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!

[stillshimpy]

Oh, isn't this just flippin' grand?  So there is still a freaking Smoke Assassin Fresh from Mellie's Lady Parts , good lord(s of light and otherwise, that is some ridicule worthy plot point) .  Well, I guess it was too much to ask to be spared that more than vaguely icky detail.  

 

Plus, hooray, Stannis is actually worse than I realized, but on the upside, at least he now seems to have the excuse of being driven somewhat mad by his own actions.  Also, one of my main objections to the "I'm through with this shit" story was that Stannis was a lot of things, but I thought he wasn't a coward.  So. Much. For. That.  When the need arises he can apparently muster quite the clucking ability.  Stannis Bagockeon, King of Hypocrisy Hill, First of his name, Last of the Baratheon Spines. 

 

Yet I feel oddly sorry for him at this moment, because whereas -- and again, pretty telling detail about how Stannis feels about killing Renly in a way that he couldn't even defend himself is that apparently he's keeping that to himself and letting Catelyn, Brienne or the Salmon Mousse take the blame -- he clearly knows he's doing something outright evil, he anticipates it essentially snacking on his soul for the rest of his life.  I did feel sorry for him when he was regarding the honor(less) guard of Renly's that had come to his side and would just as easily flit to the next opportunity and understanding (too late) that he did love his brother.  

 

But he's so clearly planning on hideously murdering Edric Storm and whereas Cortnay Penrose is a dead man at the hands of another smoke baby (more on that in moment*)  he's got about three times the honor.  Seriously, he was willing to personally die to keep Stannis from indulging his lesser self in that way.   

 

And trust me, I've now gotten why they included the "I am through with this shit" scene.   It's totally a scene from the book, it's just got a different sacrifice basically, I'm assuming.  Unless Davos saves Edric instead -- and please let that be the case -- because the kid hasn't even been seen and it is insanely evil for Stannis to be contemplating killing him like a goat to gain power (and apparently ripping off chunks of his soul each time he does it and feeling the pain of that....I seriously was not anticipating feeling sorry, at all, for Stannis) .   It was always bad enough for Stannis to want to kill Gendry, despite thinking he was Robert's only surviving child, even if he had never seen Gendry before.   In this story, apparently Edric Storm is well known enough at Storm's End that Penrose is completely willing to die to try and protect him.  

 

So in a rare twist, I'm hoping that the damned series depicted that "Davos sets him free" moment rather than

they freaking swapped out burning Shireen alive because they made a composite character out of Gendry and Edric ....and for some reason couldn't kill Gendry off yet

which is what I fear.   Weirdly enough, I am spoiler tagging that for anyone that took a pass on watching season five so they didn't get ahead of any books (shoe, meet other foot, I guess) .  

 

And that all upset me enough that ignored the notes I made about everything that came before it.   Like Edmure Tully's depiction in the series being a little off (they made him too foolish, rather than simply prideful and inexperienced) .  Holster completely knew that Lysa loved Petyr, I take it, and so at least some of this stuff was foreseeable when she was forced to marry someone old enough to be her actual grandfather.   

 

That was an interesting moment of "Oh well, that explains at least a little bit of why Lysa has zero family loyalty....she's not just mad, she's angry....and with decent enough reason"  .  She begged not to be sold off like a goat and her father forced the match on her.  Oh goody.  Nothing ever goes wrong with that kind of stuff in this story.  

 

Qarth is even cooler than I thought it would be and I got quite the giggle out of the Sorrowful Men, Apologetic Assassins, Killing You with Courtesy.   

 

Also, I kept reading the insult "Spawn of Shadows" and thinking it was sort of a fun one, and then Mellie got busy with her Shadow Spawn and it became less amusing to me.  

 

So if Jacelyn Bywater was going to be such a good counselor to Tyrion, I sort of wish they hadn't left him out in favor of Shae yelling about being Tyrion's Whore , etc. etc.  over and over.  Tyrion's story in King's Landing is so much more interesting in the book than it is in the series.  

 

* Also, on that damned smoke baby, the show led us to believe that she did that once and the book seems to indicate that it was more a case of "when the need arose" ....which is not setting well with me at this moment for a couple of reasons I'll just give a pass on going into for a while, to see how it plays out.  

Edited August 12, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Protar]

The second shadow baby was imo actually a stroke of genius on Martin's part, especially when compared to the show. It's all about set up and pay off. See in the show, you see the Shadowbaby crawling out of Mel's Vajayjay first. And the speculation is what that shadow baby is going to do. And boy do I remember some of the speculation - plagues and famine and deaths of entire armies. Even that it might become a fully fledged demonic character. In that light, when the Shadowbaby just kills a tertiary character and disappears never to be seen again, it's kind of disappointing.

 

But in the books, the first thing that happens is that Renly gets killed out of nowhere by a god damn shadow! So the reader is just wondering what the hell is going on. And whatever their speculation, even if they caught on to Mel's involvement, they sure as hell probably wouldn't guess that it crawled out of her vagina. I appreciate that the impact's not going to be the same for you Shimpy, as you already knew what was going on. But I've got to defend the second shadow baby. And shadow babies in general. I feel the limits of their use is a little more clear in the books but I'm not sure when Martin clears up what so I won't say anything more there.

[Avaleigh]

Shimpy, you've arrived at one of my favorite minor non show characters. I honestly think that Ser Cortnay is one of the most overlooked badasses in the series and I'm always happy to give a shout out to his stand up moment here with Stannis. I have no problem thinking that he could have handled himself in a one on one. It's been years since I've read the scene but I definitely remember thinking that Cortnay seemed like the better man between them by far. And even though Ser Cortnay was against Stannis, I feel like even Ned would have respected his actions here.

[Eegah]

"I will spend the rest of my life thinking of my brother's peach."

I'm reasonably sure it was the loss of that unintentionally hilarious line that got some people upset more than the peach itself.

[nksarmi]

You know I might need to pick up book 2 and 3 again because I really think I take more from the show than the books - I can only remember the big differences, not the minor ones.  I enjoy reading this thread, but now I almost want a refresher lol.

[stillshimpy]

And whatever their speculation, even if they caught on to Mel's involvement, they sure as hell probably wouldn't guess that it crawled out of her vagina.

 

Right, but the men in this story wield whatever power they have with their mind, their hands, their (in some cases complete lack of) scruples.   My objection is to the fact that this damned thing crawls out of Melisandre's womb and into the world, because male characters in this story are allowed to be powerful, without it being tied quite so damned directly to their reproductive organs.  Although in fairness, much is made of heirs, the getting of them -- what happens when you don't have them -- thus far the male characters have been spared any lengthy, detailed passages about anything other than having women get them off and in what ways that happens for them.  

