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!

[Lady S.]

And Lena Heady doesn't really have any power over Cersei or Carol's characterizations. People just blame her for not reading the books and having a different conception of Cersei, which is a natural consequence of playing a different Cersei. Both of those facts are true for other members of the cast as well, but somehow I guess this was more of a shocking offense back in the first season. The writers obviously like Lena and her portrayal of the character but it was a character they created, without needing any input from her.

[stillshimpy]

As I just said:  the power I think they gave Lena Headey in determining the trajectory of Show Cersei has to do with her acting range.  Not that I envisioned her strong-arming the writers into creating a characterization.  

[Protar]

Well I think that the showrunners do very obviously play favourites. I'm not sure how much official power Lena Headey has, but D+D are happy to change the story to fit the whims of an actor they like, or if they see them bringing something new and unexpected to a character. And/or to give an actor more screen time. Which would be fine in an original IP, but it's troublesome for an adaptation.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Protar

[stillshimpy]

I'm not sure how much official power Lena Headey has

 

Please read the post above yours.  Here's what I think happened with Lena Headey, and apparently Trifica Helfer was one of the actors considered for Cersei, right?  Okay, so using Tricia Helfer as an example when Ron Moore and David Eick cast as Six, they weren't aware that she's actually very good actress.  Discovering that informed how they started writing that particular actress.  <--- they are both on record as having said that. 

 

Similarly, the power that I think was given to Lena Headey was not in making in demands or requests about Cersei...but in displaying so much range within Cersei from the first season scripts (which were often pretty faithful to the source material) ....that they started to write to her obvious abilities.   Book Cersei is not a complicated creature at present.   Lena Headey was always playing her as one....and that's entirely fitting, because actual people aren't two dimensional and have more than one animating emotional force. 

 

Someone here earlier said that the way the actress playing Osha rendered Osha on the screen began to inform what Martin felt he could do with the character.  

 

It's kind of the same deal.  If you imagine a character and you have a vision in your head about someone, then handed it to a person to play....it gets passed through their filters.  Tricia Helfter might have been the better pick to play Cersei in terms of how she looks....but they'd have likely run into the exact same things they did with Lena Headey:  A flesh and blood person brings more or something different to a characterization from a page.  

 

Kind of like how Jaime became a different character -- and I don't know if the actor read the books or not, I think he...might....have?  Really, too hard to tell -- but his choice on that initial line read of "The Things I Do For Love" changed Jaime fundamentally from the first episode.   It just happens when a real person brings a character to the screen,   

 

I'm not attempting to assign blame to an actor for the changes made within the show, but I am saying the changes make some of these characters very different creatures from Book to Screen. 

Edited October 10, 2015 by stillshimpy

[nksarmi]

Oddly enough, I think it's the addition of layers to Cersei that make her so not book Cersei (which I think is what shimpy is saying) whereas MOST of the time they are removing layers that GRRM gave them. I think the best example of this for me with Cersei  

is the walk of shame. I admit it - I didn't feel one bit sorry for book Cersei. Show Cersei is another story.

 

Regarding Sansa, I can't explain until you've reached book five, but I find myself much more invested in her on the show than in the books. And there is more than one character/plot that I've liked better in the show than in the books (the Arya/Hound dynamic is a good examples of this) because there are times when the actors themselves bring more to the story than the words can achieve.  But there are also times when the show has failed the characters big time (many you have already seen....the Brotherhood without Banners, the Nights Watch (big time!), Robb, Blackfish, Jamie, and Stannis - though oddly he was one of the caracters that the actor made me like more than his book counterpart).

[feverfew]

So I take your point, truly.  It isn't that the series has done a terrible job of creating an interesting story or characters, but past the first season they don't actually bear a lot resemblance to their book counterparts. 

 

[...]

 

So it isn't that the series tells a bad story.  It just primarily stopped telling this one.  

I see what you're saying; I'm just way more forgiving of the mistakes. Obviously I'm also heavily influenced by the fact that I have read the books, and therefore interpret the character through both lenses: I'm sort of colouring in the absenses / holes in the narrative with my pre-existing knowledge. So I still feel I'm following the same story; it just takes a bit of a detour sometimes.  But this here is why I love reading your experience of reading the books after the show and comparing them: you make me think of these things, the things that maybe ought to bother me vis a vis an adaptation, but really hasn't so far. *ponders*

 

Well I think that the showrunners do very obviously play favourites. I'm not sure how much official power Lena Headey has, but D+D are happy to change the story to fit the whims of an actor they like, or if they see them bringing something new and unexpected to a character. And/or to give an actor more screen time. Which would be fine in an original IP, but it's troublesome for an adaptation.

I think that is unfair to both showrunners and actors. Obviously there is characters the showrunners interpret as being more important than others, and you can agree or disagree with that interpretation, but just because Cercei is more developed on the show, does not make it "whims" of the showrunners . I, for one, vastly prefer show Cercei to the caricature of "evil psycho-bitch" we get in the books, and I think the whole Kings Landing would be a difficult beast to play if they had stuck to Martins outline of the character. A show also hinges on it's antagonists, and she is among the best of them because she's complicated. IMO, of course :)

[Delta1212]

But I think it is fair to say that whereas someone could still love the story just as much, they'd be loving a different animal entirely. As I said earlier, Osha was one of my favorite characters specifically because I have protective streak in my nature, so I'm going to like characters that just try to do the right thing. In the series it would be almost impossible to view Jaime Lannister as one of the people who spends most of his time trying to do the right thing -- and the Bran tossing will always put that into question anyway -- but in the books, as they are developing him, it turns out that mostly he's someone who has been embittered by a series of events, an emotionally bereft childhood that left him with a damaged understanding of what love actually is and someone who is actually quite concerned with trying to abide by some code of honor.

You really can't get that from most of screen Jaime. Sure, he jumps into a pit to save Brienne from a bear and he stops her initial rape. Then Jaime is pretty much out on actions that might be seen to be motivated by doing the right thing, in the series (this last season notwithstanding because it's my understanding on any character and I'm not mentioning anything from it because I do know some readers skipped this season).

I think that screen Tyrion would easily be thought of as the guy who tries to do the right thing most of the time and actually cares deeply, even if he is embittered by an emotionally bereft.....you get the point. Book Tyrion? Yeah, he is a much darker figure than the series would have a person understand and is so unconcerned with keeping his word, or adhering to some form of honor he seems to entirely forget that he promised to release the Stark girls in exchange for his brother. This is a point visited over and over again by the Lawful Good (if judged as naive) characters like Brienne "but he made a solemn oath, in front of gods..." etc.

