Television Vs. Book: Why'd They Make [Spoiler] Such A [Spoiler]?

[SeanC]

Which ALL occurred because Brandon Stark demanded Rhaegar be held accountable for stealing Lyanna. And Robert always characterized the war as all about Lyanna. Robert was not fighting for some noble cause and even he didn't pretend he was.

The abduction and rape of a noblewoman is hardly an ignoble cause, and that's what he was dealing with as far as he knew.

 

And if you look at the actual chain of events, Robert did not do anything until after the executions, and waited to see if Lord Rickard and co. could resolve the situation peaceably.

[BlackberryJam]

I did look at the chain of events and it's unclear whether Lyanna was abducted or raped, though that's at least what Robert believed. 

 

Point being Robert was not fighting to get rid of a terrible king and save the people of Westeros. He was fighting to get his woman back. He didn't give a flying fuck about the people of Westeros. It is Jaime who saved the people of KL from a burning fiery death.

 

Robert's reasons for fighting for the throne were no more noble than Renly's. 

[DigitalCount]

But if that's the case, then why was Jon Arryn the guy to call banners first?

[SeanC]

Robert's reasons for fighting for the throne were no more noble than Renly's. 

Robert rose in rebellion because his bride-to-be had been abducted and raped (as far as he knew), allies had been murdered, and his life was threatened without any cause, and then he was offered the crown as the person with the best lineage amongst the rebels, despite his own offers to decline in favour of others.  Don't get me wrong, Robert was a bad king at the end of the day, but that has nothing to do with how he got it in the first place.

 

Renly rose in rebellion because he wanted to be king.

Edited July 7, 2015 by SeanC

[benteen]

Robert rose in rebellion because his bride-to-be had been abducted and raped (as far as he knew), allies had been murdered, and his life was threatened without any cause, and then he was offered the crown as the person with the best lineage amongst the rebels, despite his own offers to decline in favour of others.  Don't get me wrong, Robert was a bad king at the end of the day, but that has nothing to do with how he got it in the first place.

 

Renly rose in rebellion because he wanted to be king.

 

Exactly.  Robert had no choice but to rise up against the Mad King while Renly rose up to jump his brother and crown himself king.

 

The sad part is a combination of Stannis and Renly as King and Hand would likely have been the kind of rule the Realm needed.

[Hecate7]

I wonder why Robert didn't make Stannis Hand.

[benteen]

I think because he didn't like Stannis and he wanted someone he liked and trusted as Hand.  If Robert was actually interested in more than just drinking, eating and whoring, Robert and Stannis would have been a great combination.

[nksarmi]

Bringing something over from the season six speculation thread, I feel the need to say again that I think the writers had a major fail with Stannis in season five.  They fast forwarded that plot way too much - to the point where it's character assassination.  I guess I should feel that if Stannis burns his daughter, it doesn't really matter how or why, except it kind of does.  Stannis in the books is no where near that moment and as others have said - the situation is much worse.  And I don't entirely get the sense in the books that Stannis is a man that will kill his daughter rather than face humiliation and defeat.  I mean, he's proud but not insane.  Davos is always going on about Stannis' honor and in the books, it still makes sense, but on the show it's just kind of like wtf?  And I feel like this character development came out of no where - I don't see how Stannis took this turn.  I have spent way too long defending D&D - I hate to say it, but between their writing of Stannis and Jamie this season and what they did with the North and Sansa, I've come full circle and think they might deserve most of the crap they get from fans (I'm not ready to call them misogynist but pretty much everything else seems accurate).

 

Which means I have very low expectations and hopes for season six.  If GRRM doesn't get the sixth book out first (and I hope he does), I don't trust D&D to make characters take turns that make a lick of sense.  I'm still concerned about this Jamie/Trystane/Dorne story - I mean that HAS to be a Dornish boat with Dornish men on board.  It will make no sense if they end up in KL with Trystane as a prisoner but somehow, I don't think that will matter to the writers.  It will make even less sense if they end up there with Marcella dead and Trystane just assumes his role on the small council as if nothing happened. 

 

I feel like at this point since the writers know where the characters end up, they will start making those things happen but without the details from the books - they might not make things happen in ways that make sense.  So while the end might end up being true to GRRM's vision - I have this dread that the execution of the story from this point out is going to suck.  I hope the actors can do enough to keep the show enjoyable.

[Avaleigh]

I wonder why Robert didn't make Stannis Hand.

My guess would be because Stannis would try to do stupid shit like trying to outlaw all of the brothels in the realm. Robert thought that idea was ridiculous when he heard it and I'm sure he thought that would just be the tip of the iceberg. 

[Avaleigh]

Bringing something over from the season six speculation thread, I feel the need to say again that I think the writers had a major fail with Stannis in season five.  They fast forwarded that plot way too much - to the point where it's character assassination.  I guess I should feel that if Stannis burns his daughter, it doesn't really matter how or why, except it kind of does.  Stannis in the books is no where near that moment and as others have said - the situation is much worse.  And I don't entirely get the sense in the books that Stannis is a man that will kill his daughter rather than face humiliation and defeat.  I mean, he's proud but not insane.  Davos is always going on about Stannis' honor and in the books, it still makes sense, but on the show it's just kind of like wtf?  And I feel like this character development came out of no where - I don't see how Stannis took this turn.  I have spent way too long defending D&D - I hate to say it, but between their writing of Stannis and Jamie this season and what they did with the North and Sansa, I've come full circle and think they might deserve most of the crap they get from fans (I'm not ready to call them misogynist but pretty much everything else seems accurate).

 

Which means I have very low expectations and hopes for season six.  If GRRM doesn't get the sixth book out first (and I hope he does), I don't trust D&D to make characters take turns that make a lick of sense.  I'm still concerned about this Jamie/Trystane/Dorne story - I mean that HAS to be a Dornish boat with Dornish men on board.  It will make no sense if they end up in KL with Trystane as a prisoner but somehow, I don't think that will matter to the writers.  It will make even less sense if they end up there with Marcella dead and Trystane just assumes his role on the small council as if nothing happened. 

 

I feel like at this point since the writers know where the characters end up, they will start making those things happen but without the details from the books - they might not make things happen in ways that make sense.  So while the end might end up being true to GRRM's vision - I have this dread that the execution of the story from this point out is going to suck.  I hope the actors can do enough to keep the show enjoyable.

I'm on the fence about the whole Stannis thing, that's for sure. I don't find it impossible to believe that book Stannis would kill his kid. I feel like there's been a steady build up to showing that he would be capable of doing the worst thing that a parent can do but there are two things that give me a huge pause about all of this. Stannis making it clear that he sees Shireen as his heir and then of course the fact that they aren't in the same place anymore. 

 

If it turns out that Stannis didn't make the call to kill Shireen and that this was all Mel or *maybe* a Mel/Seyse combo then I think this will have been a bad call for the showrunners to make.

 

I'm skeptical too of the idea of it being a combo decision of Mel and Selyse and this is because if show Selyse is going to try to run to her daughter's rescue then I feel like book Selyse would be even more likely to do everything in her power to keep that from happening to her daughter.

 

I tried to be optimistic about Dorne. I was even excited initially because I liked the idea of Jaime and Bronn road tripping and it seemed like were were going to be in for a series of honest conversations so I thought that Bronn would fill more of the Ilyn Payne role where Jaime starts revealing more and more during their training sessions. I liked the first conversation they had when Jaime was trying to talk him into going, I liked the conversation on the ship where Bronn questions Jaime about why they're rescuing his "niece", and I liked the conversation on the beach as they're eating the snake and talking about shit ways to die. It was all downhill after that and I kept hoping that something would save the Dornish Shitshow but I was wrong, and I definitely gave the showrunners the benefit of the doubt. 

 

From the s6 speculation thread:

 

Sansa can't be salvaged after this season, 

 

 

I completely disagree with the idea that the character of Sansa can't be salvaged (I don't even like phrasing it that way to be honest) and I feel like her character would disagree with that as well. She isn't defeated, she hasn't given up, she's growing stronger, she's determined, she still has hope, and she's trying. She has people who are going to be able to help her but I disagree that this is bad for her character or makes her a useless person just because she has other people helping her. 

 

I also had a very different interpretation of the final encounter with Myranda. It seems like people saw that scene as one more example of Sansa being weak and passive and to me it was anything but. If she'd tried to jump Myranda and tried to struggle with her she might have died because Myranda would have been unlikely to be able to control her aim. It would have been very different if Sansa had been cowering, begging, pleading to Myranda for mercy. I can see how that would be weak and disappointing to see from Sansa. Instead, what I saw was Sansa looking pain, torture, and possibly even death right in the face and she refused to let it shake her. She told Myranda that if this was her time that she was going to stand up and face it but she isn't just going to hang around anymore while they wear her down to the point where there isn't anymore of the real Sansa left. I thought Sansa was totally strong here. I certainly don't know how ballsy I would be if I were staring in the face of a crazy bitch that I know hates me because I ended up getting married to her crazy-eyed boyfriend. 

Edited July 8, 2015 by Avaleigh

[benteen]

Yeah, Book Stannis's relationship with Shireen isn't developed at all but he does clearly see her as his heir and has commanded his followers to fight to put her on the Iron Throne if he should fall in battle.  Book Selyse is a religious fanatic but clearly loves and cares about her daughter.  That's a long way the two characters would have to go to decide to burn their daughter to the Red God. 

 

I definitely agree that Sansa can be salvaged as a character.  But it has to start next season with Sansa becoming a more active participant in the game and not allowing herself to be so easily manipulated by Littlefinger.

[nksarmi]

Yeah, Book Stannis's relationship with Shireen isn't developed at all but he does clearly see her as his heir and has commanded his followers to fight to put her on the Iron Throne if he should fall in battle.  Book Selyse is a religious fanatic but clearly loves and cares about her daughter.  That's a long way the two characters would have to go to decide to burn their daughter to the Red God. 

