why was Ladystoneheart cut out

[StepStark]

3 hours ago, Daske said:

People do not always articulate exactly what they mean. Surely you have failed to explain what you mean very well at some time in the last 6 years? And without a horde of ready detractors ready to repeat even the smallest slip ad nauseam.

It makes much more sense if you accept it wasn't very well said, and read it as "Creatively it made sense to me; I wanted that to happen".

(Excuse me if I have not made proper use of the semi-colon, but that may help prove my point).

Of course that people don't always articulate what they mean, but that is not an excuse for statements like that one. GRRM also doesn't always articulate what he means, and yet, he never said anything nearly as stupid as "Creatively it made sense to us because we wanted it to happen". And that is because Benioff actually said what he truly means. It wasn't a slip or something, but an honest reflection of his mind. And by the way, the sentence was said in an interview for EW, which is as friendly a media to D&D as it gets. If Benioff felt pressured there, then he's absolutely incapable of handling anything.

And also, why are always fans like you that come up with all those excuses? Why Benioff and Weiss never "explain" anything? Like, when he read the interview, why didn't Benioff react and said that he didn't actually mean it that way? Even in the matters that deal only with the scenes from the show, why are fans like you always the ones that have to come up with some explanation? For all we know, Benioff and Weiss never gave a single thought to Sandsnakes mysteriously appearing in Trystan's chambers. For how many days now fans of the show keep coming up with theories about how did Sandsnakes make onto the ship, but the truth is, in the show itself and in accompanying videos like After the Thrones or Inside the episode there is nothing to suggest that Benioff and Weiss ever thought about that. And it's been like that forever. The most they do is to send Cogman to deliver some ridiculous explaining like "We couldn't find a peach in Northern Ireland". But that's it. And at last, when they finally addressed one of the uncountable issues some of us have with their show, the best Benioff could come up with is "Creatively it made sense to us because we wanted it to happen". And now I'm supposed to excuse him for that even? Thanks, but no. Not really.

[HairGrowsBack]

37 minutes ago, Humble AK said:

 

There you lost me. Sure, it's a fine thematic addition, but it's pretty loose. Why hasn't the butcher's boy been revived to hound the Hound? His body was ruthlessly and disrespecfully handled. Why doesn't the specter of the singer that Bronn had chopped up and made into stew come back to haunt Tyrion and Bronn? Etc.

It doesn't need to be the literal manifestation of the undead revenge.

Because they weren't POV characters for three books. Some people seem to forget (willfully perhaps ?) that Cat was a major character for a huge part of the series.

[sweetsunray]

46 minutes ago, Humble AK said:

There you lost me. Sure, it's a fine thematic addition, but it's pretty loose. Why hasn't the butcher's boy been revived to hound the Hound? His body was ruthlessly and disrespecfully handled. Why doesn't the specter of the singer that Bronn had chopped up and made into stew come back to haunt Tyrion and Bronn? Etc.

It doesn't need to be the literal manifestation of the undead revenge.

You are confusing murder with desecration of the dead. Desecration means not giving a dead person a type of burial ritual. The butcher's boy was butchered and given to his father. I'm pretty sure the butcher gave his son the proper burial rites.

It's not just thematic taboo or respect for the dead in aSoIaF. It's vital to prevent in giving the Others an army. Ygritte begs Jon to bury her properly, to burn her, so she can't become a wight. And while cannibalism is a different type of taboo, it is a known burial ritual in a historical sense. In the cultures who performed it, it wasn't anthropologically done to disrespect the dead, but to have a piece of the enemy's strength. It's probably why George used the Rat's Cook legend to inform the reader that it is not sacrilege. Bran's chapters are rife with wights that only end to be wights when the wolves eat the remains. And there are real life burial rites where people are left to be eaten to birds or other animals and it is regarded as a respectful burial rite, even now. We've got all sorts of various burial rites in aSoIaF, some that clash with our sensibilities, but are based on documented burrial customs, and thus never were an act of desecration, and all are steeped either in beliefs to prevent the dead from coming back (swords in the crypts), or the very practical burning or eating.

