the ones from the novel, because they belong to another reality.

 

 

Also, to add an idea to my previous reasoning (than they are different beings by definition since they belong to different realities), think about it:

 

Character A from the novels has characteristics a,b,c,d in the novels

Character A from the show has characteristics b,d,f,g in the show

 

 

It seems logical that it is possible they behave different onwards in the show, because, they have different characteristics from the very beginning. And we are not even thinking yet about how the changes in character B affect character A. Therefore it is normal than in some cases, they will behave better, in other cases they will behave worse, or maybe they will behave the same than the beings of the original version (the novels).

Edited March 19, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[Ashara Payne]

The general complaint about St. Tyrion, and other characters, is that GRRM deliberately creates nuanced characters. This is (partly) what makes his work so loved and popular. Part of the reason much fantasy is so derided is the simplistic 'good vs evil' characterisations so common to this genre, and why it's generally considered fare for children. D&D don't seem to care much about this, though, which is disappointing.

[WSmith84]

The general complaint about St. Tyrion, and other characters, is that GRRM deliberately creates nuanced characters. This is (partly) what makes his work so loved and popular. Part of the reason much fantasy is so derided is the simplistic 'good vs evil' characterisations so common to this genre, and why it's generally considered fare for children. D&D don't seem to care much about this, though, which is disappointing.

 

Well that and the fact that altering a character in an adaption can have a negative effect on how other characters are perceived. With all the characters in King's Landing getting character makeovers, Sansa emerges looking significantly worse than her book counterpart. She's less decisive, more stupid, takes less action etc. By making Tyrion as much of a victim as Sansa in the show (and that really is how it came across) it reduces Sansa's plight and led to some very unpleasant comments about Sansa 'not treating Tyrion well enough' i.e. not spreading her legs for him. I also remember one extremely charming comment about the season 5

Ramsey scene, where someone said that if Sansa had 'not been so shallow and had just f*&^%d Tyrion, she wouldn't be getting raped by Ramsey.

That's not an indication of show-watcher mentality or the mentality of the show itself, by the way, just an example of 'there are some really unpleasant people on the internet.'

 

Personally, I don't mind when a character is written differently to their book counterpart, so long as they are as interesting, work within the setting and don't act out of character to advance the plot. These three conditions are not often fulfilled, unfortunately, particularly the last one: characters will often be written differently to their book counterparts but perform the same actions, leading to a strange dissonance. It's nearly always very obvious when a character is dragged back to their book arc (hello Shae) and honestly, I wish the show would have the guts to stick with its adaptive choices. For example, Shae. The scorned woman cliche made no sense with that character; instead, it would have worked better to have her be arrested after Joffrey's wedding, forced to testify against Tyrion (which both Tyrion and the audience would be aware of) and have the fact that she was abused lead to Tyrion's request for Trial by Combat. After he loses, she would be executed on Tywin's orders and Jaime would relay that information to Tyrion during his escape, thus giving Tyrion motivation to murder his father. Plus, Tyrion would have a real reason to be guilty in Season 5: he was the one who failed to send Shae away when he could, or leave with her, and thus it is (partially) his fault that she is dead. You'd lose the image of Shae in Tywin's bed, but the narrative would make more sense.

 

Saying all that, there are obviously times when I'm disappointed by a missing character, or a character that's written differently but satisfies my three criteria, but I try not to hold that against the show. I've always been pretty satisfied with show Cersei, and think it was probably the right call to write her differently to her book counterpart. Robert, Viserys and Joffrey all get improved on the show, imho, and Rory McCann's Sandor is terrific (barring the scene where he robs a guy and his daughter). I used to really love the show, but season 5.... I miss liking the show :(

[Terra Nova]

Season 1 Tyrion was fairly close to his book counterpart, and they seeded pretty well the Tysha, later aborted, reveal.