 

I definitely agree that Sansa can be salvaged as a character.  But it has to start next season with Sansa becoming a more active participant in the game and not allowing herself to be so easily manipulated by Littlefinger.

And I think the idea that it's a long way to go for those two characters to give their daughter to the lord of light is what makes this such a huge mistake by the writers for season five - they didn't put in the work to make us believe that Stannis could get to this point.  My initial reaction was such shock (I never believed Shireen was in danger so I was in denial for a looooooonnnnnnggggg time on this front) that I immediately figured that if the writers did it - then it must happen in the book.

 

But then I started reading people's posts and it's like yea, Shireen isn't with Stannis and for that matter, neither is Mel, and things are much worse, and how the heck is he going to make this call for the Battle of Winterfell in a way that makes sense in the books.  I mean, in the books it seems like he wants Shireen to sit the Iron Throne if he fails not like he is willing to burn her to take it for himself.

 

I am starting to wonder if what really happens in the books is something like this.....Stannis looses the Battle of Winterfell and has to return to the Wall.  A white walker attack happens or something equally bad to remind them all the danger that is coming.  Heck, maybe Shireen's gets sick and they fear she might die.  At any rate, maybe she willingly tries to play the role of Nysa Nysa (sp?) to her father to bring him enough power to defeat the white walkers?  I can kind of see the characters I was introduced to in the books finding their way to that scenario taking place. 

 

But the one thing I am confident of is that GRRM will take chapters to explain how these people got to the point of making that choice.  I will likely still hate the choice, but in his hands, I might not call it character assassination.

 

In the hands of D&D, it feels like the execution was completely wrong.  And in the end, the changes might be somewhat minor (with the end result being the same) but if it turns out that the devil is in the details than it concerns me for everything else to come.  I mean, it feels like the writers knew this was the end of Stannis' story and just figured it didn't matter how he got there.  But as much as GRRM at times spends WAY too much time on the journey - something that journey does matter.

 

So while I don't mind that they skipped over Tyrion's "where do whores go" routine and just got him straight to Dany, I do care if they just start putting characters where they belong in the end game without giving us the character development to understand how they got there.  What happened with Stannis makes me wonder if they are going to get Jamie or Sansa right as those are the two characters who are very far off from their book counterparts. 

[ElizaD]

I completely disagree with the idea that the character of Sansa can't be salvaged (I don't even like phrasing it that way to be honest) and I feel like her character would disagree with that as well. She isn't defeated, she hasn't given up, she's growing stronger, she's determined, she still has hope, and she's trying. She has people who are going to be able to help her but I disagree that this is bad for her character or makes her a useless person just because she has other people helping her. 

 

I also had a very different interpretation of the final encounter with Myranda. It seems like people saw that scene as one more example of Sansa being weak and passive and to me it was anything but. If she'd tried to jump Myranda and tried to struggle with her she might have died because Myranda would have been unlikely to be able to control her aim. It would have been very different if Sansa had been cowering, begging, pleading to Myranda for mercy. I can see how that would be weak and disappointing to see from Sansa. Instead, what I saw was Sansa looking pain, torture, and possibly even death right in the face and she refused to let it shake her. She told Myranda that if this was her time that she was going to stand up and face it but she isn't just going to hang around anymore while they wear her down to the point where there isn't anymore of the real Sansa left. I thought Sansa was totally strong here. I certainly don't know how ballsy I would be if I were staring in the face of a crazy bitch that I know hates me because I ended up getting married to her crazy-eyed boyfriend. 

 

Sansa isn't really trying, though, and that was the thing that made me give up on her. The season started with Littlefinger selling the marriage to her as an opportunity to avenge her family. She did nothing to achieve that. She walked into a situation that turned Winterfell from her happy home into a nightmare, so that now I can't even root for her to return there; on the show it will always be the place where she was raped and humiliated by the Boltons, something she could have avoided just by having the minimal brain activity required to tell Littlefinger that no, this is completely unnecessary, I have no plan, I can't do a thing and will only endanger myself needlessly. Littlefinger told her to stop weeping and running, but that's what she ended up doing again.

 

It was a possibility that Myranda would actually kill Sansa, but since she's Ramsay's wife it was far more likely that Myranda would only injure or maim her and then return her to Ramsay for more rape, stricter imprisonment and perhaps even Reek levels of mutilation of non-vital body parts. That's why she should have rushed Myranda and tried to create a more chaotic situation where Myranda wouldn't be able to aim her bow at a static target: it wouldn't have guaranteed her death, but it would have meant doing something to defy the Bolton plan to use her as a brood mare/torture toy and to achieve her stated wish of dying while she's still herself. Instead Sansa gave up and stood there, completely passive, letting Myranda take her time choosing how she wants to shoot her, and was saved from the fate she wanted to avoid only because Theon chose this moment to snap out of Reekness. Sansa didn't try to jump, or attack Myranda, or plead with Theon again. Before the marriage, she put on a brave face: the season ended with her admitting total defeat to this random henchwoman she'd earlier tried to intimidate, not even to Roose or Ramsay - and it's a shame this mess didn't even give us a Sansa/Roose scene that could have been a tense, layered conversation, sexy psychos Ramsay and Myranda got more attention.

 

Whatever Show Sansa does, she'll always carry the baggage of the disastrous Winterfell plot: she agreed to an idiotic idea that was so poorly thought out it could barely be called a plan, did absolutely nothing to avenge her family or demonstrate people skills, ended up giving the Boltons an extra win and acquiring even more sex-related trauma, and when her escape attempt failed (the attempt isn't character development since Book Sansa already planned escape in KL), she gave up and didn't even try to kill herself as an act of defiance. I never had any faith in this storyline once it became clear Sansa was becoming Jeyne so the show could include the rape, but even I didn't predict it would lead to the final low of Sansa letting a show-only nonentity like Myranda choose what happens to her: she just stood there while Myranda decided how to maim her, moments after she had said she wanted to die as herself. Even if the showrunners wanted to include the rape, they could have written Sansa as at least trying to figure out how to hinder the Boltons. But no, she only sulked before the wedding, then tried to escape Winterfell after being stupid enough to go there in the first place, and finally submitted to mutilation and recapture without a fight. She's probably not going to be this passive next season (I expect she'll have something to do with arranging Rickon's return, a storyline that, like Theon's rescue of Ramsay's bride, will take place in the books whether Sansa is involved or not), but she was made so stupid and passive that she has no credibility left as a potential player or head of a household. In 5 seasons Show Sansa has been nothing but a joke, a punching bag or a prop that allows other characters more screentime (Cersei/Tyrion/Margaery/Littlefinger/Ramsay). After she lied to the lords in 4x08 I hoped that she was finally going to be allowed to grow as a character, but then she was turned into even more of a puppet/extreme dating woes meme, which is less forgivable than before since at this point she should know better than in season 1 and have developed some initiative.

[SeanC]

I also had a very different interpretation of the final encounter with Myranda. It seems like people saw that scene as one more example of Sansa being weak and passive and to me it was anything but. If she'd tried to jump Myranda and tried to struggle with her she might have died because Myranda would have been unlikely to be able to control her aim. It would have been very different if Sansa had been cowering, begging, pleading to Myranda for mercy. I can see how that would be weak and disappointing to see from Sansa. Instead, what I saw was Sansa looking pain, torture, and possibly even death right in the face and she refused to let it shake her. She told Myranda that if this was her time that she was going to stand up and face it but she isn't just going to hang around anymore while they wear her down to the point where there isn't anymore of the real Sansa left. I thought Sansa was totally strong here. I certainly don't know how ballsy I would be if I were staring in the face of a crazy bitch that I know hates me because I ended up getting married to her crazy-eyed boyfriend. 

To the bolded:  But she wanted to die, at that point.

 

Consider the order of events here:

 

- Sansa is caught, and Myranda orders her to go back to her chambers.

- Sansa grimly says she just wants to die rather than continue to be raped and tortured indefinitely.  I've seen some argument that this is a moment of maturation/character strength, but it's really not.  Quite apart from this being an admission of total defeat, it's hardly unusual that a person would prefer to die rather than be raped and tortured indefinitely.

- Myranda then laughs and, in a moment that really tells you the tenor of this conversation, throws in Sansa's face what was supposedly Sansa's earlier coup-de-grace in her verbal exchange with Myranda in episode 506.  There, Sansa stated that unlike all the girls Myranda tried to scare her with, Sansa's father was Warden of the North, and she can't be frightened in Winterfell.  The subsequent events have proved all of that to be completely wrong, and here Myranda ironically turns her own line around on her and informs her that the ancestry she boasted of just means she's going to be raped and tortured indefinitely, rather than killed.

- Sansa stands there, waiting for Myranda to decide where she's going to shoot her.

- Then Theon, who Sansa had not even looked at in the course of this scene and clearly considered a non-factor, intervenes due to his own decision-making and saves her.

 

Sure, she's not weeping or begging, but that's just a change in demeanour, not a change in her actual role (much the same as could be said for "Darth Sansa", where an amazing number of viewers fell for the idea that Sansa wearing a cool dress and glowering more meant that she was a player now, even though she was doing nothing).  She's still helpless and utterly defeated.

[mac123x]

Martin obviously draws a lot from English history, but I'm not sure that trying to draw 1:1 comparisons is the best idea. It seems to me that for the most part he likes to mix and match when creating his characters (at least for the main series, I haven't read any of the extra material). For starters, as FemmyV said, Robb definitely seems to have a lot of Edward IV in him, but Edward and his brothers also bear some resemblence to the Baratheons. He also seems to have drawn inspiration for both Stannis and Tyrion from different elements of Richard III's story. A lot of people see Margaery as an Anne Boleyn stand-in, but there's some Catherine of Aragon mixed in there too. And if the Blackfyre theory about Aegon is correct, he could end up being some kind of weird Henry Tudor/Perkin Warbeck combination.

