Game Of Thrones In The Media

[WearyTraveler]

You can leave a flower now for Karsi at Slate's Game of Thrones Graveyard

 

I love this!  Thank you for posting it.  I specially love that Ned is the leader. He's followed, in order, by Robb, Oberyn, Khal Drogo, Catelyn, Lady, Greywind, Ygritte, Talisa, and Old Bear Mormont.  6 out of the top 10 are Starks.  8 out of the top 10 are related to a Northern storyline.  I'm not going to argue that a Slate game like this is representative of the entire audience, but, man, do they reflect how I feel!!!  (although I didn't care much for Khal Drogo and much less for Talisa)

[SimoneS]

Good interview with the showrunner about Shireen's death: http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/07/game-thrones-Shireen

 

I like how he subtly pointed out the hypocrisy in the outrage over Shireen's brutal death. Lots of people have had brutal deaths including the two boys who Theon killed. We should care about every death not just the characters that we like.

Edited June 8, 2015 by SimoneS

[WearyTraveler]

Good interview with the showrunner about Shireen's death: http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/07/game-thrones-Shireen

 

I like how he subtly pointed out the hypocrisy in the outrage over Shireen's brutal death. Lots of people have had brutal deaths including the two boys who Theon killed. We should care about every death not just the characters that we like.

 

Well, yes we should care, but I feel there are a couple of things that bug me a little in this article.

 

1) Is that Stannis, as awful and unforgivable as he is, is not doing this solely because of ambition.  That may play a part, but the character in the book is more complex than that.  He believes firmly that he's the savior of the 7 Kingdoms and that if he doesn't do this, the WW will take it all. So, it's not that simple.  Not that I support burning (or flaying, for that matter) anyone at the stake, much less a child.  It's just that it seems this view that Stannis' drive is solely propelled by ambition feels overly simplistic to me.

 

2) They make it seem as if Tywin was pushed into a corner: "Red Wedding or years upon years of war" and that he cared about the lives that would be lost on that war or the suffering of the smallfolk, when nothing is further from the truth.  If Tywin so wanted to avoid a full on war, he could have surrendered.  Robb was Ned's son, he wan't going to kill an enemy that had already surrendered.  Plus, on the show, Tywin never expressed, before or after the RW any interest on the plights of the regular Westerosi chums.  In the books, he even 

condones and encourages the violence and destruction being caused by The Mountain and his goons.

 

So, no, this wasn't an incredible moral dilemma Tywin was wrestling with.  He ordered the slaughter for many reasons, but not a single one of those reasons had anything to do with the possible future suffering of the subjects of his grandson, Joffrey.

[Hecate7]

Well, yes we should care, but I feel there are a couple of things that bug me a little in this article.

 

1) Is that Stannis, as awful and unforgivable as he is, is not doing this solely because of ambition.  That may play a part, but the character in the book is more complex than that.  He believes firmly that he's the savior of the 7 Kingdoms and that if he doesn't do this, the WW will take it all. So, it's not that simple.  Not that I support burning (or flaying, for that matter) anyone at the stake, much less a child.  It's just that it seems this view that Stannis' drive is solely propelled by ambition feels overly simplistic to me.

 

2) They make it seem as if Tywin was pushed into a corner: "Red Wedding or years upon years of war" and that he cared about the lives that would be lost on that war or the suffering of the smallfolk, when nothing is further from the truth.  If Tywin so wanted to avoid a full on war, he could have surrendered.  Robb was Ned's son, he wan't going to kill an enemy that had already surrendered.  Plus, on the show, Tywin never expressed, before or after the RW any interest on the plights of the regular Westerosi chums.  In the books, he even 

condones and encourages the violence and destruction being caused by The Mountain and his goons.

 

So, no, this wasn't an incredible moral dilemma Tywin was wrestling with.  He ordered the slaughter for many reasons, but not a single one of those reasons had anything to do with the possible future suffering of the subjects of his grandson, Joffrey

 

Yes, we should care. I cared about the devastation in the Riverlands and wanted Tywin dead then. I cared about the killing of the two miller's kids. But I don't remember anyone saying "Theon for King" after that. This scene turned everyone off Stannis. The show runners ought to digest that, not tell us why we're wrong. We're not wrong on this point. Burning children alive is not a good way to win the hearts and minds of people. Danaerys may be heading towards crazy, but so far she's innocent of deliberately frying innocent children, and so is Tommen. Of the three Kings currently on the board, I'd go with Tommen except that under him the Faith Militant have run amok, thanks to his idiot mother.

[Skeeter22]

Theon has been suffering for several seasons now, and people weren't that sympathetic when he ratted out Sansa. I don't think he's been forgiven for the miller's sons as much as people are tired of seeing him in total misery.

