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!

[Delta1212]

The original plan for the battle, rather than Tyrion getting conked on the head and waking up after the fact, was to have him following the Mountain into battle, presumably so you could have the action close in with Tyion and have the Mountain blocking enough of the screen to make the nearby action seem like part of a larger battle happening on the other side of him.

Sadly, again, they ran out of time to do even that, so it was blacking out and missing the battle for Tyrion instead.

[SeanC]

In a lot of ways I don't mind the battle being cut, because Tyrion's combat abilities are somewhat hard to swallow, and I think it would have been difficult to credibly depict Peter Dinklage as killing machine in pitched battle.

[stillshimpy]

I have to admit, I'm actually a tiny bit glad they shortened the battle rather than try to depict Tyrion's exploits -- although I understand it was for budgetary reasons -- because they required a fair amount of suspension of disbelief even within the story.  Tyrion has dwelled on his physical limitations (referring to aches, needing a special saddle etc.) and you know...mass still matters, so whereas I appreciate the expansion and particularly learning more about Tyrion's crew from the Vale (that was hilarious) ....I thought it just as well that the show hadn't depicted some things.  

 

Although I do have my own "man, that's a shame" lament about the budgetary restrictions, in that the book gives a sense of scope and scale that is missing from the series.  Sometimes the world in GoT seems quite small and just reading the descriptions of all the banners was a fun thing unto itself. 

 

Someone had mentioned earlier in this thread that they were disappointed with the battle scenes on the show, so I did go into reading about them knowing they were going to be far more expansive in the book.  

 

As for Shae, I don't really have any thoughts about her at present.  She doesn't really seem like quite the same character as in the series.  Her introduction is different here.  More "I sent you out to the market to procure this for me" in the book.  Whereas in the series, there seems to be some question of whether or not Shae will choose to hang around with Tyrion.  It's sort of a done deal here in the book.  

 

I think one of the saddest lines in the book was "The King dies and the Hand is buried" as Ned contemplates his lightless prison.   

 

Poor Arya, trying to live by her wits and being saved by the ghost of Syrio's words in her head, over and over.  She seems so much younger and more vulnerable in the book.  

[benteen]

About getting tired of hearing about Sam's appearance, yeah, that's GRRM for you.  If someone is a bad guy, there always described as being ugly and fat.  Sam isn't a bad guy of course but you get the point.

 

I can definitely see why they toned down Tyrion's fighting on the show.  The book notes his physical limitations, how he's twisted and hobbling.  But when he gets into battle, he seems to become the second coming of his brother!  It's definitely a Gary Stu moment for GRRM.

[Delta1212]

I think GRRM eventually realized he was writing Tyrion unrealistically athletically, and I believe mentioned his meeting with John Snow where he basically does a somersault off the roof as something he particularly regretted as unrealistic once he learned more about the conditions that cause dwarfism in real life. In fact, there's a throwaway line in a later book that I'm pretty sure is there for no reason except to justify that first scene.

While I'm talking about that scene, actually, I have to say, there is one line in it that I keep coming back to, that is the one reason I think Tyrion might actually wind up on the throne in the end. Paraphrasing from memory: "Just for a moment, Tyrion Lannister stood tall as a king."

That screams the kind of "Haha, I spelled everything out for you ahead of time and you still didn't see it coming" foreshadowing that is positively rampant in this series. So I've been hanging onto that, possibly irrationally, since the very first time I read the book and thought "I wonder if this means something."

Edit: It's also the only thing that keeps me from dismissing out of hand

Tyrion Targaryen.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Delta1212

[Avaleigh]

I think GRRM eventually realized he was writing Tyrion unrealistically athletically, and I believe mentioned his meeting with John Snow where he basically does a somersault off the roof as something he particularly regretted as unrealistic once he learned more about the conditions that cause dwarfism in real life. In fact, there's a throwaway line in a later book that I'm pretty sure is there for no reason except to justify that first scene.

While I'm talking about that scene, actually, I have to say, there is one line in it that I keep coming back to, that is the one reason I think Tyrion might actually wind up on the throne in the end. Paraphrasing from memory: "Just for a moment, Tyrion Lannister stood tall as a king."

That screams the kind of "Haha, I spelled everything out for you ahead of time and you still didn't see it coming" foreshadowing that is positively rampant in this series. So I've been hanging onto that, possibly irrationally, since the very first time I read the book and thought "I wonder if this means something."

Edit: It's also the only thing that keeps me from dismissing out of hand

Tyrion Targaryen.

Regarding your comment in spoiler tags--

The world book coupled with comments made by GRRM and Elio makes me think that this theory is nearly as likely as RLJ. I feel like the evidence in favor is pretty considerable and the main thing that I've noticed when it comes to objections to the theory is that people simply don't like it or don't want it to happen. It isn't really about lack of evidence or set up from the first book.

