Jump to content

Illogical events in both show and books.


Red Typer of Dorne

Recommended Posts

 
Not buying it. The Boltons were Stark bannermaen and the last time they rebelled against the Starks was what a hundred years ago? Two hundred years ago?  More than 200 years ago?  She didn't identify herself for plot reasons, which honestly i don't really have a problem with at all.

The first thing Roose does when he gets to Harrenhal is to drink wine while watching a man being killed by a bear. He then proceeds to kill a lot of servants simply for serving Tywin Lannister. He also flays servants who spill wine (or at least Arya believes it). He is super creepy. Arya says he scares her just as much as the Brave Companions. I think she had enough reason not to trust him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.
 
As far as plot holes in the books, there are many more serious ones than Arya not trusting Roose, who isn't trustworthy, LOL.  My  personal pet peeve is why nobody has hired the FM to kill Dany for fuck's sake.  Multiple entire city states dependent on slavery and slaves for cheap labor but nobody will go to the FM?

 

Agreed, but to be fair, Faceless Men kill on a sliding scale.  Balon Greyjoy presumably cost a dragon egg (basically priceless), with so much at stake the Faceless Men may simply be asking way too much than anyone can or will pay (or Missandei).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly Arya didn't know Bolton and was scared of him, which is why she didn't want to reveal herself to him. She wanted to reveal herself to Glover or Tallhart, but Bolton sent them off to Duskendale before she got the chance.

 

My biggest complaint from the books though is Dany's story. Everything she does after the House of the Undying rests on the fact that the slavers are cruel, barbaric, greedy animals with an iq of 50. It's almost like an entire continent who only exists for the purpose to make Dany look awesome. 

 

Why didn't the slavers just take her dragons from her when she was in Astapor? Why would they agree to sell all the Unsullied? Why are they marching on a fortified city with three dragons like idiots?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Arya I could be wrong, but I remember it was mentioned that Roose had never seen her, at least as far as she is able to remember. Let's just assume what happened if she "revealed" herself to him: There you have a wretched and unwashed peasant girl working at Harrenhal, miles away from where the actual Arya Stark was last seen, going up to a great northern Lord like "Hey, Lord Bolton! I'm Arya Stark of Winterfell, please bring me to my brother!". She has nothing to back up this claim, not a single item that makes her a princess, and it's doubtful she had any knowledge only Arya Stark could have that Roose has as well.

 

It was very likely he would be just thinking she lied to escape Harrenhal. She would be more likely whipped instead of sent home. And I'm afraid that's also a factor for why she focused on people who know her instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There may be some reasonable room for disagreement on Arya, however your justifications for 20 good men do not hold water.

 

"It was the middle of the night" -- Any seasoned battle commander (which we are told Stannis is) will post competant guards during the night when in enemy territory.  A throw away line to justify it (the guards were asleep or in cahoots) does not change the fact that in order for the raid to be effective, 5-10 different sets of guards had to be circumvented.  Also, because it was night, it would be damn cold.  It is incredibly difficult to light a fire in sub-zero temperatures, when its snowing and nightime just makes it harder (its physics man, combustion happens by raising the temp of the material being lighted, this becomes much harder in the cold, wet, etc).  I'll find the link again if you want, but in modern times, with modern materials, experienced survivalists often take as long as an hour to get a fire started in that kind of weather.

 

"They were northerners who knew the area better"  -- Strictly untrue.  The terrain where Stannis was encamped was either Umber land, or Stark land, which can be determined by looking at a map.  There is no reason Ramsey or any of his twenty good men would have knowledge of that terrain.  When knowledge of terrain becomes an advantage, btw is most often in the choosing of the site of a conflict or the moving of forces undetected.  While such knowledge, if they had it -- which they didn't as they are not Stark or Umber men, might've gotten them through pickets but not into the camp itself.

 

"They only need to light one or two torches" -- Strictly untrue, as we are told supplies, horses and siege equipment were all destroyed.  Even if all these things were concentrated in one area (a seasoned commander would not for this reason) you'd still need multiple lightings, and near synchronous timing to pull it off and not get slaughtered by the 200 to 1 odds you'd be fighting on the way out.  And again, it requires the failure of multiple sets of guards.

 

 

 As I said people want to be shown everything in minute detail.

 

Ramsay gathering the twenty men together Ocean's 11 or magnificent seven style. Twenty men with specific skills whether that be scouting, ambushing, a few experienced mercenaries with some experience of using Fire in sieges and so know how to set one to catch fully alight at  the right moment.