 

Dany does have power, but at first was sold into marriage, almost literally and gained most of her power from having Drogo fall in love with her.  This is tied directly to her ability to fuck well. She steps into a sacrificial bonfire to hatch her dragons and then special note is made of the fact that she nurses the dragons.  

 

Power from the lady parts, woo hoo.   Jeez.  

 

I just don't even want to keep going on here, but it would have been nice to have a woman in this story, who had access to power, that wasn't so incredibly directly and overtly tied to her vagina and ability to reproduce.    The nature of my objection is that I think the detail is insulting to people of my gender.  

 

Now there is Brienne, someone who is strong, fights among the world of men and is seldom mentioned without her lack of beauty being at issue.   There's also Arya, who has a series of male protectors but is strong, wily and courageous in her own right also, even a lot of her ability to do so are rather too directly attached to gifts from men (Thanks for Needle, Jon, the dancing lessons, Dad, the critical thinking lessons, Syrio, the protection Yoren, more protection Jaqen).    

 

There's Sansa who is just damned helpless, beaten a lot.  Has people taking a completely creepy interest in her puberty and has already been stripped nearly naked in front of a roomful of grown men.    Men in this story are not dissected at this same level when it comes to their physicality, unless it's Tyrion and then it has to do with what is considered to be a defect in that world.  Men wandering through this tale don't have crowds ogle their testes in the same way. 

 

We talked earlier about a piece written about "what happens when male writers try to write powerful female characters" and how Martin was targeted for that in having Dany think about her own breasts as she walks (because god knows, when I cross a room, I'm thinking, "Yes, but what of my breasts?  Shall we check in with them?"  ) and how that is evidence of a character being written for the male gaze more than anything.  Now that passage...eh....not too bad really.  The Melisandre passage?  Not only is committed to gory detail, it's literally happening under a male gaze.   

 

Now we have Melisandre.  More powerful than any other woman from some unknown source  -- unseen -- force who can do things like bring down Kings, make armies pointless, survive poison, apparently at least trick Stannis into believing she can see the future and the narrative just went out of its damned way to have the power crawling out of her  womb, exiting her birth canal and unleashing an assassin from her vagina.   

 

Contrast to every single male character, none of whom have had their ability to be powerful, exact change (vengeance, anything at all) tied directly to their genitals and reproductive organs in quite the same way.  That's why that detail just ticks me off.  It was unnecessary, lurid, reductive and bizarrely had echoes of the Catholic Church's obsession with whether or not Mary's state of virginity was like Star Trek or not:  No man had gone there before as well as "Those Lady Parts are evil and stained, yo." 

 

I would have rather been left with the impression that Melisandre stares deeply into her flames, lights a candle and calls forth a shadow (or what the hell ever) rather than she has to fuck the embodiment of her power into existence.  

Edited August 13, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Avaleigh]

I can't comment on everything else in your post Shimpy (I know I'd get into spoiler territory in order to address certain things) but you do bring up an interesting point that I hadn't considered about fire priests in that I'm curious to know if male fire priests are capable of producing shadow assassins with the average woman. e.g. would Thoros of Myr be able to make a shadowbaby with Dany or is this a trick that is exclusive to fire priestesses like Mel?

Edited August 13, 2015 by Avaleigh

[Delta1212]

Or does the shadow created by a fire priest come out somewhere else?

[stillshimpy]

Well and it probably wouldn't have hit me in quite the same, "You have got to be kidding me with this friggin' stuff, book!" if I hadn't been so darned relieved that the source of the Shadow Assassin was left a mystery when it killed Renly.   I was so relieved that it seemed that having Melisandre grunt and strain it out from her vagina was an invention of HBO's which seemed so likely to me.  After all, HBO seems to exist under some "We're coming in short on boob shots this week, who can we have bare their breasts for absolutely not story related reason this week?  A contortionist you say??? Oh hell yeah!"  mandate. 

 

So that was part of the reason I just was about ready to yodel with frustration.  I thought that the book had simply left it undefined and that this mysteriously powerful woman had the ability to guide murderous shadows for her bloody-thirsty god.   

 

But, no.   Apparently not. 
 

[Protar]

Well in my post there I was mostly just talking about the narrative structure, rather than the feminism debate. On that topic I have a lot to say, but I don't know if I can just yet because so much that I would usually draw on in that discussion is from the later books and from differences between the books and the show which we haven't gotten to yet. There's like, reams of feminist essays on tumblr about the topic though. So just to assure you, I'm not just one crazy guy/gal who thinks this is a feminist work :P

 

However I will say two things about the depiction of women in the books so far. Firstly, depiction vs endorsement is a vital distinction to make. There's no sugar coating it, Westeros (and Essos) is an incredibly sexist setting. And it is of course not a real place, so this is not a matter of realism. So the question is why did Martin make that choice, to make the setting like that? And to me it's clear that he has a lot of commentary to make. I don't think we're supposed to just take all that the female characters suffer at face value. It's supposed to make us think about how our society treats women (just as Tyrion's story may give us pause about how we treat people with disabilities). It heightens the problems that we face in our world, to throw things into sharper relief.

 

And secondly I think that there's a lot of variety in female characters. We have seductress type characters like Cersei and Melisandre, fighters like Arya and Brienne and - very importantly imo - we have "normal" women, like Cat and Sansa who get by not by weaponised sexuality or by adopting masculine traits, but simply through their own wit and perseverence. I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but the show has a trend of "badassifying" women. Making Shae this ferocious and exotic foreigner, changing Doreah from a shy girl into an evil seductress.

 

So aaaanyway, bringing this back to Melisandre - I can definitely see where your coming from. I sort of agree with you. It's just that given how I am otherwise satisfied, I'm willing to give Martin a pass. There are quite a few tropes which normally I would see as sexist, but if an author sufficiently proves to me that they're not sexist, they get the odd pass. For example one scene of a man saving a woman in an otherwise non-sexist work? I'll just chalk that up to coincidence. Likewise with Melisandre. I think it's a completely valid criticism to raise, but I'm going to just hope that he just thought that it was a unique way of summoning a demon, or at least more so than just chanting and stuff. I get if you feel different.

 

That was a long post and I feel I didn't say much at all in it, because a.) I don't have my copy of the books with me to analyse and b.) My lips are sealed for a lot of stuff. So sorry if that was literally just a thousand words of waffling :P

Edited August 13, 2015 by Protar

[Haleth]

We have the combo of a writer who thinks "lady parts are fun!" and a pseudo medieval world where a woman's value did come largely from her ability to bear sons, so it does not surprise me that a woman without a father, husband, or son has no agency. (I think Arya is an exception since she is a child.) However I can think of one specific example in the books of a woman whose status had nothing to do with her sex, but it will be later that it is more apparent.

I'm refering to Asha. Oh, Meera is another one.