I have been a defender of Sansa from day one and will likely be one until the end of the story days, but the character in the books is not the same character I've defended so many times. I defended Sansa because she was under attack so much and she's a young girl, etc. Anyone who read the Unspoiled thread, or the Unsullied Habitat threads has seen me defend Sansa a bunch.

Funnily enough, I'd have defended her from a much stronger position if I'd known the book character first. For instance, I get that a lot of book readers hate Sansa because a) they think she's prissy but mostly b) she went to Cersei and Cersei asserts that is the reason she was able to stop Ned Stark's plans. There are so many ways to take that one down its practically Lion-on-the-Serengeti-vs.-antelope levels of easy. However, there's one point that I would never be able to make without the book that is, perhaps, far more important:

Arya could just as easily be blamed in exactly the same manner, but for an earlier action. When Sansa goes to the queen it's because she is being denied what she personally wants and she defies her father to get what she wants. But things start to go spectacularly to shit for the Starks when Arya won't do as she's told. Won't ride with the Queen and Sansa, wear a dress, do as she's told by her father and instead runs off to play with Micah.

Now I'm not even going to continue that line of thinking because it's pretty much absurd to blame a nine-year-old girl for running off to play rather than being stuffed into a dress she hates and being made miserable all day. Or for in anyway being responsible for the resulting actions of a bunch of psychopaths, because she isn't one, it's not as she could have guessed how wrong disobeying the authority figures in her life could possibly go. However, Sansa gets the same pass on that one in many ways. That she doesn't get that Joffrey is a psycho and so is Cersei after that entire debacle is something I can understand people saying, "OH COME ON, HOW COULD SHE NOT...." because she'd have no reason to understand that the world contained that level of horror or people could be that murderously duplicitous. Her exposure to the world has been through the lens of Winterfell, what her parents told her was true of the world and a bunch of fairytales about brave knights and beautiful ladies. That she doesn't like her little sister very much is kind of typical and a feeling shared by Arya towards Sansa.

She's got a kid's judgment. So does Arya.

Plus, Sansa is a much different creature in the series than in the books. Series Sansa gets batted around like a chess pawn and never seems to learn. Book Sansa is trying to learn and one of the saddest parts about being married off to Tyrion like a goat being sold in a bartering session is that she doesn't expect anything different from the wished for marriage to Willas, she just hopes that he might come to love her in addition to the acquisitions she represents.

So I take your point, truly. It isn't that the series has done a terrible job of creating an interesting story or characters, but past the first season they don't actually bear a lot resemblance to their book counterparts. Robb Stark almost criminally so, because when he finally digs in his heels and acts like a stubborn Stark kid, it isn't because he's going to marry for love....dammit. It's because he won't ask for peace, or swear loyalty to the family that murdered his father.

Meanwhile, the villains, while rendered with fewer layers, remain much the same creatures.

Then apparently they just gave Lena Headey some kind of power in deciding on Cersei's characterization, but when you first told me that some readers call her Carol, I thought it a little odd. Series Cersei is actually a very interesting character with quite a few layers.

And then the Men of the Night's Watch... eh....bigger problems still there.

So it isn't that the series tells a bad story. It just primarily stopped telling this one.

The show is the "Based on True Events" version of the story.

[Protar]

I think that is unfair to both showrunners and actors. Obviously there is characters the showrunners interpret as being more important than others, and you can agree or disagree with that interpretation, but just because Cercei is more developed on the show, does not make it "whims" of the showrunners . I, for one, vastly prefer show Cercei to the caricature of "evil psycho-bitch" we get in the books, and I think the whole Kings Landing would be a difficult beast to play if they had stuck to Martins outline of the character. A show also hinges on it's antagonists, and she is among the best of them because she's complicated. IMO, of course :)

 

Well I would say that changing Cersei from one of the series' main villains to honestly barely a villain at all, is one of the best examples of D+D's whims. I mean it resulted in an actually decent character, but it is still an unnecessary deviation from the source material. 

[stillshimpy]

Well and it's also at least a little obvious that the showrunners felt that it was necessary to expand a couple of the characters in the first season, presumably in order to tell a fuller tale.  The god awful, somebody save us please, Sexposition scene notwithstanding there were some memorable and good ones.  

 

There are at least three things that make Cersei a different character from Book to Show in the first season alone.  First is going to be that scene with Catelyn in Bran's sick-room where they had her tell a story about her child with Robert.  In the Book, Cersei admits that Robert once knocked her up but that she basically went to the local keeper of the abortion herbs (which by the way, based on real stuff from history), so it wasn't a wholly fabricated scene in terms of what might have been possible with the character....it just isn't even close to faithful to the source material.   

 

However, the way Lena Headey plays the scene could have gone in almost any direction.  Catelyn says she never knew about Cersei's first born.  Right there....that's when a decision gets made by an actor as to whether or not they believe their character to be lying....and I think Lena Headey decided Cersei was telling the truth in that scene....and put a lot of emotional oomph into how she describes Robert reacting.  Then she tells Catelyn that she'll pray to The Mother for Bran.  There's a weird ring of truth to it. 

 

Then there's her scene with Robert, which REALLY expands both Robert and Cersei quite a bit.   Lena Headey plays that scene with less emotional commitment to how Cersei feels.  There's a hint that she might have wished for something different when she asks "If our first had lived, would we have ever stood a chance?"  (and that's wholly created material)....but she asks it with something resembling hope....and then answers "It doesn't make me feel anything at all" and that also has a ring of truth, but it sounds like it's something that came to be rather something that always was. 

 

But where the show takes Cersei in a direction that is so divergent from Book Cersei it can't be reconciled any longer, is when she goes to Ned's office in the Tower of the Hand and warns him about her own intentions (which by the way, big part of the reason Ned looks like a MORON in the show sometimes).   She asks, "What are you doing here?"  and warns "I kill my enemies."  

 

Couldn't be clearer on the "get the fuck out of Dodge, Buddy, you are in over your honorable head" ....which then makes Ned look even stupider when he warns Cersei that he knows her children are not Robert's.  

 

So that's not about fault....Cersei's character is too thinly drawn in the first book to be anything other than the Standard Issue Disney Evil Queen....only with sexually perverse behaviors, but it's okay in the book because she's really kind of tertiary.   She's plot catalyst, more than she is a character.   Kind of the same deal with Robert.  There's some word service given to how Ned and Robert loved each other like brothers, but page Robert?  Yeah,  Mark Addy wasn't playing someone who was also largely tertiary.   He was playing a fully realized character.....and that's an actor's job.  