 

Yeah, he mixes and matches from various parts of European history.  The Red Wedding was from Scotland, Robert has some Henry IV (deposing an unpopular king and seizing the throne despite not being the next in line) and Edward IV (boisterous womanizer). Aerys II combines features from Richard II, Henry VI, and Charles VI of France.  I always thought of fAegon as a bit of Bonnie Prince Charlie as well as Perkin Warbeck.

[Portia4844]

The writers did an interview where they said Stannis has been allowing Mel to burn/kill people for a long time and now fans are suddenly upset because it happened to someone they cared about.   It didn't sound like they ever understood the whole Stannis the Mannis fan base when he has always been someone who would destroy anyone to become King.   He was unlikeable from the moment he cut off Davos fingers.  Jesus...the man just saved his life and he still couldn't extend mercy.  Why would I think he'd extend any to Shireen when the throne and kingdom was dangled like a carrot.   I hope Brienne shows no mercy either.  In fact, I'll be pissed if he's still alive.  

 

After all Sansa has gone through, it's more surprising that she isn't sitting in the corner babbling and banging her head on the wall.  Theon being involved in her escape is fine with me....whatever it takes to get her out of there.  It was uncomfortable watching what she's had to endure and so it would have been easier if she had wised up....took more control....grabbed a knife, whatever.  I can't fault her for how she's dealt with it all.  She is still growing and changing and sometimes that times a long time.  

[Audreythe2nd]

In the hands of D&D, it feels like the execution was completely wrong.  And in the end, the changes might be somewhat minor (with the end result being the same) but if it turns out that the devil is in the details than it concerns me for everything else to come.  I mean, it feels like the writers knew this was the end of Stannis' story and just figured it didn't matter how he got there.  But as much as GRRM at times spends WAY too much time on the journey - something that journey does matter.

 

Disclaimer: I haven't read the books in their entirety, only summaries and excerpts.

 

The thing is, I feel like we're at a distinct disadvantage when we talk about the endgame choices made, especially here on out. We're critiquing the show's current choices without knowing Martin's intended end result, and D&D are executing the show (presumably) with the end result always in mind. So in that vein, I'm trying to put myself in the mindset of someone who has been told Stannis' storyline from the outset. If, right from the beginning, they were presented with the story of a man who by all logical rights is the true heir to the throne, but who, in the end, tragically burns his own daughter out of a misguided religious obsession, I would have to think long and hard about how I would present this guy at the outset in a show already packed with complicated character arcs. And how do I think Stannis has been presented in the show? Ironically, because he's someone who is actually the rightful heir to the Iron Throne following Robert's death, but who is a total drip, a religious zealot, and pretty unlikeable overall (aside from a few key moments). Burning Shireen is probably THE most terrible action in the story so far (and that's saying a lot) and if people are saying that he's way more likeable in the books, and that it's way more incomprehensible that he would do this - when, according to D&D and via George RR Martin, he DOES end up doing this - well, I can imagine the difficulty in trying to adapt that to endgame. You would either have to tell the story of a good man who falls really, really, REALLY far, or you'd have to make him kind of morally corrupt right from the beginning with a touch of ambiguity, which is how I've seen his character all along. The first is easier to do in a book, way harder to do in this kind of show I think, unless that show is Breaking Bad (which only had one main storyline). So when I look at Stannis' arc in the show overall, it makes a lot of sense and I rather appreciate his story. Because I was always quite unsure about Stannis - was he a villain, an antihero, a red herring, etc. - and now I see how he was kind of a tragic figure, always doomed from the start, and incredibly misguided. I think his actions are as reprehensible as they are believable in the show. Basically what I'm trying to say, is that if show Stannis has always been more unlikeable than book Stannis, I think they framed him this way knowing that he was going to do something terrible in the end.

 

As for Sansa, again, the problem is we don't KNOW what's going to happen to her in the books while she's in the Vale. I'm going to make a huge assumption/prediction for a moment for the sake of argument. I'm going to presume that after Sansa and Theon jump (on TV), they will not go back to the Vale. I'm also going to presume that Sansa no longer trusts Baelish at all because this whackadoo Winterfell failed on so many personal levels for her. Now, who's to say in the books the same thing isn't going to happen? Maybe while at the Eyrie someone goes terribly wrong for her. Maybe she's raped there too for all I know. Maybe she also has to escape the Eyrie, and loses all trust in Baelish. I'm not saying this is exactly what will happen, and I'm not saying that it means everything made sense about the Sansa/Winterfell storyline, but I am going to try to reserve judgement about certain storyline decisions until I can look back on them and compare what they were trying to do in relation to the books. I know, I know, the devil might end up being in the details; but there are too many source details, which was always going to be a problem. That's why, if we have to watch Season 6 without the benefit of having the source material, it's going to be a very, very interseting, angsty time for many who won't know what to think about what's occurring. :-)

 

In this vein, I actually have some speculation about Dorne and what they may have been intending with certain parts so I'll probably mosey on over to the speculation thread later to talk about those.

[SeanC]

The writers did an interview where they said Stannis has been allowing Mel to burn/kill people for a long time and now fans are suddenly upset because it happened to someone they cared about.  

That reflects on their own complete misunderstanding of Stannis' character.  Stannis in the books never burnt anyone for heresy; the only executions he ordered were for secular crimes against him.

[Portia4844]

The show certainly made him more willing than the books, but he was willing to burn his nephew and allowed Mel to kill his brother.  He could have beheaded who he thought was Mance rather than burning him.   But you're correct,  the show certainly made him so much worse than who he was in the books.  

[SeanC]

The show certainly made him more willing than the books, but he was willing to burn his nephew and allowed Mel to kill his brother.  He could have beheaded who he thought was Mance rather than burning him.   But you're correct,  the show certainly made him so much worse than who he was in the books.  

The book is actually ambiguous about exactly what Stannis knows about Mel, but regardless, Renly had raised up an army to take the throne that was rightfully his, and was equally prepared to kill him.  The thing with Edric is definitely his darkest moment, post-Blackwater.

[WearyTraveler]

I'm starting to feel like Sansa is "she who must not be named" :-/ 

[nksarmi]

Audreythe2nd

 

The problem with having not read the books (and even I don't remember them in their entirety) is that details matters.  Stannis is not a crazy religious zealot in the books.  He is calculated and completely believes he is the rightful heir.  I always got the sense that her permitted burnings rather than initiated or enjoyed them and that's with Mel's magic (in my opinion) having a little more pack in the books than in the show.

 

Others have described better than I could the situation Stannis is in at the end of the last book and it is a LOT more dire than the show made things.  It is also extremely significant that he both ordered the men who stayed behind to protect his wife and daughter to fight to put her on the throne if he died and that they are currently in different locations.

 

If GRRM takes a completely different path to get Stannis to the point where Shireen burns - it might matter a lot.  Sure, the end result is the same, but if they don't want me to feel like they wrote the story badly and inconsistently, they need to go from point A to point B in a way that makes sense.  In my opinion, they failed to do that with Stannis in the show where I'm sure GRRM will get it right in the books.

 

All in all, I don't think it will matter to me in the overall story of the show.  But what I am VERY concerned about is that two (major) characters are completely off their book tracks on the show right now (Sansa and Jamie).  If they both play a role in Cersei's prophesy like so many believe with Sansa being the YMB(Q) and Jamie being the little brother - it could wind up making zero sense when D&D bring them back around to that point in the story.  Neither of them match their book characters anymore (Sansa was never raped and Jamie is pretty much over Cersei and demonstrated that he is really good at being a diplomat instead of just a sword - those are huge character changes).   

 

I have no doubt that D&D know where everyone needs to end up and will get them (mostly) to those points by the end of the series.  But I now have a new fear that they will do it so badly, I will be so unsatisfied that I find myself longing for GRRM final book and I was so planning on giving up on his work once the show ended!

[benteen]

That reflects on their own complete misunderstanding of Stannis' character.  Stannis in the books never burnt anyone for heresy; the only executions he ordered were for secular crimes against him.

 

D&D seem to use events on the show to describe a character's portrayal in the books.  They talked about how Jaime is very amoral.  How he almost killed Bran (a legitimately evil thing that he did) and how he beat his own cousin to death.  That last part annoyed the hell out of me because THEY were the ones who had him beat his own cousin to death.  You can't use a scene you created for the show to judge a character's portrayal in the books.

[Audreythe2nd]

But what I am VERY concerned about is that two (major) characters are completely off their book tracks on the show right now (Sansa and Jamie).  If they both play a role in Cersei's prophesy like so many believe with Sansa being the YMB(Q) and Jamie being the little brother - it could wind up making zero sense when D&D bring them back around to that point in the story.

Or maybe they aren't either of those things so they won't have to be brought around to that point in the story? It's one thing to speculate as to how the showrunners are going to bring a character to an important plot point that is already in the source material. It's another thing to worry about farfetched theories that haven't even happened yet in the show or the books AND assume they aren't going to make sense when they are adapted when they might not even be things that actually happen (note: the one storyline I would deem this to be acceptable for would be Jon's, but that's because we're literally right on the precipice of what happens to him in BOTH show and book) But right now I really don't think Sansa is the YMBQ and Jaime being the younger brother... eh, I give just as much credence to Cleganebowl which is the way more entertaining theory, heh. And it's different than speculating about how, for instance, Jaime is going to meet up with Brienne again in the show due to his different trajectory, which is a thing that actually exists in the books (and I get the sense that everyone - showrunners, directors, actors, author - are really interested in Jaime and Brienne's relationship as a storytelling device, so I see no reason why they wouldn't meet again), but legit worrying about the show screwing up adapting a thing that might never happen in either story... no. This way madness lies.

 

Stannis is currently a unique case, because something happened in the show that was confirmed to have come from Martin before he actually published it. So about this:

 

Stannis is not a crazy religious zealot in the books.  He is calculated and completely believes he is the rightful heir.  I always got the sense that her permitted burnings rather than initiated or enjoyed them and that's with Mel's magic (in my opinion) having a little more pack in the books than in the show.