That is an excellent question regarding red priests and shadowbabies.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Haleth

[stillshimpy]

No, it wasn't just waffling, Protar, you raised an interesting point, I think: 

 

 

 

However I will say two things about the depiction of women in the books so far. Firstly, depiction vs endorsement is a vital distinction to make.

 

It's only an important distinction if it can accurately be made.  At present his depictions are seemingly "That's just the way it is" variety.  But here's an argument that was made during the run of the show, specifically after Jaime raped Cersei onscreen and we had a really long discussion about the nature of their relationship, etc. etc.  someone popped in with ye olde "Historically....etc. ....marital rape being recognized as a possibility is a modern day thing....etc.  ...can't hold people from a different time period to those modern standards....a man in this particular time period would not have thought in terms of consent..." and on it went.  

 

But the problem with that kind of argument is that the material is held not the standards of the time it is sent in, but the time in which it was created.  George Marin is not writing to us from across the mists of that much time.  That character depictions are held to the standard of the time of creation, not depiction. 

 

Now, I'm willing to wait and see (some more, again) because this is the second book in a series and god knows it isn't as if this is the first time I've heard, "Some argue that Martin's works are feminist" ....and I'm actually not dismissing that out-of-hand.  He has fully developed female characters.  He has female characters with inner lives, although quite frankly their inner lives are spent thinking about guys a lot, that's not universally true.  

 

But on some of this stuff it's getting to be a little bit like how I Dream of Jeanie can be viewed as a feminist work.  Sure, she was enslaved to a guy she literally called "Master" who could bottle her back up at his whim...but she constantly thwarted his power over her, achieved her own goals and got what she wanted (while being seductively dressed and referring to a dude as "master")  .   Basically, it's gross, but for the time period in which it was produced, she was a woman that had power. Far more than the man to which she was supposedly entirely subjugated. For that time period?  It was progressive as hell and its existence is one of the reasons that other things came along that did it better, and now allow for it to be (rightly) viewed as dated-as-hell and sexist.   Same thing can be argued about Bewitched:  Darren insists that Samantha must repress all of her personal power, to fit his comfort level and societal expectations.  

 

Again, gross as hell from this point in time...but when it was created....?  Really not too bad, because again, she did whatever she wanted, she was just troubled with trying to hide it from her easily tricked husband.  He was a fairly easily duped, powerless guy, whose only really power over her lay in the fact that she loved him...simple creature that he was.  

 

So I'm also trying to keep in mind:  "Okay, for twenty years ago...how's George R. R. Martin doing?"  ....and you know what?  Not bad.  Not great under 2015 scrutiny, but from the 1995 perspective?  I can see the perspective that this was some refreshingly feminist work (particularly within the fantasy genre), but I do have to attach it to the time period in order to excuse some of the more "well, this is from twenty years ago at this point, keep that part in mind too" points.  

Edited August 13, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Protar]

That is actually a really interesting point - this series is written over twenty years and is still ongoing. So perhaps the case is that it's "feminism level" remains the same relative to the time it was written, but as the books become more modern they get better in that respect? That isn't something I've seen analysed, but on the surface the idea seems to have merit, simply because a lot of the stuff I really want to talk about, you haven't reached yet.

[Haleth]

Don't get angry about things you haven't come to in the books yet.  There are many things that play out much differently on the page than in the show.  With only 10 hours a season the show writers sacrifice nuance for breasts... er... plot.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Haleth

[Lady S.]

 

I would have rather been left with the impression that Melisandre stares deeply into her flames, lights a candle and calls forth a shadow (or what the hell ever) rather than she has to fuck the embodiment of her power into existence.  

I guess I don't think of the shadow assassin(s) as the embodiment of Mel's powers. Maybe the embodiment of Stannis's power through Mel more than Mel's on her own. IIRC Davos can recognize the shape of the shadow when he sees it born, and on the show Renly's assassin actually did look something like Stephen Dillane. Mel isn't killing these men because they mean anything to her, Stannis needs them dead because they stand in his way. But, he, being a powerless mortal unpracticed in the dark arts, has to fuck someone who actually does have such power to achieve what he needs. Melly doesn't need a man to survive a poisoning, see visions in the flames or whatever other freaky shit she can do, so I don't doubt that if she needed someone killed for personal reasons or just for funsies, she could find a way to do so without giving birth to anything. But for Stannis to kill with black magic, he and his shadow have to go through her. Mel uses her sexuality in what she believes is the service of R'hllor by helping Stannis, but the way I see it, he's the one here that's more dependent on her vagina.

[stillshimpy]

Don't get angry about things you haven't come to in the books yet.  There are many things that play out much differently on the page than in the show.

 

I'm not sure if that's addressed to me or not, Haleth, but I've already seen the show and have already said I'm waiting to see how things turn out in the books.   J

 

That's an interesting take on it Lady S, but (again, we'll see how this plays out) Beric Dondarrion ends up raised from the dead (multiple time)  with some praying and I had thought that was the same god.   So I already have some reason to believe the Lord of Light has some different standards for Men and Women.  

 

I'll see on that one though.  I am going to assume that the book is going in that same direction though, as they've already made mention of his many rumored deaths.  

[plurie]

While it is a fictional world, it's based upon medieval Europe. Noble women were pretty much defined as mothers of potential heirs, and as property of their husbands. So while I would hate to be a woman in Westeros, it seems believable to me.

The other exceptions are older women like Olenna Tyrell, who have a LOT of power that doesn't derive from their sexuality. It all circles back to the "Maiden, Mother, Crone" archetypes that are reflected in three of the seven gods of the Faith. The corresponding male gods "Father, Smith, Warrior" are more of a creation of GRRM, and don't represent phases of a man's life, but rather roles he may or may not inhabit.

I haven't really given this a lot of thought until now, so this is not a fully formed thesis. But I do find it interesting.

[SeanC]

While it is a fictional world, it's based upon medieval Europe. Noble women were pretty much defined as mothers of potential heirs, and as property of their husbands. So while I would hate to be a woman in Westeros, it seems believable to me.

It might be better to say, GRRM's conception of medieval Europe.  He tends to seriously underrate how much influence women actually had.

[Eegah]

One other little wrinkle to this: on my first reading, it simply never occurred to me that Stannis or any other man might have anything to do with the shadow babies, as the impression I got was that Mel created them all on her own. The actual process of creating them bears an unfortunate resemblance to birth, but it's left ambiguous enough that you could easily read it as having nothing to do with sex if it wasn't for the show making that explicit.

[Avaleigh]

One other little wrinkle to this: on my first reading, it simply never occurred to me that Stannis or any other man might have anything to do with the shadow babies, as the impression I got was that Mel created them all on her own. The actual process of creating them bears an unfortunate resemblance to birth, but it's left ambiguous enough that you could easily read it as having nothing to do with sex if it wasn't for the show making that explicit.