Frankly, I think it's ridiculous for the show runners to try to indict the audience for caring more about characters we know. It's fiction, you can't expect your audience to invest more in your characters than the writers do. They've had no problem glossing over minor characters's suffering. They said they put Sansa in Jeyne Poole's place so that it would have more impact. They can't then turn around and say "how dare you!" when people are upset.

[benteen]

It's a laugh to think that Tywin cared about the lives of smallfolk.  All her wanted was a victory to secure his family dynasty.

[AshleyN]

Good interview with the showrunner about Shireen's death: http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/07/game-thrones-Shireen

 

I like how he subtly pointed out the hypocrisy in the outrage over Shireen's brutal death. Lots of people have had brutal deaths including the two boys who Theon killed. We should care about every death not just the characters that we like.

People were outraged over Theon killing those boys. There are still some fans who think Theon deserves everything he's gotten from Ramsay because of it.

 

Also, I think it's a little disingenuous to criticize people for caring more about the deaths of characters we know and love when they spent half the season working to provoke that exact reaction. The whole reason for including all those extra scenes of Shireen being sweet and adorable, and especially that scene of her and Stannis bonding (which was basically the first time in four seasons we saw him actually act like a human being) was to make the events of this episode that much painful. The same thing goes for that scene with Karsi and her kids last episode, or for that matter inserting Sansa into the Jeyne Poole storyline, which if I'm not mistaken they've more or less said was done at least partly because people would care more about Sansa's plight than that of some random girl we've never met before. They're writers, and that's Writing 101.

 

I mean, maybe I could buy that argument if it felt like it was part of a larger point they was making, but given that the show has actually focused a lot less of the suffering of the nameless masses than the book did, it kind of just feels like a way of deflecting criticism.

 

 

As for the Tywin thing, I can't believe that anyone would actually buy, or expect us to buy, that his actions had anything to do with the greater good. For starters, his line about it being better to kill "a dozen men at dinner" is a blatant lie, given that the vast majority of Robb's army was slaughtered the night of the Red Wedding. And secondly, because as has been said, I see no reason to believe that Tywin ever gave a single solitary fuck about the lives of the smallfolk. For Christ's sake, he was the one who started a war and unleashed The Mountain on the Riverlands over what he perceived to be an insult to his family. The only thing Tywin ever cared about was securing the status of his house.

Edited June 8, 2015 by AshleyN

[BlackberryJam]

So...Weiss knowing how to manipulate an audience into caring more about the death of a particular character is just him being a good writer? Right? Because the goal of a writer is to make the audience feel what you want them to feel. The audience was supposed to feel horrible about this. So they did a good job.

 

As to him asking the larger moral question about why the death of one character we know matters more the 5,000 we never met, well, good fucking question. Isn't that the question about the rape of Sansa v. the rape of Craster's wives? "It's not as awful because we didn't know them." I'm with Weiss on this one. I think it's a good question and one that should cause some introspection, whichever way it comes out for each of us.

[benteen]

People were outraged over Theon killing those boys. There are still some fans who think Theon deserves everything he's gotten from Ramsay because of it.

 

Also, I think it's a little disingenuous to criticize people for caring more about the deaths of characters we know and love when they spent half the season working to provoke that exact reaction. The whole reason for including all those extra scenes of Shireen being sweet and adorable, and especially that scene of her and Stannis bonding (which was basically the first time in four seasons we saw him actually act like a human being) was to make the events of this episode that much painful. The same thing goes for that scene with Karsi and her kids last episode, or for that matter inserting Sansa into the Jeyne Poole storyline, which if I'm not mistaken they've more or less said was done at least partly because people would care more about Sansa's plight than that of some random girl we've never met before. They're writers, and that's Writing 101.

 

I mean, maybe I could buy that argument if it felt like it was part of a larger point they was making, but given that the show has actually focused a lot less of the suffering of the nameless masses than the book did, it kind of just feels like a way of deflecting criticism.

 

 

As for the Tywin thing, I can't believe that anyone would actually buy, or expect us to buy, that his actions had anything to do with the greater good. For starters, his line about it being better to kill "a dozen men at dinner" is a blatant lie, given that the vast majority of Robb's army was slaughtered the night of the Red Wedding. And secondly, because as has been said, I see no reason to believe that Tywin ever gave a single solitary fuck about the lives of the smallfolk. For Christ's sake, he was the one who started a war and unleashed The Mountain on the Riverlands over what he perceived to be an insult to his family. The only thing Tywin ever cared about was securing the status of his house.