There are a list of reasons that people have for being against the theory but they're nearly all subjective. Some people think it will "ruin" the relationship between Tyrion and Tywin. Some people think that Tyrion should be able to be a dragonrider without have Targaryen blood because people resent the idea of Targ blood being magical. (Meanwhile many of these people take no issue with Stark/First Men blood as being similarly special. For whatever reason, Targaryens having special blood seems to offend people.) Then there are those who don't think Tyrion should be a dragonrider at all. Some people hate the idea of Tyrion being off the hook of being a kinslayer. (He still technically would be since he and Tywin would still be cousins.) Some people think Genna's comment is somehow invalidated. (I don't see how.) Some people think it makes Tyrion lose all complexity.

I've been doing the reread with the Tyrion Targ theory in the back of my head and it's crazy to me how many moments there are that make me feel this was likely planned from the beginning. My main hope is that this theory won't end up ruining the series for a bunch people the way that I've seen many say that it would. It's very hard for me to understand why this theory is so controversial. I'd say it's easily in the top three when it comes to controversial non-crackpot theories.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Avaleigh

[Delta1212]

I think the only problem

I have with it is just that that's getting to be a lot of secret Targs. And it's coincidentally secret Targs, too. It's not like there is a shared reason for both of them that logically would result in their being two. They'd be two secret heirs to the throne who were born under completely unrelated circumstances and then raised as someone else's son in the eyes of the world and without them knowing their true origins.

[Avaleigh]

I think the only problem

I have with it is just that that's getting to be a lot of secret Targs. And it's coincidentally secret Targs, too. It's not like there is a shared reason for both of them that logically would result in their being two. They'd be two secret heirs to the throne who were born under completely unrelated circumstances and then raised as someone else's son in the eyes of the world and without them knowing their true origins.

I've seen this argument too and the main reason that I don't see it as overkill is because we wouldn't really have two secret heirs. IMO Jon is likely going to turn out to be the trueborn son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. He'll be the heir while Tyrion will be the highborn bastard. I sort of like how there's a kind of role reversal if this ends up happening. I also love the way the theory ties the characters of Jon, Dany, and Tyrion together. Those connections don't seem accidental to me and I think it's because we're going to learn that they're related.

 

Aegon is likely a Blackfyre so to me he doesn't count as secret Targ. I don't think having two is too many especially when only one of them is likely to be considered to be trueborn.

[stillshimpy]

I think GRRM eventually realized he was writing Tyrion unrealistically athletically, and I believe mentioned his meeting with John Snow where he basically does a somersault off the roof as something he particularly regretted as unrealistic once he learned more about the conditions that cause dwarfism in real life. In fact, there's a throwaway line in a later book that I'm pretty sure is there for no reason except to justify that first scene.

 

Yeah, there were a couple of moments when it was clear he'd simply made Tyrion a dwarf without understanding what that might mean entirely.  It wouldn't stand out quite so much if it wasn't that he frequently remembered "This person has some physical limitations/challenges that others notice also...."  so it was fairly uneven.  

 

There were a couple of changes I didn't really understand, and perhaps were just for the sake of simplicity:  The deaths of the older Starks were completely different.  Brandon was choked to death, which is an entirely horrible way to die, but not quite as horrible as being burned to death. Rickard Stark was beheaded.  

 

Oh by the way, someone upthread mentioned Robert Baratheon laughing at the dead Targaryen children and I thought that was one area where where George R. R. Martin was actually playing with the idea that history is told to different people with a different slant....because I thought that was what Dany recalled being taught, wasn't it?  I just took it as read that a lot of what Dany was taught was going to have had quite the spin put on it.   Or was it something Ned was contemplating?   

Either way, every time a character from a different region remembered roughly the same events, they seemed to have been passed through a different filter and were slightly different.  Most noticeable in Dany's recollections and Jorah's, vs. everyone on the Seven Kingdoms side.  

 

Oh and there were things that only came to light this year in the show that had been present since the first book:  The grey plague (that's going to be grey scale, right?)  and then the story LF tells Sansa about Lyanna was actually from Ned's memory.  Jeez, that was not a good choice...because I immediately suspected LF's story was bullshit, because he's Littlefinger, and apparently it wasn't.  

 

Anyway, I'm going to start the next book glad enough that there will be enough differences to examine and wonder about.  

[Dev F]

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).

 

I think season 2 is actually the season that suffers the most in its diversions from the source material. But part of the reason I think that is because Clash of Kings is far and away my favorite book in the series; as I've mentioned elsewhere, I think it's the point where Martin is operating at the peak of his storytelling abilities, after he's laid the necessary but not always riveting foundation for his fictional universe in book 1 but before he starts to let the immense scope of that universe distract him from the story at hand in the later books.

 

So it's the book where I find the deviations least excusable, because they're not just streamlining an story that's too complex to be dramatized or trimming flabby digressions the show doesn't have time for. Instead, they're hacking apart a finely tuned narrative, retaining a lot of the most memorable moments but jumbling them up so that the original story and character beats get lost.

