[Spoilers] Rant and Rave without Reprecussions - Season 6 Edition

[SeanF]

19 minutes ago, Ser Quork said:

Very much agreed.  This is one of the things that highlights the utter lack of "realism" in the show's premise.  It's clear they've taken religion = bad hipster stance, but that betrays utter ignorance of the fundamental belief systems of that time.

I think that Martin's treatment of religion in the books is somewhat superficial, but the portrayal of the Sparrows is certainly more subtle than in the Show - their anger is directed at the people who've governed them so badly, not at homosexuals.

[LadySoftheart]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

There is awful brutality in the books, but I think the author's stance is quite clear, that pity, mercy, compassion are worthwhile even when they cost the person who displays them. 

Yes! We're not supposed to be seeing Ned as a chump for caring that Robert will murder Cersei's children, but as one of the rare individuals (in Westeros) who cares about the fate of children who are not even related to him! (Though I think taking them into his custody after Robert's death would have probably been a wise move - they wouldn't have been killed and it would have assured his own children's safety.) Just like Brienne isn't a chump for being willing to die for a bunch of orphaned children who have been ripped from their lives and families because of the wars of people they know nothing about and don't care anything for.

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The whole point about Brienne in the books is not that she's a badass, but that (unlike most knights) she epitomises everything that a true knight is sworn to be - someone who really will defend those who cannot defend themselves, or else die in the attempt.  Yet, she gets mocked because she's a woman. 

Exactly. Brienne is a true knight because she cares about protecting the weak, not because she can slaughter eight people with her left hand while eating a sandwich with her right!

[SerProle]

YouSnowNothing wrote that great post about kinslaying and the seeming disregard for its Seriousness in the show. This raises some questions for me.

Do you think Martin in the books is showing the hypocrisy of Westerosi society, in that kinslaying seems to work? I'm reading the World of Ice and Fire book and there are definitely plenty of instances where overt kinslaying, as well as even more mysterious deaths, work out quite well for those who end up in power. 

Since D&D have only contempt for 'themes', maybe that is why they just don't fucking care how these transgressions come across in the show, why the shock that these acts would have actually created in their time and place doesn't get portrayed in any way that would be true to the setting. They don't get why those acts are in the books, what they are intended to 'mean' by Martin in the context of his overall storytelling. 

[SerProle]

12 minutes ago, LadySoftheart said:

Yes! We're not supposed to be seeing Ned as a chump for caring that Robert will murder Cersei's children, but as one of the rare individuals (in Westeros) who cares about the fate of children who are not even related to him! (Though I think taking them into his custody after Robert's death would have probably been a wise move - they wouldn't have been killed and it would have assured his own children's safety.) Just like Brienne isn't a chump for being willing to die for a bunch of orphaned children who have been ripped from their lives and families because of the wars of people they know nothing about and don't care anything for.

Exactly. Brienne is a true knight because she cares about protecting the weak, not because she can slaughter eight people with her left hand while eating a sandwich with her right!

Are there examples of characters in the books that don't end up paying a horrible price for doing the right thing? I have a long way to go before I finish them lol, I started out with the show and now I hate it so I have to go back and do a lot of catch up. I'm asking because in the show I see so much intentional violence and destruction that comes to any character that shows an act of compassion or empathy. Its like D&D do it on purpose, its part of what they see as 'awesome' about the story. I can't believe that the violence and cruelty and rape in the books is there because it gives Martin a woody the way it does for D&D.

[The Wull]

29 minutes ago, SerProle said:

YouSnowNothing wrote that great post about kinslaying and the seeming disregard for its Seriousness in the show. This raises some questions for me.

Do you think Martin in the books is showing the hypocrisy of Westerosi society, in that kinslaying seems to work? I'm reading the World of Ice and Fire book and there are definitely plenty of instances where overt kinslaying, as well as even more mysterious deaths, work out quite well for those who end up in power. 