But then something happened before season 2: as Steven Attewell proposed, it may be because the critics were given in advance the first six episodes of season 1, and one of the last scenes of the sixth episode was Tyrion's request of a trial by combat. Maybe because of that, but the critics praised Dinklage to heaven and beyond. Attewell mused that, had they been given the seventh episode too, they would have applauded Momoa's monologue at the end of that instead, since powerful scenes tend to stick in people's mind.

 

Anyway, Season 2 Tyrion came out much less problematic and much better, in an uncomplicated way. This is the guy who told us has always been shunned and disparaged for his deformities, and that reacts to mild amusement to the 'monkey demon' comments, while in the books he wishes death upon the smallfolk. And then he's a poor victim in his marriage, doesn't force Sansa to undress, doesn't grope her nor resents her for keeping her distances. He's a genuine friend to Bronn, never threatens of beating/raping Tommen, never poisons Cersei, and the list goes on and on... ack, just remembered, he straight up says in Season 1 that the wildlings are just people born on the wrong side of the Wall, one of the main Jon's arcs that took three books for him to complete.

 

This wasn't planned from the start: they probably saw the very good reception to the character and 'corrected' it season after season. And that's already something irking enough to me, but the main problem is that this new Tyrion ended up hitting the same plot points of his book counterparts anyway, only devoid of emotional causes or payoff. It's a pretty flat and, well... boring character on his own merit, by this point. And it doesn't get any better considering that the show is supposed to be an adaptation of a pre-existing work.

 

It may be a tad extreme, but it is as if next Harry Potter adaptation has him being a power-hungry wizard who is fixated on revenge against Voldemort for killing his family; only he plans to claim the Dark Lord title for himself: he chooses Griffindor to show he doesn't need to step into Voldie's footprints, makes good use of Ron and Hermione for copying during the exams and gaining knoweledge of the magical world, puts his name in the Goblet out of ambition and adores his father because of his bullying days of old. The Dursleys live in fear of him, Dudley is a terrified bullied obese boy and Harry comes back every summer only to torment them some more. You get the gist. And he hits all the plot points of his book counterpart anyway. Maybe in the end he decides it's better to live as a hero among wizards than oppress them, and you will dare anyone to tell it's a different story, since the main plot points are there and the end is the same ^^

[WindyNights]

I never got why people say Viserys was improved on the show. Harry Lloyd plays him pretty brilliantly but he played Book Viserys pretty to the T.

Although there was that one scene where he talks about the dragons with Doreah that I really liked.

[Avaleigh]

For me there was a dark humor that show Viserys had that his book counterpart lacked. Like the way he delivers the line 'She'll never get it down' during the heart eating scene or asking Doreah 'What did I buy you for? To make me sad?'

Kato

I didn't feel disturbed over his death in the books, but in the show I cringed and felt pity.

[Audreythe2nd]

Truly I think there are a couple of very straightforward and understandable reasons why they've played Tyrion the way they have in the show. When Season 1 ended with Ned's head rolling, they were down an obvious TV show protagonist. Tyrion makes the most sense as a replacement, given how much screentime he needed to have anyway based on his Book 2 story. I think they did a pretty good job of bringing him to the dark place he needed to be Season 4, but retracted that a bit in Season 5 for a likely similar reason - if they painted Tyrion as a darker character during that time (they way he was in the books) then the tone would be even more bleak than it was already. 

[Alayne Stone]

If Breaking Bad has taught us anything though, it's that an audience can still be very compelled by a "good" character going "bad." I tried to give the show the benefit of the doubt for the longest time and gave them the benefit of the doubt where the supposed white washing of both Tyrion and Cersei were concerned. To this day I don't really mind the fact that Tyrion never had that singer stewed or that we didn't gain any insight into his POV where Winterfell and desiring Sansa was concerned. But everything just keeps piling one on top of the other and I found Tyrion to be so bland and so unproblematic in season 5 that I don't see how anyone could possibly root for him in the show because, frankly, he's boring to me now.