I thought it was made plain in the text as well in book five.

[Delta1212]

Another thing about that scene in the show that's not as noticeable unless you've read the books, but the staging really makes no sense at all. Davos rows Mel to... A random cave that is barred for some reason? Renly's camp is clearly outside with no natural perimeter to speak of. They could have come ashore anywhere and there is literally no reason given for why there are bars there.

It's clearly the later scene repurposed for birthing Renly's assassin, but whereas the setting makes some logical sense if you need to infiltrate the magically protected fortress of Storm's End, it doesn't make much sense at all if you're infiltrating an open encampment.

[Holmbo]

It might be better to say, GRRM's conception of medieval Europe. He tends to seriously underrate how much influence women actually had.

That's true. I wonder if it's connected to him picking out the worst parts of history (as in most horrifying) to put in his story.

[SeanC]

That's true. I wonder if it's connected to him picking out the worst parts of history (as in most horrifying) to put in his story.

Whenever GRRM talks about the 'real history' he's drawing from, he tends to make errors, generally errors rooted in common misconception -- e.g., his oft-stated claim that people in the medieval period had no notion of adolescence.

[Haleth]

I don't think GRRM underrates the influence of women, it's just that their power is derived from their roles as mothers or wives.  He couldn't have chosen a more female centric model than

the War of the Roses

on which to base his story, but even then it was all the wives and (especially) the mothers pushing their men to war.

 

(I'm not sure Shimpy knows this or want to know.  Better safe than sorry.)

[stillshimpy]

Whenever GRRM talks about the 'real history' he's drawing from, he tends to make errors, generally errors rooted in common misconception -- e.g., his oft-stated claim that people in the medieval period had no notion of adolescence.

 

I've studied the areas of history that George R. R. Martin seems to draw from primarily and the sense I've gotten is he tends to stick with the more sensationalized, inaccurate history.  The sort that tells the tale of how Catherine Howard ran down a hall, piteously crying out for mercy and pounded against a door. Largely fictionalized history that sticks with the "it seems like it should be true, it synopsizes in a sentence or two the general thrust of the emotional history....so we go with it."

 

Shakespeare's depictions.  That sort of thing, he seems to pick out the most sensational stuff that contains some truth, but mostly is well salted to try and add flavor.  Tour Guide history, basically.   That's not meant as an insult, it's just I've gotten the sense that is what he does and that he does most of it intentionally, simply because he has so many of his characters, Dany in particular, remembering or relating that exact type of history.   

 

So I thought it was intentional and purposeful.  Dany constantly thinking that they fled, always one step ahead of the Usurpers Hired Knives (nice flourish there) meanwhile in Westeros, when Ned and Robert are discussing those exact same people, it's been more a case of "Yes, we've kept an ear out an eye on, informed of movements and intentions".....which isn't anywhere near as cloak, dagger and bodice ripping as the stuff Dany learns.  

 

I figured that was his gig, but yes, he truly doesn't seem to know some of the particulars. 

 

 

 

his oft-stated claim that people in the medieval period had no notion of adolescence.

 

Like that one.   He seems to know that history is a malleable thing in the telling of it, but he also just seems to have some truly odd notions that he believes to be true. 

Edited August 14, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Delta1212]

I read a lot of science fiction, and, probably not coincidentally, I'm a bit of a science geek.

A lot of the time, I'm able to pick out mistakes, and not mistakes of the "I'm just making stuff up for the sake of the plot" kind, but of the "I'm clearly interested in and have read about this subject but I'm allowing some pop science ideas to color my thinking on the subject" vareity.

And I think there is a pretty understandable reason for that. It takes a lot of work to really become an expert on a given subject. The more you read up on something, the more misconceptions you'll dispel, but anyone who doesn't devote themselves to it full time is going to have some cracks left that will get filled in with "pop" versions of the subject, and until you really get in-depth with a particular aspect of a subject, it's hard to tell how much of what you know is merely shallow over-view and how much is essentially complete misunderstanding.

And I think this applies to GRRM as much as anyone else. He's interested in history. He's fairly familiar with it. And he intentionally mines some of the more sensationalized versions of it for material because he's writing a story and that's what that stuff is designed for: making interesting stories. But he's no more immune from having gaps in his knowledge filled by less than accurate information that he doesn't have the time or inclination to devote long hours and effort to verifying for himself, because most people simply can't verify everything they hear to a any high degree of accuracy unless it's explicitly their job to do so.

That's not so much an excuse as an observation. I'm more used to picking apart the gaps in the portrayal of quantum mechanics or evolution than history, but the basic principle is the same. Most people are not experts even in the subjects that interest them, especially when they have to devote large chunks of their time to other pursuits (like writing).

[stillshimpy]

Personally, I don't think there's anything that needs to be excused.  Martin is creating entertainment and whereas he's drawing from history in the broadest sense, he's not conveying history.  He's telling a story that has historical influences grafted onto a fictional world.  Basically, I say more power to him, he created a place where he literally builds the world, so he makes the rules.  If he adheres to his own rules within the story, it's all good.  It's just not particularly based on anything in the real world. 

 

And I think there is a pretty understandable reason for that. It takes a lot of work to really become an expert on a given subject.

 

Also, it's sort of like when people read historical fiction -- romance -- or thrillers.  Things that happen over the course of a long period of time are condensed because history is just like life: It's take a long time for a lot of stuff to happen.   Watching Elizabeth  with my husband was hilarious because some of the things it depicts are just flat-out made up, others are twisted, and still others are condensed from things that actually happened and then sensationalized on top of that.  She has sort of Night of the Long Knives depicted according to that movie and my husband, never a fan of history was riveted "Oh my God, did that really happen?"  "Uh....well, no.  For starters.  Yes, in part, but mostly ...hell no...wow."  

 

But it made for a rip-roaring sequence in the film and gave the essence of why she's a memorable figure in history, even if it just took to completely making shit the hell up for the sake of entertainment.  

 

Kind of like how every movie about Mary Queen of Scots can't seem to resist sneaking in the cousins meeting, when in real life they never clapped actual eyes on each other.  Dramatic license and all that.  But it's happened so frequently that you can meet people who have studied some history and don't know things like that.   

 

Regardless, Martin took the smart route, he made a different world and he took influences from history, so he can do whatever he wishes and it's entirely fair game.  

[John Potts]

Just to chime in on the feminist debate ('cause I know how much a male perspective is welcomed there!), the one believable portrayal of a Medieval woman in ASoIaF is Catelyn: yes, she's valued as a wife and mother, but she isn't treated solely as a walking womb (although the fact that she has popped out five kids is seen as giving her value over, say. her sister) - both Ned and Robb go to her for advice (and sometimes even listen to it!) because she's been around and knows a thing or two. Robb even trusts her to negotiate on his behalf (with both Lord Frey and "King" Renly). While I actually root more for Arya

and not just because she's more alive!