 

Not to mention making Talisa pregnant so the Red Wedding massacre could be even more horrific.

[Umbelina]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/06/08/game-of-thrones-season-5-episode-9-review-the-dance-of-dragons/  Yes, some book spoilers in this one.
 

 

I won’t mince words: I’m very unhappy with tonight’s episode of Game of Thrones, “The Dance of Dragons.” It’s not that it was a bad episode. Quite the contrary. It was thrilling and tragic and intense.

It was also one of the most disturbing, baffling and unnecessary departures from the books we’ve seen yet—and wholly inconsistent with one of the most powerful moments of the season.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Umbelina

[Skeeter22]

As to him asking the larger moral question about why the death of one character we know matters more the 5,000 we never met, well, good fucking question. Isn't that the question about the rape of Sansa v. the rape of Craster's wives? "It's not as awful because we didn't know them." I'm with Weiss on this one. I think it's a good question and one that should cause some introspection, whichever way it comes out for each of us.

There was tons of outrage over the rape scene at Craster's. A simple google search could show you that. One of the reasons people were so angry about Sansa's rape was that it was part of a pattern. It's not like this was the first time people noticed rape on the show.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Skeeter22

[BlackberryJam]

Seriously, the Sansa rape rage went far far past the Craster rage. Like over the deep end past, like death threats to D&D past. Websites saying they would no longer cover the show past.

 

And the books are 400x (actual stat from a reader who counted) more rapey than the show, but the rape of Sansa hit so many buttons with so many people. It was like Craster rage on multiple steroids. Why? It's a good question and one we should all ask ourselves.

Edited June 9, 2015 by BlackberryJam

[Avaleigh]

Seriously, the Sansa rape rage went far far past the Craster rage. Like over the deep end past, like death threats to D&D past. Websites saying they would no longer cover the show past.

 

And the books are 400x (actual stat from a reader who counted) more rapey than the show, but the rape of Sansa hit so many buttons with so many people. It was like Craster rage on multiple steroids. Why? It's a good question and one we should all ask ourselves.

Yeah, I've seen it stated multiple times that the showrunners have chosen to emphasize rape more in comparison to the books and I'm just like, in what world? Hands down the books have more disturbing content. 

 

I remember tons of outrage over the rapes at Craster's but I agree that it really was a drop in the bucket compared to the uproar over Sansa. 

[Pete Martell]

Good interview with the showrunner about Shireen's death: http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/07/game-thrones-Shireen

 

I like how he subtly pointed out the hypocrisy in the outrage over Shireen's brutal death. Lots of people have had brutal deaths including the two boys who Theon killed. We should care about every death not just the characters that we like.

 

I think it's a copout answer. Of course people will care more about characters they know. Otherwise, there's no point in watching. Using his logic, why bother to even have a big episode out of killing Robb and Catelyn? Or Ned? Why not just put up a title card saying, "They died"?

 

If we're hypocrites, so is he, although he's certainly managed to make me stop caring about a lot of characters in the last few seasons, so if that was his intention, he succeeded beautifully.

And the books are 400x (actual stat from a reader who counted) more rapey than the show, but the rape of Sansa hit so many buttons with so many people. It was like Craster rage on multiple steroids. Why? It's a good question and one we should all ask ourselves.

 

I'd say it's because they included a rape for no story reason and then had one of their writers go out to the press and (to me anyway) act like this was just some noble choice that would help Sansa grow stronger. And the show has minimized her sexual assault ever since, more content to show her "strength" (which basically means calling Ramsay a bastard) and in having Ramsay as the super secret awesome ninja warrior.

 

I don't think it's about hypocrisy. When a longtime character is reduced to a victim yet again, and has what was left of her identity removed under the sham guise of empowerment, people will be upset.

[benteen]

Also, out of all the great stuff in the ADWD Northern storyline, the one story that seemed to interest them the most was one in which Ramsay raped his bride (who was not Sansa in the books).  Really tells you a lot about them.

[Advance35]

And the books are 400x (actual stat from a reader who counted) more rapey than the show, but the rape of Sansa hit so many buttons with so many people. It was like Craster rage on multiple steroids. Why? It's a good question and one we should all ask ourselves.

 

I felt like many have an idea of how characters are SUPPOSED to evolve and what climatic events are ahead for them and became enraged because what happened to Sansa didn't fit into their future head cannon.  I remember one article pointing out how Sansa was supposed to be "The Virgin Queen" "Elizabeth Something or other" and I'm like Huh???????

