why was Ladystoneheart cut out

[Back in Black-Snow]

I think Lady Stone Heart is simply a character GRRM should have never put in the books, along with a few (not many) others. I don't think she serves any purpose that others cannot simply fulfill in her place. I think D&D saw that, and that is why LSH is not in the show.

[Ashes Of Westeros]

I think she was cut out because of time/budget. In the show there aren't so many characters, who took part in Red Wedding, and should be killed in the revenge. Besides that Brienne completed her mission protecting Sansa at least in the show, so LHS (if she shows up) has less reasons to hang her. I don't think it make any sense to introduce LSH at all.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

3 hours ago, StepStark said:

Writing a cliffhanger like that only to have everyone get out of it without serious consequences is poor storytelling. It's not storytelling actually, it's mindless manipulation. And luckily, George just doesn't do that. D&D do it all the time, but he doesn't

George does that all the time.  For example when the Hound "took Arya in the back of the head with the Axe" (lol nope, it was the back of it and he was saving her).  And when Brienne was "hung by LSH" only to turn up with her worst injuries being from the fight with Biter (unless you believe the "Brienne is a zombie" theories).  

To the extent D&D use "cheap" cliffhangers, they learned from the best.

Anyway the Brienne - Jaime encounter at Riverrun clearly affected them both, deeply, and their relationship with Catelyn hung over it all.  There are and will be consequences, in their future interactions with other characters and eventually each other.  As will their encounter in TWOW with LSH.  I don't see much of a difference other than the fact that Catelyn is a revenge demon in the book.  I'm good with the show version thanks. 

Also remember that GRRM told the show runners how each major character's arc ends.  If Brienne or Jaime actually died in this encounter, he would have told them.  If they died at this time it would have been great drama. Like Stannis burning his own daughter in desperation prior to being defeated in battle, I don't think they would pass that up.  Or maybe you're one of those who still insists that Stannis would never burn Shireen, even though D&D told them GRRM revealed that to them specifically.  

Quote

I have no idea what she's for, but she is a major character, one of the most important characters in the entire series. Bringing her back just to play some role in other characters' storylines would again be a bad storytelling. Cat/LSH has an arc of her own.

Lady Stoneheart, soulless revenge zombie demon, the most important character in the entire series.  Alrighty, I guess I know what I'm dealing with now...

Quote

That arc is of course intertwined with Jaime's and Brienne's, just like it always has been, but it is an arc on its own. I'm positive she wasn't brought back just to serve anyone else's arc. And when her real arc is finally revealed in future books, I'll enjoy rereading this thread and all the stupid things posted in defense of D&D's "genius".

All characters serve others' arcs.  You can convincingly argue that Brienne is mostly a character to serve Jaime's arc.  But she's also her own character of moderate importance.  

Other characters are hardly more than plot devices that serve other characters.  Jeyne Poole is a primary example.  

Catelyn Stark was a character in her own right, and she was a complex character with an amazing arc.  But she's dead.  

This part's my opinion, but Lady Stoneheart doesn't seem to have much "character" to her besides "kill all freys and lannisters".  I mean there's not that much to work with really.  I'm going with 90% plot device. 

Quote

Not a single character in the entire Northern storyline acted logically, rationally and/or in character. For the entire run of the sixth season. Period. But the most ridiculous of them all was Davos. Why do you think it was like that? Was it maybe because certain Stannis Baratheon is missing from the plot?

You only believe that because you believe characters should still act exactly as they would have acted in the  circumstances they are in books.  The characters act believably in the context of the situations they find themselves in.  

Quote

Don't get me wrong, even if they didn't kill Stannis off, D&D would ruin the Northern storyline. That's their thing, they mishandle everything they touch. But removing Stannis and having Jon defeat the Boltons is definitely among the stupidest decisions they ever made.

I'm not really sure why you're watching this show TBH.  You've literally just admitted that no matter what choice they make, it will be wrong! 