, Catelyn is the most realised female character: not a perennial victim (Sansa), a sociopathic badass (Arya), a mysterious enchantress (Melissandre), bitch Queen (Cersei) or a failure knight (Brienne) but an actual person. You could argue Danny should be the feminist icon of the series, but despite being set up for the Hero(ine)'s Journey (she starts off as a penniless girl sold into a political marriage and gradually builds a power base)

but the fact that by the end of Book 5 she's STILL stuck in Essos and unless I'm completely wrong, that's only going to change once Tyrion shows up in Essos AND if she does end up on the Throne, it'll as much be because she marries the right man as through her own actions, which rather diminishes her (and by extension, GRRM's) feminist cred.

[Lady S.]

 

That's an interesting take on it Lady S, but (again, we'll see how this plays out) Beric Dondarrion ends up raised from the dead (multiple time)  with some praying and I had thought that was the same god.   So I already have some reason to believe the Lord of Light has some different standards for Men and Women.  

 

I'll see on that one though.  I am going to assume that the book is going in that same direction though, as they've already made mention of his many rumored deaths.  

I'm trying not to go into things which you have yet to learn about yet, but the other part of my thinking was if we assume Stannis is not anyone's prophesied hero (as I think most of us do), than Renly and Cortnay Penrose are no enemies to R'hllor. Maybe the LoL had some reason to empower Thoros, but none to kill Renly, so Mel and Stan had to rely on more DIY black magic. Were the deaths of Renly and Penrose blessed by R'hllor and done by the standards of the LoL? Yeah, Melly would say so but she also says Stannis is the Lord's chosen, and if any of the ASoIaF gods are real, I think they'd all disagree with her there. Idk, I don't know how much sense I can make with what little you've seen of the Holy R'hllorers in Clash, so I'll stop here.

 

We could probably have a whole separate thread trying to analyze Martin's feminst cred, but I'd agree with the idea that the books' progressiveness can be defined by the times. He's trying to do things differently, and tinkering with these fantasy tropes often involves treating the female characters with less sexism than is typical in genre fiction. For example, Brienne is introduced as the butch-looking warrior woman, as opposed to some male fantasy Action Girl who kicks ass and looks like a bombshell. But he's still a human man and he's writing a fantasy series, not trying to fully explore feminine perspectives, so there's still areas of inequality in the treatment of male of female characters and areas that could be criticized.

[stillshimpy]

Yeah, Melly would say so but she also says Stannis is the Lord's chosen, and if any of the ASoIaF gods are real, I think they'd all disagree with her there.

 

Well and that's another reason I think of Stannis as King Middle Child.  Everything Melisandre seems to be selling him is like balm to the soul of the forgotten kid.  He resents his older brother and constantly feels slighted by him.  For goodness sake, he felt jealous that Robert liked Ned more -- a detail that I found oddly sympathetic and then killingly funny at the same time, Stannis is just so damned childish it slays me --he resents the much fussed over and universally liked baby of the family and feels forgotten. 

 

Melisandre's entire "It's you, you are the Chosen One.  You are The Most Important One of All!  You're the special one.  The Specialist of the Special!" is perfectly crafted to every crack in Stannis's shell. 

 

The show seemed to change one thing about Stannis that probably helped with the character:  They made him absolutely devoted to the concept of duty.  Doing ones duty, even if it sucked, because that was the right thing to do.  Period.   That's nowhere near as played up in book Stannis so far.  Book Stannis has been cracking me up with how darned whiny he is, just cataloging and detailing these rather petty grievances against his brothers and how he, Stannis, never got his full due.  

 

It's not hard to imagine how that particular guy falls hook, line, and burning-people-alive sinker for the narrative in which he, Stannis, is the best, most important and the rightful king.  That the message is delivered by a ridiculously beautiful woman who is also powerful has just got to be the cherry on the "Suck it! Told you I was the best!" Stannis resents Renly's popularity with people, he resented a lot about Robert too and felt himself ill-done to and slighted, although I can't for the life of me figure out why.  

 

The best part absolutely is that he knew the Robert had no true heirs and didn't even tell his own brother that.  So much of what he does have that "I'll show you!" quality to it.  I don't know if the actor read the books or not, but I suspect he may have.   I can get why people have sympathy for Stannis though.  He's a little bit like Jon.  The absolutely marvelously Gothic detail of the ship sinking as the boys watched is quite the howler, but the character of Stannis is actually a fairly deft psychological construct.  He makes perfect sense.  

 

You don't get to say that about many "Oh sure, launch of Smoke Thing from yer lady parts there and have it running around slayin' and a'killin'.  That's reasonable, dontcha know." types.  

[Delta1212]

That's really one of the biggest strong points of the series. The characters tend to be very well crafted. You get the occasional bit of silliness, but overall the characterization tends to be really quite strong, which is not usually a strength of fantasy stories, and I say this as someone who also reads and enjoys quite a bit of fantasy. There's a tendency in the genre to write about archetypes more than really believable people.

It's unrealistic to expect world building to flesh out every aspect of a world to the extent of a true, real world. Good world-building adds enough detail to imply the larger world that no one could possibly have time to fully create. Great world building does that but takes one aspect and fleshes it out really, really well. With Tolkien, it was the language, culture and mythology of his world that got the most attention.

With GRRM, I think it's the families. He's built an intricate history of dynastic relations with a focus on how each generation is affected by the preceding one and how it affects the one that follows, and how the relationships between families impact their futures.

And I think a consequence of that is a fair amount of depth in the characterization a of his players. They interact and relate to one another in fairly realistic ways. The Lannister children, for instance, have personalities, insecurities and behaviors that are pretty clearly rooted in a childhood under Tywin, while Tywin's own personality is a response to his father, Tytus.

Every character is informed by being part of a relationship tree that goes back generations and has hundreds of interwoven branches, and it really shows.

[Brn2bwild]

The absolutely marvelously Gothic detail of the ship sinking as the boys watched is quite the howler, but the character of Stannis is actually a fairly deft psychological construct.  He makes perfect sense.  

 

As an aside, I never understood why, after Robert's parents died and he became the Lord of Storm's End, he remained at the Eyrie with Jon Arryn.  Wouldn't he have gone home and, you know, learned how to be the lord of his domain?

Edited August 15, 2015 by Brn2bwild

[magdalene]

The best part of these books is the POV structure and the way Martin really lets you get to know the characters he gives POV to.  Sometimes getting into a characters head kind of confirmed my opinion and expectations about a characters make-up and "character", but there are other times where Martin really confounded my expectations.