 

It's why I've become so Pro-Showrunners, I'm glad for once a show isn't held hostage by fandom, they've spoken to GRRM they know more about this story and characters and their fates than anyone who post on boards, blogs or comment sections.   And GRRM didn't seem to think what happened with Sansa took away or altered her ultimate fate in this story, so I've actually reached the point where I kind of roll my eyes at OTT outrage at Game of Thrones these days.

[Skeeter22]

GRRM did say one of the characters he wishes were on the show is Jeyne Poole. That suggests to me that he'd prefer Sansa were not currently in her position.

[Advance35]

But he's out and out stated when he felt the show has done something that's going to take them to far off the track.  He said Willas and Garlan will play an important role in events moving forward.  

 

To my knowledge, he in no way has said Sansa's wedding night with Ramsay alters her from important events down the line.   He gave the impression that he can see how Sansa's story from where she is in the show will lead her to wherever it is she ends up.  This is why the change didn't bother me.

[BlackberryJam]

No one is out there going, "You know what we need? MORE RAPE!"

 

This is much more a case of, "We have this important story for Theon and Ramsay and Sansa is going to end up X, but her story in the Vale and the Vale lords isn't that relevant to endgame. Let's combine those two stories so that the brutality of Ramsay really hits the viewer and we can bring Theon to where he needs to be for endgame as well and it does nothing to alter Sansa's trajectory. This is going to be such a gutpunch to the viewers and really make them feel and rage and hurt and that's important for our television show and the series, like Ned's beheading, and the Red Wedding. So let's do it."

 

GRRM wants every single one of his useless characters to be in the series. Why wouldn't he? He's the author. He created those characters. He loves them. They are his children.

 

I write and when I have my work edited and the editor suggests a removal or a big change, my instinct is "My words! My precious words! How can you change them? NO no NooOOOoooO" in full on Darth Vader voice at the end. But my work is better for those changes and edits.

Edited June 9, 2015 by BlackberryJam

[Pete Martell]

 Let's combine those two stories so that the brutality of Ramsay really hits the viewer and we can bring Theon to where he needs to be for endgame as well and it does nothing to altar Sansa's trajectory.

 

When D&D basically say (and I'm sure I'm misquoting) this was the one scene they wanted to write out of the entire Winterfell arc, then it comes across less to me as combining stories for a longterm goal and needing to once again obsess over and simultaneously minimize sexual assault.

[BlackberryJam]

When D&D basically say (and I'm sure I'm misquoting) this was the one scene they wanted to write out of the entire Winterfell arc, then it comes across less to me as combining stories for a longterm goal and needing to once again obsess over and simultaneously minimize sexual assault.

 

I think you are misquoting and mischaracterizing. My recollection is that D&D wanted to do THIS STORY which is not the same as the scene. And the story is very much about redemption and choices for Theon and it seems to me Theon is going to be a pretty important part of endgame, whether it's through killing someone, finding someone, sacrificing himself, whatever. Theon's actions matter. Theon gets to where he can break from Ramsay via the Jeyne Poole story. Sansa mincing around the Vale and eating lemoncakes (and whatever happens with Harry the Ass, Baelish creeping on her, etc) gets her to a certain place, but it's boring as fuck and none of those other people matter. Putting Sansa in the Jeyne Poole role gets Sansa to that same place in a much more dramatic fashion and gets Theon where he needs to be as well.

 

And let's not forget, Sophie Turner kind of loves this story. It's what actors like, horrible, traumatic and dramatic scenes. It's what they want to do. If given the choice between giggling with a nonentity like Myranda Royce or needling Ramsay only to be devastated, she's choosing the latter. And the writers chose the latter as well. It's more dramatic and intriguing for the viewers and the goal of good writing is to make the reader/viewer feel. The Sansa scenes were a complete success on that front.

[Skeeter22]

We have no idea if Sansa's story in the Vale isn't important. I disagree that it's boring. Sansa being locked in a room most of the season hasn't exactly been scintillating, and the newly released Sansa chapter was well received by book fans.

The show ignoring the Vale doesn't make it irrelevant. It's not like they haven't altered things in the past, only to have the character end up exactly where they were in the book even if it doesn't make much sense.

[BlackberryJam]

D&D know endgame. D&D know the fates of all the major characters. Sansa is a major character. D&D have decided the Vale story is expendable. Therefore it is a reasonable assumption that the Vale story is not particularly vital to endgame.

And it bored the crap out of me.

 

Every scene with Sansa, and she will be in nine of the ten episodes this season,has been talked apart, parsed, made into gifs, argued ad nauseum. So well...yeah it has been scintillating. One scene with Sansa made the message boards explode.  

 

The newly released chapter was well-received because people are begging for anything from Winds, but after a read, and a re-read, it was pretty much panned. It's very Harlequin romance novel, Barbara Cartland with an edge. It's certainly not George's worst chapter and there are some that are just too painful for words, but it wasn't fascinating text.