 

 

If GRRM takes a completely different path to get Stannis to the point where Shireen burns - it might matter a lot.  Sure, the end result is the same, but if they don't want me to feel like they wrote the story badly and inconsistently, they need to go from point A to point B in a way that makes sense.  In my opinion, they failed to do that with Stannis in the show where I'm sure GRRM will get it right in the books.

I'm just trying to say that due to whoever's decision it was to portray Stannis the way they have in the show (directors? writers? Stephen Dillane's?) I could believe show Stannis making that terrible, awful, evil and misguided decision to burn Shireen. I was surprised, sure, but once I look at it in terms of his whole arc, it feels accurate and complete. So I get that book readers might be confused as to how he's going to get to that point, but I'm just trying to say that as primarily a TV viewer, I bought it based on how they chose to portray him since the beginning of.the.show.

 

ETA: Can I just say that I totally sympathize with people who have been reading the books from the beginning and have now been placed in this weird limbo situation with the TV show. It's so strange to me to think that a storyline that started 20 years ago is slowly going to be unraveled through a completely different medium from what it started as. I can totally get the frustration of having read these books and having to find out what happens on TV because the author didn't catch up to his own story in time, lol. It's so strange and unprecedented. That's why I don't think I will read any more than snippets and summaries until after everything is done AND all the books have been published... sometime before 2050 hopefully.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Audreythe2nd

[Advance35]

It's one thing to speculate as to how the showrunners are going to bring a character to an important plot point that is already in the source material. It's another thing to worry about farfetched theories that haven't even happened yet in the show or the books AND assume they aren't going to make sense when they are adapted when they might not even be things that actually happen (note: the one storyline I would deem this to be acceptable for would be Jon's, but that's because we're literally right on the precipice of what happens to him in BOTH show and book) But right now I really don't think Sansa is the YMBQ and Jaime being the younger brother... eh, I give just as much credence to Cleganebowl which is the way more entertaining theory, heh. And it's different than speculating about how, for instance, Jaime is going to meet up with Brienne again in the show due to his different trajectory, which is a thing that actually exists in the books (and I get the sense that everyone - showrunners, directors, actors, author - are really interested in Jaime and Brienne's relationship as a storytelling device, so I see no reason why they wouldn't meet again), but legit worrying about the show screwing up adapting a thing that might never happen in either story... no. This way madness lies.

 

Perfect Post as far as I'm concerned.   For all the talk about "derailed storylines" and "mutilated characters arcs" I've yet to hear anything concrete.  All I've gotten is "the story is heading........" or some paraphrase.  I can't take any of it seriously unless someone can DEFINITIVELY tell me HOW.   Nothing vague, I would need specifics, until then, for me, it just seems like the story took a plot turn some didn't like.   For me, when GRRM said to the press that it's the same story only with some differences, but they'll end in the same place, that was my "Check Please" moment on fan outrage.   I have know doubt GRRM can see how all of the relevant characters meet their fate from where they are on the show and it's all the endorsement I need.

 

I completely disagree with the idea that the character of Sansa can't be salvaged (I don't even like phrasing it that way to be honest) and I feel like her character would disagree with that as well. She isn't defeated, she hasn't given up, she's growing stronger, she's determined, she still has hope, and she's trying. She has people who are going to be able to help her but I disagree that this is bad for her character or makes her a useless person just because she has other people helping her.

 

Could not agree more.   ESPECIALLY with your first sentence.   I'm now confident that Sansa can survive ANYTHING inwardly.   I don't think she'll go mad or turn evil.   She'll do what she always does, figure out a way to survive if she can.   Myranda's down, so that's yet another enemy she's managed to outlive.   She may not have killed Myranda herself and all the better I say.   I think survival is the mark of success in this "game".

[SeanC]

Could not agree more. ESPECIALLY with your first sentence. I'm now confident that Sansa can survive ANYTHING inwardly. I don't think she'll go mad or turn evil. She'll do what she always does, figure out a way to survive if she can. Myranda's down, so that's yet another enemy she's managed to outlive. She may not have killed Myranda herself and all the better I say. I think survival is the mark of success in this "game".

Except Sansa's goal was not survival. Her goal was to "avenge them", and she failed at that so comprehensively (indeed, she didn't even mildly inconvenience them) and suffered so enormously in so doing that it's basically comical.

The equivalent of this season for Arya would be if she'd gotten rejected by the House of Black and White, those thugs she ran into stole Needle again, and she spent the rest of the season getting mugged, beaten up and raped in the streets of Braavos, before getting on a boat and leaving.

Edited July 9, 2015 by SeanC

[WearyTraveler]

D&D seem to use events on the show to describe a character's portrayal in the books.  They talked about how Jaime is very amoral.  How he almost killed Bran (a legitimately evil thing that he did) and how he beat his own cousin to death.  That last part annoyed the hell out of me because THEY were the ones who had him beat his own cousin to death.  You can't use a scene you created for the show to judge a character's portrayal in the books.

 

On the Book 1 re-read thread we have just come to the chapter where  Jamie confronts Ned about Tyrion being seized by Catelyn in the streets of King's Landing.  In that scene Jamie says he doesn't want to kill Ned, but he does order his men to kill Ned's men. A completely cruel, unnecessary act. It was just done out of revenge and anger.

 

Now, until we get Jamie POVs in Book 2, we don't know what drives him.  Also, his redemption and character development don't begin to happen until he loses his hand, and it's not until the scene at the pools when we see a really more human side to Jamie. That is almost two books. I was wondering if it was stuff like that which cemented the image on  D&D 's mind of Jamie being a "monster that loves killing".

 

I'd agree the show hasn't done enough to get Jamie to where his book counterpart is, particularly by omitting his Riverlands plot.  But I do wonder if all that development will come crashing down for Jamie when he discovers, in the books, that Brienne has betrayed him to Lady Stoneheart.  He's still reeling from Cersei's betrayal and then Brienne will hand him over to LSH, so, what will that do to Jamie's psyche? Will he then regress to the guy that pushed a 7 year old out of a window and ordered the unnecessary, cruel massacre of Ned's men? I understand that would be a disappointment for Jamie fans, but it would not be an illogical development for the character, given his circumstances.

 

Could it be that D&D have known all along that Jamie would end up being the monster everyone thinks him to be for real and that's why the haven't bothered with his redemption arc that much?  It's interesting to ponder.

[BlackberryJam]

Or maybe they aren't either of those things so they won't have to be brought around to that point in the story? It's one thing to speculate as to how the showrunners are going to bring a character to an important plot point that is already in the source material. It's another thing to worry about farfetched theories that haven't even happened yet in the show or the books AND assume they aren't going to make sense when they are adapted when they might not even be things that actually happen (note: the one storyline I would deem this to be acceptable for would be Jon's, but that's because we're literally right on the precipice of what happens to him in BOTH show and book) But right now I really don't think Sansa is the YMBQ and Jaime being the younger brother... eh, I give just as much credence to Cleganebowl which is the way more entertaining theory, heh. And it's different than speculating about how, for instance, Jaime is going to meet up with Brienne again in the show due to his different trajectory, which is a thing that actually exists in the books (and I get the sense that everyone - showrunners, directors, actors, author - are really interested in Jaime and Brienne's relationship as a storytelling device, so I see no reason why they wouldn't meet again), but legit worrying about the show screwing up adapting a thing that might never happen in either story... no. This way madness lies.

 

Stannis is currently a unique case, because something happened in the show that was confirmed to have come from Martin before he actually published it. So about this:

 

 

I'm just trying to say that due to whoever's decision it was to portray Stannis the way they have in the show (directors? writers? Stephen Dillane's?) I could believe show Stannis making that terrible, awful, evil and misguided decision to burn Shireen. I was surprised, sure, but once I look at it in terms of his whole arc, it feels accurate and complete. So I get that book readers might be confused as to how he's going to get to that point, but I'm just trying to say that as primarily a TV viewer, I bought it based on how they chose to portray him since the beginning of.the.show.

 

ETA: Can I just say that I totally sympathize with people who have been reading the books from the beginning and have now been placed in this weird limbo situation with the TV show. It's so strange to me to think that a storyline that started 20 years ago is slowly going to be unraveled through a completely different medium from what it started as. I can totally get the frustration of having read these books and having to find out what happens on TV because the author didn't catch up to his own story in time, lol. It's so strange and unprecedented. That's why I don't think I will read any more than snippets and summaries until after everything is done AND all the books have been published... sometime before 2050 hopefully.

 

 

I also love this entire post. I came to the books after the show and honestly found so much of the books dull and unnecessary and just plain boring. I know a lot of people came to the books first and they spend so much time parsing every chapter, looking for meaning, backing up theories, making new theories and envisioning from that where each character is going. I think it's obvious that fans have put more thought into how a character's arc should go than GRRM has. Just because GRRM has Stannis say a powerful line about Shireen does not mean that GRRM does not intend to have Stannis sacrifice his daughter. 

 

So...I googled the "monster who loves killing" line searching for the source. I found as likes and not loves in spots, and attributed in some places to Benioff and in other places to Weiss. I cannot find the original source. Can someone link me? I'm curious about the timing and context of the quote because if it's pre-S3 Jaime and said from the POV of the Starks, that totally makes sense as to how Ned saw him initially, then how Cat and Robb saw him. If it's post S3, then that doesn't make a bit of sense at all. I do find that the showrunners and actors talk about the characters up to that particular point in the show, without consideration of the development to come.

 

For Sansa's character to require being salvaged, it would have to have been destroyed. Fan spent so much time deciding what Sansa should be in from their interpretation of the books that what has been destroyed is that illusion of what Sansa would become.

[benteen]

The "monster who loves killing" quote comes from one of those HBO Behind the Episode featurettes.  I can't remember which exactly but believe it was the Season 2 episode where they had Jaime killing his cousin.

 

I sincerely hope GRRM doesn't regress Jaime in the books.  His redemption tour was for me the best part of AFFC.