 

And I don't buy into the idea that the show needed a new white hat to replace Ned. They had plenty to choose from. They had Robb (before he died), they had Brienne, who was an immediate hit with the audience, they have Daenerys and of course there is his very obvious successor in Jon Snow. Tyrion was compelling and fun precisely because he was not fully good.

 

And like Terra Nova said, it is fine if the series wants to make changes in its adaptation, but when you do that you can't shoe in the original ending or it falls flat. WSmith had a wonderful suggestion for how the changes made to Tyrion and Shae's relationship could have been adapted differently and still kept with the spirit of his father betraying him by hurting the person he cared most about in the world while also maintaining some sort of self-loathing induced guilt. I can't imagine it took more than five minutes to come up with that idea? It was brilliant.

 

As for Viserys: I think Harry Loyd added a dimension of pity to that character that just does not come off across the page. It's all in his facial expressions. You can just see how difficult his childhood must have been in trying to raise Daenerys and keep the two of them alive as they moved from one free city to the next. He was able to turn it on and off so well. He managed to make me root for his death and then actually take a step back and be like "Wait, no ... I actually feel kind of bad for him" the moment he said "Dany, please!" Not many actors can make you feel pity for such a loathsome character.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Alayne Stone

[WSmith84]

Thanks Alayne Stone :) I came up with that idea shortly after the final episode of S4 ended. Didn't take too long. I agree with you on Tyrion by the way; he's bland. And blandness is something that makes it really hard for me to root for a character.

 

On Viserys: I think there was also that scene between him and Jorah, after Dany eats the horse's heart. He's trying to steal the dragon eggs and Jorah stops him, and I think Viserys mentions that no one ever looked at him the way the Dothraki looked at Dany. He seemed so oddly vulnerable.

[GertrudeDR]

Oh absolutely count me in the camp who thinks Harry Lloyd gave Viserys an extra dimension I didn't get from the books. See, the writers can do good things when they want to. That scene between Viserys and Jorah is a great example. That's what makes it hurt so much when they do things so badly. The poster above me used Shae as an example. Ugh, that is one of the most glaring mistakes I think the writers have made. It's not even the woman scorned thing for me, it's that in fucking over Tyrion, she's also fucking over Sansa, who she said she would die to protect. I don't like many of the changes they made to Shae, but I could have worked with them until they really began building up her protectiveness of Sansa. That was unnecessary and completely contradictory to where she needed to end up. Even the travesty that is Dorne so far isn't as bad to me because at least Dorne is consistent in it's stupidity. Shae was not consistent and turning on Sansa through Tyrion was completely jarring to me.

[OhOkayWhat]

To include evil acts in the behaviour of a character in your version of a story does not make it more nuanced by default. In fact, you can have a very good person as character and he/she can be very nuanced too.

 

Tyrion is not a saint or hero in the show, he murdered people (besides other awful things he did too). But lets talk about the good things he did. I do not agree Tyrion doing good things even if people is cruel with him is illogical within show story or make him less interesting. Instead i think Tyrion good acts make us ask ourselves why he is like that if people are cruel with him. That question makes the character interesting and nuanced.

 

We need to wait for the answer,of course. Remember, this is a long ongoing tale, the answer can come later. And we get that answer in some scenes and  specially with the Kings Landing Tyrion trial. We finally see him explode and tell them all those vicious words he kept inside him for so long, and we see he has been using a mask the whole time with most people, as many of the other characters do too. So we can have the same important scene in books and show with a different previous behaviour and it still makes sense.

 

You can even have a character being really good and to make it nuanced because you can explore his/her strength in difficult times and that is interesting too.

 

I do not see a problem if the changes with Tyrion behavior affect the rest of characters, in fact, it makes sense: if he change and he interacts with them, then it makes sense it is possible they change too. Sansa being nice with someone who is nice with her does NOT make her look bad. It makes her to look like someone who is maturing and like someone who understand we are NOT our last name. Also it is a strategical move because you can make him an ally. Why to mistreat someone who is nice with you? Why to mistreat someone who suffer abuse too? I think there are problems with Sansa character in the show, but her relationship with Tyrion, is not one of those.