 

Pretty much whether or not they are standing in the background of the scene or are the lead character in it, they are supposed to be playing a fully realized person with an inner world and a thought process.   

 

It is one of the challenges of taking anything from the page to the screen.  On the page you can have a character that just exists to move the plot along.  Samuel Beckett completely admitted he didn't have a characterization in mind for Godot.  He never envisioned Godot.  Godot was not important to him.  Godot exists only as a construct to get two character on stage to wait for him.  

 

He'll never show up.  That's all Beckett needed him to do.   Every actor who has ever been in a production of Waiting for Godot makes a Godot into a person in their own minds.  They need to know why the hell they are waiting for him .   Ian McKellen asked Patrick Stewart to share a dressing room with him when they did Waiting for Godot on Broadway specifically because he believed, as an actor, to realistically render these two men who had known each other for many years on stage.....they needed to start that process of bonding before the curtain ever went up. 

 

So really, it's not a criticism of an actor to say that their choices start informing the audience reception of a story in ways authors don't have to envision and often don't.   Not because they are poor writers, but because they don't need to create each character as an individual.   Sometimes when people are writing, all they need is a plot catalyst....but that doesn't translate onto screen.  

 

It is almost inevitable, even if someone writes the most faithful adaptation of a source material ever that the story will change from page to screen....and that's not just for books being adapted. 

 

Sometimes it seems like the showrunners (who are D and D , right?) wrote to the strengths of an actor, as in the case of Lena Headey or Mark Addy -- that scene where he has to talk about War to Lancel Lannister would have an absolute bastard of a thing to have to play....Addy is hanging on nothing there....no ones cues....he's just got to exposition fairy his ass off....in a single-long-assed-take...about the nature of war.   But that's not from page Robert at all who loved Battle.   For direct contrast on how badly that can go even with a very, very gifted actor, look to the infamous Sexposition.  It's so easy to faceplant in something like that.  Gillen tried his ass off, but that material was nearly impossible.  So was that scene they gave Addy, he just managed to pull it off a little better because they gave him one thing that would explain why someone would just sit around, yelling out their thoughts and motivations for no discernible reason:  Robert gets to be drunk and in the room with a representative of a family he has so many reasons to really have a lot of anger towards.  Aidan Gillen just had to sell something that ....no one could.  Maybe if he'd been in a delirium from a fever, raving to nurse who spoke a different language.  Maybe.  But oh God, that terrible scene. 

 

Sometimes it seems like they have an actor who is more comfortable taking very specific direction  and sometimes they have someone who apparently goes a bit rogue with the whole thing and the directors decide to go with it....and I've only got one guess as to who that was.  

 

Just a long way of saying, some change is inevitable, but some is purposeful and doesn't serve the source material.   There's a bunch of all those examples present in the series, as far as I can see. 

 

ETA:  You know, an observation or a comment isn't always a criticism or condemnation of anything. 

Edited October 10, 2015 by stillshimpy

[WindyNights]

I see what you're saying; I'm just way more forgiving of the mistakes. Obviously I'm also heavily influenced by the fact that I have read the books, and therefore interpret the character through both lenses: I'm sort of colouring in the absenses / holes in the narrative with my pre-existing knowledge. So I still feel I'm following the same story; it just takes a bit of a detour sometimes. But this here is why I love reading your experience of reading the books after the show and comparing them: you make me think of these things, the things that maybe ought to bother me vis a vis an adaptation, but really hasn't so far. *ponders*

I think that is unfair to both showrunners and actors. Obviously there is characters the showrunners interpret as being more important than others, and you can agree or disagree with that interpretation, but just because Cercei is more developed on the show, does not make it "whims" of the showrunners . I, for one, vastly prefer show Cercei to the caricature of "evil psycho-bitch" we get in the books, and I think the whole Kings Landing would be a difficult beast to play if they had stuck to Martins outline of the character. A show also hinges on it's antagonists, and she is among the best of them because she's complicated. IMO, of course :)

The only problem I have with Carol is that she doesn't even deserve the spot of being a villain at this point. So I can't really properly root against her. I mean she doesn't even do many heinous things in the show besides kill a wolf and commit incest to produce Joffrey. I mean I guess you could squeeze in killing Robert but honestly, Robert sucked.

But I wouldn't say she has more layers than her book counterpart just that she has different ones. Carol is a good character in her own right though.

But there's weird feeling knowing that she's completely justified in how she feels about Marge in the show.

Personally I feel they should've

stuck more to his outline then we wouldn't have her creating the faith militant just to arrest Loras??? but I did like the irony that the beast (High Sparrow) she created brought her down

Edited October 10, 2015 by WindyNights

[Lady S.]

I would really disagree about show Cersei not being a villain, and I don't think the non-reader audience really considers her anything but.

[stillshimpy]

In fairness, there are areas of the show I'm pretty critical of in terms of "why did they diminish this character to this extent?"  I'm trying to think of a character that they expanded and I wish they hadn't....and really....other than Tywin and Arya (which expanded Tywin's character from what I have seen on the page thus far) ....the one I wish they hadn't expanded so much is actually Shae.   

 

I realized almost as soon as I walked away that if I didn't name who I thought went sort of rogue with a characterization that people likely wouldn't get:  I think it was the actress playing Shae.  I'm not sure, but Shae on the page and Shae on the screen?  Not the same character, by a lot. 

[WindyNights]

I would really disagree about show Cersei not being a villain, and I don't think the non-reader audience really considers her anything but.

I'm not saying she's not a villain. I'm saying she doesn't do enough bad things to justify being rooted against so hard as opposed to her book counterpart.

I'm primarily talking content here. I know the audience still sees Cersei as a big villain because the show still frames her as one.

I dunno maybe I grew a soft spot for Carol. But I feel like I shouldn't have so it feels weird.

Edited October 10, 2015 by WindyNights

[WindyNights]

In fairness, there are areas of the show I'm pretty critical of in terms of "why did they diminish this character to this extent?" I'm trying to think of a character that they expanded and I wish they hadn't....and really....other than Tywin and Arya (which expanded Tywin's character from what I have seen on the page thus far) ....the one I wish they hadn't expanded so much is actually Shae.