[A spoon of knife and fork]

39 minutes ago, AshesOfWesteros said:

I think she was cut out because of time/budget. In the show there aren't so many characters, who took part in Red Wedding, and should be killed in the revenge. Besides that Brienne completed her mission protecting Sansa at least in the show, so LHS (if she shows up) has less reasons to hang her. I don't think it make any sense to introduce LSH at all.

To be fair, the reason in the books that LSH hangs Brienne is because the evidence she has indicates that Brienne and Jaime colluded with Roose Bolton and orchestrated the Red Wedding.  "Jaime (The) Lannister(s) sends his regards" were among the last words she heard in this life, and then Brienne shows up with Jaime Lannister's sword, and whimpering his name while semi-conscious.

Of course it's not the whole story but LSH is a bit beyond the point of giving people fair trials.  If they wanted to include LSH they could do so - if Brienne said she was already protecting Sansa, LSH would just ignore her or call it Lannister lies.  

Still I totally agree I'm relieved they didn't include her.

[lakin1013]

On 7/11/2016 at 7:58 PM, Lord Krok said:

I know I'm in the minority, but I for one am pleased that the showrunners have spared us LSH.  A one-dimensional soulless revenge-driven zombie - what's not to love?  

I agree with this.   I found LSH to be a tiresome visual of revenge and certainly not a core character of any significance.  Catelyn was important but she is long dead.  I am always surprised to find forums dedicated to when LSH will reappear.  There are enough instructive lessons in the show about revenge that we do not need a zombie reminder.  I am glad the show left her out.

[Meera of Tarth]

6 minutes ago, lakin1013 said:

I agree with this.   I found LSH to be a tiresome visual of revenge and certainly not a core character of any significance.  Catelyn was important but she is long dead.  I am always surprised to find forums dedicated to when LSH will reappear.  There are enough instructive lessons in the show about revenge that we do not need a zombie reminder.  I am glad the show left her out.

there are enough, so they decided that 20 reminders are too much but 19 are ok.

It's clear the reason was to make the story different because they don't like adapting the book and/or don't like LSH as a character.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

there are enough, so they decided that 20 reminders are too much but 19 are ok.

It's clear the reason was to make the story different because they don't like adapting the book and/or don't like LSH as a character.

But it's pretty reasonable not to like LSH as a character - loads of people that read the books think she's pretty lame.  When you consider you could use screen time on characters that are not boring vengeance demons the choice is clear. 

And of course they like adapting the book.  It's hellish hard work and I bet sometimes they wish they could just relax, but they do clearly love the books as a whole.  

[Meera of Tarth]

42 minutes ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

But it's pretty reasonable not to like LSH as a character - loads of people that read the books think she's pretty lame.  When you consider you could use screen time on characters that are not boring vengeance demons the choice is clear. 

And of course they like adapting the book.  It's hellish hard work and I bet sometimes they wish they could just relax, but they do clearly love the books as a whole.  

I am ok that people might not like LSH, I haven't said the contrary,  because everyone has different likes, but she is not a vengeance demon, she's more complicated than that... We do not just like zombies. If we liked zombies we would prefer plain characters like The Mountain, who had his adaptation despite being less important.

NOTE: I would have liked to see both LSH and The Mountain adapted, despite not liking the latter.

I can't agree that they like adapting the book. After having read them, just after watching S4, I discovered they prefer inventing things that, sometimes, are illogical and more boring than the books. 

As for if they like the books, I suppose they do, or at least they did, because the first seasons are very enjoyable and well-adapted IMO.

About it's hard work, I completely agree. But it wouldn't have been a hard work to adapt LSH considering the big shocking moment it was, along with Brienne's cliffhanger. Something I don't even understand now.

[StepStark]

7 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

George does that all the time.  For example when the Hound "took Arya in the back of the head with the Axe" (lol nope, it was the back of it and he was saving her).  And when Brienne was "hung by LSH" only to turn up with her worst injuries being from the fight with Biter (unless you believe the "Brienne is a zombie" theories).  

To the extent D&D use "cheap" cliffhangers, they learned from the best.