 

I think a show, book, etc. should be careful about how the audience will receive and understand its story. And i think the show have many problems with that. But, at the same time, i think if someone think that the fact Tyrion is nice with Sansa means she should have sex with him that person is terribly wrong, and it tells me something about the show, but also it tells me more about what that person think and his/her misconceptions about morals and human behavior. That people is wrong if they think Sansa should sleep with Tyrion just because he was nice with her, that is absolutely clear to me.

 

We also should think about screentime.

 

Lets say the story of character 1 in the book includes the events : A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J
Now lets say the story of character 1 in the show includes only the events: A,C,E,I,J

 

The events F , G and J, in our example, are bad things the character did in the original version (the book).

 

The writer of the show remove events F and G, because the screentime is not long enough to include and develop properly events B and D, and we need B and D to explain properly why the character did F and G.

 

The writer included event J because the screentime allowed to include and develop properly events A , C and E. And of course, A,C and E explain why the character did J.

 

So, yes, screentime is an adaption issue when you think about the behavior of your character.

 

Now, as i said almost at the beginning, Tyrion is not a saint or hero in the show. He did bad things, some of them were terrible things. He murdered people. And I think he needs a redemption arc.

 

I admit they failed with some things of Shae story and that Tyrion redemption arc is not working well in the show, but i think than making him to do more terrible things like the things he does in the book will NOT make his redemption arc work better in the show. It is an ongoing story and they can improve it without including more awful stuff.

 

Spoiler about info and speculation of season 6

It seems they will bring Shae as an allucination, maybe it will give them the chance to create a proper redemption arc and explain somehow indirectly stuff about Shae too

Edited March 20, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[Terra Nova]

But in my opinion, based on the books thus far, Tyrion only got worse: I don't see any redemption arc in Dance for him. He hit rock bottom and in the second half he got slightly better, but he's now fixated on revenge against everyone who slighted him. His mantra now is 'I can't be loved, so let them fear me'. Or 'I am the monster they say.' 

Which doesn't mean he may change his mind in later books, but at the moment he's Tywin writ small. And book Tywin is a monster. 

What's left of this in the show? Show Twyin is nowhere as cruel, petty and violent as in the books***, and show Tyrion is not like him, at all. He moped a little bit, saw a dragon, and now he wants to play the game again.

 

Also, time costraints, adaptation's needs, I understand everything, but with some characters, Tyrion and Cersei most of all, you can clearly see how they cut and omitted specifically the most unsavory parts. In the books, with the singer stew for example, there are good reasons to think that Tyrion didn't have any choice, and equally good reasons to think it was petty and heinous. The show carefully removed any space for the watchers to double-guess Tyrion's actions, to wonder if he didn't make a mistake. Instead, they consistently have other characters praise Tyrion (Varys, last season). There were scenes with Tywin whose only point was to show Tyrion looking sad and misty-eyed and have the public think 'poor Tyrion!' This is not showing and let people draw their conclusion: It's telling, quite forcibily too, that Tyrion is good at the game, that he's the best ruler, that people hate him for no reason.

 

What's the worst thing Tyrion did in the show? It's a serious question, I can't really remember a single thing I would consider 'cruel'. Show Tyrion is not a rapist, for a start.

 

Theon's arc in Season 2 was hadled much better: they didn't erase his crimes, and yet you could still pity him when he told Maester Luwin that it was too late for him to be anything else.

And same goes for Viserys: you pity him, you see the bitterness and the wounds he got from a life of begging, and still you could agree with Dany that he needed to be killed - or the other way: Dany's reaction in the show is truly chilling -. And that's good, because it leaves the watcher the choice, without conditioning him into picking one side over the other. 

For other show character instead you can truly sense where the sympathies of the screenplay go (or don't *coff*Stannis*coff*), and that's not good storytelling.