 

Then getting into the camp, personally I doubt they would even have had to sneak in. There would have been worried about supplies given that they are trapped in a snow storm and then have to undertake a long siege and thus sending out foraging parties for food and firewood a small band could have ambushed one of those parties taken their insignias and got into the camp that way. As has been mentioned freezing men standing around in a snow storm aren't going to be the most alert.  

 

Then prep the fires so they all start close to one another and ideally when they had all made their escape.

 

With the right men, and good planning, it is entirely possible.

 

it only seems implausible to those who need to have everything shown to them to accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then just assume Stannis was right when he hypothesized that some of the guards were in on it. We don't know how long this was planned out we don't know if they bought off anybody or snuck a few guys in there. Yeah I won't say it's not some cliché military commando bs

 

Another entirely plausible scenarios particularly given they are Mercenaries of dubious loyalty WHO DESERTED SOON AFTERWARDS.

 

You could work out multiple plausible scenarios for how it could have been done. Does the show have to hold your hand every step of the way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yep.

 

As far as plot holes in the books, there are many more serious ones than Arya not trusting Roose, who isn't trustworthy, LOL.  My  personal pet peeve is why nobody has hired the FM to kill Dany for fuck's sake.  Multiple entire city states dependent on slavery and slaves for cheap labor but nobody will go to the FM?  

Didn't the FM come to pass through slaves wanting to escape their life, then evolve into a way to get rid of sadistic slave owners? Maybe they won't work for slavers or even make their price the end of slavery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 As I said people want to be shown everything in minute detail.

 

Ramsay gathering the twenty men together Ocean's 11 or magnificent seven style. Twenty men with specific skills whether that be scouting, ambushing, a few experienced mercenaries with some experience of using Fire in sieges and so know how to set one to catch fully alight at  the right moment.

 

Then getting into the camp, personally I doubt they would even have had to sneak in. There would have been worried about supplies given that they are trapped in a snow storm and then have to undertake a long siege and thus sending out foraging parties for food and firewood a small band could have ambushed one of those parties taken their insignias and got into the camp that way. As has been mentioned freezing men standing around in a snow storm aren't going to be the most alert.  

 

Then prep the fires so they all start close to one another and ideally when they had all made their escape.

 

With the right men, and good planning, it is entirely possible.

 

it only seems implausible to those who need to have everything shown to them to accept it.

 

The number of logical debate fallacies you employ in your refutation without actually offering any deconstruction or reason for you belief it is 'plausible' is impressive.

 

I didn't realize we were watching an 80's action movie, which you alude to with your magnificent seven reference.  Again, gritty realism is not Rambo.

 

You personal opinion,"I personally doubt they would need to sneak in" is not a refutation based on logic or facts.  It is stating your opinion without any basis to back it up.  I guess its irrelevant that the show estabilished Stannis is a seasoned commander through dialogue and that standard practices of seasoned commanders should be hand-waved away, because reasons.  Or more importantly, because you don't think they would need to sneak in.  The fact you are doing the writer's work for them and trying to come up with a justification for them means they did a poor job by definition.  You fall back on more action movie tropes, ambushing and stealing insignias in a 5000 man army that has been fighting together for months, that is supposed to have a command structure to account for its foragers (oh look I sent Bob to forage but this guy I don't know came back) is making more cliched justifications.

 

You don't bother trying to refute the facts, ignoring the difficulties of starting fires in that kind of weather after using the weather as an excuse to make it 'easy to sneak into camp'.   That, it nothing else, is a clear sign you are in incapable of objective analysis and will come up with any excuse for the sloppy writing that is 20 good men.

 

You stating with authority it is possible without anything to back it up doesn't make it so.  I've stated reasons like common military doctrine and laws of physics that make it unlikely or near impossible.

 

And you end with an ad hominem attack.  Classic and classy.

 

I suppose its my fault for wanting my gritty realism to be gritty and realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The number of logical debate fallacies you employ in your refutation without actually offering any deconstruction or reason for you belief it is 'plausible' is impressive.

 

I didn't realize we were watching an 80's action movie, which you alude to with your magnificent seven reference.  Again, gritty realism is not Rambo.

 

You personal opinion,"I personally doubt they would need to sneak in" is not a refutation based on logic or facts.  It is stating your opinion without any basis to back it up.  I guess its irrelevant that the show estabilished Stannis is a seasoned commander through dialogue and that standard practices of seasoned commanders should be hand-waved away, because reasons.  Or more importantly, because you don't think they would need to sneak in.  The fact you are doing the writer's work for them and trying to come up with a justification for them means they did a poor job by definition.  You fall back on more action movie tropes, ambushing and stealing insignias in a 5000 man army that has been fighting together for months, that is supposed to have a command structure to account for its foragers (oh look I sent Bob to forage but this guy I don't know came back) is making more cliched justifications.