[nksarmi]

Audreythe2nd

 

I used the IF of Jamie and Sansa as an example of what could happen because their stories are so far off track from book to show.  I happen to believe Jamie is the younger brother but I have no real opinion about the YMB(Q).  But that just isn't the point.  The point is that I don't trust the writers to get us from point a to point b in a way that makes sense anymore.  Yes, they know the final destination, but that doesn't mean they will do a good job of storytelling to get us there.

 

I also 100% disagree with you about Stannis' decision making sense in the show.  I think it was character assassination.  We can agree to disagree, but I do NOT believe the show established that he would do it or gave him a good enough reason to do it.  Mel's magic worked all of once on the show and that was shadow baby.  They have not established that Greyjoy is dead on the show so he has no reason to believe those stupid leeches were the reasons why Geoffrey or Robb died.  On the show, the portrayed him as someone who actually respected Jon Snow when he put an arrow in Mance.  He saw Ned (also a man he respected) in Jon.  Every single moment of the show this season made me believe he was NOT a man who would burn his child.

 

Then yes, they get into a snow storm and suddenly he's the stubborn man who would rather march to death than march back to the Wall.  They do nothing to show why Stannis believes he must win this battle to take the Iron Throne.  Oh yea and if Mel saw the victory, why do they need to burn anyone - shouldn't it happen the way she saw it without the sacrifice?  None of it made a lick of sense on the show. 

 

That doesn't mean it wasn't predictable - but being predictable isn't the same thing as making sense. First, all the guards in the damn camp have to fall asleep so that Super Ramsey and his 20 good men can sneak in and destroy all the supplies without getting caught.  Then Stannis physical appearance and voice change (he looks rougher and starts speaking in a more gruff tone).  He starts trying to hit on Mel - and she doesn't once explain why they can't just make another shadow baby and kill Roose or Ramsey that way.  And there are several other little clues that predict what was going to happen, but they still didn't add up to me understanding why he choose to do this NOW.  I still can't help but feel that if he burned his biggest asset (his daughter) to get Winterfell, he has nothing left to take the Iron Throne.

 

On the show, Stannis is a capable war hero and someone we are supposed to think is smart and tactical.  But on the show, Stannis makes NO effort to contact any of the other Northern Lords (I believe he sends Davos to do this in the books), he gets no information from Jon about the North or Winterfell that could help him (I believe he does in the books if I'm not misremembering).  Think about this for a minute, Stannis - who is known for surviving a siege - doesn't take any measure of how supplied Winterfell would be, how much supplies he and his men need to survive a siege on their end, where it would be best for them to establish camp so some men can still hunt and bring food into the camp, etc... Stannis is supposed to be good and this stuff and on the show he is deplorably bad.  And I would have said that on the show, he seemed like a man who would die to save his daughter - not let her be killed.  Frankly, I half expected him to run into the fire to save her and be miraculously spared to feed into Mel's idea that he is in fact AA reborn. 

 

And I find myself arguing this for no reason at all because it's not like I was a Stannis fan or anything.  I'm not even a Sansa fan.  But I am a fan of good storytelling and solid writing and I think we are in trouble on those fronts.  No one has to agree with me, but I think the Stannis story was VERY poorly done and while that just doesn't matter anymore, It leaves me concerned for what they are going to do with other characters going forward.  I am concerned for Sansa and Jamie the most, but I worry about other characters as well.  Look at Loras - he isn't arrested for being gay in the books, but as I was reminded recently, his life is in danger.  D&D might figure dead is dead so it doesn't matter how he dies - but yea, it kind of does if he dies of a battle wound in the books, but dies for being gay on the show.  

 

I am not concerned that D&D don't know where the story is supposed to go at this point - I am concerned that they might think as long as everyone ends up in the right place, how they get there doesn't matter.  You might still trust them - I don't. 

[BlackberryJam]

The "monster who loves killing" quote comes from one of those HBO Behind the Episode featurettes.  I can't remember which exactly but believe it was the Season 2 episode where they had Jaime killing his cousin.

 

I sincerely hope GRRM doesn't regress Jaime in the books.  His redemption tour was for me the best part of AFFC.

 

I have the DVDs and will hunt that down, but uh...yeah...at that point, the quote absolutely makes sense because it's a Stark POV episode, right? I seem to remember that we don't get a Jaime POV scene in the Stark camp until after he is re-captured and he witnesses the argument between Cat and Karstark. 

[Audreythe2nd]

I'd agree the show hasn't done enough to get Jamie to where his book counterpart is, particularly by omitting his Riverlands plot.  But I do wonder if all that development will come crashing down for Jamie when he discovers, in the books, that Brienne has betrayed him to Lady Stoneheart.  He's still reeling from Cersei's betrayal and then Brienne will hand him over to LSH, so, what will that do to Jamie's psyche? Will he then regress to the guy that pushed a 7 year old out of a window and ordered the unnecessary, cruel massacre of Ned's men? I understand that would be a disappointment for Jamie fans, but it would not be an illogical development for the character, given his circumstances.

Could it be that D&D have known all along that Jamie would end up being the monster everyone thinks him to be for real and that's why the haven't bothered with his redemption arc that much?  It's interesting to ponder.

 

Yes, THANK YOU. For all of the speculation I've read about what happens to Jaime once Brienne collects him, I feel like everyone has steered away from talking about this very probable theory (most likely because it's upsetting). If he feels betrayed by Cersei for sleeping with other men, can you imagine how he would feel if the one person whose life he saved more than once, and who he was coming to think of as a true friend and someone he can trust betrays him to an undead monster?! If Jaime survives the encounter, I'd put good money on him regressing. It's tragic, but tragic couplings is clearly a thing in this story (Shae and Tyrion, Ygritte and Jon).

 

To me, the other option is that something happens to them on the way to Stoneheart (as a fan of both of theirs, I hope it's something sexual, heh), or Brienne doesn't actually take him there. That could be an additional reason why they eliminated the Stoneheart part of the story (actually I think the real reason they eliminated Stoneheart is because they knew they were going to have to do a major resurrection of a character in Season 6 or 7 and it would just be redundant *coughJon* but we'll see). If they do have Brienne betray him, I suspect it will actually have to do with Brienne having to choose between trading Sansa and Pod's life for Jaime's, at the hands of whoever. We'll see.

 

Having said that, I don't get the sense that they haven't bothered with Jaime's redemption arc (they did a damn fine solid job of setting one up in Season 3) so much as I think they're changing the motivation behind it, which kind of became clear to me at the end of Season 5 with Myrcella's death. I suspect the remainder of his book arc that is missing from the show will appear in the form of his reacting differently to her death than Cersei. I don't know the logistics of it, but I think it's going to have something to do with wanting to protect Trystane and wanting to avoid a war with Dorne (in spite of Myrcella dying in his arms). That would be a type of diplomacy, wouldn't it? Or I could be totally wrong and he ends up killing Trystane out of passion on the boat, and then he and Bronn jump off the boat and swim to Tarth, and he's a broken man, quite different from the cocky SOB at the beginning. 

 

I am not concerned that D&D don't know where the story is supposed to go at this point - I am concerned that they might think as long as everyone ends up in the right place, how they get there doesn't matter.  You might still trust them - I don't.

 

I see that we subjectively disagree about what each of us saw with Stannis' progression in the show, so I'll just leave it at that. And I understand what you are saying about the journey, I really do. It's a fair point. But trust/not trust, those are strange words that I don't think I would personally use. I suspect things will start to go off the rails a bit now that they're out of detailed source material, but maybe not. I'm just saying that nothing I've seen thus far makes me think it's going to devolve into a complete gong show. 

Edited July 9, 2015 by Audreythe2nd

[AshleyN]

I hesitate to wade into this subject again, but when it comes to the Stannis/Shireen thing, these are my two biggest problems:

 

1) The changes made to Stannis' character beforehand robbed it of some of it's power. People like to use the Greek Tragedy thing to describe Stannis' character, and if his book storyline does in fact end with him sacrificing Shireen I can see it. Book Stannis might not be a particularly "good" guy, but he is someone that starts out with a very strong personal code that he's known for not compromising on -- he's pretty much the definition of "lawful neutral". He's described specifically as someone who will "bend before he breaks", but his arc to this point has shown him bending and compromising more and more in pursuit of the throne (and there's an additional layer of complexity there since in many cases, his newfound flexibility comes across as a good thing, for example his willingness to negotiate with Northerners in exchange for their help, as opposed to his previous "join me or die" edict). Having someone who is famously rigid in his moral code become so blinded by ambition and/or his belief in his destiny that he sacrifices every one of his values, and having it climax with the sacrifice of Shireen? That's a full character arc, and one that fulfills the Greek Tragedy description to a tee. However, Show Stannis has seemed from the start to be so much more weak-willed and easily manipulated than the book version that he comes across as little more than a puppet for Melisandre. Other than the Blackwater, he pretty much just does whatever she tells him to do with little to no resistance, so why should it be surprising that he gives in on this matter? Yes, Shireen's death still has a lot of impact, because the death of a sweet and innocent child that we've come to know and love will always have impact, but in terms of Stannis' character arc, it doesn't really feel like a tragic fall because Show Stannis never really had anywhere to fall from.

 

2) The whole thing plays out way too fast. It literally took three episodes to get from "Melisandre suggests burning Shireen and is angrily rebuffed" to "Stannis has one thing go wrong for him and agrees to burn Shireen" to "Stannis loses everything and dies". The whole thing took up what, twenty minutes of screen time? I know that this show has a lot of storylines and a limited amount of time in which to tell them, but for an event of this magnitude, they really, really needed to give it more time to breathe. Even for someone who's never been that resistant to Melisandre's suggestions, it should have taken much more than one freaking setback to get him to murder his daughter (a daughter who has been shown to be the one thing in the world that he actually loves), and the downfall that came as a consequence of his actions needed more than a couple of minutes to play out.

Edited July 9, 2015 by AshleyN

[MrWhyt]

 Oh yea and if Mel saw the victory, why do they need to burn anyone - shouldn't it happen the way she saw it without the sacrifice?  None of it made a lick of sense on the show. 