I realized almost as soon as I walked away that if I didn't name who I thought went sort of rogue with a characterization that people likely wouldn't get: I think it was the actress playing Shae. I'm not sure, but Shae on the page and Shae on the screen? Not the same character, by a lot.

Something I've noticed but the producers really like the LANNISTERS primarily Joffrey, Cersei, Tyrion and Tywin. It might have to do with the strength of their acting but percentage-wise there's a lot more spent with them in the show than on the page.

For instance, Tywin's only in one chapter in A Clash of Kings and that's as a distant character. Compare that pagetime to the show's second season.

Edited October 10, 2015 by WindyNights

[Haleth]

There are definitely a handful of outstanding actors that gave unwritten layers to their characters... Lena Headey, Charles Dance, Rory McCann to name a few. They may not be as we imagined the book characters to be, but their performances certainly add to the enjoyment of the show (if I may make a blanket statement for viewers). It's as if these actors have molded the characters to their own visions, regardless of what Martin or the show writers intended. It would be hard for me to picture anyone else in those roles.

[chandraReborn]

Yeah, that wasn't what I thought you said--just clearing up the reasoning behind the whole "Carol" thing. Can't wait to hear your thoughts on Cersei going forward!

[ElizaD]

You really can't get that from most of screen Jaime.  Sure, he jumps into a pit to save Brienne from a bear and he stops her initial rape.  Then Jaime is pretty much out on actions that might be seen to be motivated by doing the right thing, in the series (this last season notwithstanding because it's my understanding on any character and I'm not mentioning anything from it because I do know some readers skipped this season). 

 

It's interesting to read this Unsullied commentary on Jaime.

It's easy to talk about plot changes like Dorne, but this perception that Jaime never tries to do the right thing after saving Brienne shows how badly his development has been gutted. The whole point of post-maiming Jaime is gone

.

 

Sansa and Arya had such a happy childhood that they can think they're living in stories (the pretty lady, the plucky tomboy) but the world outside Winterfell turns out to be full of horrible people and their lives become nightmare versions of their dreams: Sansa gets the prince, Arya gets the adventure, and it's a miserable, traumatizing experience. IMO, Sansa is judged more harshly for her childish misunderstanding of how the world works because her dream of love and pretty dresses doesn't get the same respect as Arya's dream of wanting to do the things that boys are allowed to do. It feels like such a classic case of sympathy for the girl who's smart enough to recognize how "stupid" girly stuff is while the girl who embraces traditionally feminine pursuits is mocked for not seeing their pettiness. After GRRM gets away from the first book's imbalanced Arya vs. Sansa dynamics (not entirely well planned - IIRC he's expressed regret about having Sansa go to Cersei) I don't think he himself aims to convey this kind of contempt for Sansa, but it really tends to be the default reader reaction. It's also interesting that Sansa's thoughts on class distinctions and their practical influence on things like marriage options, a way in which she does show some awareness of her society's tougher rules even in book 1, are used against her as a sign that she's a snob, but the fate of the butcher's boy who is befriended by Arya and then killed by the Hound shows that especially for the lowborn, there can be horrible consequences to ignoring or not being aware of class.

[feverfew]

I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but disclaimer: English is not my first language, so if I sometimes come across boneheaded or confuddled, that's why. I really enjoy the discussions, even if I don't agree with all of you guys always. And I never meant to imply that observations always meant criticism. I like your observations, good and bad :)

In fairness, there are areas of the show I'm pretty critical of in terms of "why did they diminish this character to this extent?"  I'm trying to think of a character that they expanded and I wish they hadn't....and really....other than Tywin and Arya (which expanded Tywin's character from what I have seen on the page thus far) ....the one I wish they hadn't expanded so much is actually Shae.   

 

I realized almost as soon as I walked away that if I didn't name who I thought went sort of rogue with a characterization that people likely wouldn't get:  I think it was the actress playing Shae.  I'm not sure, but Shae on the page and Shae on the screen?  Not the same character, by a lot. 

That's what I meant with the whole "character-colouring inside the white": For me the show and the books blend together so much, I no longer see the diminishing, and that is an important point I sometimes miss when people criticize the show.

 

I liked the expansion on show-Shae; because - as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, I think - Tyrion would come across as a total dumbass if we as an audience hadn't been confused as to her motives regarding Tyrion. But I too miss Jaime as he was in Swords - although I was never as big a fan of his as some people.

 

I'm not saying she's not a villain. I'm saying she doesn't do enough bad things to justify being rooted against so hard as opposed to her book counterpart.

I'm primarily talking content here. I know the audience still sees Cersei as a big villain because the show still frames her as one.

I dunno maybe I grew a soft spot for Carol. But I feel like I shouldn't have so it feels weird.

I think that's one of the reasons I like the show so much; I like the weird sort of disconnect between what I think about a character and what D&D think is important. It's a bit like reading an analysis of a text where the interpretation is different from mine. It makes me think. It can disappoint me and make me think too ;) But I think I might be a weird fan, because I love all the different interpretations people come up with.

Edited October 10, 2015 by feverfew

[Holmbo]

I think that's one of the reasons I like the show so much; I like the weird sort of disconnect between what I think about a character and what D&D think is important. It's a bit like reading an analysis of a text where the interpretation is different from mine. It makes me think. It can disappoint me and make me think too ;) But I think I might be a weird fan, because I love all the different interpretations people come up with.

I feel similar. Overall I've really enjoyed comparing the two and been fascinated by the differences. I didn't like this last season nearly as much as the ones before and I wonder if it's partly (together with some objectively bad story lines) because the book and show has diverged so far apart that it becomes difficult to compare them.

[stillshimpy]

I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but disclaimer: English is not my first language, so if I sometimes come across boneheaded or confuddled, that's why.

 

You never seem boneheaded or befuddled, feverfew, at all.   You're doing an amazing job of communicating articulately and fully even if English was your sole language, but considering it is not your first, you really are doing exceptionally well.  I can basically order chicken and find the bathroom in about three countries with a language different than my own.  Particularly since I gave up eating meat, I'm practically useless and have to rely on gesturing emphatically.

 

No, the reason I made that comment was actually that I think what happens sometimes is that you guys have already had these debates more than a few times.  So you may or may not have a particular position on a particular fan debate that I'm commenting on vs. contributing too, if that makes sense.  

 

On Shae, I think from the first moments onscreen her bearing is so very different from what Book Shae's would be -- Book Shae is crass and vulgar....and pretty much what you might expect a young prostitute who has had to sell her body to get by in the world would be.   A little rough around the edges.  