 

Wasn't it Martin who said that these books are about the battle between good and bad, and that this battle is not so much about the good people battling the bad, but the characters battling the bad in themselves? Though I have to say if the likes of Ramsay Bolton ever had an angel on his shoulders he must have been battered to death by his devil long ago. 

[ambi76]

I'm not even sure where Robert hang around from 278 (Cassana's and Steffon's death) - 282/283 (his rebellion). Was he at the Eyrie?* He was already (close to) 16 when his parents died so a legal adult in Westeros. He had his first bastards in those years that much is for sure.

 

*Well, yeah at least for some time after Mya was born (279).

Edited August 16, 2015 by ambi76

[Haleth]

As an aside, I never understood why, after Robert's parents died and he became the Lord of Storm's End, he remained at the Eyrie with Jon Arryn.  Wouldn't he have gone home and, you know, learned how to be the lord of his domain?

I don't think Robert had any wish to learn how to be lord of his domain.  Being a frat boy was more fun.

[Delta1212]

I'm not even sure where Robert hang around from 278 (Cassana's and Steffon's death) - 282/283 (his rebellion). Was he at the Eyrie?* He was already (close to) 16 when his parents died so a legal adult in Westeros. He had his first bastards in those years that much is for sure.

*Well, yeah at least for some time after Mya was born (279).

Well, I think the fact that he was in his late teens would have meant he had a fair bit of freedom of movement and could go where he pleased, unlike if he'd been, say, seven or eight and probably would have been brought back from the Eyrie by the adults in charge so that the reigning lord of Storm's End wasn't under the control of another lord.

At 17, he'd have been a visitor to the Eyrie moreso than a ward and with Ned presumably still being there as, at the time, a non-lord and non-heir to anything with no particular reason to have to go home yet, and with Robert likely considering the Vale to be like another home to him, I'm not surprised he'd spend as much time there as he could.

This is Robert, after all. The guy for whom the simple pleasures of life tend to trump the responsibilities of it.

[Seerow]

he resented a lot about Robert too and felt himself ill-done to and slighted, although I can't for the life of me figure out why.

 

I think this is already covered in the books, but I'm not 100% sure so I'm going to spoiler tag it and hopefully someone else can confirm.

 

When Robert took the throne, he gave Stannis Dragonstone rather than letting him inherit Storm's End. You'll remember that Storm's End is the place he practically starved himself to death personally defending during the war; and Storm's End is the seat of the Baratheons, and has all of the resources and vassals of the Stormlands. Having that seat is a huge part of why Renly has so much power, because he's got all of the Baratheon armies under his personal command. Stannis was instead given Dragonstone. Dragonstone is important politically, as it was a major Targaryen stronghold... but it is smaller, has practically no vassals or resources, and to my understanding is far less comfortable of a place in general. It's not hard to see how being assigned there instead of his ancestral seat would be considered a major sleight, even unforgivable, to Stannis, even if the assignment was made with the best of intentions.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Seerow

[stillshimpy]

As an aside, I never understood why, after Robert's parents died and he became the Lord of Storm's End, he remained at the Eyrie with Jon Arryn.  Wouldn't he have gone home and, you know, learned how to be the lord of his domain?

 

Okay, the part I didn't understand?  Who the hell sends their heir off to grow up in another place, to help forge the bonds that secure allegiances between houses (and the good behavior of all)?  That's what second sons would be used to do.  Kind of like why Eddard was there.  

 

Admittedly, we'd already heard how Lysa Arryn's son Robert (in the series they changed that to Robyn which was a wise move) had multiple plans to be sent off to foster to toughen him up.    So I guess it has been established as not being highly unusual in this world.  Maybe it is that Robert was particularly difficult to control and they thought Jon Arryn would be a good influence on a guy who mostly liked knocking heads together, drinking and women.  

 

Truthfully though, even though from Bran's POV he is the Lord in Residence at Winterfell, that's really only his perception.  Luwim isn't really having him make the decisions, he's telling what things have been decided.  I take it that the Maester at Storm's End was a particularly good and reliable one, so maybe they just did away with pretense that it was anyone other than the Maester making the calls and let Robert go off and finish the business of growing up.  

 

Here's the one I truly didn't understand, because getting married and producing heirs was basically your freaking job in that world, male or female.  Why in the world was Jon Arryn not already married at the age 95,000 or however old?  He's supposed to have been twenty years older than Lysa's father.  What the hell is up with that? 

 

Also, why was everyone so darned keen on sending their sons off to foster with the perpetual bachelor?  Unless Jon had a series of barren and also dead wives in the rearview mirror, that makes zero sense.   I know being 20 years older than Lysa's father might only mean the guy was well into his fifties, but no one would ever wait that long to marry if they were the heir and lord of a place.  I mean, seriously.  Sexual orientation wouldn't even play into it.   Waiting until you were thirty to marry was considered almost bizarre (like Petyr) but that's about as long as anyone would normally wait in a world with so many causes of death, and so few ways to combat them. 

 

ETA:  Seerow, yes they did cover all that in the book.  I went ahead and read it because, yes, that's all detailed.  It's just insanely childish and petty.  He put both brothers on the small council and gave them both holdfasts and you know , not giving someone the place they nearly starved to friggin' death and was apparently known throughout that land for making everyone starve right along with him is smart.   

 

That Stannis can't figure out why Robert would do that "Hey, how about a lord not directly and forever associated with privation, deprivation and not sacrificing his own honor on behalf of his people?" is the part that is childish and petty.   Stannis was a bad choice to rule at Storm's End specifically because he bloody well holed up in there like Stalin holding Leningrad. 

 

Not putting Stannis in charge of the place that would never have an ounce of love for him was actually the smart move.  A Lord of the place needs the loyalty of their people, as has been detailed with why Ned Stark was just such a thing in the North.   Joffrey's reign is in danger specifically because he's a shit and the people locked up in King's Landing with him are starving.  

 

I'm going to assume Jon Arryn made the call of who to give which holdfast to rule, but it was a darned smart move and the fact that Stannis couldn't figure out why it was, makes it even smarter. 

 

edited because I was abusing the hell out of some apostrophes.  

Edited August 16, 2015 by stillshimpy

[SeanC]

Here's the one I truly didn't understand, because getting married and producing heirs was basically your freaking job in that world, male or female.  Why in the world was Jon Arryn not already married at the age 95,000 or however old?  He's supposed to have been twenty years older than Lysa's father.  What the hell is up with that? 

 

Also, why was everyone so darned keen on sending their sons off to foster with the perpetual bachelor?  Unless Jon had a series of barren and also dead wives in the rearview mirror, that makes zero sense.   I know being 20 years older than Lysa's father might only mean the guy was well into his fifties, but no one would ever wait that long to marry if they were the heir and lord of a place.  I mean, seriously.  Sexual orientation wouldn't even play into it.   Waiting until you were thirty to marry was considered almost bizarre (like Petyr) but that's about as long as anyone would normally wait in a world with so many causes of death, and so few ways to combat them. 