 

There's one storyline in particular that's actually fairly highly regarded in the show, but it's such a sanded-down version of the book storyline that it's always left me cold. I'm curious how you'll respond to it, Shimpy.

[Delta1212]

And then there's the storyline from book 2 that everyone agrees probably did need to be changed... And still didn't turn out that great. Although the best part of it was the same bit in both even though it was completely different between the book and show.

Edit: I believe we get some more information on Brandon and Rickard's deaths, but I think the show just kept it simple since the important part to the story is really that the Mad King had them executed. The rest is really just details that flesh out the Rebellion backstory that the show has sort of glossed over to a large extent until this past season.

Although, and I forget whether I said this earlier or put it under spoilers since you hadn't read about it yet, there is a couple of frames from an early trailer that looks an awful lot like Brandon's execution. No one has heard anything about that footage except for the very brief flash in that trailer, so I've always been interested in what the context for that scene was.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Delta1212

[Brn2bwild]

And then there's the storyline from book 2 that everyone agrees probably did need to be changed... And still didn't turn out that great. Although the best part of it was the same bit in both even though it was completely different between the book and show.

 

If it's the storyline I'm thinking of,

Dany's storyline,

that part was so much better in the book.

[stillshimpy]

I believe we get some more information on Brandon and Rickard's deaths, but I think the show just kept it simple since the important part to the story is really that the Mad King had them executed. The rest is really just details that flesh out the Rebellion backstory that the show has sort of glossed over to a large extent until this past season.

 

In the series they make it clear that Brandon and Rickard were burned to death, by Aerys, in the Throne room and that no one made a sound or move to intervene.  In the scene that didn't happen in the book between Jaime and Ned, that's made abundantly clear.  Jaime talked about that and then talked about when he killed Aerys; it felt like justice.  That when he killed Aerys, Aerys was saying the same thing he'd said for hours  "Burn them all".  

 

So for whatever reason they fully committed to an entirely different death for Brandon and Rickard even though they have never given us a clear timeline.  It's one of the few details the show was very clear about, so it was a particularly wry moment for me in the book.  The only thing the series managed to convey with clarity was how the elder, male Starks died and that Jaime stabbed Aerys in the back.  

[Hecate7]

I've seen this argument too and the main reason that I don't see it as overkill is because we wouldn't really have two secret heirs. IMO Jon is likely going to turn out to be the trueborn son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. He'll be the heir while Tyrion will be the highborn bastard. I sort of like how there's a kind of role reversal if this ends up happening. I also love the way the theory ties the characters of Jon, Dany, and Tyrion together. Those connections don't seem accidental to me and I think it's because we're going to learn that they're related.

 

Aegon is likely a Blackfyre so to me he doesn't count as secret Targ. I don't think having two is too many especially when only one of them is likely to be considered to be trueborn.

 

Sorry for yet another comment behind spoiler tags, but

seriously, if Robert Baratheon can have 20 bastards, who's to say how many Rhaegar and Aerys might have? And if Snow and Tyrion are both secret Targs, they still have different fathers--Snow is Rheagar's son, and Tyrion is Aerys'.

[Dev F]

So for whatever reason they fully committed to an entirely different death for Brandon and Rickard even though they have never given us a clear timeline.  It's one of the few details the show was very clear about, so it was a particularly wry moment for me in the book.  The only thing the series managed to convey with clarity was how the elder, male Starks died and that Jaime stabbed Aerys in the back.  

 

A couple points here. First, what does the first book say to suggest that Rickard Stark was beheaded? Because we get a clearer picture of the scene in a later book, and (minor spoiler as to the nature of book!Rickard's death)

he is indeed burned to death, as in the show.

 

Second, unless I'm mistaken, show!Jaime only says that a) the nobles stood by and watched as Rickard and Brandon were killed horribly in the throne room, and b) the Mad King laughed as Rickard burned. No mention is made of the exact manner of Brandon's death, so it's not inconsistent with the notion that he was choked to death.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Dev F

[Delta1212]

Sorry for yet another comment behind spoiler tags, but

seriously, if Robert Baratheon can have 20 bastards, who's to say how many Rhaegar and Aerys might have? And if Snow and Tyrion are both secret Targs, they still have different fathers--Snow is Rheagar's son, and Tyrion is Aerys'.

Yeah, but

that's actually my problem. If you had a Robert Baratheon-esque character running around having bastards that'd be one thing. But it's two characters with practically identical origins that rose by complete coincidence. "Outcast character that believes himself to be the son of a Lord is actually a secret Targaryen that killed his mother in childbirth." Throw in a potentially fake secret Targaryen in Aegon, and it just feels like he's going to the "secret Targaryen" well one too many times.

If it was one guy who had a ton of bastards, or even if one of the main characters was an acknowledged bastard, that would be one thing. But you have two of the really major, main central POV characters who by complete coincidence share almost exactly the same secret origin story.