 

Mel saw the victory, she didn't see the steps leading up to the victory, the sacrifice could have been an essential part. Visions/prophecy are tricky things.

[Audreythe2nd]

People like to use the Greek Tragedy thing to describe Stannis' character, and if his book storyline does in fact end with him sacrificing Shireen I can see it. Book Stannis might not be a particularly "good" guy, but he is someone that starts out with a very strong personal code that he's known for not compromising on -- he's pretty much the definition of "lawful neutral". He's described specifically as someone who will "bend before he breaks", but his arc to this point has shown him bending and compromising more and more in pursuit of the throne. Having someone who is famously rigid in his moral code become so blinded by ambition and/or his belief in his destiny that he sacrifices every one of his values, and having it climax with the sacrifice of Shireen? That's a full character arc, and one that fulfills the Greek Tragedy description to a tee. However, Show Stannis has seemed from the start to be so much more weak-willed and easily manipulated than the book version that he comes across as little more than a puppet for Melisandre.

(snip)

...in terms of Stannis' character arc, it doesn't really feel like a tragic fall because Show Stannis never really had anywhere to fall from.

Actually, the tragic figure that most parallels Stannis (in the show anyway, and especially the way you describe him) is Macbeth. Every year with my students (I'm a high school teacher) we inevitably get into a debate as to whether Macbeth successfully fulfills all the classic traits of a tragic arc. Every year we agree that Shakespeare doesn't really set him up to be a good person at the beginning, at least not enough of one. We have one account from a soldier that he's loyal in the battlefield, and then he starts having dark thoughts about ten seconds after getting the prophecies. He tells his wife he's not going to kill the king, and then in the space of some 20 lines that she says, he's down with killing the king again. Etcetera. He's really more of a tragi-villain than a tragic hero (which is what was in my head earlier when I referred to Stannis as tragic), but those I've taught still really seem to like the play in spite of this. :) I love it too. Show Stannis is a lot like Macbeth. Maybe book Stannis will follow more of a legitimately thorough tragic arc, I don't know. I'd be really curious to hear from someone who doesn't think show Stannis is all that far off from book Stannis, or someone who thinks that book Stannis isn't necessarily as neutral or moral as all that.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Audreythe2nd

[nksarmi]

Mel saw the victory, she didn't see the steps leading up to the victory, the sacrifice could have been an essential part. Visions/prophecy are tricky things.

The sacrifice could have been..... That's kind of the point.  Look, I could be totally wrong about GRRM because he hasn't said much about this except that the story (Shireen burning) originates with him.  Whereas, on the other hand, I believe he was somewhat critical of the path the writers chose for Sansa.  But given the amount of time he spends on any story (too much at times), I expect that even if Stannis' choice (assuming it is his choice) is to burn Shireen - it will play out differently enough that narratively speaking, it will make sense.  I don't think it did on the show - but perhaps that is simply a matter of pacing like AshleyN said.  I think the show has suffered from pacing issues a lot this season.

 

Audreythe2nd - I use the words trust as in believe that the writers will tell a good story.  I'm not sure I trust GRRM to finish the last book before the show has been off the air long enough to have a "where are they now" special. :)  But I do think his story will make sense.  Rather I like it or not, rather I am frustrated or disappointed or even down right ticked off with who lives, who dies, who win, and who loses - I trust him to make it all make sense narratively speaking.  I spend a lot of this season defending the writers choices only to be left unable to do so anymore.  So I do not trust them to tell a story that makes sense anymore.  I hope I am wrong, but while I don't think this show will turn into the gong show (the actors alone will keep it to a certain caliber of good) - I do think it could become a pale imitation of what it once was now that they are off detailed source material (which to me - is a shame).

[Avaleigh]

I'd agree the show hasn't done enough to get Jamie to where his book counterpart is, particularly by omitting his Riverlands plot.  But I do wonder if all that development will come crashing down for Jamie when he discovers, in the books, that Brienne has betrayed him to Lady Stoneheart.  He's still reeling from Cersei's betrayal and then Brienne will hand him over to LSH, so, what will that do to Jamie's psyche? Will he then regress to the guy that pushed a 7 year old out of a window and ordered the unnecessary, cruel massacre of Ned's men? I understand that would be a disappointment for Jamie fans, but it would not be an illogical development for the character, given his circumstances.

Could it be that D&D have known all along that Jamie would end up being the monster everyone thinks him to be for real and that's why the haven't bothered with his redemption arc that much?  It's interesting to ponder.

 

Yes, THANK YOU. For all of the speculation I've read about what happens to Jaime once Brienne collects him, I feel like everyone has steered away from talking about this very probable theory (most likely because it's upsetting). If he feels betrayed by Cersei for sleeping with other men, can you imagine how he would feel if the one person whose life he saved more than once, and who he was coming to think of as a true friend and someone he can trust betrays him to an undead monster?! If Jaime survives the encounter, I'd put good money on him regressing. It's tragic, but tragic couplings is clearly a thing in this story (Shae and Tyrion, Ygritte and Jon).

 

To me, the other option is that something happens to them on the way to Stoneheart (as a fan of both of theirs, I hope it's something sexual, heh), or Brienne doesn't actually take him there. That could be an additional reason why they eliminated the Stoneheart part of the story (actually I think the real reason they eliminated Stoneheart is because they knew they were going to have to do a major resurrection of a character in Season 6 or 7 and it would just be redundant *coughJon* but we'll see). If they do have Brienne betray him, I suspect it will actually have to do with Brienne having to choose between trading Sansa and Pod's life for Jaime's, at the hands of whoever. We'll see.

I think it was Hecate7 who was talking about imagining the worst things happening to her favorite characters in terms of predicting and this is where my mind went with regard to Jaime's character. 

 

You are a hundred percent right that it's something I personally haven't spent too much time contemplating because I would just be in rivers of tears if that happened. I'm not a big crier and while the show has brought tears to my eyes a couple of times I've never full on cried over anything that's happened even if I've been super moved by it. The books there were a couple of things that made me teary but again, I think I'd have to really sit here and think about it in order to even come up with what those moments were. They don't just come to me automatically. I know I didn't cry during the Red Wedding. Even Shireen's death, I was sitting there more horrified and angry as opposed to being sad and tearful that all those men just stood around watching that shit happen especially if they were planning on deserting Stannis because of this anyway. 

 

If Brienne betrays Jaime to Lady Stoneheart (I stubbornly refuse to believe this will happen) for me it will feel like a total gut punch rug pull. There's little else that would upset me more with this series. I would never be able to forgive Brienne and after her final chapter in AFFC I'd find it impossible to believe. Like, I feel like she'd practically have to be possessed or something because IMO she'd never do that. Even when she was staring death in the face she still couldn't condemn Jaime to Lady Stoneheart. How could she actually be in Jaime's presence and just willingly lead him to his death after everything they've been through together and the truth she learned about him? There has to be more to it. 

 

2) The whole thing plays out way too fast. It literally took three episodes to get from "Melisandre suggests burning Shireen and is angrily rebuffed" to "Stannis has one thing go wrong for him and agrees to burn Shireen" to "Stannis loses everything and dies". The whole thing took up what, twenty minutes of screen time? I know that this show has a lot of storylines and a limited amount of time in which to tell them, but for an event of this magnitude, they really, really needed to give it more time to breathe. Even for someone who's never been that resistant to Melisandre's suggestions, it should have taken much more than one freaking setback to get him to murder his daughter (a daughter who has been shown to be the one thing in the world that he actually loves), and the downfall that came as a consequence of his actions needed more than a couple of minutes to play out.

 

 

I do agree with this especially the points in bold. It took basically next to no time for Stannis to go from telling Mel that she's out of her freaking mind if she thinks that he's going to burn his daughter to him sending Davos away (he's clearly already made his decision at this point) and following through with everything. What makes Stannis so sure that Shireen's death will accomplish anything? It was a huge ass mistake for Balon to still be alive at this point in the story because with Balon being alive Stannis has clear evidence for himself that he can reference to Mel as to why he has no reason to trust that her magic will necessarily work or that it was even responsible for the deaths of Robb and Joffrey. Stannis doesn't ask for specifics at all as to how the magic is supposed to work. Why can't she use a shadow assassin on Ramsay and/or Roose? Does she have to make one with Stannis? Why isn't this man asking more questions? 

 

Then I think about something like Selyse telling Mel over dinner that time about how they survived the siege of Storm's End and how they were reduced to eating book leather and seagulls but that Stannis held strong and they all survived. It's hard to believe that this man would so quickly jump to burning his only child and heir because of Ramsay fucking up their food situation. What's so wrong about wintering at Castle Black if it means keeping your kid alive among other things? 

 

One minor thing about Stannis that I would have liked to have been part of the show almost as a running joke is the way he knows the numbers and strength of every house in the realm and can easily give approximate numbers. I would have found it amusing if when he met Sam for example when talking about House Tarly if he'd mentioned that Randyll commands however many thousands of men. It could have come up with other characters he encounters for the first time even Brienne.

[Advance35]

Except Sansa's goal was not survival. Her goal was to "avenge them", and she failed at that so comprehensively (indeed, she didn't even mildly inconvenience them) and suffered so enormously in so doing that it's basically comical.

 

But that's true of everyone on this show.   Cersei's goal was bringing about the fall of Margaery Tyrell/maintaining power.   Margaery and House Tyrell's goal was to gain influencial control over the Iron Throne.   One could go on about how these character never reach their REAL goal, circumstances usually fall into a place where everyone whom survives is greatful for doing so and they go back to the drawing board in pursuit of power, influence and etc.

 

IMO, her goal changed as the season went on, as it did for all of the other characters.    I think Sansa values survival more than revenge.   She want's both someday and some way but in order of priorities, it's the former before the latter IMO.

 

I think it's obvious that fans have put more thought into how a character's arc should go than GRRM has. Just because GRRM has Stannis say a powerful line about Shireen does not mean that GRRM does not intend to have Stannis sacrifice his daughter.