Jon Arryn had two prior marriages.  From the appendix to A Game of Thrones:

 

HOUSE ARRYN

[Jon Arryn], Lord of the Eyrie, Defender of the Vale, Warden of the East, Hand of the King, recently deceased,

    -- his first wife, [Lady Jeyne, of House Royce], died in childbed, her daughter stillborn,

    -- his second wife, [Lady Rowena, of House Arryn], his cousin, died of a winter chill, childless,

    -- his third wife, Lady Lysa, of House Tully,

         -- their son:

         -- Robert Arryn, a sickly boy of six years, now Lord of the Eyrie and Defender of the Vale.

Edited August 16, 2015 by SeanC

[stillshimpy]

Thank you, Sean C.  The only downside to reading things on a Kindle is that it is nigh on impossible to easily flip to something like that, but that has been driving me a little bit bonkers (okay, just more so) for years...since the series never got around to really mentioning anything about why Jon Arryn was available to be wed, despite his encroaching decrepitude. 

[Protar]

Where abouts are you at by the way Shimpy? :)

[Lady S.]

Okay, the part I didn't understand?  Who the hell sends their heir off to grow up in another place, to help forge the bonds that secure allegiances between houses (and the good behavior of all)?  That's what second sons would be used to do.  Kind of like why Eddard was there.  

 

ETA:  Seerow, yes they did cover all that in the book.  I went ahead and read it because, yes, that's all detailed.  It's just insanely childish and petty.  He put both brother's on the small council and gave them both holdfast's and you know , not giving someone the place they nearly starved to friggin' death and was apparently known throughout that land for making everyone starve right along with him is smart.   

 

That Stannis can't figure out why Robert would do that "Hey, how about a lord not directly and forever associated with privation, deprivation and not sacrificing his own honor on behalf of his people?" is the part that is childish and petty.   Stannis was a bad choice to rule at Storm's End specifically because he bloody well holed up in there like Stalin holding Leningrad. 

 

Not putting Stannis in charge of the place that would never have an ounce of love for him was actually the smart move.  A Lord of the place needs the loyalty of their people, as has been detailed with why Ned Stark was just such a thing in the North.   Joffrey's reign is in danger specifically because he's a shit and the people locked up in King's Landing with him are starving.  

 

I'm going to assume Jon Arryn made the call of who to give which holdfast to rule, but it was a darned smart move and the fact that Stannis couldn't figure out why it was, makes it even smarter.

Yeah, it would have made more sense if Ned and Stannis were the ones fostered together, but then that'd be a whole different story. Ned had to grow up with oldest Baratheon bro so he could be bffs with the king.

As for the Siege of the Storm's End, I think that was about duty and the larger war effort rather than Stannis's personal honor. If Robert lost his seat, it would be a huge disruption to his momentum and could have potentially been the break the royalists needed, since Robert's pride would likely send him back to re-claim it asap. I can understand why Robert only thanking Ned for lifting the siege and not being more appreciative of Stannis holding the castle the whole time. I doubt Robert thought he should have surrendered to Mace Tyrell, and enough of the people inside must have been loyal to Stannis since none of them betrayed him to break the siege. If any bore a grudge, they could be moved to Dragonstone or King's Landing. However, I do think Renly probably blamed Stannis for their starvation, since he was just a poor little kid at the time. I think that's the best way to explain Renly being closer to the family of the man in charge of the siege than to his own family.

[stillshimpy]

Boy, it's good to see I had my pre-full-caffeination grasp of punctuation going with those apostrophes earlier. Sorry, guys.  Apparently it was a case of "...and you get an apostrophe...and you get an apostrophe..."  

 

It isn't Renly's view of the siege, or Stannis's either that makes it a bad idea to give Stannis Storm's End.  It would be the view of the people within that makes it a good idea, and usually, they just get tired of starving on behalf of someone else's power struggle.  It's not like the people of Storm's End, or of Winterfell experience much of a difference in their lot in life and the fact that Stannis doesn't grasp that is why it's a childish mindset.  

 

Also, viewing it as rewarding Ned for breaking the siege and not rewarding Stannis sufficiently for holding Storm's End is, again, pretty petty.   Ned could have taken the throne if he'd been of that kind of mindset.   I understand that this is just Stannis's viewpoint, but it is so self-involved as to be childish.  Full-grown men holding onto "my brother liked you more than he liked me" is just....odd logic.  There's a logical reason to grant Storm's End to someone other than Stannis:  The people of that holding will forever associate Stannis with starving.   Their lot in life was not particularly changed one way or the other, other than starving.  

 

Stannis views whether or not he was given Storm's End as a personal judgment and it isn't necessarily.  It makes sense for Robert, the actual heir and King, to grant the holding to who he chooses.  I also understand that Stannis didn't like the back-of-beyond Dragonstone, but it sounds cooler than hell and the people there wouldn't have the same "Thanks, four people in my family withered away in front of me, m'lord" associations.  

 

Plus, they were both granted seats on the Small Council, so it isn't as if either was snubbed.  

 

The story even touches on some of those aspects, with Edmure allowing the frightened people of Riverun to scamper around inside the gates.  Bran watches as the people of Winterfell move closer to the holdfast as Winter (Much Rumored, Somewhat Sluggish) Approaches.   Stannis is viewing a holdfast as a possession, but a good Lord of a holding views it not simply as real estate...or god's forbid...a favor to be passed out based on popularity.  

 

Maybe that's why Jon Arryn, or Robert sent Stannis off to Dragonstone, he apparently just doesn't really get people and why they feel and do the things they do.  Or what inspires loyalty, or love.   

Edited August 16, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Protar]

I think Stannis is very capable of inspiring loyalty. Just look at Davos. But he inspires loyalty in different men than those that Renly might inspire. I think that as a soldier, and a battle commander there is a lot of reasons to look up to Stannis. But for the common folk, in peace time? Not so much. That's Renly's gig. If they could have put aside their differences and formed a coalition it would have been quite a reign. But then if they could do that they wouldn't be Stannis and Renly. Interestingly I think Robert acts as a middle ground between the two. He has both the martial prowess and "iron-ness" that Stannis has, and the charm and charisma of Renly. But he has big flaws of his own of course.

[Holmbo]

I agree Stannis doesn't get people. I wonder if there's a diagnose that fits him, like asbergers? I don't know enough about it to tell.