 

*** IT is actually strongly implied by the way the narration is framed that the Red Wedding was a reasonable thing to do: Tywin asks in fact to Tyrion how it is more honorable to kill thousands in the field than few at a dinner, and the camera pans to Tyrion, clearly struggling to answer but ultimately failing (implicitly suggesting 'even Tyrion can't really say a thing against it, so Tywin must be right'). Nevermind that there's plenty of reasons why it's less honorable, some of them lampshaded in the show too.

 

@Gertrude very good points about Shae: a minor character as she may be, the characterization was really erratic, with some sudden 180° in Season 4 because she needed to end up the same way as her book counterpart (the Sansa bit especially, since after a rough start the relationship between the two was probably the less catty female-female one on the show).

[OhOkayWhat]

Terra, to include more evil acts in your version of a character does NOT make him/her more interesting by default. 

 

And Tyrion already did very bad things in the show. He murdered people.

 

They also included things that makes us reflect about if he did well or not. Example: Shae ask him to leave all behind, simply to leave Kings Landing and live far away of all that intrigue. He thinks he could do that but at the same time he feels he is good at the game, and the audience thinks: he seems to be good at the game! but also the audience thinks: Shae is right, all this could end very bad, they should leave now!  and with that we have an event than makes us discuss his decision.

 

I have not problem on to change a character and make him/her do more good things in an adaptation. Game of Thrones world needs more people doing more good things in it. I think there are lots and lots of awful human beings in that world. And I am not talking about Tyrion alone, why do not make changes on other characters and make them more decent human beings. What is the problem with that? And if the internal logic of the narrative of the show is coherent and it makes sense how the characters behave with each other, as I showed with Sansa and Tyrion relationship, what is the problem with the changes? (Of course, I admit it does not always work well with all the characters and all the changes)

Edited March 20, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[Terra Nova]

And Tyrion already did very bad things in the show. He murdered people.

 

Who? Some guy in the Mountain of the Moon who wanted to kill him? No one at the Battle of the Fork since he was knocked out immediately. Then some more during the Battle of Blackwater, and then Shae and Tywin. No one in Season 3 and 5. All of his murders were in self-defense or during a battle and of course these were not 'evil' acts. Tywin and Shae are the only exception. None of them is framed as being problematic. Shae shot in bed was dubbed everywhere on the internet as 'these hoes ain't loyal', and the general consensus is 'the hoe got what she deserved.' And truly, in the show she plainly betrayed him and his 'true love', it's even less defensible than in the books, in my opinion.

 

I don't want the evil deeds for their sake, I want them because they make you question the characters in a way it's not there in the show. Because of a very conscious and arbitrary decision of the showrunners who sometimes think they should tell us how to feel for a character. It's a meddling I cannot accept in an adaptational work.

 

Especially because the show is consistently darker and more depressing than the books. This was again a decision they took. No surprise it's so dark that characters acting more humanly are greeted with relief. But two wrongs do not make a right.

[OhOkayWhat]

Alayne Stone, I think Breaking Bad is not a good example.

 

Lets play a bit with the numbers:

 

Lets say Walter White from Breaking Bad has 20 minutes of screentime each episode (it could be more or less, but i think it is more than 20 minutes, if someone have a better info about it, please let me know about it)

 

A normal season of Breaking Bad had 13 episodes (first season had only 7 episodes, last season had 16 split into two parts of 8 episodes each one)

 

20 x 13 = 260 minutes

 

Tyrion had 46:34 minutes of screentime in season 5, it seems. I hope the person who made the screentime list is correct. But lets increase his screentime to 1 hour as the average of Tyrion screentime in any season.

 

We have now 260 minutes of Walter White screentime vs. 60 minutes of Tyrion screentime in any season.

 

That is more than 4 times the screentime they have to develop Tyrion in the show. And screentime is an issue when you try to do the whole "good person become a bad person arc while making a compelling story" stuff in a show.

[OhOkayWhat]

Terra, Tyrion murdered Shae and Tywin, and I doubt all the show watchers wrote their opinion in the internet about those events.