Edited June 9, 2015 by BlackberryJam

[Mya Stone]

Hey, remember when I said "Find someplace else to talk about rape on the show"?

I didn't mean here in the media thread.

[thuganomics85]

Cool little interview with Peter Dinklage and Emilia Clarke.  They do seem excited about actually working together, after knowing each other for five years.  I did find it kind of interesting that Emilia didn't know about the pairing until she read the script, while Dinklage heard from the showrunners that it was probably going to happen.  I guess when you win an Emmy, that gets you a bit closer to the big guys. 

[Hanahope]

I cared about the killing of the two miller's kids. But I don't remember anyone saying "Theon for King" after that. This scene turned everyone off Stannis. The show runners ought to digest that, not tell us why we're wrong. We're not wrong on this point. Burning children alive is not a good way to win the hearts and minds of people.

 

Not to mention that we didn't have to see/hear Theon killing the two kids and having their bodies burned, unlike Shireen where we had to see the fear on her face and hear her screams.  Of course that's going to affect people more.

[Danny Franks]

Not to mention that we didn't have to see/hear Theon killing the two kids and having their bodies burned, unlike Shireen where we had to see the fear on her face and hear her screams.  Of course that's going to affect people more.

 

Well, when the real intention of it is to shock the audience and provoke reactions, of course they want to be as evocative as they can. If they hadn't been trying to maintain the lie that those two kids were Bran and Rickon, they might well have shown them being killed and burned.

 

Using them as a comparison to Shireen is rather silly, in my view. Two nameless, characterless boys who die offscreen don't cause as much distress for the audience as the burning of a sweet, innocent, goodhearted girl who has had an active and sympathetic role in the show for two seasons or more? I am shocked. Amazed.

[proserpina65]

And the books are 400x (actual stat from a reader who counted) more rapey than the show, but the rape of Sansa hit so many buttons with so many people. It was like Craster rage on multiple steroids. Why? It's a good question and one we should all ask ourselves.

 

Because the showrunners and writers spent a lot of time over the past 5 seasons making us get to know characters like Sansa and Shireen.  It's human nature to care more about people you know (or feel you know as with these fictional characters) than ones you don't.  It may make us less good people, but it's how we're hardwired.

 

And add my name to the list of those crying 'bull shit' over the idea of Tywin giving a single fuck about the smallfolk of Westeros.  He unleashed the Mountain and his cohorts on the Riverlands to do exactly what they did, cause maximum destruction.

[Jaded Sapphire]

And add my name to the list of those crying 'bull shit' over the idea of Tywin giving a single fuck about the smallfolk of Westeros.  He unleashed the Mountain and his cohorts on the Riverlands to do exactly what they did, cause maximum destruction.

I find that argument by the showrunners to be particularly disingenuous when they are the same people who put the rebuttal to that claim in the show. I remember clear as day Tyrion sarcastically asking Tywin "Is that why you did it? To save lives?" 

[cheyz]

Interesting book speculation (link is a spoiler):

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/game-of-thrones-cleganebowl-fan-theory-2015-5

[Holmbo]

Interesting book speculation (link is a spoiler):

http://www.businessinsider.com/game-of-thrones-cleganebowl-fan-theory-2015-5

Get Hype! ;)

[Umbelina]

The original post, and I have to say, it does make a great deal of sense.  Obviously just speculation, but I think it's good speculation.  http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/23p48r/the_true_nature_and_purpose_of_the_others_and_the/

[WearyTraveler]

The original post, and I have to say, it does make a great deal of sense.  Obviously just speculation, but I think it's good speculation.  http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/23p48r/the_true_nature_and_purpose_of_the_others_and_the/

 

There are a few problems with this theory.

 

The man was already a Lord Commander before he married the woman with white skin and blue eyes.  The books say he pursued her, so she wasn't just given to him as a wife to seal a pact.

 

The Wall had already been up for a while, as he was the 13th Lord Commander.  If The Wall had been erected by The Others as part of an agreement with the King of the North, then why would Brandon the Breaker have gone after the Night's King (who according to old Nan was Brandon's actual brother)?

 

Brandon and Joramun, The King Beyond the Wall, were the ones that defeated the Night's King, so, there was a King Beyond the Wall even back then, which wouldn't jive with the theory that the Others are coming south because there are men (Wildlings) north of the Wall.

 

After the Night's King was defeated, it was discovered that he had been sacrificing babies to the Others, why would he need to do that if they had an alliance?