 

You don't bother trying to refute the facts, ignoring the difficulties of starting fires in that kind of weather after using the weather as an excuse to make it 'easy to sneak into camp'.   That, it nothing else, is a clear sign you are in incapable of objective analysis and will come up with any excuse for the sloppy writing that is 20 good men.

 

You stating with authority it is possible without anything to back it up doesn't make it so.  I've stated reasons like common military doctrine and laws of physics that make it unlikely or near impossible.

 

And you end with an ad hominem attack.  Classic and classy.

 

I suppose its my fault for wanting my gritty realism to be gritty and realistic.

it is not about doing the "writers job for them". They shouldn't need to waste the time providing further plot support  for something that is entirely plausible if you give it much thought.

 

I was making the magnificent seven/oceans 11 reference as a joke as that is what some posters seem to have expected. Some sort of episode long plot of how it was possible. Ramsay gathering the twenty "good men" together with a montage demonstrating all their various skills, before moving onto the mission itself.  

 

We have posters trying to pretend some sort of expertise saying it is impossible because it would be twenty knights he was gathering, when in fact it has been clearly established in the world of Westeros that actual knights (or the northern equivalent) are a minority of the armies of the seven kingdoms. The Boltons have a few thousand men to pick from and so can get twenty men with the required skills whether that be skirmishers, ex-poachers, mercenaries with special skills or what have you. 

 

In terms of how they got into the camp, yes it should be surrounded by a ditch, stakes etc. But that is designed to deal with a surprise attack by an army are people seriously trying to say that twenty men couldn't sneak, bribe or bluff their way in?.

 

In an army the size of Stannis, with a number of different mercenary companies to boot, everyone is not going to know each other so a small group of strangers are not going to draw much attention.

 

As for it being impossible to light a fire in snow I don't know where to start with that one.

 

The bottom line is that people didn't like the Stannis plotline whether that be because they are Mannis fans or  hated the show spoiling something from WOW so they are trying to pretend the whole thing is cr*p by pretending their small nitpicks are plot holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is not about doing the "writers job for them". They shouldn't need to waste the time providing further plot support  for something that is entirely plausible if you give it much thought.

 

I was making the magnificent seven/oceans 11 reference as a joke as that is what some posters seem to have expected. Some sort of episode long plot of how it was possible. Ramsay gathering the twenty "good men" together with a montage demonstrating all their various skills, before moving onto the mission itself.  

 

We have posters trying to pretend some sort of expertise saying it is impossible because it would be twenty knights he was gathering, when in fact it has been clearly established in the world of Westeros that actual knights (or the northern equivalent) are a minority of the armies of the seven kingdoms. The Boltons have a few thousand men to pick from and so can get twenty men with the required skills whether that be skirmishers, ex-poachers, mercenaries with special skills or what have you. 

 

In terms of how they got into the camp, yes it should be surrounded by a ditch, stakes etc. But that is designed to deal with a surprise attack by an army are people seriously trying to say that twenty men couldn't sneak, bribe or bluff their way in?.

 

In an army the size of Stannis, with a number of different mercenary companies to boot, everyone is not going to know each other so a small group of strangers are not going to draw much attention.

 

As for it being impossible to light a fire in snow I don't know where to start with that one.

 

The bottom line is that people didn't like the Stannis plotline whether that be because they are Mannis fans or  hated the show spoiling something from WOW so they are trying to pretend the whole thing is cr*p by pretending their small nitpicks are plot holes.

 

And again you resort to 'addressing' points I didn't make, creating strawmen, mis-prepresenting and ad hominem attacks.  Good writing doesn't require the reader/viewer to do the work for them, nor does it expect them to accept hitting the lottery for events to happen.  Yes, many things are possible, however in good writing they should be probable for suspension of disbelief to hold. 

 

A practical example of how difficult starting fires is in conditions like the North in a Blizzard (the noted experience was the US Appalachian Trail, which is likely more temperate than the North of Westeros).  Note they had access to modernized fire starting tools:

 

http://www.practicalsurvivor.com/basiccoldweathersurvival

 

Your 'bottom line' statement reaks of ad hominem.  You've decided the people that don't like the show are flawed, and why they don't like it, and are insulting them instead of deconstructing arguements.  In fact your only deconstruction comes from the fallacy of arguement from personal incredulity.