That feels a little sloppy to me.

I mean, I appreciate the thematic parallel of the three heads of the dragon being outcast Targaryens whose mothers died birthing them and who eventually went on to rise above the lowly roles they'd been cast in by the people around them, but I do wish it would play out a bit better than "All the best male characters are secret Targaryens, surprise!" which I strongly suspect at this point it can't, if that's the way it's going.

[nksarmi]

When you are starting book 2, when are you starting book 2, when are you starting book 2?????? :)

 

Sorry, I'm a little excited about seeing your comments as the books diverge further from the show - I'm even more excited for book three!

[Skeeter22]

It'll be interesting to see how Shimpy sees the characters as they progress. The minor changes really build up and I know some book readers look at the show characters as completely separate from their book counterparts.

[Avaleigh]

Delta1212, I'm going to bring my response to the speculation thread for season 6.

 

When you are starting book 2, when are you starting book 2, when are you starting book 2?????? :)

 

Sorry, I'm a little excited about seeing your comments as the books diverge further from the show - I'm even more excited for book three!

I'm looking forward to all of it but I really want Shimpy's thoughts on the Blackwater and a certain conversation that takes place between two characters. I won't give any other details than that but I think most regulars here know what conversation I'm thinking about. 

[stillshimpy]

I'm starting book two today, guys :-)  I'm glad you all aren't bored stiff and please, if there's anything you end up wondering about as I get to it, just ask me about it and I will happily type my customary 8k words :-)  I'm just so glad you are looking forward to it.  At least in theory. 

 

 

 

First, what does the first book say to suggest that Rickard Stark was beheaded?

 

It literally used the word "beheaded" , so there's not a ton of mystery....but that could also be the whole "well, different people learn different things about history, even their own, and believe them to be true"  ....like every school child in the U.S. learns the whole "Midnight ride of Paul Revere" thing and...uh, yeah, not so much the truth of the matter in a lot of ways, although a man named Paul Revere was involved , etc. etc.  Longfellow needed something to rhyme with "hear" and history was born.  

 

It's in the crypt when Bran is giving Osha the tour of the dead, basically.  Now, long before that Brandon's death is covered and he was apparently strangled, but yes, they finally have Bran stating what happened to Rickard in the crypt and the word "beheaded" is literally the word used.  No "met the King's justice"  "was executed by" ...nope ..."beheaded" ...which earned a giant WTF? from me.  

 

So I'm going to guess that Marin messed up with a continuity detail (I did read under your spoiler tag as you indicated it was solely about the manner of his death) ...and just stuck with the latter version.  

Edited July 13, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Delta1212]

I'm interested in what you think of the prologue to book 2. Not that there's any mind-blowing departures there, just curious about your thoughts.

And since I didn't comment on it when you first brought it up, I've always liked the "different people recall/have heard the same events in somewhat different ways." That seems both realistic and interesting, and sometimes makes it difficult to tease apart the details of what really happened.

Edit: Oh, and just putting out a standing comment that I'll be interested in pretty much all of your thoughts on Theon going forward.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Delta1212

[chandraReborn]

I always read "beheaded" as more of the kind of story you'd tell a kid about how their grandpa died than 100% to be taken literally. 

[Silje]

I hope it's ok to mention this. In the last Sansa chapter near the end of the book she has some interesting thoughts about Janos Slynt.

 

I am curious if you noticed this when you were reading, stillshimpy? It's a nice, little detail when you know what happens later in the story. 

 

For the inconsistencies regarding how Brandon and Rickard died, I think in-story it can be explained away with Ned wanting to spare his family the gruesome details. Even

Catelyn

didn't know for sure how Rickard died.    

Edited July 13, 2015 by Silje

[stillshimpy]

Well and everyone reshapes their personal family history for their kids, or friends, or relatives.   I mean, just watch an episode of Antique Roadshow for  a case-in-point lesson.   What we're told about our ancestor's is only sometimes a distant relative of the truth.  

 

I did notice Sansa talking about Janos Slynt and his sons.  Janos having been made a lord, red-faced, etc.  Mostly I was distracted by how much she was trying to screw up  her courage to be brave and how she really thought she was saving her father there.   I dislike Janos Slynt and Meryn Trant (Trout)  so much that mostly I see either of their names and just feel like my blood is going to boil.   

 

I was so mortified and horrified on Sansa's behalf during that entire scene when she asks Joffrey for mercy for her father, I can't really say I was paying too much attention to where her attention was in the scene.  It's a factor of knowing how it would all turn out and that again, Sansa's a pitiable figure to me.  She's a kid.  She grew up in Honor Land Adventure Camp.    She in so far over her head and it's just heart rending to me.  

 

Although, there is one thing that cutting out the scene of Sansa going to the queen -- which I fully support as a story decision, without benefit of Sansa's inner monologue, it would be too easily misinterpreted -- it helps explain why Sansa took so many passes on trying to get the hell home in the coming seasons.  