 

Cold Hands had to have Sam open the weirwood door for him because the magic in The Wall was keeping him out.  If The Others build The Wall, why wouldn't they or their wights be able to pass through it?

[Conan Troutman]

Where's Varys?

 

He's founded his own dance group of course. Because what else would he do?

"It's a perfectly good beat."

 

https://soundcloud.com/tebz-tebz/tebz-varys-disco-is-coming-1

[Constantinople]

The original post, and I have to say, it does make a great deal of sense.  Obviously just speculation, but I think it's good speculation.  http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/23p48r/the_true_nature_and_purpose_of_the_others_and_the/

 

 

There are a few problems with this theory...

Those are good points, but I thought the historical events you mention were written down hundreds or thousands of years after the alleged events in question. I say alleged because I recall Book Ned being a little skeptical about whether Bran the Builder and Lann the Clever ever existed. So those events may be the historical record, but they may also be wrong.

[Umbelina]

Yes, and "victors" write the history, or rewrite it over and over again.

[Pete Martell]

NCW is on the cover of the new Men's Fitness. It isn't one of those beefcake shoots, as the most you see is his arms, but the photos are still striking and attractive (aside from one odd shot that makes him look like he only has one leg), and he seems like an intelligent guy. 

[WearyTraveler]

 

 

Those are good points, but I thought the historical events you mention were written down hundreds or thousands of years after the alleged events in question. I say alleged because I recall Book Ned being a little skeptical about whether Bran the Builder and Lann the Clever ever existed. So those events may be the historical record, but they may also be wrong.

 

True, but as an avid reader since I was 4 (I have never been without a book since I learned to read), I don't feel these stories and legends are too far removed from the truth.  I don't know how to explain it.  It may be the fact that we have the same story spoken by different characters, or that the story is recalled by several characters at different times in the novels or the context where the story is mentioned.  It has the ring of truth, like I can strip some of the more mythical aspects and still see the kernel that originated it.

 

Why would the people of Essos, where the Red religion originated, who have never seen a WW, been under their threat or experienced a long winter be aware of the Long Night and basically fear the same threat that the Westerosi lore has?  

 

I get it that some people think it would be more surprising if the Others were not a big evil menace, and that they would love t if the usual trope about epic battles between good and evil were completely subverted here; but honestly, if this whole thing is a misunderstanding because men violated some pact made 8,000 years ago, this would feel un-earned to me.  There has been absolutely no indication in the past 5 books that would lead to this conclusion.  It's convoluted and it would necessitate a long expository explanation in books 6 and 7 to inform the reader.  Nothing in the books is building to this, whereas, everything in the books is building to the generally held belief that the Others are bad news.

 

If we look at the theory that R+L=J, that feels earned.  There are clues sprinkled throughout, some more obvious than others, but it's there.  I can't see anything of the sort in support of this theory.

 

Tropes are tropes for a reason.  They work.  I may know where something is going, but that doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the story.  Furthermore, I don't think it's good writing to suddenly spring on the reader this 180 turn where the Others are just defending their territory because of some misunderstanding related to a pact signed 8,000 years ago of which not a single character is aware.  That would be a surprising development for the sake of the surprise, for the shock value. It would not be organic, given the text of the first 5 books.

 

But, off course, that's only my humble opinion.  I reserve the right to be wrong :D 

Edited June 14, 2015 by WearyTraveler

[WearyTraveler]

Also, FWIW, I give you the summary of the book AGOT, posted in Martin's official website (bolding is my own):

 

Long ago, in a time forgotten, a preternatural event threw the seasons out of balance. In a land where summers can last decades and winters a lifetime, trouble is brewing. The cold is returning, and in the frozen wastes to the north of Winterfell, sinister and supernatural forces are massing beyond the kingdom’s protective Wall. At the center of the conflict lie the Starks of Winterfell, a family as harsh and unyielding as the land they were born to. Sweeping from a land of brutal cold to a distant summertime kingdom of epicurean plenty, here is a tale of lords and ladies, soldiers and sorcerers, assassins and bastards, who come together in a time of grim omens.

 

[Hecate7]

I think it's a copout answer. Of course people will care more about characters they know. Otherwise, there's no point in watching. Using his logic, why bother to even have a big episode out of killing Robb and Catelyn? Or Ned? Why not just put up a title card saying, "They died"?

 

If we're hypocrites, so is he, although he's certainly managed to make me stop caring about a lot of characters in the last few seasons, so if that was his intention, he succeeded beautifully.

 

I'd say it's because they included a rape for no story reason and then had one of their writers go out to the press and (to me anyway) act like this was just some noble choice that would help Sansa grow stronger. And the show has minimized her sexual assault ever since, more content to show her "strength" (which basically means calling Ramsay a bastard) and in having Ramsay as the super secret awesome ninja warrior.