Where to begin??? No, George doesn't do that all the time. I'm shocked that you don't see how different is Arya-Sandor situation to this LSH-Jaime-Brienne one. Arya-Sandor wasn't a built up point to which their arcs were directed up to that point, he hit her in the had because she'd otherwise get herself killed, and by the way everything was resolved just 100 pages later. And also, did you really think that he killed her??? You really think that was George's intention, to trick people into thinking Sandor killef Arya??? LOL!!!

As for your other example, I hope you do realize that it's even more damaging for your argument, because that wasn't a resolution in any shape or form. Brienne and Pod didn't leave that situation unharmed. In fact, we don't even know what happened to Pod. Brienne is maybe unharmed in a physical sense, but she's about to lure the man she loves into a deadly trap, which actually means that your example is just a step toward the moment we were discussing, and not some "everyone was alright" fairy tale you're advocating.

Try harder.

7 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

Anyway the Brienne - Jaime encounter at Riverrun clearly affected them both, deeply, and their relationship with Catelyn hung over it all.  There are and will be consequences, in their future interactions with other characters and eventually each other.  As will their encounter in TWOW with LSH.  I don't see much of a difference other than the fact that Catelyn is a revenge demon in the book.  I'm good with the show version thanks. 

Of course George is not some poor excuse for a writer that would do something like that. He brought LSH back for a reason. I don't know what that reason is, but based on everything he did so far, it's evident that her role is not just to bring together Jaime and Brienne. LSH is not a "revenge demon" but I guess you managed to misinterpret that too.

7 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

Also remember that GRRM told the show runners how each major character's arc ends.  If Brienne or Jaime actually died in this encounter, he would have told them.  If they died at this time it would have been great drama. Like Stannis burning his own daughter in desperation prior to being defeated in battle, I don't think they would pass that up.  Or maybe you're one of those who still insists that Stannis would never burn Shireen, even though D&D told them GRRM revealed that to them specifically.  

Aren't you showpologists little tired of repeating same old excuses all the time? The entire world knows that Coldhands isn't Benjen, and yet, Coldhands is Benjen in the show. The entire world knows that the marriage between Sansa and Ramsay is theoretically impossible, and yet, they were married in the show. And so on. I guess it's comforting to delude yourself into believing that there is some knowledge and solid reasoning behind D&D incompetence, but there really isn't.

Of course that Stannis is going to burn Shireen, since George did tell them that, but he's definitely not going to burn her because of some snow. LOL!!! If you don't see a difference between what happened with Shireen in the show and some realistic scenario that George has in mind, then I don't really know why are you even arguing with me. Go enjoy the show and just don't care about logic or other people's opinion about the show in general.

7 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

Lady Stoneheart, soulless revenge zombie demon, the most important character in the entire series.  Alrighty, I guess I know what I'm dealing with now...

You can't even ridicule me in any meaningful way, even though you're obviously trying. That's telling, really. FYI, I didn't say that LSH it the most important character in the entire series. I said that Cat/LSH, which is really one character, is one of the most important characters in the entire series. Think about it for a little, and you'll see how different that is.

7 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

All characters serve others' arcs.  You can convincingly argue that Brienne is mostly a character to serve Jaime's arc.  But she's also her own character of moderate importance.  

Other characters are hardly more than plot devices that serve other characters.  Jeyne Poole is a primary example.  

I don't think you know what "serve" actually means. If characters interact and influence each other's arcs, it doesn't mean they serve each other. Not even Jeyne Poole serves anyone. She's a minor but instrumental character in Theon's arc, but she's not serving his arc in a way you think LSH will serve Jaime and Brienne. Jeyne wasn't there just to wake Theon from his Reek nightmare, but also to be the centerpiece of a rather important political scam that affects the entire North. And she's a character actually, in her brief page time she is presented as a three-dimensional person. In your version, LSH would be nothing but a cheap vehicle for bringing Brienne and Jaime together. I highly doubt that George would bring one of the major character back from the dead just to use her as a cheap vehicle of any kind. If he does that, I'll literally be so disappointed that I'll stop reading the series. I would never read a series in which major characters like Cat are brought back from the dead in a way you describe. Only a totally untalented author would write something like that, and I can't think of a single reason to read books by totally untalented authors. But, since George proved so many times how talented he is (unlike D&D), I don't have a shred of a doubt about LSH. She isn't a cheap plot device and the next books is going to prove it.