[Delta1212]

Sansa is, I think, one of the more difficult to relate to characters for many people not because of anything intrinsic to the character, but because so many of her choices end spectacularly badly. Aside from being bratty to Arya (and my sister and I were bratty to each other at that age, too), it seems like Sansa usually tries to be helpful and do the right thing or, when she stumbles, often doesn't understand the full context of what is going on or what the consequences of her choices will be and has a good deal of inner turmoil over the fact that she doesn't know what the right thing to do is.

Unlike Arya, who was never very good at doing what she was supposed to do, and so learned how to think on her feet when presented with complex situations where what she wants and what she's meant to do are very different things, Sansa has always been very good at playing the part she's "supposed" to play. She's used to knowing what the right thing to do is at all times, and being able to trust the adults around her to guide her in the right direction when she doesn't have the experience yet to know herself what the appropriate response in a situation is.

And then she's thrust into a series of situations where people aren't behaving in the way she has come to expect, where the right thing to do is not obvious, where the adults and authority figures are not trustworthy, and of course it's a total disaster for her.

Nobody wants to think that would be them and so all of her mistakes must be the result of a serious character flaw in her as a person, rather than the result of circumstances outside her control, and so she must bear the scorn of the reader for the negative consequences that result from failures they obviously never would have made if they were in her situation.

Competence breeds admiration far more quickly than goodness, and the inverse holds just as well.

[nksarmi]

Sansa is, I think, one of the more difficult to relate to characters for many people not because of anything intrinsic to the character, but because so many of her choices end spectacularly badly. Aside from being bratty to Arya (and my sister and I were bratty to each other at that age, too), it seems like Sansa usually tries to be helpful and do the right thing or, when she stumbles, often doesn't understand the full context of what is going on or what the consequences of her choices will be and has a good deal of inner turmoil over the fact that she doesn't know what the right thing to do is.

Unlike Arya, who was never very good at doing what she was supposed to do, and so learned how to think on her feet when presented with complex situations where what she wants and what she's meant to do are very different things, Sansa has always been very good at playing the part she's "supposed" to play. She's used to knowing what the right thing to do is at all times, and being able to trust the adults around her to guide her in the right direction when she doesn't have the experience yet to know herself what the appropriate response in a situation is.

And then she's thrust into a series of situations where people aren't behaving in the way she has come to expect, where the right thing to do is not obvious, where the adults and authority figures are not trustworthy, and of course it's a total disaster for her.

Nobody wants to think that would be them and so all of her mistakes must be the result of a serious character flaw in her as a person, rather than the result of circumstances outside her control, and so she must bear the scorn of the reader for the negative consequences that result from failures they obviously never would have made if they were in her situation.

Competence breeds admiration far more quickly than goodness, and the inverse holds just as well.

 

I agree with a lot of this, but I did want to comment on the last line.  I have said - and I still mean it - that if Sansa never learns to "play the game" that I am ok with that.  I would be ok if she remains a genuine person who doesn't try to manipulate every situation and person she meets.  I find it very realistic that not everyone would ever be good "players" - I'm not even convinced Dany will ever be a good "player" at this point.  That's why Sansa needs someone who can play the game to help her, but not LF damn it.  Hopefully she meets up with Davos soon.  He was a good advisor and could probably help Sansa a great deal.

[Haleth]

The specific line I was thinking of with regard to Sansa and her thoughts about Slynt:

Sansa stared hard at his ugly face, remembering how he had thrown down her father for Ser Ilyn to behead, wishing she could hurt him, wishing that some hero would throw him down and cut off his head.  But a voice inside her whispered, There are no heroes...

 

So, yeah.  Maybe there is one hero left.  At least until the end of season 5.  :)

 

Sansa is her father's daughter.  Naive enough to believe people will act honorably.

[Silje]

The specific line I was thinking of with regard to Sansa and her thoughts about Slynt:

Sansa stared hard at his ugly face, remembering how he had thrown down her father for Ser Ilyn to behead, wishing she could hurt him, wishing that some hero would throw him down and cut off his head.  But a voice inside her whispered, There are no heroes...

So, yeah.  Maybe there is one hero left.  At least until the end of season 5.  :)

 

That's the line I was thinking of too. I don't know if it was intentional or not from Martin, but it is a nice, little detail when you know what happens.

[stillshimpy]

Hmm.  So at least I know Sansa isn't dead in the story.  But that makes some of the choices this year even more WTF and Why? I assumed they could only pull that shit because she was dead. 

[Mya Stone]

Hmm.  So at least I know Sansa isn't dead in the story.  But that makes some of the choices this year even more WTF and Why? I assumed they could only pull that shit because she was dead.

Note: I let you carry on with your thinking because I'm a good friend, not because I like to mislead you. :p

[stillshimpy]

No worries, at all :-)   And yes, you are a good and appreciated friend! 