 

The long and short of it in my view.  He is planning 2 more books, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the character resolutions are considered (by some) to be rushed.    Think of all the loose threads.............

[nksarmi]

I think it was Hecate7 who was talking about imagining the worst things happening to her favorite characters in terms of predicting and this is where my mind went with regard to Jaime's character. 

 

You are a hundred percent right that it's something I personally haven't spent too much time contemplating because I would just be in rivers of tears if that happened. I'm not a big crier and while the show has brought tears to my eyes a couple of times I've never full on cried over anything that's happened even if I've been super moved by it. The books there were a couple of things that made me teary but again, I think I'd have to really sit here and think about it in order to even come up with what those moments were. They don't just come to me automatically. I know I didn't cry during the Red Wedding. Even Shireen's death, I was sitting there more horrified and angry as opposed to being sad and tearful that all those men just stood around watching that shit happen especially if they were planning on deserting Stannis because of this anyway. 

 

If Brienne betrays Jaime to Lady Stoneheart (I stubbornly refuse to believe this will happen) for me it will feel like a total gut punch rug pull. There's little else that would upset me more with this series. I would never be able to forgive Brienne and after her final chapter in AFFC I'd find it impossible to believe. Like, I feel like she'd practically have to be possessed or something because IMO she'd never do that. Even when she was staring death in the face she still couldn't condemn Jaime to Lady Stoneheart. How could she actually be in Jaime's presence and just willingly lead him to his death after everything they've been through together and the truth she learned about him? There has to be more to it. 

 

I do agree with this especially the points in bold. It took basically next to no time for Stannis to go from telling Mel that she's out of her freaking mind if she thinks that he's going to burn his daughter to him sending Davos away (he's clearly already made his decision at this point) and following through with everything. What makes Stannis so sure that Shireen's death will accomplish anything? It was a huge ass mistake for Balon to still be alive at this point in the story because with Balon being alive Stannis has clear evidence for himself that he can reference to Mel as to why he has no reason to trust that her magic will necessarily work or that it was even responsible for the deaths of Robb and Joffrey. Stannis doesn't ask for specifics at all as to how the magic is supposed to work. Why can't she use a shadow assassin on Ramsay and/or Roose? Does she have to make one with Stannis? Why isn't this man asking more questions? 

 

Then I think about something like Selyse telling Mel over dinner that time about how they survived the siege of Storm's End and how they were reduced to eating book leather and seagulls but that Stannis held strong and they all survived. It's hard to believe that this man would so quickly jump to burning his only child and heir because of Ramsay fucking up their food situation. What's so wrong about wintering at Castle Black if it means keeping your kid alive among other things? 

 

One minor thing about Stannis that I would have liked to have been part of the show almost as a running joke is the way he knows the numbers and strength of every house in the realm and can easily give approximate numbers. I would have found it amusing if when he met Sam for example when talking about House Tarly if he'd mentioned that Randyll commands however many thousands of men. It could have come up with other characters he encounters for the first time even Brienne.

Now it's my turn to love a post!  I know we can all agree to disagree, but to me, Stannis' story in season five does NOT make sense and was way too rushed.  And I feel like I should apologize to everyone I argued with saying Sansa's plot would be more than just putting her in the JP role for season five - I mean talk about humble pie there (I'm sorry - you all were right - D&D suck).

 

And for what it's worth, I have a hard time believing Brie would betray Jamie as well.  Jamie is a real person - LS is not Catherine Stark.  Brie owes Jamie something - she doesn't owe LS a damn thing.  But I don't think D&D changed Jamie's story because he ends up in a bad spot in the books - I think they probably see him pushing Bran from the window as an unredeemable act (my other half does as well).  So no matter where GRRM takes his story - they see him as a black hat.  What surprises me (and I suspect this must be a male-bias thing) is how soft they are on Cersei. To me, Cersei is clearly a black hat from the word go in the books and they have consistently painted her as a "mother lion" who would rip anyone apart who tried to hurt her cubs without showing that she's just evil - rather someone is threatening her or now.

 

For that matter, if those of us who believe that Jamie is the "little brother" of Cersei's prophesy and he does end up being the one to kill her - given their obvious positive slant on Cersei, maybe Jamie is summed up to them as the man who started out pushing Bran from a tower and who will end killing his sister/lover and dying beside her.  In my opinion, the Stannis slant shows that once they have one thing in mind, the journey doesn't matter to them.  In the books, Jamie could end up killing his sister to save the people of KL like he did with the Mad King, but all D&D will see is that he killed Cersei.  I think his first act of book canon and his potential last act in the story have more to do with how they paint him on the show than the idea that GRRM might regress Jamie after the journey he has taken to date.

 

I believe it is far more likely that Jamie will continue to advance in the books along this redemptive arc and will ultimately die in an act of heroism - its just that the act of heroism might involve killing Cersei and D&D don't see that as heroic.

"The long and short of it in my view.  He is planning 2 more books, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the character resolutions are considered (by some) to be rushed.    Think of all the loose threads............."

 

Unfortunately, I think it's far more likely that he will extend it to 8 books (I know - the horror!) than rush his ending.

[MadMouse]

I have no doubt that Brienne is bringing Jaime to the BWB. From a character standpoint she won't let Hyle Hunt and Pod die because of the actions of her, Jaime and LSH. She already blames herself for the death of Nimble Dick and not trusting him. There's noway she lets the blood of those two stain her hands. Even though she's bringing Jaime to LSH I fully expect her to stand for him in trial by combat to prove his innocence. And that plays into a huge part of the Jaime and Brienne relationship showing others what they've learned about each other. 

 

Jaime also has to confront LSH and his past failures for his arc to continue. Cersei was the first, next will be LSH and finally will be the son of Rhaegar.

[FemmyV]

 

Even though she's bringing Jaime to LSH I fully expect her to stand for him in trial by combat to prove his innocence. And that plays into a huge part of the Jaime and Brienne relationship showing others what they've learned about each other.

 

I like that; it fits in beautifully with the Brienne = YMBQ theory, which is my favorite so far.

[SeanC]

But that's true of everyone on this show.   Cersei's goal was bringing about the fall of Margaery Tyrell/maintaining power.   Margaery and House Tyrell's goal was to gain influencial control over the Iron Throne.   One could go on about how these character never reach their REAL goal, circumstances usually fall into a place where everyone whom survives is greatful for doing so and they go back to the drawing board in pursuit of power, influence and etc.

First, Cersei did bring about the fall of House Tyrell, before things went sour on her.  But more to the point, Cersei is a character whose arc is descending after being in the upper echelons of the roost.  Sansa is supposed to be on an upward trajectory after seasons of getting non-stop kicked around -- but that's all she does this season.

 

Her arc in AFFC is deliberately paralleled with Bran and Arya's training arcs, as she struggles with identity (a theme that's completely lost) and, in a place of greater security, learns to play the game of thrones and begin to make contributions to plans, implement them, etc.

 

As I wrote in one of the other threads, the equivalent would be if Arya's arc this season was changed to her getting rejected by the House of Black and White, getting mugged by those street toughs she encountered and losing Needle again, then spending the remainder of the season begging in the streets and getting beaten and raped, before getting on a boat and fleeing Braavos.

[Avaleigh]

I have no doubt that Brienne is bringing Jaime to the BWB. From a character standpoint she won't let Hyle Hunt and Pod die because of the actions of her, Jaime and LSH. She already blames herself for the death of Nimble Dick and not trusting him. There's noway she lets the blood of those two stain her hands. Even though she's bringing Jaime to LSH I fully expect her to stand for him in trial by combat to prove his innocence. And that plays into a huge part of the Jaime and Brienne relationship showing others what they've learned about each other. 

 

Jaime also has to confront LSH and his past failures for his arc to continue. Cersei was the first, next will be LSH and finally will be the son of Rhaegar.

I love all of this put especially the bit in bold. I really, really want this to happen. 

[BlackberryJam]

I have no doubt that Brienne is bringing Jaime to the BWB. From a character standpoint she won't let Hyle Hunt and Pod die because of the actions of her, Jaime and LSH. She already blames herself for the death of Nimble Dick and not trusting him. There's noway she lets the blood of those two stain her hands. Even though she's bringing Jaime to LSH I fully expect her to stand for him in trial by combat to prove his innocence. And that plays into a huge part of the Jaime and Brienne relationship showing others what they've learned about each other. 

 

Jaime also has to confront LSH and his past failures for his arc to continue. Cersei was the first, next will be LSH and finally will be the son of Rhaegar.

 

I can see this happening, but I also think there is a good chance that she tells him what's happening sometime before they arrive. Either that or he will know she's lying to him. Brienne isn't one to dissemble well. Jaime spent his Riverlands journey getting smarter. I think he figures out something, and pushes her to tell, she reveals, then Jaime chooses to go with her and they...do something. Jaime has been missing for weeks at the end of Dance.

 

Pod and Hyle could already be dead and so they take off together without ever going back to LSH.

 

Brienne and Jaime sneak Pod and Hyle out, maybe battling a few brothers and someone dies (hopefully Hyle, but probably Pod).

 

Jaime manages to talk to Thoros who he knows from Pyke, who is disenchanted with LSH and what's happening with the Brotherhood, and Thoros arranges some deal.

 

Or yes, Jaime agrees to just sacrifice himself for a boy (Pod) to bring his character full circle, but then Brienne stands for him and all that.

 

So many possibilities.But "Brienne totally fools Jaime and he ambles along after her not suspecting anything only to be gobsmacked by her betrayal" seems not to follow from what we know of their characters and arcs.

 

I think at some point Brienne is faced with killing Jaime or killing LSH, her "Aerys" choice, and she chooses Jaime.

 

The two (possibly four) of them head off towards the Vale where I hear there is a tournament being planned...

Edited July 9, 2015 by BlackberryJam

[nodorothyparker]

So many possibilities.But "Brienne totally fools Jaime and he ambles along after her not suspecting anything only to be gobsmacked by her betrayal" seems not to follow from what we know of their characters and arcs.