7 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

Catelyn Stark was a character in her own right, and she was a complex character with an amazing arc.  But she's dead.  

This part's my opinion, but Lady Stoneheart doesn't seem to have much "character" to her besides "kill all freys and lannisters".  I mean there's not that much to work with really.  I'm going with 90% plot device. 

I don't think you know what opinion means. You can't have an opinion on LSH. Nobody can. We can only have expectations, based on George's style and everything, but we can't have opinions because she barely appeared in two chapters and she's still a mystery. Thoros reveals a little about her, but that's it. It's ridiculous to call her "revenge zombie demon" because none of the words actually fit. Hanging Pod is not a revenge. She isn't a zombie, at least no more than Beric was. And she's definitely not a demon. "Opinion" about LSH at this point is like an "opinion" about Mance before ASOS, because practically all we knew of him at that point was what other said about him. That's where LSH is at this point, unless you consider her the continuation of Cat as a character, but that would go against your conclusion that two of them are different characters.

7 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

You only believe that because you believe characters should still act exactly as they would have acted in the  circumstances they are in books.  The characters act believably in the context of the situations they find themselves in.  

Oh yeah, they all act believably. Davos and Mel risk their lives for a dead boy they hardly knew (Jon), Umber doesn't want to band the knee before Ramsay but hands him his biggest asset (Rickon), Ramsay lets Jon, Sansa and Davos tour the North in order to recruit other houses against him, Roose forgets that Ramsay is a psychopath in the most convenient moment, Brienne becomes a raven I guess because she's used just for delivering messages, Sansa trusts Jon but not really but actually apologizes to him at the end but then she's still suspicious, and not to mention a freaking Vale army nobody noticed... Really, everything's logical there, no problems at all, silly me.

7 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

I'm not really sure why you're watching this show TBH.  You've literally just admitted that no matter what choice they make, it will be wrong! 

I can reply with a question: why do you read the books at all? You obviously misinterpret them all the time. What you get from reading the books in which you expect LSH to be a plot device?

[LadyFrostheart]

She is not a zombie... why does everyone keep calling her that. Was Beric a zombie?

Sure, she isn't very talkative and she has a really bad hair day, but maybe there is more to her? There is so much anger that she hasn't really had the opportunity to show us what humanity is left.

All this time I have been hoping for great storytelling with LSH, but am worried Martin might not have imagination when it comes to LSH. If he did indeed just add her for cheap shock I would be very disappointed. As an artist, I just can't help but feel there are so much fun things to do with her character. Have her ride Nymeria, let her have doubts about whether it would be a good idea to reveal herself to her kids when the time comes, maybe instead help them from within the shadows. But that's just my imagination going wild again

 

[Dragon in the North]

On July 12, 2016 at 6:58 PM, StepStark said:

Sorry, but I have to say, your interpretation of George's mindset and method is probably as removed from the reality as possible. Only a terrible writer would "resolve" that cliffhanger that way and I don't think anyone can objectively claim that George is a terrible writer, or that there is any chance that LSH in the books was meant only for those reasons you stated.

Martin is my favorite author, but he's not infallible. He's made several mistakes, imo, particularly in the last two books. In AFFC and ADWD, he sacrificed plot advancement for themes, character development, and world building. LSH may be another character that serves no purpose in the plot but was simply put in for thematic purposes. 

[StepStark]

19 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

Martin is my favorite author, but he's not infallible.

Strawman argument. I didn't say that he's infallible. I didn't say that anyone's infallible. Nobody's infallible. But George is still a great author, period. Unlike D&D.

19 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

He's made several mistakes, imo, particularly in the last two books. In AFFC and ADWD, he sacrificed plot advancement for themes, character development, and world building.

No he did not. That's just one more unfounded thing people repeat without thinking. Just look at how different everything is after AFFC and ADWD, and you'll see how much happened in those two books. So no, plot advancement was not sacrificed.