 

It is clear you have your mind made up, will write off any criticism as 'show-hating' and will fervently defend the show by attacking those who find fault with it so there is no point in continuing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one thing to leave the audience to fill in the odd gap for themselves. It's quite another for entire plot lines to require the audience to do the writer's job for them (and even then they fail). How do twenty men disable an army of thousands? That's not a small nitpick which you should fill in for yourself. Why does Stannis change his mind about Shireen just one day after his supplies are burnt? This is a huge character moment, the central character moment for Stannis on the show. His decision to change his mind should not happen off screen. How does Stannis expect lifting the storm will win the battle if he has no cavalry, supplies or siege weaponry, how is he going to deal with not having an heir, how can he expect men to support him after burning his daughter? These are all massive logical considerations. And the show addresses none of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one thing to leave the audience to fill in the odd gap for themselves. It's quite another for entire plot lines to require the audience to do the writer's job for them (and even then they fail). How do twenty men disable an army of thousands? That's not a small nitpick which you should fill in for yourself. Why does Stannis change his mind about Shireen just one day after his supplies are burnt? This is a huge character moment, the central character moment for Stannis on the show. His decision to change his mind should not happen off screen. How does Stannis expect lifting the storm will win the battle if he has no cavalry, supplies or siege weaponry, how is he going to deal with not having an heir, how can he expect men to support him after burning his daughter? These are all massive logical considerations. And the show addresses none of them. 

At the point where he burns his daughter he still has cavalry they deserted afterwards  if you recall.

 

With no supplies and siege weapons I would have though divine favour would be even more important.

 

As for the reasoning the original Azor Ahai sacrificed his own wife. It seems logical that a man told he is the rebirth of this hero would have to be willing to make a similar sacrifice. 

 

The question is whether the show has to show every small detail (when they have barely enough time to cover key plot points), to fill in the gaps of an event that is entirely plausible.

 

Contrary to the post above yours I do not "fervently defend" the show when criticism is warranted. If you want to look at illogical plots look at Sansa marrying Ramsay or the entire Dornish plotline.  

The Stannis plotline was thought through, generally well written and excellently acted. There is no need for the show to have shown all the stages of the mission of the "twenty good men"  and no reason why such a venture was impossible to carry out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not buying it. The Boltons were Stark bannermaen and the last time they rebelled against the Starks was what a hundred years ago? Two hundred years ago?  More than 200 years ago?  She didn't identify herself for plot reasons, which honestly i don't really have a problem with at all.

 

If you read the passage where Arya meets Roose Bolton, it's clear why she doesn't reveal herself to him. She has no reason to trust him, for one, and he's working with the Brave Companions as well as Rorge and Biter.

 

 

Plus why not reveal herself to Robett Glover who was also there and she recognizes him and Vargo Hoat also point's him out.

 

I've just re-read ACoK and Arya never really has a chance to reveal herself to anyone. None of the Northerners she meets in Harrenhal would know her by sight (which would obviously be important given that Cersei is claiming to hold Arya Stark captive), and the few that would either die or leave before she can reveal herself to them.

 

 

Yep. This and Dany getting the dragon eggs are genuine illogical events.

 

Dany getting the dragon eggs is not illogical, LOL. They're just fossils when Illyrio gives them to her. The reason he's lavish is two-fold: he profited heavily from selling her to Drogo (literally stated in the text), and most importantly it's because he's a Magister of Pentos and thus has to dissuade Drogo from attacking the city.

 

If Drogo had been dissatisfied by any of the gifts, he may have decided to attack Pentos instead of returning straight to Vaes Dothrak.

 

 

 

Agreed, but to be fair, Faceless Men kill on a sliding scale.  Balon Greyjoy presumably cost a dragon egg (basically priceless), with so much at stake the Faceless Men may simply be asking way too much than anyone can or will pay (or Missandei).

 

Isn't it suggested that the cost of the Faceless Men is less about money and more about sacrifice?

 

It's like when Melisandre tells Davos that a man with 100 cows sacrificing 1 cow means nothing, whereas a man sacrificing the only cow he has means everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the point where he burns his daughter he still has cavalry they deserted afterwards  if you recall.

 

With no supplies and siege weapons I would have though divine favour would be even more important.

 

As for the reasoning the original Azor Ahai sacrificed his own wife. It seems logical that a man told he is the rebirth of this hero would have to be willing to make a similar sacrifice. 

 

The question is whether the show has to show every small detail (when they have barely enough time to cover key plot points), to fill in the gaps of an event that is entirely plausible.

 

Contrary to the post above yours I do not "fervently defend" the show when criticism is warranted. If you want to look at illogical plots look at Sansa marrying Ramsay or the entire Dornish plotline.  