I think at some point Brienne is faced with killing Jaime or killing LSH, her "Aerys" choice, and she chooses Jaime.

That's where I've always seen that entire story going too. Call me an optimist in a series where that's usually a pretty unwinnable position to take, but I don't see Brienne as someone who's going to be able to keep up a charade to someone of that kind of importance to her long enough to lead him off the proverbial cliff. And I don't see Jaime just dumbly following along without questioning all the specifics as contemplative as he's become. His entire Riverlands arc is about him realizing the value in using his brain and reasoning through all the possibilities instead of just blindly charging in as he once might have. It's one thing for her to know and understand what Jaime told her about having to choose to break an oath for the right reasons. It's another for her to have to actually do it and live with it.

I've been able to accept a lot of awful throughout this series because most of it made sense to me storywise in the larger scheme of things. If this one doesn't pan out that way, though, that's likely to be my big gut punch moment as well because it says there really is no honor and no point to trying. So of course that's probably what will happen.

Edited July 10, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[Hecate7]

Except Sansa's goal was not survival. Her goal was to "avenge them", and she failed at that so comprehensively (indeed, she didn't even mildly inconvenience them) and suffered so enormously in so doing that it's basically comical.

The equivalent of this season for Arya would be if she'd gotten rejected by the House of Black and White, those thugs she ran into stole Needle again, and she spent the rest of the season getting mugged, beaten up and raped in the streets of Braavos, before getting on a boat and leaving.

 

 

Yes, that would be the equivalent. How is it any indication of Arya's personality or character that she was NOT rejected, beaten up, or raped? She was rescued at the last minute by that guy--those thugs didn't flee because they were scared of her. They fled because the Kindly Man appeared. Kind of like how Theon, not Sansa, threw Myranda off the battlements.

 

What Sansa DID do, is talk Theon Greyjoy into being Theon again. She tricked him into revealing that Bran and Rickon are still alive. SHE did that. She did do that. So she is learning some good interrogation techniques and her ability to work people is, in fact, improving. And no, Reek wouldn't have rescued Sansa "anyway." There is no way that Reek would have thrown Myranda off the battlements--he is fully aware of their relative value and knows he will be flayed for murdering the master's mistress. If Ramsey ever catches Theon, he will act out every sadistic fantasy he's ever had on Theon's body before finally flaying him to death, and Theon knows this full well.

 

Sansa started out with the idea of avenging her family, but very quickly had to change her goal to just surviving, and I think that actually is the measure of success in this story. There are often stated goals, such as Brienne's stated goal of protecting Renly, or Lady Stark, or finding the girls, etc...but really you're not often going to accomplish those. The measure of success is if you're still in the story, and were not in fact killed on the way to your next step.

 

Jaime was imprisoned for a year, lost a hand, was tortured and beaten and would have been raped had anyone had the time, but nobody said "wow, look at the complete loss of character development there." I see a terrible double standard here, frankly.

[SeanC]

How is it any indication of Arya's personality or character that she was NOT rejected, beaten up, or raped? 

Well, first, with Sansa we're primarily talking about skill development, where she comprehensively regressed.  But it's also different because Arya was placed in a situation where she had no particularly good options but to seek a fresh start in Braavos and see where that took her (not to mention, of course, that Jaqen had told her to come if she wanted).  Sansa (supposedly) went voluntarily there to "avenge them" in a colossally stupid manner and completely failed, and left a very safe place to do it, where she had powerful friends and the potential to raise an army (which Littlefinger, unlike her, actually notices and makes plans for).

 

What Sansa DID do, is talk Theon Greyjoy into being Theon again. She tricked him into revealing that Bran and Rickon are still alive. 

No, she didn't.  She had basically four scenes with Theon (plus a few group scenes where they don't interact) -- she attempted to win him over in exactly one of those scenes, and when that didn't work, she gave up and went back to her former posture of telling him how much she hates him.  She did not "trick him" into anything; that would require her to have some inkling he had secret information that she could then form a strategy to acquire.  She just yelled at him and he blurted out the answer to a question she wasn't asking, because she had no reason to ask it.  That's completely accidental.

 

Sansa started out with the idea of avenging her family, but very quickly had to change her goal to just surviving, and I think that actually is the measure of success in this story.

Surviving is what she's been doing in King's Landing.  Her story when she leaves King's Landing is supposed to be about moving beyond that.  Instead of moving from naif to player, she's actually more naive in Season 5 than she was in Season 1, seeing she apparently believes sitting around doing nothing and glowering at people she's supposed to be charming constitutes playing the game.

 

Jaime was imprisoned for a year, lost a hand, was tortured and beaten and would have been raped had anyone had the time, but nobody said "wow, look at the complete loss of character development there." I see a terrible double standard here, frankly.

It's not a double-standard, because Sansa and Jaime's stories are completely different, and in completely different places.  Jaime is a phenomenally-skilled warrior whose story in ACOK/ASOS is about his newfound moral development and coping with being brought low.

 

Sansa's arc in the first three books is about having her existing view of the world completely torn down, being imprisoned, and dealing with the helplessness and trying to find a way to survive and get away.  Once she's out, it's about moving past that and having the room to become an active player rather than a victim and pawn trying to survive. The show just threw her back into a complete re-run of her King's Landing story where she is, if anything, less effective than she was in King's Landing -- she was able to manipulate Joffrey a few times, she never comes close with Ramsay; and, of course, she voluntarily went to Winterfell to accomplish something and completely fails.  It's no big accomplishment to "survive" a situation when you yourself are the sole reason you're in the situation to begin with.  By the end of the season, all she's done is run away from a situation she should never have been in to begin with, if she had a brain.

 

All of the younger Stark POVs have broadly parallel arcs at this point in the story.  AFFC/ADWD is where they get their mentors and, in a place of relative security, begin the training that will allow them to take center-stage in the coming struggles (whenever GRRM gets around to releasing them).  Arya gets that.  Bran...well, he wasn't in this season, but from what the writers have said he'll come back with a serious boost in abilities.  Sansa just gets tortured more, and worse than ever before, with no sign of any skill development (indeed, based on where she started the season, she's gotten dumber).

Edited July 10, 2015 by SeanC

[benteen]

On the subject of Hyle, he might be a low-rent Jaime but I kind of like the character.  Hope he survives but he would be likely cannon fodder.

Edited July 10, 2015 by benteen

[Advance35]

Sansa (supposedly) went voluntarily there to "avenge them" in a colossally stupid manner and completely failed, and left a very safe place to do it, where she had powerful friends and the potential to raise an army (which Littlefinger, unlike her, actually notices and makes plans for).

 

 

Well I don't think the Vale Lords count as "friends."  Lyssa Arryn was an actual relative and we know how that ended.   All she had to go on was Lord Royce saying he hunted with Ned and he was a "good man."   That's all she has and that's hardly a sign of allegiance, certainly not call to assume ANY of the Vale would raise an army unless it's for Lord Robin, which is how LF maneuvers them, Sansa seems to be incidental.   She had no reason to distrust them, but she had no reason to trust them either.

 

And I maintain she followed LF's lead in the show just like she did in the book.   He told her to lie to the Vale Lords in AFFC and she did, he told her to babysit Robin, done.   As of now she is the monkey to LF's Organ Grinder and she's willing to do such because of his past success rate.    She escaped a trial for regicide (though he helped set it in motion) because of Littlefinger.

 

It's no big accomplishment to "survive" a situation when you yourself are the sole reason you're in the situation to begin with.  By the end of the season, all she's done is run away from a situation she should never have been in to begin with, if she had a brain.

 

 

This I could not possibly disagree with more.   Everyone in this story has gotten themselves into trouble in one way or another but I'm not going to do the round and round thing on this point.

 

All of the younger Stark POVs have broadly parallel arcs at this point in the story.  AFFC/ADWD is where they get their mentors and, in a place of relative security, begin the training that will allow them to take center-stage in the coming struggles (whenever GRRM gets around to releasing them).  Arya gets that.  Bran...well, he wasn't in this season, but from what the writers have said he'll come back with a serious boost in abilities.  Sansa just gets tortured more, and worse than ever before, with no sign of any skill development (indeed, based on where she started the season, she's gotten dumber).

 

 

And this is where I think Fan Expectation comes in.   Sansa could die mid to late book.   So could Rickon for all we know (not sure anyone would care).   There is speculation about who will take center stage, nothing more.   I think Sansa is a vastly different girl compared to her character of the past seasons.  I don't think The North as run by House Bolton is a place where Courtly Intrigue would catapult anyone into power, I think it's an environment of brute force, she went, because in her view, LF is the only game in town.  

[Hecate7]

Well, first, with Sansa we're primarily talking about skill development, where she comprehensively regressed.  But it's also different because Arya was placed in a situation where she had no particularly good options but to seek a fresh start in Braavos the potential to raise an army (which Littlefinger, unlike her, actually notices and makes plans for).and see where that took her (not to mention, of course, that Jaqen had told her to come if she wanted).  Sansa (supposedly) went voluntarily there to "avenge them" in a colossally stupid manner and completely failed, and left a very safe place to do it, where she had powerful friends

 

Did she? Were these "powerful friends" she'd known for about five minutes, going to keep Robin Arryn under control, or were they going to do whatever he, as Lord of the Vale, ordered them to do, such as perhaps pitch Sansa out the moon door the first time he lost his temper with her? I didn't see any more particularly good options for Sansa than for Arya, and her guide is not much less trustworthy than Arya's Jaq'en H'gar, really.

 

There was no reason for Sansa to think that Ramsey would be even worse than Joffrey. She has not been reading the books and doesn't know what kind of narrative she's been plopped down into.

 

I don't see the potential for either girl to raise an army. I'm not sure where you're getting that. Littlefinger has the Vale army because he is Lord Protector of the Vale. Sansa is not. The Vale army follows him, not her. And as Stannis just very ably showed us, raising an army isn't enough.

 

she went, because in her view, LF is the only game in town.

 

 

Absolutely. So much this.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Hecate7