19 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

LSH may be another character that serves no purpose in the plot but was simply put in for thematic purposes. 

Yeah, she might be. Or she might be, you know, a character who's not going to get fully fleshed out after first two chapters in which she appeared. Maybe her arc will develop in time. That's what George does, a lot. Unlike D&D, who doesn't know the first thing about developing characters.

But I don't know what do you mean by `again`? When did George create a character that `serves no purpose in the plot but was simply put in for thematic purposes`? I know D&D do something similar all the time: they frequently add cartoonish "characters" that can't serve thematic purposes (because D&D have no idea what a theme is) but instead serve the most banal needs of the audience (sexposition). But I don't know of even one character that fits your description in the books.

[Dragon in the North]

5 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Strawman argument. I didn't say that he's infallible. I didn't say that anyone's infallible. Nobody's infallible. But George is still a great author, period. Unlike D&D.

I wasn't making an argument, I was stating a fact, which you seem to agree with. Martin is capable of making mistakes.

 

7 minutes ago, StepStark said:

No he did not. That's just one more unfounded thing people repeat without thinking. Just look at how different everything is after AFFC and ADWD, and you'll see how much happened in those two books. So no, plot advancement was not sacrificed.

There is a significant difference between the plot advancement of the first three books and the plot advancement of the last two books. The story has slowed to a crawl so Martin could fixate more on the world and the characters.

 

9 minutes ago, StepStark said:

But I don't know what do you mean by `again`? When did George create a character that `serves no purpose in the plot but was simply put in for thematic purposes`? I know D&D do something similar all the time: they frequently add cartoonish "characters" that can't serve thematic purposes (because D&D have no idea what a theme is) but instead serve the most banal needs of the audience (sexposition). But I don't know of even one character that fits your description in the books.

Quentyn serves no purpose to the story. He was given five POV chapters only to die in the stupidest way possible. I've heard arguments that his death will push Doran Martell to side with Aegon against Dany, but seeing as Aegon is supposedly his nephew, he had reason enough to do so.

[StepStark]

20 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

I wasn't making an argument, I was stating a fact, which you seem to agree with. Martin is capable of making mistakes.

Repeating that Martin is capable of making mistakes won't make D&D look any better. He's a great author who sometimes makes mistakes (though I'm sure there is no general consensus on what his mistakes are, because everyone her their own complaints). D&D are poor authors who can't make a good story.

20 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

There is a significant difference between the plot advancement of the first three books and the plot advancement of the last two books. The story has slowed to a crawl so Martin could fixate more on the world and the characters.

Wrong again. The story hasn't slowed to a crawl which was my point, because a lot of things happened. Readers like you obviously expected some other things to happen, which is why you go on repeating that plot didn't advance enough in AFFC and ADWD, but it doesn't make it true.

20 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

Quentyn serves no purpose to the story. He was given five POV chapters only to die in the stupidest way possible. I've heard arguments that his death will push Doran Martell to side with Aegon against Dany, but seeing as Aegon is supposedly his nephew, he had reason enough to do so.

It's four chapters, not five. But your argument makes no sense at all. Yeah, Doran could declare for Aegon without Quentyn dying. But guess what, dragons could also escape without Quentyn dying. So if you're right, then George added a character that serves no purpose at all. Well, sorry if it offends you, but I'm more ready to trust George than you at this point. George delivered five amazing books so far in which all the characters were useful for the story and the themes. You only deliver trivialization of the books in order for the show to look better. Yeah, sorry, but I'm gonna put my faith in George and not in your "assessment" of his books.

[Le Cygne]

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

Where to begin??? No, George doesn't do that all the time. I'm shocked that you don't see how different is Arya-Sandor situation to this LSH-Jaime-Brienne one. Arya-Sandor wasn't a built up point to which their arcs were directed up to that point, he hit her in the had because she'd otherwise get herself killed, and by the way everything was resolved just 100 pages later. And also, did you really think that he killed her??? You really think that was George's intention, to trick people into thinking Sandor killef Arya??? LOL!!!