 

The actress playing Shae, who I actually really liked, was initially enigmatic and rather poised.   So that by the time she gets to King's Landing and is yelling about "You just think I'm your WHORE!" it went from "a woman who is pretty chill about the necessity of her profession" is ....offended by being deemed a member of her profession...?  It got a little weird there and the only way to sell that is to have her actually love Tyrion.  

Edited October 10, 2015 by stillshimpy

[stillshimpy]

Oh....poo.  Well as luck would have it, I like Book Oberyn even more than I liked Show Oberyn....so that's gonna really suck eventually.  

 

Jeez, that story about seeing poor Tyrion as a baby was even worse than in the show, because Oberyn means it to be at least a little spiteful and unfriendly.  Not that I actually really blame him for disliking Tyrion -- not based on Tyrion, but just....he's from the family that killed members of his family, people Oberyn loved.  It makes sense that he has no interest in whether or not he hurts Tyrion's feelings.  

 

By the way, loved the description of a house from Dorne that's banner is a Vulture with a baby in its claws.  I feel like George Martin was at least having a little fun with "create a potential Game of Thrones drinking game about naming the house banners when described" .  I really didn't think he could create one less appealing than the Dreadfort's banner.   I mean, what the hell, dude?  What house anywhere would want that as a banner?   That sounds like the Banner of House Zomboni.  "Will kill everything and eat the dead flesh of men." 

 

It really is a pity they did away with the Tyrell sons, as the story of how Willas was maimed and forgave Oberyn was interesting.  Also, he called Loras Renly's rose so....again....this stuff is pretty textual, although I think that Oberyn is the first character to have his sexuality (in this case bisexuality) openly stated.  Interesting that Martin made the "he has never fathered any sons" choice for the character.   

 

That was also a Tyrion chapter I just completely enjoyed, which hasn't happened in a while -- getting back to what Tyrion actually does very well indeed -- that was a well-written passage.  Just the coded talk about how both men were openly acknowledging, "Yeah, I'm here to kill the shit out of you" "Oh yeah?  Interesting, because we'd kill the shit out of you first what with our superior numbers" without actually having to say any of that directly. 

[Reader of Books]

Wow so glad I found this!

 

stillshimpy - I used to follow the Unsullied project pretty closely since early in season 2, but I only ever posted once as an encouragement shortly after you migrated to this site. I stopped following towards the end of season 4 due to my increasing frustration with the show. I have had a complete disinvestment from it and now watch it while imagining a laugh track. There was a scene at the end of season 4 that was a real deal-breaker.... and season 5 just got worse for me.

 

I have mixed feelings having seen this thread. I loved the work and was awed by the commitment you displayed throughout the project. But I am finding it fascinating to see your insight as the blanks are coloured in for you. Its kind of the reverse of what us Walkers experienced with the show. We had our own version of GRRM's world in our heads and the show of a visualisation of the showrunner's version. You have had the show and are now seeing GRRM's world. 

 

I appear to have found this thread at the right time as you are coming up to what for me was the 'final straw'. This is an opportunity to see how that plays out for someone with a fresh set of eyes rather than someone who read it years ago.

 

I am still many pages back in this thread (but intent on reading every word) but there are a couple of things I want to comment on now that were discussed early on I'd like to make mention of.

 

Most critically is Sansa and how you said you were a fan... when I first read it, I didn't hate her but I was heavily influenced by Arya's PoV and really found her annoying. But it wasn't the intense dislike others were expressing. GRRM's treatment of Jaime and Brienne (and other character arcs) prompted me to revisit all of the characters.

 

While doing this, I came to a conclusion about Sansa. 

 

Sansa is US. You touched on this in one of the early pages when you spoke about her and Arya. I think of them as two halves of a whole that is each and every reader of fantasy. Arya is the adventurous underdog. Sansa is the lover of sweeping grand heroic tales. 

 

But in GRRM's world, Sansa becomes the princess trapped in the tower by the wicked queen. And there is no knight in shining armour coming for her, in part because he loves another, in this particular case, another man. Carrying the Stark=Wolf motif for a bit, Sansa is the pup that is chained up, abused and kicked every once in a while - but she is growing. The pup gradually begins to become wily in order to survive.

 

What really grinds my gears is how before every season they say "This year Sansa really turns the corner and comes into her own" only to, well, not do that. Instead they kick her (us) a few more times.

 

Arya is slightly different in that she is the wolf pup that has lost her pack. She struggles to survive then forms a new pack as they travel north only to lose them one by one as well. You realise that the 'adventurous, tom-boy, scamp' story isn't her, its a dark psychological tale. Unfortunately the show has flattened that to BAMF.

 

(Edit: There is much more to this wolf analogy, but I am only up to where you were discussing the killing of Lady and describing it as a bit of an emotional cheap shot, so I won't go further down this road until I have read your thought process more thoroughly)

 

Its part of the medium of TV that morality is going to be flattened because you aren't actually inside their heads, but they have taken many characters in directions so very different to the actual characters I have been sorely disappointed.

 

I really look forward to following along with you as you go through this process.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Reader of Books

[Delta1212]

Oh....poo. Well as luck would have it, I like Book Oberyn even more than I liked Show Oberyn....so that's gonna really suck eventually.

Jeez, that story about seeing poor Tyrion as a baby was even worse than in the show, because Oberyn means it to be at least a little spiteful and unfriendly. Not that I actually really blame him for disliking Tyrion -- not based on Tyrion, but just....he's from the family that killed members of his family, people Oberyn loved. It makes sense that he has no interest in whether or not he hurts Tyrion's feelings.

By the way, loved the description of a house from Dorne that's banner is a Vulture with a baby in its claws. I feel like George Martin was at least having a little fun with "create a potential Game of Thrones drinking game about naming the house banners when described" . I really didn't think he could create one less appealing than the Dreadfort's banner. I mean, what the hell, dude? What house anywhere would want that as a banner? That sounds like the Banner of House Zomboni. "Will kill everything and eat the dead flesh of men."

It really is a pity they did away with the Tyrell sons, as the story of how Willas was maimed and forgave Oberyn was interesting. Also, he called Loras Renly's rose so....again....this stuff is pretty textual, although I think that Oberyn is the first character to have his sexuality (in this case bisexuality) openly stated. Interesting that Martin made the "he has never fathered any sons" choice for the character.