Since D&D have only contempt for 'themes', maybe that is why they just don't fucking care how these transgressions come across in the show, why the shock that these acts would have actually created in their time and place doesn't get portrayed in any way that would be true to the setting. They don't get why those acts are in the books, what they are intended to 'mean' by Martin in the context of his overall storytelling. 

In the books, I don't think he's saying that kinslaying doesn't work, but that there's major social ramifications for those that do.  Those who are thought to be kinslayers almost always end up with a knickname, or are seriously unpopular.  In D&E for instance, during the trial of seven where Baelor gets killed, Maekar is immediately under a ton of heat for what was almost assuredly an accident.  It's the exact opposite in the show.  When Euron proudly proclaims that he killed the king, his brother, the crowd goes wild.  He becomes even more popular.   It's ridiculous.

[SeanF]

29 minutes ago, SerProle said:

12 minutes ago, SerProle said:

Are there examples of characters in the books that don't end up paying a horrible price for doing the right thing? I have a long way to go before I finish them lol, I started out with the show and now I hate it so I have to go back and do a lot of catch up. I'm asking because in the show I see so much intentional violence and destruction that comes to any character that shows an act of compassion or empathy. Its like D&D do it on purpose, its part of what they see as 'awesome' about the story. I can't believe that the violence and cruelty and rape in the books is there because it gives Martin a woody the way it does for D&D.

 

Very often, virtue has to be its own reward.  Sometimes, it is right to do something, even though you suffer harm as a result.  Ned did the right thing by trying to save the lives of Cersei's children;  Brienne did the right thing, trying to save the orphans;  Jaime was right to kill Aerys;  Lord Chelsted was right to defy Aerys, when he learned of the plan to burn down Kings Landing.  All of them suffered in various ways, because they did the right thing.

But, virtue can have good consequences sometimes.  Robb spared Osha, who saved Bran and Rickon in turn;  Dany risked her life at Astapor, and gained an army as a result.  Arya saved Jaqhen H'ghar, and got passage to Braavos.

[Ser Quork]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Very often, virtue has to be its own reward.  Sometimes, it is right to do something, even though you suffer harm as a result.  Ned did the right thing by trying to save the lives of Cersei's children;  Brienne did the right thing, trying to save the orphans;  Jaime was right to kill Aerys;  Lord Chelsted was right to defy Aerys, when he learned of the plan to burn down Kings Landing.  All of them suffered in various ways, because they did the right thing.

But, virtue can have good consequences sometimes.  Robb spared Osha, who saved Bran and Rickon in turn;  Dany risked her life at Astapor, and gained an army as a result.  Arya saved Jaqhen H'ghar, and got passage to Braavos.

Not to mention more overarching respect: Ned was respected as a liege lord for his honour, fairness and keeping the North safe, and many houses remain loyal to his memory,  and we see that in ADWD as it becomes clear that there are those who will fight for/give succour to the remaining Starks. 

[SeanF]

Just now, Ser Quork said:

Not to mention more overarching respect: Ned was respected as a liege lord for his honour, fairness and keeping the North safe, and many houses remain loyal to his memory,  and we see that in ADWD as it becomes clear that there are those who will fight for/give succour to the remaining Starks. 

Oh yes, that's a very important one.  Thousands of men are struggling through the snow to Winterfell to rescue "The Ned's Daughter."

[SerProle]

18 minutes ago, The Wull said:

In the books, I don't think he's saying that kinslaying doesn't work, but that there's major social ramifications for those that do.  Those who are thought to be kinslayers almost always end up with a knickname, or are seriously unpopular.  In D&E for instance, during the trial of seven where Baelor gets killed, Maekar is immediately under a ton of heat for what was almost assuredly an accident.  It's the exact opposite in the show.  When Euron proudly proclaims that he killed the king, his brother, the crowd goes wild.  He becomes even more popular.   It's ridiculous.