Yeah, why would he ride straight into a massacre to kill her. That would make no sense.

Quote

As for your other example, I hope you do realize that it's even more damaging for your argument, because that wasn't a resolution in any shape or form. Brienne and Pod didn't leave that situation unharmed. In fact, we don't even know what happened to Pod. Brienne is maybe unharmed in a physical sense, but she's about to lure the man she loves into a deadly trap, which actually means that your example is just a step toward the moment we were discussing, and not some "everyone was alright" fairy tale you're advocating.

Try harder.

Of course George is not some poor excuse for a writer that would do something like that. He brought LSH back for a reason. I don't know what that reason is, but based on everything he did so far, it's evident that her role is not just to bring together Jaime and Brienne. LSH is not a "revenge demon" but I guess you managed to misinterpret that too.

True, and I think Sansa's story was involved with LSH, too. I think LSH might also have a role in Littlefinger's downfall, that would be poetic.

I think the show cutting LSH is why we are seeing Sansa and Brienne swapped for other characters, and the results have been anywhere from dull to nonsensical.

[Ser Quork]

2 hours ago, Le Cygne said:

Yeah, why would he ride straight into a massacre to kill her. That would make no sense.

True, and I think Sansa's story was involved with LSH, too. I think LSH might also have a role in Littlefinger's downfall, that would be poetic.

I think the show cutting LSH is why we are seeing Sansa and Brienne swapped for other characters, and the results have been anywhere from dull to nonsensical.

Which I fervently hope is true!

I think I may have said on this thread before (or somewhere else entirely!), LSH's appearance has an ancillary purpose as it also gives us reason to fear for Jon (if he has died and comes back).  We know Beric is a little less each time he returns, and what Catelyn has become should make us fear for Jon.  We know he may warg Ghost, but even so -- a return to life comes at a price is the clear message we get.  

[Dragon in the North]

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

Wrong again. The story hasn't slowed to a crawl which was my point, because a lot of things happened. Readers like you obviously expected some other things to happen, which is why you go on repeating that plot didn't advance enough in AFFC and ADWD, but it doesn't make it true.

Ok, then how exactly has the story advanced?

 

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

 But your argument makes no sense at all. 

First you say this.

 

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

Yeah, Doran could declare for Aegon without Quentyn dying. But guess what, dragons could also escape without Quentyn dying. So if you're right, then George added a character that serves no purpose at all. 

Then you say this, which is the exact point I'm trying to make. So obviously my argument makes total sense to you. And then why do you go on saying that you trust Martin when you just admit that Quentyn doesn't accomplish anything. His story is already finished and he has nothing to show for it.

 

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

Well, sorry if it offends you, but I'm more ready to trust George than you at this point. George delivered five amazing books so far in which all the characters were useful for the story and the themes. You only deliver trivialization of the books in order for the show to look better. Yeah, sorry, but I'm gonna put my faith in George and not in your "assessment" of his books.

Believe me, there is absolutely nothing you could say that would ever offend me. And I'm only stating my honest opinion. I don't need to put down the books to raise up the show. The show stands on its own two feet without my help.

[Back in Black-Snow]

Children, children. Now kiss and make up, or go stand in the corner.

[StepStark]

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Ok, then how exactly has the story advanced?

Are you asking me to summarize two entire books??? LOL!!! Look, some storylines didn't "advance" much, like Sansa's and Arya's arcs. Bran's arc advanced more, but I guess you can say that his arc also didn't have a big momentum in ADWD. But, in all three cases, it is obvious that George is setting something up, and he's doing that in a rather intelligent way with all three Stark kids. As for the rest of POV characters, I can't even begin to understand how can anyone say that there wasn't enough plot advancement???!!! All of them are in a much different position than they were at the end of ASOS. Not to mention that the entire world has also changed significantly. Maybe it's better if you tell me which character's arc didn't advance enough in your opinion. I'm curious to find out who will you name.

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

First you say this.