That was also a Tyrion chapter I just completely enjoyed, which hasn't happened in a while -- getting back to what Tyrion actually does very well indeed -- that was a well-written passage. Just the coded talk about how both men were openly acknowledging, "Yeah, I'm here to kill the shit out of you" "Oh yeah? Interesting, because we'd kill the shit out of you first what with our superior numbers" without actually having to say any of that directly.

Yeah, I like Book Oberyn more, too, but it's not a ton more. They really cast him well for the show.

Which is funny because when they first announced the casting, there was a big uproar about Pedro Pascal being too white to play Oberyn.

Which sounds a bit silly considering what he looked like on the show, but if you look up pictures of him, he's one of those people whose appearance changes quite a bit depending on how much sun he's gotten recently.

[Reader of Books]

Phew. Up to Page 10. Some comments.

 

Sansa

I think a lot of the Sansa-as-a-silly-girl in AGoT is a throwback to how he was originally going to write her when the story was to be a trilogy

(Spoiler that follows refers to her arc in the original proposal he sent to his publisher) 

Sansa was to marry Joffrey, while villainous, he wasn't as cruel and she has a child but when war breaks out, she chooses her new family over her old one. Given everything up to the Red Wedding was to be in the first volume, it is clear that her 'hating' Arya was to be a motivator for her decision as was her disconnection from Lady and therefore the direwolves/Starks.

As the story expanded, I suspect he found himself a bit stuck with her and didn't really develop her character as events wheeled around her.

 

Tl; dr. He had painted himself into a corner with the story rewrite and the result was effectively filler that he really didn't know how to deal with effectively. Unfortunately when he did start evolving her, many people haven't reassessed her as they did with Jaime and others.

 

Brienne was the protagonist for Jaime's story even though he was the PoV. (Quite a masterful piece of writing I think) But Arya was the protagonist for what we originally knew abut Sansa. People identified with Arya - but she wasn't even present as Sansa began to slowly evolve. You are required to read closer to pick up and that is hard to do if you are not invested in the character.

 

Cersei

• Firstly, remember that her material is viewed from the point of view of Starks to this point so she naturally falls into the 'wicked queen' category.
• Secondly, I think she also suffers a bit from the flatness caused from the same rewrite that Sansa did.
• Thirdly, I do like that the show has provided a little more insight to her to show motivations. Its a little softer BUT 
  ... palming her evil deeds off on others (especially the slaughter of the bastards on Joffrey) is just pure whitewashing.

  It has softened her. But it has reduced her 'agency'.

• Also, the Walk of Shame on the show takes on a different feel entirely. To me it should feel like a celebration at the start. Justice for all the wrongs. By the end you disintegrate with her. A 'careful what you wish for' uppercut from GRRM. Instead Show!Cersei has been softened so much that people felt sorry for her from the start. The reasons for wanting justice just were not as apparent.
• By softening her in the way they have, (excessively in my opinion), things happen to her rather than her doing things to other people. Women can be evil. We don't 'have' to be inside their head to understand it, just as we don't 'have' to be inside Ramsay's head for his evil to be darn enticing story.

 

Renly/Loras

This one really grinds my gears. Particularly Loras who is in the story for longer than Renly. Loras wasn't the gayest gay who ever gayed. He was a knight and a damn good one, who just happened to be in love with and devoted to another man. As one of the writers said last year "I don't care if people are upset we wrote him as a doofus. I think its hilarious!"

 

@ stillshimpy

 

Re: your post about the podcast referring to the Writer's Room.

 

Very interesting stuff actually, but behind the scenes other things happened. For instance, there is one sequence in the most recent season 

Ramsay marries Sansa

that caused a huge outrage. It was a diversion and they said they had decided on doing it that way after they shot the pilot - before they shot episode 2.

 

There was also a panel they did earlier this year when they (spoiler tagging an event at a panel that speaks on their mindset as writers and does not actually spoil the plot)

were adamant that a certain character was NOT a point of View character and only relented when the actor himself and the entire audience said pantomime-style "OoooooOOOOOOhhhhhh yes he is!" D&D's answer was "Well its been so many years since we read the books, we've forgotten a few details."

Edited October 11, 2015 by Reader of Books

[feverfew]

Thank you, Shimpy, for your kind words. I get frustrated with myself at times, because I can't find the right words to express what i mean, and end up with something I'm not entirely satisfied with. And then I get scared I sound harsher than I meant to - or just plain stupid ;)

I feel similar. Overall I've really enjoyed comparing the two and been fascinated by the differences. I didn't like this last season nearly as much as the ones before and I wonder if it's partly (together with some objectively bad story lines) because the book and show has diverged so far apart that it becomes difficult to compare them.

I think most of us felt a bit disappointed, but I think it had something to do with the transitory nature of that season as well.

There are so many players that needed moving - especially since they still thought at the point of writing the scripts there would only be seven seasons. For me personally, it wasn't the changes made to the storylines as much as it was the rushing of said lines: Stannis is still my best example, since I honestly believe that if D&D had five more episodes to flesh his downfall out, it would have played much better. But since I also feel that the underlying material (Feast and Dance) is a bit of a mess, storywise, and has the same transitory-novel-problems, I don't think season five would be a favourite, even in a perfect world.

 

Edit: Stupid spoiler tags ;)

Edited October 11, 2015 by feverfew

[ambi76]

Oh....poo.  Well as luck would have it, I like Book Oberyn even more than I liked Show Oberyn....so that's gonna really suck eventually.

 

Okay, *shiftyeyes*, we have to part ways here, shimpy (yeah, not really), as I can not stand that book asshole and was forever baffled how he was so popular in fandom, but Pedro Pascal definitely improved him for me.

 

ETA:

As one of the writers said last year "I don't care if people are upset we wrote him as a doofus. I think its hilarious!"

 

That was about show!Mace though, right? If they actually said that about Loras then ... ... ... okay.

Edited October 11, 2015 by ambi76

[Reader of Books]

That was about show!Mace though, right? If they actually said that about Loras then ... ... ... okay.

 

Pretty sure it was "the Tyrell men" and there are only two of them in the show. Certainly Loras changed in the Show from a manipulator, to a doofus for a couple of seasons, then suddenly was able to stand up for himself with Jaime at Joff's wedding (an episode notable because it was the one GRRM wrote and he was clearly attempting to rehabilitate the character).