 

I don't think it's about hypocrisy. When a longtime character is reduced to a victim yet again, and has what was left of her identity removed under the sham guise of empowerment, people will be upset.

 

 

If getting your hand chopped off, or getting laid up in bed with a sword blow to the face, or having to go deep underground because you shot someone (Tyrion) or because someone wants to kill you (Arya) does not remove your identity, I don't see why one rape does. I'm not saying it empowers you either, but it's on a par with all the other things that happen on this show.

 

If changing your name, fleeing the country, losing your lands and title, or going into training to become "no one" or just running around claiming to be someone else doesn't remove your identity and reduce you to a permanent victim, then neither does rape. To say it does, is called "blaming the victim."

 

Blaming the writers because they "made her a victim" and "took away her identity" is still saying that rape rendered her worthless and identityless, and that if bad things are going to happen to this character then she's just not good enough for you, and certainly not as good as the other characters. Meanwhile, in real life, one out of every 4 women you have ever met, including waittresses, actresses whose work you like, writers whose books you read, members of your own family, (nobody tells their father/son/brother/husband/cousin/uncle/in-laws except under extraordinary circumstances) teachers you loved, teachers you hated, friends, students you've taught, employees, bosses, cops, soldiers, nuns. And they continue to be people with identities. lives, and jobs, not just "victims."

 

Just because someone isn't Conan the Barbarian doesn't mean she's just a victim unworthy of life.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Hecate7

[Happy Harpy]

Just because someone isn't Conan the Barbarian doesn't mean she's just a victim unworthy of life.

I wish I could like this more than once. +infinity

 

If we look at the theory that R+L=J, that feels earned.  There are clues sprinkled throughout, some more obvious than others, but it's there.  I can't see anything of the sort in support of this theory.

You summarized my feelings here re: Jon as a secret Targ vs

YG as a secret Targ

. One would feel earned to me, the other, not.

I'd argue that even

Tyrion or Jaime/Cersei as secrets Targs

had more potential foreshadowing than

Aegon being still alive

. Not that I want anyone but Jon being a secret Targ. This isn't Eight is Enough.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Happy Harpy

[Pete Martell]

If getting your hand chopped off, or getting laid up in bed with a sword blow to the face, or having to go deep underground because you shot someone (Tyrion) or because someone wants to kill you (Arya) does not remove your identity, I don't see why one rape does. I'm not saying it empowers you either, but it's on a par with all the other things that happen on this show.

 

If changing your name, fleeing the country, losing your lands and title, or going into training to become "no one" or just running around claiming to be someone else doesn't remove your identity and reduce you to a permanent victim, then neither does rape. To say it does, is called "blaming the victim."

 

I wish I could agree with you, but the main difference in the stories you describe and what was done to Sansa was that those stories were not solely about that act. Sansa was moved into the Winterfell story solely to be raped and victimized. That was the part of the story D&D were most excited about. The scene was hyped to the press by several in the cast. And Sansa had little or nothing to do before or after the rape for the entire season. Instead she had scenes that the show, to me anyway, seemed to see as empowerment or strength brought on because she was raped.

 

Meanwhile, in real life,

 

If we can't criticize a story because of what people suffer in real life, then we'd be unable to have any opinion about the show. 

 

Just because someone isn't Conan the Barbarian doesn't mean she's just a victim unworthy of life.

 

The irony is that this was Sansa's story until this season. It was the show, not me, who seemed to think Sansa wasn't strong enough, and had to somehow be toughened up or taught a lesson. And that's my complaint in all of this. That's why I say the story defines her. I say that because I don't believe the show has any interest in who Sansa was before that wedding night.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Pete Martell

[marys1000]

Interesting bit on NPR this morning.  Apparently people in Spain are using Game of Thrones to political ends. 

Didn't get all the details but there is a group? that wants to get rid of the monarchy? and they have assigned all the

political players GoT proxies and the slogan they have adopted is "winter is coming".

 

So...GoT arrives to shoot a TV show and....takes down a monarchy:)

[WearyTraveler]

Interesting bit on NPR this morning.  Apparently people in Spain are using Game of Thrones to political ends. 

Didn't get all the details but there is a group? that wants to get rid of the monarchy? and they have assigned all the

political players GoT proxies and the slogan they have adopted is "winter is coming".

 

So...GoT arrives to shoot a TV show and....takes down a monarchy:)

Hi! Living in Spain here.