 

Then you say this, which is the exact point I'm trying to make. So obviously my argument makes total sense to you. And then why do you go on saying that you trust Martin when you just admit that Quentyn doesn't accomplish anything. His story is already finished and he has nothing to show for it.

I don't know what's confusing you. It's a very simple statement. I didn't say that Quentyn's storyline accomplish nothing. I just said that by your logic it accomplished nothing that couldn't be accomplished otherwise. But guess what, your logic is really not something I might enjoy in storytelling. Even if Quentyn's four chapters really weren't necessary, I really don't see what's the problem with them, because they also didn't ruin anything. Four chapters can't really affect the pacing of a book as big as ADWD. They are competently written chapters, and, at the end of the day, I'd always choose ASOIAF with Quentyn's four chapters over ASOIAF without them. And I'm not really a fan of Quentyn's storyline, I just fail to see what is this big problem with them.

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Believe me, there is absolutely nothing you could say that would ever offend me.

Relax, I was just being sarcastic.

8 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

And I'm only stating my honest opinion. I don't need to put down the books to raise up the show. The show stands on its own two feet without my help.

Oh no, it doesn't. The show doesn't stand on its own at all. Any scrutiny reveals how illogical, inconsistent, banal and unrealistic the show truly is.

[Dragon in the North]

3 hours ago, StepStark said:

Are you asking me to summarize two entire books??? LOL!!! Look, some storylines didn't "advance" much, like Sansa's and Arya's arcs. Bran's arc advanced more, but I guess you can say that his arc also didn't have a big momentum in ADWD. But, in all three cases, it is obvious that George is setting something up, and he's doing that in a rather intelligent way with all three Stark kids. As for the rest of POV characters, I can't even begin to understand how can anyone say that there wasn't enough plot advancement???!!! All of them are in a much different position than they were at the end of ASOS. Not to mention that the entire world has also changed significantly. Maybe it's better if you tell me which character's arc didn't advance enough in your opinion. I'm curious to find out who will you name.

It's not just the Stark children though. Jaime's plot in AFFC is nice character development, but it doesn't move the plot at all. Sam's, Brienne's, and Tyrion's travelogues are all nice character moments, but don't really move the plot. Jon's time at the Wall was all about his struggling to rule, which was nice reading, but his plot didn't really advance until his final chapter. The Battle of the North and the Battle of Meereen were all build up, no pay off. Dorne has been a waste of time so far. We really didn't need the Queen maker plot at all, and tying them to Dany's plot was clumsily handled and only made Doran look foolish. The plot that advanced the most was Cersei's, but it was handle in such a way that the ending was totally predicable. 

 

3 hours ago, StepStark said:

I don't know what's confusing you. It's a very simple statement. I didn't say that Quentyn's storyline accomplish nothing. I just said that by your logic it accomplished nothing that couldn't be accomplished otherwise. But guess what, your logic is really not something I might enjoy in storytelling. Even if Quentyn's four chapters really weren't necessary, I really don't see what's the problem with them, because they also didn't ruin anything. Four chapters can't really affect the pacing of a book as big as ADWD. They are competently written chapters, and, at the end of the day, I'd always choose ASOIAF with Quentyn's four chapters over ASOIAF without them. And I'm not really a fan of Quentyn's storyline, I just fail to see what is this big problem with them.

Whether or not you like Quentyn is not the argument I'm making. If you like Quentyn as a character and you enjoyed reading his chapters, that's perfectly ok. I'm not saying you're wrong for liking his arc. It's just that I don't see the importance of his character or why it was necessary to give him four chapters. It didn't ruin the book for me, but I can't help but think that removing his chapters would have made room to include better pay offs for some of the other storylines. 

 

3 hours ago, StepStark said:

Oh no, it doesn't. The show doesn't stand on its own at all. Any scrutiny reveals how illogical, inconsistent, banal and unrealistic the show truly is.

Yes, it does. Game of Thrones has once again received the most emmy nominations out of every other show. It has garnered critical acclaim and is the most watched show in HBO history. Right now, it's an unstoppable beast. A handful of internet posts isn't going to bring it down.