He does at least seem a stickler for the rules of succession and frustrated when anyone is not using those as their outermost guidance. I think he would have done anything Robert had ordered since he was his older brother and now that he is the rightful heir he is OK with doing anything to get people to acknowledge him as king.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Holmbo

[Delta1212]

I think Stannis is a very solid military commander. He's stubborn, goal oriented and seems to have a decent mind for logistics. He is not, however, much of a politician. Like you said, he doesn't really seem to "get" other people.

Renly, by contrast, is an excellent politician and seems to revel in playing "the game." If the ducking around before he gets killed is any indication, he's not much of a military leader, though.

Robert seems to have been both a fairly good military commander and a "people person." His problem is that he doesn't much care about the nuts and bolts of actually ruling. And that's not something I think either of his brothers had much of an advantage over him on, frankly.

Stannis is too obsessed with who deserves what (especially himself), and Renly is overly focused on the fun of it all. Those aren't necessarily fatal faults in a leader, and may even be desirable qualities in moderation, but you don't want your ruler to be overly preoccupied with either, because both get in the way of effective ruling when taken to the extreme just as much as Robert's extravagance and debauchery did.

I don't think any of the Baratheon brothers were particularly fit to rule. With good advisors, I think they'd all have been adequate at best, but none of them seem to have surrounded themselves with particularly good council, and Robert and Stannis both seem to be in the habit of heeding some aggressively bad council.

[Haleth]

Shimpy, I'm waiting anxiously to hear your take on the next Dany chapter.

[Lady S.]

Renly, by contrast, is an excellent politician and seems to revel in playing "the game." If the ducking around before he gets killed is any indication, he's not much of a military leader, though.

Robert seems to have been both a fairly good military commander and a "people person." His problem is that he doesn't much care about the nuts and bolts of actually ruling. And that's not something I think either of his brothers had much of an advantage over him on, frankly.

Stannis is too obsessed with who deserves what (especially himself), and Renly is overly focused on the fun of it all. Those aren't necessarily fatal faults in a leader, and may even be desirable qualities in moderation, but you don't want your ruler to be overly preoccupied with either, because both get in the way of effective ruling when taken to the extreme just as much as Robert's extravagance and debauchery did.

I don't think any of the Baratheon brothers were particularly fit to rule. With good advisors, I think they'd all have been adequate at best, but none of them seem to have surrounded themselves with particularly good council, and Robert and Stannis both seem to be in the habit of heeding some aggressively bad council.

The thing that makes me question Renly's military mind is that from what I recall, all we hear of his battle plans is having Loras lead a great charge to break Stannis's ranks and bring chaos. He has experienced battle commanders like Randyll Tarly there, and he's just pinning it all on his boyfriend whose only experience was in tournaments. Yeah, he had vastly superior numbers against Stannis and the Lannisters, but I'd think a good general would plan for every contingency and not just trust in inevitable victory. His drag-ass progress on the road to King's Landing actually had some purpose to it by hoping for Tywin and Robb to bleed each other while letting more knights of summer flock to the fun of his cause, but it certainly wasn't the strategy of a king trying to save the realm, since so many of his people were either being terrorized by Tywin or starving in King's Landing. And the second outcome was partly a result of the Tyrells cutting off the food supply. I remember there's a part during the parley where Catelyn points out that the kingdom they were both claiming was being torn apart and Robb was the only one doing anything about it. I'm reluctant to take Cressen or Donal Noye's assessment at face value, since both of them seem to be basing their thoughts on Renly as a child, but it does come off like he's play-acting a role more than anything. Renly's actions aren't what I'd expect from someone truly power hungry or desperate to put the Lannisters out of business to start doing a better job of running the country, he just thought he was the Baratheon best fit to be king because Stannis was a resentful hardass few liked, Bobby was a drunken ass, and Joffrey was obviously horrible. But, as he was only 21 when he died and spent a traumatic year in his childhood in danger and deprivation, it's not surprising he hadn't fully grown up yet and was more interested in taking joy from life than making serious plans for the future. A Renly/Tyrell regime could've been fun for the whole 7k, we'll never know, but the imminent frozen armageddon makes it less likely that would've happened even had he lived to sit the throne, so that's one reason I'm not that sad about his early exit.

Definitely agreed that none of the three Baratheon bros were particularly fit to be king, I think the writing there was Martin's comment on the idea of a Good King or a Wise Prince and the ruler the people need and deserve in the royal family. Renly never does much to back up his own high opinion of himself, Stannis ticks off more boxes in the Dark Lord trope with his Gothic castle and witch of a mistress, and Robert fit the hero mold almost perfectly on the battlefield but promptly ate and drank enough to break out of it once he was actually on the throne. And shrimpy, this is the part where I feel the need to clarify that I'm not a big Stannis fan, I just really don't like Robert, so I can definitely see him not even showing any real appreciation for Stannis holding Storm's End and was more emotional about Stannis's failure to capture Viserys at Dragonstone. It is very childish that Stan is still ranting about this 15 years later (I imagine Davos and Cressen could recite his rants word for word if they felt like it), but the only thing I don't believe in his Robert ranting is the idea that making Stannis Lord of Dragonstone was a deliberate slight. More likely, he didn't give much thought to it at all, especially assuming this happened in the early days of his reign, when he would have been wreck over Lyanna's death. Until naming Ned as regent on his deathbed, Robert gave little thought to the governance of his kingdom or managing his own dynasty, and it doesn't appear he ever got in much practical experience as Lord of Storm's End either. I don't really see him trying to put his people first in the manner of the Starks or Edmure Tully, but then I do like those characters a lot more than Bobby B.

[stillshimpy]

Sorry guys, I had to help track down rescue groups for a animal control facility overflow over the weekend (and was largely successful, go team) so my reading progress was very slow.  I'm just into a Tyrion chapter, having waded through another Jon chapter, in which he gets to go and be a ranger (essentially) .  

 

And shrimpy, this is the part where I feel the need to clarify that I'm not a big Stannis fan, I just really don't like Robert, so I can definitely see him not even showing any real appreciation for Stannis holding Storm's End and was more emotional about Stannis's failure to capture Viserys at Dragonstone. It is very childish that Stan is still ranting about this 15 years later (I imagine Davos and Cressen could recite his rants word for word if they felt like it), but the only thing I don't believe in his Robert ranting is the idea that making Stannis Lord of Dragonstone was a deliberate slight.

 

I think that Robert was more likely following Jon Arryn's council than making those calls himself, but even if he wasn't, I do disagree that he was deliberately slighting Stannis.   It seems he just likely knew Stannis as not being a man of the people as it was.  

 

Also, not that this matters a great deal or anything, but my screenname is actually not shrimpy.  Or even stillshrimpy.   No r.  Again, not of any particular consequence and if you prefer using shrimpy for some reason, rock on.  Rock Shrimp even.  

Edited August 18, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Delta1212]

I'll be honest, I think it took me a good 2-3 years to notice that your username wasn't stillshrimpy.