[Delta1212]

Pretty sure it was "the Tyrell men" and there are only two of them in the show. Certainly Loras changed in the Show from a manipulator, to a doofus for a couple of seasons, then suddenly was able to stand up for himself with Jaime at Joff's wedding (an episode notable because it was the one GRRM wrote and he was clearly attempting to rehabilitate the character).

I've criticized plenty of the writers' choices over the course of the series, but I think you are painting a slightly bleaker picture of them than may actually be the case.

I'm having a hard time finding the quote right now, but I was also under the distinct impression that it was specifically in reference to Mace. I don't know whether the term used was "Tyrell men" but the context was still focusing on Mace, as far as I can recall.

[Reader of Books]

I've criticized plenty of the writers' choices over the course of the series, but I think you are painting a slightly bleaker picture of them than may actually be the case.

 

Yeah perhaps. I'll have to go back through all the season 4 material to find it. Until then I'll back away from the Renly issue and just leave it at "I am not happy with how the portrayal has been executed".

[Haleth]

Reader of Books,

I think you ought to spoiler tag the comments about Jeyne Poole since Shimpy has no reason to give her a second thought right now.

 Please consider.  Thanks!

[Eegah]

I fully support most of the changes to Cersei. The one thing that really gets on my nerves, though, is that especially during the first couple seasons, Lena Headey had this bad habit of condescendingly lecturing the fans that they were being way too hard on her character, AT THE SAME TIME that she was proudly saying she'd never read the books. Which means she had no fucking clue what she was actually talking about.

[stillshimpy]

Okay, *shiftyeyes*, we have to part ways here, shimpy (yeah, not really), as I can not stand that book asshole and was forever baffled how he was so popular in fandom, but Pedro Pascal definitely improved him for me.

 

Well and ambi, we're also going to have to see how long my liking him endures but I like him specifically because he made no pretense of being there to do anything other start.some.shit that he felt was long overdue.  

 

I don't have a sister.  I have nieces and nephews though -- primarily through my husband's family -- but I'm here to tell you:  I would not feel it was incumbent upon me to give any member from the family who ordered any of them murdered even the teeniest bit of the benefit of the doubt.  I know, I know, "The sins of the father should not be visited upon the son" and all that, but Tyrion is the guy that father sent to meet Oberyn and his party.

 

How freaking insulting is that?  "Come to the royal wedding.  We won't send the King to meet you, don't be daft.  We won't send the Queen Mother, she probably has a fitting or something.  Or the brother of the princess who resides in Dorne, he is but a child.  The Hand of the King bloody well should be there, no matter who he thinks is showing the hell up, but hid like a giant creature who say 'Bagock' a lot and instead, sent the family shame to greet what HE thought was going to be the ruling figure in Dorne."  

 

I do not blame Oberyn for being a giant Jackass in the face of being flipped the bird, particularly when they originally thought they were flipping his older brother the giant FUCK YOU, MARTELS bird to the crown prince of Dorne.  That they brought enough people to kickass and made their own intentions known made me respect them, because the Lannisters were below the butthole in terms of icky parts of anatomy for that sliminess.  

 

They were they were like the toenail fungus, hiding in deep, creepy parts of the body, thriving on all things dark and dank.

 

Now, Oberyn's gonna get squished like a bug, I already know it....but the Lannister were acting like body lice by not even having the guts to show up and meet the family of the murdered queen.  

 

Shit happens in war.  People die.  So do children.  The indecency of not being willing to show up and the look the guy in the eye to say , "Welcome.  I hope all between us can be bygones and a new era can start between our families.  Of cooperation, and respect for the strengths of both.  We were and remain sorry for the loss of those you loved and simply hope we can all move forward together."  

 

Dude, they sent the family embarrassment, a sellsword and paige with self-esteem issues to meet what was supposed to be a royal party from Dorne.  I think Tyrion ought to count himself lucky that Oberyn didn't openly spit in his eye, as the Lannisters had seen fit to do so to him.  

 

ETA:  Hi, Reader of Books, nice to have you here.  I like your observations about Sansa and Arya being two halves of the fantasy story reader.   Good luck with the thread.  Advil? 

Edited October 11, 2015 by stillshimpy

[ambi76]

Eh, I don't dislike Oberyn for being mean to the Lannisters (those blond shits can fuck off alright), I dislike him for being a smug, vain fucktard who thinks the sun shines out of his ass. Which is strange because I usually like that type. He's just grating on me. I may have a problem with Dornish characters overall though.

Arianne drives me absolutely bonkers, and the ones I like, Doran and Quentyn, are considered boring/useless beyond words by much of fandom.

Edited October 11, 2015 by ambi76

[Delta1212]

Fun fact, the procession of Dornish banners includes the golden quill of House Jordayne of the Tor.

Tor being Robert Jordan's publishing company for the Wheel of Time.

Eh, I don't dislike Oberyn for being mean to the Lannisters (those blond shits can fuck off alright), I dislike him for being a smug, vain fucktard who thinks the sun shines out of his ass. Which is strange because I usually like that type. He's just grating on me. I may have a problem with Dornish characters overall though.

Arianne drives me absolutely bonkers, and the ones I like, Doran and Quentyn, are considered boring/useless beyond words by much of fandom.

If it makes you feel any better, I love both of those characters, although it took me pretty much an entire book to warm up to the former. Edited October 11, 2015 by Delta1212

[nksarmi]

There are some subjects where I feel like it just isn't safe to comment on them AT ALL before shimpy gets to book 4/5.  So I honestly can't wait until she gets to Dorne.  Besides, I want the refresh on that area of the books without rereading it. :)

 

The funny thing about sending Tyrion to greet the Martells is as much as its an insult, he is likely the only Lannister who wouldn't cause war right on the spot.

[bobbybuilderton]

snip

So it isn't that the series tells a bad story.  It just primarily stopped telling this one. 

 

And while this is cited as some people's reason for not minding that the show will finish the story first, it's actually a reason I hate that they will finish first. Whatever they crap out will be seen by a huge chunk of the population (those who don't read the books) as indicative of the original story. Two people who I consider vastly inferior storytellers--but very talented logistically-- will create what will be the only version of the story to many people, and that just isn't fair to GRRM. So that's my reason for wanting him to finish faster. Don't give those two the satisfaction...Kinda childish, I know.

Anyway, RE: how Stannis has fans...As a Stannis fan and a Littlefinger fan, I can tell you that for me, the characters I root for are the characters who are entertaining. Good and bad don't matter that much. I love Littlefinger for reasons that relate to the plot and his interactions with other's being fun to read. Is he the scum of the earth? Absolutely.