aSoIaF's prologue gives people the impression that only the Others have the power to revive the dead for their end. It's like Sauron and Saruman making trolls as their swarm army. We soon nod and understand that the customary burial rites (whatever they are, since there are various ones, and that would include cannibalism... even in the Rat's Cook legend it isn't a sin.) are vital, because there are always more dead people than alive ones. But then with Beric we learn that it's possible that some humans too can harness this whatever magic to bring back a dead person. Same for Coldhands. And eventually Lady Stoneheart. George is breaking the trope there that only the obvious enemy of humanity can use this, not just against the Others but their human enemies who had such hubris they thought they could deny a dead person funeral rites, while they had a mass funeral (a bonfire) of the other thousands of bodies. 

[Cas Stark]

What's so difficult to understand about the fact that opinions differ on Lady Stoneheart?  Just like they do on a lot of other characters as well as various turns the story has taken.

Some people loved her, whether she's really been brought back to show us something about the futility of revenge or not, is unknown.  I didn't think it was a cheap trick, considering that we already have dragons and resurrection and all kinds of magic, and the fact that she's very far from Cat Stark, another example of realism within the confines of the fantasy genre.

I've always thought it was questionable whether she would be in the show, I think it could have worked very well, couldn't have been any worse than Dorne, that's for sure, LOL.  But, yes, I liked her coming back and seeking revenge on those who destroyed her and her family all the while holding her dead son's crown.  But I get that some people didn't like it, like some people didn't like the prophecy and a lot of people thought the last two books were flawed.

Opinions vary.

[sweetsunray]

14 minutes ago, Humble AK said:

No, I understood what you were getting at. I have to rush, but how do you account for the desecration of the singers' body (chopping it into pieces to be fed to people)?

Cannibalism = burial rites, and it prevents there being a body left to be revived (as a wight or like LS). So, it's not desecration.

Why'd you think Skagos are renowned cannibals? They live very very close to the wall. Eaten and made into stock there's nothing left for the Others to revive anything.

There seem to be three ways to prevent the dead from coming back: eaten, burned, buried under the surface.

 

[Humble AK]

53 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Cannibalism = burial rites, and it prevents there being a body left to be revived (as a wight or like LS). So, it's not desecration.

Why'd you think Skagos are renowned cannibals? They live very very close to the wall. Eaten and made into stock there's nothing left for the Others to revive anything.

There seem to be three ways to prevent the dead from coming back: eaten, burned, buried under the surface.

 

Yeah, sorry, that's really reaching. And certainly doesn't make me think that bringing Cat back would be good.

[jbent87]

2 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

What's so difficult to understand about the fact that opinions differ on Lady Stoneheart?  Just like they do on a lot of other characters as well as various turns the story has taken.

Some people loved her, whether she's really been brought back to show us something about the futility of revenge or not, is unknown.  I didn't think it was a cheap trick, considering that we already have dragons and resurrection and all kinds of magic, and the fact that she's very far from Cat Stark, another example of realism within the confines of the fantasy genre.

I've always thought it was questionable whether she would be in the show, I think it could have worked very well, couldn't have been any worse than Dorne, that's for sure, LOL.  But, yes, I liked her coming back and seeking revenge on those who destroyed her and her family all the while holding her dead son's crown.  But I get that some people didn't like it, like some people didn't like the prophecy and a lot of people thought the last two books were flawed.

Opinions vary.

This is all well and good. But in this argument when one side goes out of their way to insult the other by referencing the character being discussed as a "hissing zombie" it sets the standards for the conversation off on the wrong foot. 

[kissdbyfire]

7 hours ago, Ser Quork said:

Exactly so.  In addition, in-world tradition has it that those who break guest right are cursed.  This isn't just a question of religious mumbo-jumbo.  It's the equivalent of killing someone under a flag of truce or someone with diplomatic status.  These things (in the real world and in Westeros) are there to facilitate negotiations for peace/treaties, and so on.  This is why Tywin is no "lawful neutral" - far from it. 

Exactly! The fact a character like Tywin Lannister is revered by some is pretty scary. 

Also agree 100% with the points made by @StepStark and @Mister Stoneheart above.