Edited July 13, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Mya Stone]

Okay, now get to reading! I want to talk about the prologue! :p

[nksarmi]

Hmm.  So at least I know Sansa isn't dead in the story.  But that makes some of the choices this year even more WTF and Why? I assumed they could only pull that shit because she was dead. 

Oh my gosh - I always forget that unsullied were debating if Sansa and Theon jumped to their deaths.  I was skimming the non-book talk thread and saw people debating that and was like huh?  Of course they aren't dead - oh wait.....

[stillshimpy]

Okay, so now also know that Theon isn't dead.  

 

Hey guys, I know I'm taking my chances here in the open world and everything, but do you think maybe you could be a little careful about that sort of thing?  I get that I'm going to be spoiled in a lot of ways for the books...but I don't know who is alive or dead in them, so I would appreciate fewer confirmations in either directions, if that's okay. 

 

I did finish the prologue, Mya.  Wow.  That's about a zillions time creepier than anything that happened in the show.  Holy crap.  Poor Cressen.  I guess my hope that I'd like book Stannis is completely in vain.  

 

Also, there's another one of those "I get why they changed it but..." details that would have helped in the show.  In the book, Stannis has no reason to be well-disposed to Ned Stark and it is made clear that he was jealous of him. In the series it actually would have helped to know that on some levels, because part of my dislike of Stannis stemmed from the fact that he wouldn't have known he had any claim on the Throne had it not been for Ned.   So it always made Stannis seem particularly turd-like for never even saying he'd send Robb a letter offering him amnesty, or something if he'd just support his claim.  Instead it was all "the Usurper, Robb Stark....burn muthfucka burn..."  

 

In the book it's far clearer that Stannis already knew.  Although I can see that I'm going to have to go back to the "is her bewitched?" notion for a while. 

 

Selyse's description is almost amusing, but Dragonstone sounds so damned cool in the book, whereas it looked like a complete pit on the series.  

Edited July 14, 2015 by stillshimpy

[nksarmi]

stillshimpy - my apologies again.  The changes from book to show become harder and harder to deal with (in terms of not saying something to an unsullied viewer) because well - it's just different. 

 

"So it always made Stannis seem particularly turd-like for never even saying he'd send Robb a letter offering him amnesty, or something if he'd just support his claim.  Instead it was all "the Usurper, Robb Stark....burn muthfucka burn..."

 

I think I watched the first two seasons and THEN read the books so I was always a bit baffled by the lack of an accord between Robb and Stannis myself since Ned backed Stannis.

Edited July 14, 2015 by nksarmi

[Protar]

The locations in the show are often less grandiose. I guess that's just an unavoidable thing but they could have had a few more dragon statues. I think there's one in the background in the show and that's it. In general, and this is a bit of a tangent, I feel like even though GoT has a huge budget, it is not a show which fits comfortably into its budget. You can always spot where cuts had to be made. "Here's were they ran out of horse money" "here's why they spent all their CGI on dragons so now there's no money for the direwolves" etc.

 

The CoK prologue is probably one of the best. Maybe my second favourite after Book 5. It's one of the things I can't really hold against the show - there's so much information there about Cressen and his relationship with Stannis and Shireen and Davos. How do you develop Cressen in just one episode? I don't think you really can that well. One thing I've noticed that the show cut is that Melisandre gives Cressen a chance to spill the wine and put and stop to it all.

 

Btw Shimpy what did you think of Patchface? Shireen's fool?

[Delta1212]

I think the whole Stannis plotline is better in the books. I mean, I don't want you to get unrealistically pumped for a more awesome story than the show version, but I think this prologue is a good example of the fact that most of the stuff surrounding Stannis is just... more interesting on the page. The creepy stuff is creepier, the cool stuff is cooler, the big stuff is bigger, and things just generally make a little more sense.

I mean, that applies to most of the show, but I feel like that applies especially to Stannis and his entourage, where the show just kind of moved them around to where they needed to be to properly interact with everyone else's story at the appointed time and otherwise didn't do much with them.

[Avaleigh]

Selyse's description is almost amusing, but Dragonstone sounds so damned cool in the book, whereas it looked like a complete pit on the series.  

This was a disappointment to me in the show. I was totally hoping it would be cool looking and creepy and it has probably been the least remarkable castle we've seen on the show so far. 

[benteen]

They set the tone poorly for Stannis in the show by cutting out his original introduction.  Also, cutting out him being the first to realize the truth about Robert's kids.

[stillshimpy]

That's okay, nksarmi. 

 

Btw Shimpy what did you think of Patchface? Shireen's fool?

 

Honestly, I couldn't even begin to understand why anyone would let him hang around their child.  I understand that Shireen is almost certainly going to turn out to be yet another candidate for the Westerosi Child Protection Services unit, but that's mainly what struck me.  This kid has no real freedom in this world, but her parents, the maester, everyone lets this very odd, vaguely sinister figure hang around with her?  