 

I like Stannis because I find him entertaining to read. I think he's unintentionally funny with how dour he is. I like his relationship with Davos. I just think he's all around fun to read. He has some dialogue coming up that I could read over and over again. I could not care less about if a character is a good person or does good things when I'm deciding if I like them. Because for me, my ultimate purpose in reading a story is to be entertained. The characters that do that best are the ones that I will like and want to stick around. Not to mention that IRL I tend to value honesty more than friendliness/empathy/compassion (I know, I sound like a blast don't I?). Stannis, while doing some things that may be questionable, has qualities that I respect more in people I encounter in life. He isn't friendly and is almost certainly in denial about how much he wants the Iron Throne. but he's a person with traits that I would probably respond well to in real life.

 

 

One more thing that I'll put in spoilers just because I'm not sure your stance on comments about the production of the show (no plot spoilers)

If it seems the show kinda flounders after season 3, it's because the producers are, IMO, greedy shortsighted scumbags who wanted to make a quick buck off of the shocks rather than tell a coherent story with compelling themes. They approached GRRM wanting to do the show after reading the Red Wedding. The Red Wedding, which takes place before this book was over and before the fourth book was even published. They saw an opportunity to make money off of someone else's genius (again)*coughxmenoriginscough* coughtroycough* and jumped at it. So when they got to that point they had no idea what to do and probably realized they were in way over their heads

[bobbybuilderton]

OH I totally forgot to ask, for the people who have read the books, do we

recommend reading 4 and 5 in order of release, or with the boiled leather chronological order? never done it myself

[Protar]

OH I totally forgot to ask, for the people who have read the books, do we

recommend reading 4 and 5 in order of release, or with the boiled leather chronological order? never done it myself

 

Does Shimpy even know about the split chronology? If not I'd probably just leave her to read the books as they are. The Boiled Leather or Ball of Beasts thing could get confusing and involves linking her to sites where there could be risk of spoilers.

[Delta1212]

OH I totally forgot to ask, for the people who have read the books, do we

recommend reading 4 and 5 in order of release, or with the boiled leather chronological order? never done it myself

I normally suggest

the "fan cut"

but I think we should just let shimpy read everything as is.

[Haleth]

And while this is cited as some people's reason for not minding that the show will finish the story first, it's actually a reason I hate that they will finish first. Whatever they crap out will be seen by a huge chunk of the population (those who don't read the books) as indicative of the original story. Two people who I consider vastly inferior storytellers--but very talented logistically-- will create what will be the only version of the story to many people, and that just isn't fair to GRRM. So that's my reason for wanting him to finish faster. Don't give those two the satisfaction...Kinda childish, I know.

It's not like he hasn't had ample opportunity to get it done. It's his own fault due to all the stalling and time wasting if two inferior storytellers end up finishing the story. I hope sales of the final books drop off because people don't care anymore after seeing how it ends on the show. I'm childish that way too. :)

Regarding your spoiler, I'd go chronological.

[Triskan]

He, I was actually wondering as well about

suggesting shimpy to read the merged version of Feast and Dance... 

 

Could be interesting... 

[WindyNights]

I think shimpy should read Dunk and Egg before she jumps into Books 4 and 5. 

 

And yes, I'd say she should read the

merged versed version

Edited October 11, 2015 by WindyNights

[Skywarpgold]

Well, I don't think she's really wanted to know what's coming in the books, so I don't know...I'd leave it to Mya, who she talks to regularly, to bring it up, if at all. My guess is that she'd want to read the books the way they came out though.

However, Boiled Leather does have a new reader-friendly listing of a chronological chapter order, that also preserves the Dorne Surprises as well: http://boiledleather.com/post/25902554148/a-new-readerfriendly-combined-reading-order-for-a

[feverfew]

If we're talking author intent, I definitely think she should read it in the order GRRM published it in. In general I'm not fond of changing up an author's continuing story, unless the author specifically tells me to (Anne McCaffrey, L.M. Montgomery). And I've never read an endorsement from him in regards to the boiled leather version.

 

While I like the man himself, and for his sake think it would have been best if he could have finished the story himself, I have no problem with getting the end of the story (the overreaching storylines) from the show first. But then again, I don't think D&D are quite the hacks bobbybuilderton think they are ;)

[jellyroll2]

I'm more of an advocate of reading it as it was released. People can always do the other on a re-read. So I say chronological.

[WindyNights]

@feverfew The problem with that is once you read the

merged version rather than the chronological order is that you can really tell that these two books were supposed to be one book.

And it just makes for a better read too.

[feverfew]

@feverfew The problem with that is once you read the

merged version rather than the chronological order is that you can really tell that these two books were supposed to be one book.

And it just makes for a better read too.

But if that is the case, shouldn't GRRM either a) promote that version or b) have written it completely different?

 

As for making it better, isn't that a little bit incongruous with Shimpy's project? She's supposed to read the novels as is, not with us telling her "Oh, don't read that chapter, the book will be way better this way" or "the novels make more sense if you read it in a different way". Isn't that a little bit like saying "Ignore all the bad parts in the show, and only focus on the good"?

[bobbybuilderton]

If we're talking author intent, I definitely think she should read it in the order GRRM published it in. In general I'm not fond of changing up an author's continuing story, unless the author specifically tells me to (Anne McCaffrey, L.M. Montgomery). And I've never read an endorsement from him in regards to the boiled leather version.

 

While I like the man himself, and for his sake think it would have been best if he could have finished the story himself, I have no problem with getting the end of the story (the overreaching storylines) from the show first. But then again, I don't think D&D are quite the hacks bobbybuilderton think they are ;)

Oooooh trust me there is ample evidence that they are hacks, from boneheaded comments out of their own mouths, but this is not the place for that discussion so I didn't get into it.

 

Anyway,

I've never read the combined version so I was curious. I suppose she should probably read them as published. I liked them on a second read, by the way. After I got over waiting around for my favorite POVs to show up

[nksarmi]

Well shimpy - God bless her - seems to be reading them in chapter order, but I know I have a bad habit of skipping around when I read anyway (I literally have to WILL myself not to jump ahead in a story).  So by the time I got to book 4 and 5, I was reading several chapters of one person's POV and then going back and reading another POV, etc... lol.

[jellyroll2]

It always amazes me when I hear people read that way. Like I can't even imagine jumping ahead in the story as I figure I'll read something out of context and the whole flow is messed up. not reading a book in the order is was written is such a foreign concept to me. LOL