Makes sense. Kinslaying, even if it works to someone's advantage, has consequences in the books societies, if not in the brainless show societies. 

I guess my question is more about Martin's deeper intentions. Yeah, kinslaying is immoral according the morality of Westerosi society, but I suspect Martin wants to show that these societies are already founded on something fundamentally immoral, a feudalist hierarchy that allows those with birthright privilege to play endless power games that only bring repeated generational suffering to the many. Just because Westerosi elites consider themselves righteous doesn't mean that they are.

There wouldn't be the Sparrow movement if there weren't those already within Westerosi society with deep disdain for the so-called morality of that society. And yeah I get the sense that the book Sparrows are not the rather incoherent homophobes of the show.

Again, I don't get any impression that D&D actually give a shit about any of these bigger themes, its why they are so butchered in the show.

[Ser Quork]

47 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think that Martin's treatment of religion in the books is somewhat superficial, but the portrayal of the Sparrows is certainly more subtle than in the Show - their anger is directed at the people who've governed them so badly, not at homosexuals.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by superficial.  Martin created a world's worth of religions: the Faith of the Seve, the Old Gods, Red Rahloo, the Many-Faced God & more, and created some depth and detail to those belief systems.  Our book characters have belief to a greater or lesser extent, and some have none, and such belief as they have is referenced in their everyday language.  As it's not a book with religion at its core, I'm not sure how much more detail would be necessary for the story he's telling.

[A Ghost of Someone]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I'm not going to get into an argument over whether Richard III murdered the Princes in the Tower (which once provoked a very heated argument on this forum), but it's a useful example.

The fact that many contemporaries thought that Richard had murdered the Princes in the Tower did immense damage to his reputation (it certainly wasn't just a piece of Tudor propaganda invented after 1485). People didn't think "Richard was a real badass for killing the Princes."  People who believed the rumour were disgusted by it. 

Ditto the widespread belief that King John had murdered his nephew Prince Arthur.  Many of his French barons turned against him over the issue, and Philip Augustus exploited it masterfully to undermine support for John.  Nobody took the view "good for Jon" for murdering his nephew.

So, while medieval rulers were certainly ruthless by our standards, and had to be in order to survive, they couldn't afford to violate the moral codes of their own societies.

On a similar note, King Richard the Lionhearted felt that his betrayal of his father, Henry II caused his father's death from non combative wounds. When Richard came to view his father's body, the corpse began to bleed from the nostrils. It freaked him out as he thought it was a sign that he caused his own father's death. When he himself died 10 years later, he ordered his body to be buried at his father's feet so that he may beg for forgiveness thereafter. Kinslaying is a horrible thing. Cain and Abel? The Plantagentes were York and Lancaster, they wiped each other out and were replaced by the Tudors. Karma?

[A Ghost of Someone]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I think that Martin's treatment of religion in the books is somewhat superficial, but the portrayal of the Sparrows is certainly more subtle than in the Show - their anger is directed at the people who've governed them so badly, not at homosexuals.

Right. In the books, the sparrows are for justice for the suffering of the defenseless and are rightfully prosecuting Cersei for the murder of the High Septon by one of her henchmen, the potential false testimony of the Kettleback against Margeary and of course all of the stuff Lancel spilled the beans on (King Robert's assasination) and incest with Jaime as well. Marge is on trial because she has no hymen and she claimed she was a virgin. Now, in the books, in Margeary's case, it is primitive as just because, especially in a noblewoman's case where horseback riding can certianly cause the "maidenhead" to be damaged, but the faith is trying her anyway because the statement by the Kettleback may or may not be true in their eyes. Tommen is an 8 year old child in the books so  he could not have had sex with Margeary. It is treason for the Queen to cheat on the KIng because she carries the potential heir, not the King and the children cannot be bastards.