 

And in my opinion, it is NOT easy to explain it as self-defense. If you look carefully the whole scene of the Tyrion-Shae fight, specially the last seconds, that is NOT self-defense. In the murder of Tywin, I can NOT see how someone can call it self-defense to kill Tywin.

 

And about the very awful "Shae deserved it" comment.... well, if a person say that comment, it tells me that the show has a problem with its narrative about Shae and Tyrion, but also it tells me that the person writing (or saying or thinking) that comment is terribly wrong and he/she has awful misconceptions about morals, and than his/her "moral compass" is very wrong; because Shae did NOT deserve that.

Edited March 20, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[Terra Nova]

No, OhOkayWhat, with 'self-defense' I meant only the kills on the battlefield. The murder of Tywin should be at least partly excused considering the Tysha reveal in the books. In the show, unfortunately I cannot really judge, since that scene is forever linked to me still raving about 'No Tysha reveal, Jaime hugs and kisses him wtf!' and laughing bitterly since I was realizing that was the point I was truly done with the show.

 

But Shae, you will be surprised by how many people say the hoe deserved it, both for the book and the show. Maybe not everyone expresses his opinion on the internet, but this could be truly assumed to be the general consensus for the casual viewer. As Shimpy said when she read Sansa's marriage to Tyrion ,for example, a lot of fake Unsullied were thrashing her because she's a stupid brat; it's only later that Shimpy discovered the rage was because Sansa didn't kneel for Tyrion - it's still a ludicrous reason, but in the show there was none and still she was insulted -.

[WSmith84]

The problem with Sansa's character is that she appeared dumb and passive. And those are traits that an audience will find very hard to forgive.

 

And I'm sorry, but if the show needed more good guys to balance out the bad, then maybe they shouldn't have cut out or changed all the good guys that actually appear in the story. No Northern Lords, no decent men of the NW, no fun wildlings, no Kingsguard besides a paedophile and Jaime etc. Maybe they shouldn't have made the Blackfish a thug, or Edmure a foolish tool, or Loras a walking cliche. One thing shimpy has said frequently on this thread is how there are many more lighter moments and decent human beings. So no, I don't buy for an instant that the story lacked decently behaved people and thus needed Tyrion to be written as such.

[Andeleisha]

Hey, we're supposed to start our season 1 rewatch today! Anyone else going to watch along?

[WSmith84]

On my previous post: we were discussing on this page how Melisandre had all of her human decency removed and left her as a plainly evil character. There are plenty of decent characters, or at least examples of decent behaviour, in the story that don't require a major character to be completely overhauled.

 

Not that I actually care that Tyrion was overhauled; I care that the end result is a bland character.

[Audreythe2nd]

I obviously can't know any of this for sure without seeing the end of the story, but here's what I think is happening - Tyrion of the books was a "good" or at least grey character who is progressively getting worse and worse and more villain-like. As a result, he's probably going to make some decisions as pertains to Dany and Westeros that are very questionable. Tyrion of the show is more straightforwardly noble-minded, and he's in the company of 3-4 other people who have been portrayed similarly (Dany, Varys, Jorah, etc.) All of these characters are pretty "good" people with a similar goal. I think it will be extremely interesting to see these good people make decisions that they think will result in some kind of happy outcome for the greater good, and have it NOT turn out like that at all. Dany's "conquest" of Westeros is going to go badly, books and show, and as a result, we're going to have a lot of characters with great intentions come out on the defacto antagonistic side. That's why I think it's not a big deal if they have downplayed Tyrion's more villainous traits from the books - it's just as interesting to have a good character attempt to do something noble and have it fail spectacularly, as it is to have a darker character do something for selfish or treacherous reasons and have the outcome be terrible. I'm actually quite a bit more interested in the former, as it's not something I see done in stories very much.

[WindyNights]

Hey, we're supposed to start our season 1 rewatch today! Anyone else going to watch along?

I think I will. Are we creating a new thread for it ?