 

I know he's yet another echo of Martin's love of the "Cripples, Bastards and Broken things"  but he actually came off as more threatening than that to me.  I couldn't tell if he was supposed to be some form of watery wight, or what.  When he kept yattering on about knowing what it was like under the sea, I wondered if he was going to start talking about the Drown God.  Then also, I wondered if it was possible he was faking all of this and that's where the depiction of Pycelle, the not-doddering-but-pretending to be characterization came from in the series.  

 

It actually has nothing to do with "Why would you let your child hang around someone with diminished capacities?" because that's not the issue...the issue is that Patchface seemed to be a little dangerous.  Knocking down Cressen (that's when I wondered if he was faking everything, trying to save him from himself) scaring Shireen.  Also, man alive, the "oh, oh, oh!" thing was annoying enough in print that I got the slightest notion of what a person like that would be like to be around...and I flatly don't believe Stannis or his charming Lemon of  Wife wouldn't have drop kicked the guy off a battlement with only the Gargoyles as witnesses after about a day.  

 

benteen, technically the story hasn't gotten to the point of confirming that Stannis was the first to figure out anything about the kids yet.  At least I don't think it has.  

 

They really did Stannis no favors in his introduction in the series.  He corrected the grammar in the letter calling for fealty.   Although that right there clearly outlined why no one would follow him (focusing on the wrong things does not make a great ruler, or leader make) .  

 

Patchface reminded me not a little bit of Pennywise with his "Down here we all float" stuff, by the way.  

[nksarmi]

"benteen, technically the story hasn't gotten to the point of confirming that Stannis was the first to figure out anything about the kids yet.  At least I don't think it has."

 

I don't know if the books ever tell us who was the first to figure it out.  I think we are supposed to think it's Jon A but for all we know, it could have been Littlefinger, right?  I think the books do tell you that Stannis knew - or at least suspected - before Ned sent his letter though, am I right?

[Mya Stone]

The prologue is one of my favorite chapters in the series, and something that I felt fell mostly flat in the show, shimpy. You know me well enough at this point where I think you know I'm not a Stannis supporter, but I'm also not a Stannis hater. He's not wrong in his pursuit of the throne, but he's also far from likable (and therefore the opposite of Renly). That prologue has so, so much to it. Cressen's internal monologue, his likening the Baratheon boys to different metals, the description of Dragonstone, the overwhelming sense of foreboding and creeptastic world building. I felt pain when Cressen died. I actually got attached in that short amount of time.

I got a Pennywise vibe from Patchface as well. He always gave me the creeps.

Let me know where you are in book two. I read ahead a bit, so I don't want to inadvertently bring up something that you haven't made it to yet. :)

[Dev F]

This was a disappointment to me in the show. I was totally hoping it would be cool looking and creepy and it has probably been the least remarkable castle we've seen on the show so far. 

 

I think season 2, in particular, dropped the ball on portraying what a deeply weird and unsettling place Dragonstone is supposed to be. In the books it's such a gothic nightmare it's actually hilarious. The story of how little Robert and Stannis watched from the parapets as their parents sailed home with a delightful fool to teach Stannis how to laugh, only to witness the horrible death of everyone but that fool? Never fails to crack me up.

 

Season 3 salvages the setting somewhat when it introduces Shireen and her creepy Patchface-inspired singing and Selyse and her jars o' babies. But by that point the damage was already done. One of the great things that GRRM accomplishes with the CoK prologue is to cue the reader, "It's OK if this doesn't make sense right away, because it's completely nutso-crazy." Whereas in the show, you suddenly get all these new characters dumped on you as if you immediately need to keep track of them like anyone else in the show.

[Haleth]

I was sorry Patchface didn't make the show, but yeah, budget cuts.  Save the $$ for another naked woman.  Can't have enough of those.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Haleth

[benteen]

Sorry for bringing something up early.

 

I think it was Stannis but the idea or in this case, the seed could have been planted elsewhere.  Like LF.

 

I like Patchface too.  Fascinating and tragic story, that one.  I have to admit, I found myself repeating "Oh, I know.  Oh oh oh" quite a few times.

 

I would agree they didn't really put over the gothic horror aspect of Dragonstone enough but I'll give them credit for Selyse's fetuses in a jar.  Both unsettling and something I could have seen in the GOT books.  Still amazed that GRRM didn't think up that particular nugget himself.

[Delta1212]

Guys, maybe we can dial back a bit on talking about what things did and didn't happen in the books vs the show until we've passed the point where it becomes obvious? I know we're all excited to talk about everything, but I think we're getting a little bit too loose with the spoilers and advanced story talk.

Let's try to let shimpy find some of this stuff out for herself.

[stillshimpy]

Thanks,Delta, I would actually really appreciate that.  

 

I'm three chapters in and Gendry has shown up on the road to the Wall.  Arya has really thoroughly kicked Hot Pie's ass and Sansa is being beaten a great deal.  