The show has really made the faith the way they are because I think the show runners want show watchers to have sympathy for Cersei in co which is kinda insulting because she is at fault for the whole damn thing putting her incest babies in the royal nursery and ruthlessly murdering to usurp the throne at all costs.

[YouSnowNothing]

1 hour ago, Ser Quork said:

Very much agreed.  This is one of the things that highlights the utter lack of "realism" in the show's premise.  It's clear they've taken religion = bad hipster stance, but that betrays utter ignorance of the fundamental belief systems of that time.

52 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think that Martin's treatment of religion in the books is somewhat superficial, but the portrayal of the Sparrows is certainly more subtle than in the Show - their anger is directed at the people who've governed them so badly, not at homosexuals.

D&D's approach to religion is a distractingly modern one. They present religion like a 14 year old "intellectual" on reddit - filled with idiots and fanatics who are the root of all evil. Martin's approach is more nuanced. Religion can be the cause of great suffering, but it can also be a force for good and hope. The Faith is like that - though it does terrible things by our standards (torturing of the singer, Cersei's walk), it also does good (protecting the smallfolk, reducing corruption and excess in the church). That would be too complex though, so they're just gay-bashing nutters.

 

32 minutes ago, SerProle said:

YouSnowNothing wrote that great post about kinslaying and the seeming disregard for its Seriousness in the show. This raises some questions for me.

Do you think Martin in the books is showing the hypocrisy of Westerosi society, in that kinslaying seems to work? I'm reading the World of Ice and Fire book and there are definitely plenty of instances where overt kinslaying, as well as even more mysterious deaths, work out quite well for those who end up in power. 

Since D&D have only contempt for 'themes', maybe that is why they just don't fucking care how these transgressions come across in the show, why the shock that these acts would have actually created in their time and place doesn't get portrayed in any way that would be true to the setting. They don't get why those acts are in the books, what they are intended to 'mean' by Martin in the context of his overall storytelling. 

Yeah, @The Wull sums it up for me. He's not showing us that kinslaying is wrong by having every kinslayer face justice for his actions, but simply creating a society with the taboo and having the characters respond appropriately. Some profit from it, some don't, but the main difference is how effectively they disguise their crimes. He is consistent with his own creation.

In regards to kinslaying, I think a greater priority of Martin's is displaying the inherent contradiction of taboos and vows. For example, Jaime being ordered to kill his father. 

 

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Oh Gods!!! I hadn't even thought about it, of course she will be pregnant.  She's young and fertile, there's no reason they would not make her pregnant (sorry double neg).  They already have Dany as unable to conceive......Oh poor soup-loving Sansa.

[SerProle]

21 minutes ago, YouSnowNothing said:

D&D's approach to religion is a distractingly modern one. They present religion like a 14 year old "intellectual" on reddit - filled with idiots and fanatics who are the root of all evil. Martin's approach is more nuanced. Religion can be the cause of great suffering, but it can also be a force for good and hope. The Faith is like that - though it does terrible things by our standards (torturing of the singer, Cersei's walk), it also does good (protecting the smallfolk, reducing corruption and excess in the church). That would be too complex though, so they're just gay-bashing nutters.

 

I agree that D&D's approach is idiotic but I think it is unfair to call it modern, or hipster as someone else called it. (All the hipsters I know are skeptical but educated, stupidity and ignorance are definitely uncool and unhip.) 

Buddhism was basically founded on agnosticism about big religious questions and focused instead on ethics, and it is pretty fucking old lol. There are traditions even within the dominant religions of today where thoughtful people of long ago questioned the role of religion, its connection to the state, and its fundamental assumptions.

D&D's approach is basically and embarrassingly ignorant. Funny, they are both seriously privileged people who went to supposedly top notch schools but their writing displays 14 year old psychology and values--boobs!--among other things (like 14 yr old skill and craft lol, never forget the bad poosy).