 

Spaniards have been ranting against the monarchy for ages now.  I agree the figure doesn't contribute much to the political / economic scene.  The last King, Juan Carlos, who resigned so his son Felipe could take over, didn't do the Royal family any favors and his daughter has been involved in a high profile corruption scandal.  Even so, I doubt they'll depose the monarchy.

 

But I'm sure the jokes are hilarious! :D

[Advance35]

If changing your name, fleeing the country, losing your lands and title, or going into training to become "no one" or just running around claiming to be someone else doesn't remove your identity and reduce you to a permanent victim, then neither does rape. To say it does, is called "blaming the victim."

 

Exquisite post.   Said everything I've tried to put into words whenever this discussion has come up.  Absolutely amazing.

[marys1000]

Here is the link to the NPR Spain story

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/06/15/413676337/obsessed-game-of-thrones-fans-seek-plot-parallels-in-spanish-politics

 

Funny

Game of Thrones analogies are most popular among supporters of Podemos — a new left-wing, grassroots party that hopes to wrest power from Spain's ruling conservatives in elections this fall. At a recent Podemos rally, activists dressed up as rival Game of Thrones characters — the blonde queen Khaleesi and the incestuous Lannisters.

Edited June 15, 2015 by marys1000

[franopy]

I found this NYT review of the season finale made some good points.

Particularly this: 

 

Sunday’s episode reflected the real problem, which is a breakdown in storytelling. After two or three seasons of coherent and satisfying action, the show is spinning in place, stalling for time as it crawls toward an ending that will be more disappointing the longer it’s delayed.... 

 

“Game of Thrones” has been defined by that stretching — a lot happened in Season 5, but when you look at the overall framework, nearly all the characters are where they were when the season began. The usurping Boltons are still in Winterfell; Sansa is still on the run; Arya is still hiding in Braavos; the dragon queen Daenerys Targaryen and the sly dwarf, Tyrion, are still marooned in Essos; the Lannisters still occupy the castle in King’s Landing. This can be blamed on the show’s semidependent relationship with Mr. Martin’s novels, but viewers (like me) who haven’t read the books don’t care about that. The question is how much longer we’ll care at all.

 

I tend to agree with this as well as with viewing Martin's book as "both source and millstone for the “Game of Thrones” writers". They currently seem stuck in the same trap as the books and I can only hope that in the next season they move ahead, no matter what's happening on Martin's end. Apologies if this sounds harsh, but he has used up most of my goodwill. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/arts/television/in-game-of-thrones-finale-a-breakdown-in-storytelling.html?_r=0

[WearyTraveler]

Here is the link to the NPR Spain story

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/06/15/413676337/obsessed-game-of-thrones-fans-seek-plot-parallels-in-spanish-politics

 

Funny

Game of Thrones analogies are most popular among supporters of Podemos — a new left-wing, grassroots party that hopes to wrest power from Spain's ruling conservatives in elections this fall. At a recent Podemos rally, activists dressed up as rival Game of Thrones characters — the blonde queen Khaleesi and the incestuous Lannisters.

 

Ugh! Podemos is scum, and I say this as a person that an American Republican would disdainfully call a liberal.  They support and praise the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, the country where I was born and that has been destroyed by Hugo Chavez, his cronies and successors.  They are not left wing anything, they are populists of the worst kind taking advantage of a jaded, disillusioned and politically / economically challenged majority.  I hope they never ever get to power.

Edited June 15, 2015 by WearyTraveler

[Danny Franks]

I found this NYT review of the season finale made some good points.

Particularly this: 

 

"Sunday’s episode reflected the real problem, which is a breakdown in storytelling. After two or three seasons of coherent and satisfying action, the show is spinning in place, stalling for time as it crawls toward an ending that will be more disappointing the longer it’s delayed...."

 

And people say that they aren't translating the books faithfully....

 

It's exactly what I've been feeling for a while. Lots of boredom and slow, glacial pacing, then a big shock that moves things forward massively. Then more boredom before the next big shock. 

[Constantinople]

You can leave a flower now for Karsi at Slate's Game of Thrones Graveyard

 

 

I love this!  Thank you for posting it.  I specially love that Ned is the leader. He's followed, in order, by Robb, Oberyn, Khal Drogo, Catelyn, Lady, Greywind, Ygritte, Talisa, and Old Bear Mormont.  6 out of the top 10 are Starks.  8 out of the top 10 are related to a Northern storyline.  I'm not going to argue that a Slate game like this is representative of the entire audience, but, man, do they reflect how I feel!!!  (although I didn't care much for Khal Drogo and much less for Talisa)

He's only been dead for a few hours, and Jon Snow has a way to go before he breaks the Top 5, but he's already leading all other Season 5 characters by a hefty margin, with over 50% more flowers than Shireen, the current second place contestant.