The Stannis plotline was thought through, generally well written and excellently acted. There is no need for the show to have shown all the stages of the mission of the "twenty good men"  and no reason why such a venture was impossible to carry out.

 

No, Ramsay kills hundreds of Stannis' horses. So perhaps the cavalry is not entirely disabled, but it's still taken a heavy blow. So Stannis is burning Shireen to lift the storm, even though even should the storm lift he still has to take Winterfell with no siege weapons, supplies and limited cavalry at best. This is not a matter of a plausible plot line where the audience just has to fill in the odd gap. Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of military (and I say this as someone who only has a very basic knowledge of military) should know that twenty men cannot reasonably disable an army of thousands. Now in a fictional setting a writer could come up with some fantastical explanation for how that is possible. But D+D did not come up with such an explanation. They're asking their audience to explain the impossible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one thing to leave the audience to fill in the odd gap for themselves. It's quite another for entire plot lines to require the audience to do the writer's job for them (and even then they fail). How do twenty men disable an army of thousands? That's not a small nitpick which you should fill in for yourself. Why does Stannis change his mind about Shireen just one day after his supplies are burnt? This is a huge character moment, the central character moment for Stannis on the show. His decision to change his mind should not happen off screen. How does Stannis expect lifting the storm will win the battle if he has no cavalry, supplies or siege weaponry, how is he going to deal with not having an heir, how can he expect men to support him after burning his daughter? These are all massive logical considerations. And the show addresses none of them. 

I actually find Stannis burning Shireen more troubling than Ramsey's 20 men, don't get me wrong, I believe it's unlikely that 20 men could accomplish so much against the best General in Westeros. However, if Ser Barristen can get into Duskendale on his own and exit with the king who is surely the single most guarded person in the castle, then is it such a stretch? Stannis ending his line however makes no sense, if he has no heir then even if he succeeds it will not be a stable rule and his death could trigger another war. If Mel had burned Shireen I could have bought it, but Stannis would see how it would ultimately weaken him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually find Stannis burning Shireen more troubling than Ramsey's 20 men, don't get me wrong, I believe it's unlikely that 20 men could accomplish so much against the best General in Westeros. However, if Ser Barristen can get into Duskendale on his own and exit with the king who is surely the single most guarded person in the castle, then is it such a stretch? Stannis ending his line however makes no sense, if he has no heir then even if he succeeds it will not be a stable rule and his death could trigger another war. If Mel had burned Shireen I could have bought it, but Stannis would see how it would ultimately weaken him.

 

You can't compare Barristan's mission to this. Barristan's rescue mission was one person sneaking into a town (a town mind you, not a dedicated military operation) and then two people sneaking out. They're not actually doing anything other than getting themselves in and out. And maybe killing a couple guys. Ramsay and his twenty men are disabling an entire army. They've got to light fires all over the camp, and then escape from that area without anyone spotting them, even though they've just lit a huge beacon at their location. And we see from the overhead shot that the fires are coordinated to go off at pretty much the same time. How do you do that? You have no way to signal to your allies within the enemy camp. They're also disabling siege weaponry. You know, those things which are designed to withstand....well, a siege? They don't just have pins in them which you can pull out to collapse them. Then they're killing horses. Hundreds of them. Even assuming a fair amount of the horses got caught in the fire, it would be pretty hard to light a fire and get it big enough to kill hundreds of horses without the horses first running away (and making a lot of noise, alerting guards to your presence). So you've either got to devise some way to trap the horses, or...assassinate them? Hundreds of horses killed by twenty men? And with all of this, they've got to know where all this stuff is. They've got to know where Stannis keeps his supplies, his horses and his siege weaponries. You've got to find all this in the dark. They know the land? So what? It's a snowy field. At best they have some snow shoes to let them walk through it easier. But knowing the land doesn't mean they know the layout of Stannis camp.

 

ETA: And then there's the guards. Stannis says that they are either sleeping or conspiring with the enemy and that seems like it must be the case. But...all the guards were asleep? That's an enormous coincidence. Or they were conspiring with the enemy? How? When do these guys get a chance to contact the Boltons? Ironically the books had a plot point (the Karstark betrayal) which actually could have explained this. But none of the northmen support Stannis. So maybe it was the sellswords? The Stormcrows were Bolton plants? How does Stannis even have sellswords? Did he hire them in Braavos (in which case they can't be Bolton forces) or the North? And why were all the important locations guarded by Sellswords?

 

And that's just the impossible logistics of how Ramsay managed to disable Stannis' army. Nothing to do with the decision Stannis comes to after. If this was possible we wouldn't have armies. We'd just have bands of twenty men sneaking about destroying entire enemy bases shirtless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...