Martin, for a guy who is demonstrably skeptical about organized religion, certainly seems to respect its power and influence. Even the bits and pieces of the books that I've read so far show that the book religions are complex and rather fascinating. I would put myself among the fans who think prophecy is bunk, but if that is Martin's agenda he certainly is going about it in a way that is far from 14 year old cluelessness.

[SuperMario]

3 minutes ago, SerProle said:

I agree that D&D's approach is idiotic but I think it is unfair to call it modern, or hipster as someone else called it. (All the hipsters I know are skeptical but educated, stupidity and ignorance are definitely uncool and unhip.) 

Buddhism was basically founded on agnosticism about big religious questions and focused on ethics, and it is pretty fucking old lol. There are traditions even within the dominant religions of today where thoughtful people of long ago questioned the role of religion, its connection to the state, and its fundamental assumptions.

D&D's approach is basically and embarrassingly ignorant. Funny, they are both seriously privileged people who went to supposedly top notch schools but their writing displays 14 year old psychology and values--boobs!--among other things.

Martin, for a guy who is demonstrably skeptical about organized religion, certainly seems to respect its power and influence. Even the bits and pieces of the books that I've read so far show that the book religions are complex and rather fascinating. I would put myself among the fans who think prophecy is bunk, but if that is Martin's agenda he certainly is going about it in a way that is far from 14 year old cluelessness.

Yep. Well said. Martin takes an approach much like Stephen King IMO. While King doesn't adhere to any specific religion, religion is in the back or foreground of many of his novels. He presents it with a deep nuance involving characters that use it for good and evil i.e. The Stand.

Martin takes a similar approach. Even if Martin doesn't adhere to any religion (which I am just speculating), he is a good enough author not to take the easy "slam religious zealots" viewpoint. His writing has much more depth. D&D on the other hand, present it very one-sided, and like you said, display their 14-year old psychology...and writing style.

[SerProle]

I apologize for multiple posts lol, I'm unwell and at home and have some time, plus a bit of that noobie enthusiasm.

I realize that I'm very late to the party and there is much I don't know. I sincerely hope that those of you with far more experience and time will be generous to post links to other threads or other sites if I (or anyone else for that matter) ever post something that has already been beaten to death or discussed at other times or in other places.

It is extremely daunting here to find where things are and where they are supposed to be, heresies and conspiracies, books vs show, the rules about spoilers, quite intimidating. I'm not saying that to criticize in any way, it is just the way things probably are by necessity. But for noobies it can be treacherous lol.

If I ask a question or post an opinion, I hope it will be taken in good faith and not a sign that I'm a troll or a sock puppet or anything, it most likely will be simple ignorance lol, I just haven't been around long enough to know when I've stepped on a land mine.

Cheers;)

[HowlandReed'sWorth]

Kinda late to the game but anyone else disappointed by the WW pretty much being terminators the CotF built?  D&D are hacks, don't get me wrong and i know george only told them "Broad strokes" but this i can't see their origin being changed from books to show. And bran being able to manipulate the past also let me down as well. If he can warg and manipulate people in the past then whose actions are their own?

[Dolorous Gabe]

57 minutes ago, Ser Quork said:

Not to mention more overarching respect: Ned was respected as a liege lord for his honour, fairness and keeping the North safe, and many houses remain loyal to his memory,  and we see that in ADWD as it becomes clear that there are those who will fight for/give succour to the remaining Starks. 

Yep.

Perhaps D&D dislike this because it goes against the idea that honour gets you killed, since it is supposed to vindicate Ned's approach and show that despite being dead for such a long time, he still has an influence on the story.

Otherwise, what's the point of making him such a pivotal figure in the first season?

[Ser Quork]

10 minutes ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

Yep.

Perhaps D&D dislike this because it goes against the idea that honour gets you killed, since it is supposed to vindicate Ned's approach and show that despite being dead for such a long time, he still has an influence on the story.

Otherwise, what's the point of making him such a pivotal figure in the first season?

I'm sure this is the case.