[A Ghost of Someone]

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Exactly! The fact a character like Tywin Lannister is revered by some is pretty scary. 

Also agree 100% with the points made by @StepStark and @Mister Stoneheart above.

The Breaking of Guest Rights and Kinslaying are the worst damnations in the eyes of the Gods, Old and New in the in-world of ASOIAF and there is always consequences for it, sooner or later. I agree, Tywin is a completely dishonorable character.

[Ser Matt Dayne]

Is Tywin really revered? That is indeed scary.

Putting everything aside, it should be enough alone that this is a man who orders the gang rape of a woman his son loves.....and forces that son to not only watch but partake. 

The man is scum, simple as. Not lawful neutral (I hate that terminology), just scum.

[ShadowKitteh]

26 minutes ago, Ser Matt Dayne said:

Is Tywin really revered? That is indeed scary.

Putting everything aside, it should be enough alone that this is a man who orders the gang rape of a woman his son loves.....and forces that son to not only watch but partake. 

The man is scum, simple as. Not lawful neutral (I hate that terminology), just scum.

Yes, without a doubt.

Charles Dance is revered, and by extension, his performance of Tywin. Charles's portrayal of Tywin is nothing short of brilliant, because you can completely see why some people in Westeros hold him in high regard, and ALL people of Westeros were scared to death of him.

[sweetsunray]

12 hours ago, Humble AK said:

Yeah, sorry, that's really reaching. And certainly doesn't make me think that bringing Cat back would be good.

I'm not trying to convince you that bringing Cat back is good. Your personal tastes are your concern, not mine. I simply pointed out that George incorporates stuff that is part of literature for thousands of years, and that's basically the snowball effect one side doing this, then the other side does that, but then that results in someting else, which... etc. And it doesn't end with death, unless the dead are burned, buried or eaten. You seem to be under the impression that it should end at death, but then you've been reading the wrong story for you since the prologue. That's ok. I've started to read books and along the way I discovered the world and its rules were just not my thing.

I argued that George wrote books where the first freaky thing you learn is that there is some magic by which the dead can come back, that making sure that there is no body to be revived and that there are three ways to make sure they don't: burried, burned or eaten. Hence burial rites are functionally important. And if people believe that this reviving magic was only something the Others could do, then George has been warning from early on that's not the case.

Had the Freys burned Cat's body, there couldn't have been an LS. Had they made a stew out of her, there wouldn't be an LS. Had they hanged her on the bridge and fed her to the crows, there wouldn't be an LS. Had they burried her, there wouldn't be an LS. They didn't. And that gave humans who knew how to use the "revive dead people" magic a chance to make her alive again.. more it was a revived dead person who did so. The Freys were stupid - they thought they could get away with not giving a dead body some type of burial, and in this magical world that's a huge mistake. And that's why George incorporates classical dead characters being empowered by desecration.

I'm not arguing that's "good". I'm saying "what did you expect in a magical world where the dead can be brought back and you know it since the first chapter?"

As for me reaching about cannibalism:

Are we not told that wighted animals and human body parts remember they are dead once Summer breaks the bone marrow? We are. So purely practical, eating the dead (whether humans or any other animal) prevents revival of the dead.

Are we not told that the gods weren't angry with the Rat's Cook for the cannibalism, but for breaking guest rigth? We are. So thematically, cannibalism is not something that you can get punished for.

Was cannibalism a form of real world burial rite? It certainly was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Reasons

Quote

In some societies, especially tribal societies, cannibalism is a cultural norm. Consumption of a person from within the same community is called endocannibalism; ritual cannibalism of the recently deceased can be part of the grieving process^[15] or a way of guiding the souls of the dead into the bodies of living descendants.^[16]Exocannibalism is the consumption of a person from outside the community, usually as a celebration of victory against a rival tribe.^[16] Both types of cannibalism can also be fueled by the belief that eating a person's flesh or internal organs will endow the cannibal with some of the characteristics of the deceased.^[17]

Note: I am not personally defending this practice as moral. I find it horrendous, even as a burial rite. And I'm pretty sure that George is not saying it's moral either. I don't think he's saying that LS is morally right either. But he created this magical world and he sets the magical limitations and possibilities for it. The moment he showed us that humans could use the reviving magic too (Beric), the Freys' actions regarding Cat were just plain stupid. They shot themselves in the foot in many ways, and that was one of them. Manderly isn't that stupid - no breaking guest right, no leaving bodies to be revived.