 

I take some issue with Cersei telling Tyrion "We might have lost all, if Sansa hadn't come to me" because that's a load of shit.  What, she had the King killed quite promptly after Ned told her "So your children are also your nephews and niece, sooner or later Tywin will somehow end up his own grandpa, beat feet to elsewhere" but it wasn't until Sansa came to Cersei to say that Ned was planning to take them all away that Cersei twigged to the jig being up?  Oh tell me another,  Story.  That defies credibility.  

 

I'm sure Cersei wasn't having Ned watched or anything after he told her he knew Robert had no heirs and her children were products of incest.  Good grief.  

 

I wonder why Cersei would tell Tryion that?  Is it because she didn't want to tell him, "Ned Stark had me stone-cold busted, but he tried to spare the lives of my children...."  not to mention Littlefinger and his backstabbing ways.   I know I've already been told that Martin never meant for Sansa to take the blame, but he made more than one writing mistake.  

 

I agree that Dragonstone is like Dark Shadows levels of gothic and overdone.  Vincent Price lurks in a lab somewhere, trying to invent an organ to play a crescendo or two, time to lightning flashes, of course.  Still, the biggest complaint I have about the show's choices in sets is that everything is so scaled down.  

 

Jeez, Tyrion's mooning over Shae is particularly difficult to take, knowing what will (likely) transpire as the story goes on.  

[Avaleigh]

I agree that Dragonstone is like Dark Shadows levels of gothic and overdone.  Vincent Price lurks in a lab somewhere, trying to invent an organ to play a crescendo or two, time to lightning flashes, of course.  Still, the biggest complaint I have about the show's choices in sets is that everything is so scaled down.  

Love you for this description. 

[Lady S.]

Thanks,Delta, I would actually really appreciate that.  

 

I take some issue with Cersei telling Tyrion "We might have lost all, if Sansa hadn't come to me" because that's a load of shit.  What, she had the King killed quite promptly after Ned told her "So your children are also your nephews and niece, sooner or later Tywin will somehow end up his own grandpa, beat feet to elsewhere" but it wasn't until Sansa came to Cersei to say that Ned was planning to take them all away that Cersei twigged to the jig being up?  Oh tell me another,  Story.  That defies credibility.  

 

I'm sure Cersei wasn't having Ned watched or anything after he told her he knew Robert had no heirs and her children were products of incest.  Good grief.  

 

I wonder why Cersei would tell Tryion that?  Is it because she didn't want to tell him, "Ned Stark had me stone-cold busted, but he tried to spare the lives of my children...."  not to mention Littlefinger and his backstabbing ways.   I know I've already been told that Martin never meant for Sansa to take the blame, but he made more than one writing mistake.

In that scene Tyrion is pointing out all the various ways Cersei/Joffrey screwed up and explaining why Tywin sent him to clean up the mess, and being truthful about all of the details of her actions in book 1 would only make her incompetency more plain. Manipulating a young girl is really the only thing Cersei can take credit for here, and playing it up as if Sansa intentionally chose the Lannisters over Ned makes it sound like she did more to win Sansa's loyalty away. She definitely wouldn't want to focus on all the help she got from Littlefinger or reveal Ned showing his cards to her. The slapdash regicide with Lancel and the wine isn't really much to brag about either, since Bobby actually survived the goring for a while and Ned spared Cersei again by not revealing the truth to Bobby on his deathbed. I assume a lot of the Sansa got Ned killed camp is fueled by this comment of Cersei's but most everything Cersei says is bullshit so that's a pretty selective reading to me.

[Delta1212]

I think Lena's performance makes it easy to overlook, but I think Cersei's kind of... dumb.

I mean, let's look at the assassination of Robert Baratheon. She got him extra drunk in a dangerous situation and he got himself killed. That's actually a brilliant plan... If you have unlimited time to work with and it doesn't matter whether the plot succeeds. But that's the plan she went with when she knew it was her last chance and if Robert came back from the hunt and talked to Ned both her and all her children were dead.

She got lucky, but there are so many ways it could have gone wrong. Nothing might have happened, or Robert might have gotten injured in a non-lethal way. It's actually a horrible plan, and it's the deviser of this plan that we're listening to the assessment of as far as Sansa's importance goes.

It's entirely possible that Cersei is both inflating Sansa's importance for dramatic effect while talking to Tyrion and that she actually thinks she was more important than she was because knowing Ned's plan would be a boon, but Cersei is incapable of looking at things from the perspective of "If I didn't find out about Ned's plans, how would things have actually gone differently."

I think both book and show Cersei, from everything we've seen so far, is better at reacting to the problems in front of her than teasing apart the possibilities and what-ifs, which is really Tyrion's talent of probably everyone in this series.

Edit: Ok, dumb might be a little harsh, but I do think that Cersei can be very unimaginative both about potential problems and potential solutions to problems. That's a little different than being just dumb, which probably would have gotten her killed by now were that the case.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Delta1212