 

[kissdbyfire]

4 hours ago, Ser Matt Dayne said:

Is Tywin really revered? That is indeed scary.

Putting everything aside, it should be enough alone that this is a man who orders the gang rape of a woman his son loves.....and forces that son to not only watch but partake. 

The man is scum, simple as. Not lawful neutral (I hate that terminology), just scum.

Yes, by a big portion of book and show fans. And book fans long before the show existed, I might add. And what he's done to Tyrion, as disgusting and horrifying as it was, is only one evil deed. There's so much more... Unleashing the Mountain, Hoat, and Lorch on the smallfolk to pillage, rape, and burn is another. And the argument "it's better to kill 20 at dinner" yadda yadda yadda is just so wrong on every level, but there you go. 

Back to LSH, I doubt we'll see her. She should have appeared not too long after the RW. Now not only is too late, but I doubt they'll have two resurrections in the same season. 

[A Ghost of Someone]

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yes, by a big portion of book and show fans. And book fans long before the show existed, I might add. And what he's done to Tyrion, as disgusting and horrifying as it was, is only one evil deed. There's so much more... Unleashing the Mountain, Hoat, and Lorch on the smallfolk to pillage, rape, and burn is another. And the argument "it's better to kill 20 at dinner" yadda yadda yadda is just so wrong on every level, but there you go. 

Back to LSH, I doubt we'll see her. She should have appeared not too long after the RW. Now not only is too late, but I doubt they'll have two resurrections in the same season. 

The rumors of Sansa taking on that persona seem to be coming true but after ep 1, I do not exactly see the "Boss Ass Bitch" in her just yet.

[kissdbyfire]

6 minutes ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

The rumors of Sansa taking on that persona seem to be coming true but after ep 1, I do not exactly see the "Boss Ass Bitch" in her just yet.

Whether some other character will take on LSH's story or not I don't know. But I very much doubt we'll get LSH.

[Cas Stark]

32 minutes ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

The rumors of Sansa taking on that persona seem to be coming true but after ep 1, I do not exactly see the "Boss Ass Bitch" in her just yet.

I don't see that at all.  Sansa is in the North and is almost surely going to stay in the North.

The BWB, whomever they are now, will take whatever role of LSH that the show is interested in keeping, or, I wouldn't put it past them, having convinced about 90% of people that there will be no LSH, have her show up randomly, because SHOCKING.

[Farerb]

14 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I don't see that at all.  Sansa is in the North and is almost surely going to stay in the North.

The BWB, whomever they are now, will take whatever role of LSH that the show is interested in keeping, or, I wouldn't put it past them, having convinced about 90% of people that there will be no LSH, have her show up randomly, because SHOCKING.

This will be so annoying. If she does show up, I will never understand why they didn't set her. For most general audience who are not book readers, the name "Lady Stoneheart" means nothing and wouldn't have meant anything other than a mysterious woman leading the BWB and hanging Freys. They should have mentioned what happens in the Riverlands after season 3 even if they didn't show it.

[A Ghost of Someone]

2 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I don't see that at all.  Sansa is in the North and is almost surely going to stay in the North.

The BWB, whomever they are now, will take whatever role of LSH that the show is interested in keeping, or, I wouldn't put it past them, having convinced about 90% of people that there will be no LSH, have her show up randomly, because SHOCKING.

rumors of her shooting near the Riverlands set at the same time as Briene and Jaime peaked my interest. We will see.

[HairGrowsBack]

55 minutes ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

rumors of her shooting near the Riverlands set at the same time as Briene and Jaime peaked my interest. We will see.

You mean Michelle Fairley ? She lives in Belfast, it would seem, so it might mean nothing.

[A Ghost of Someone]

6 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said:

You mean Michelle Fairley ? She lives in Belfast, it would seem, so it might mean nothing.

Sophie Turner was there.