Jump to content

Is There Anything On The Show That You Think Is Better Than The Books?


Cron

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Lyin' Ned said:

Wow. Now I remember why I stopped visiting this site. 

is that "wow" for my previous comment or in general?

because if it's for my counterargument I'd like to know why since I don't understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lyin' Ned said:

Wow. Now I remember why I stopped visiting this site. 

...because you don't like being exposed to excellent analyse of the text, or being informed as to what was really happening in that scene? :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

...because you don't like being exposed to excellent analyse of the text, or being informed as to what was really happening in that scene? :dunno:

I am curious too. If you don't like debates you don't visit the site. But if you are in a debate people expect arguments to agree or disagree with others...:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lyin' Ned said:

And yet Dany was raped time after time by Drogo, and you can bet your ass that it was written as rape. 

And you can bet your favorite body parts that you're dead wrong. Drogo never raped Dany in the books. How can anyone see that as a rape when Martin clearly wrote that Drogo has no idea he's hurting her??? You could say that it's unrealistic that Drogo doesn't realize he's hurting her. I might even agree with that. But it is obviously written that way: Dany hides her agony from Drogo. He never realized he was hurting her. It may be somewhat silly, but rape it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, StepStark said:

And you can bet your favorite body parts that you're dead wrong. Drogo never raped Dany in the books. How can anyone see that as a rape when Martin clearly wrote that Drogo has no idea he's hurting her??? You could say that it's unrealistic that Drogo doesn't realize he's hurting her. I might even agree with that. But it is obviously written that way: Dany hides her agony from Drogo. He never realized he was hurting her. It may be somewhat silly, but rape it isn't.

It really depends on how one decides to read 

Quote

Yet every night, some time before the dawn, Drogo would come to her tent and wake her in the dark, to ride her as relentlessly as he rode his stallion. He always took her from behind, Dothraki fashion, for which Dany was grateful; that way her lord husband could not see the tears that wet her face, and she could use her pillow to muffle her cries of pain. When he was done, he would close his eyes and begin to snore softly and Dany would lie beside him, her body bruised and sore, hurting too much for sleep.

There isn't explicit consent, and the pain/tears can move many people to read that as rape.  I don't (see post above), but I won't say it's "dead wrong." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dsug said:

I'm just pointing out a clear bias against the show by certain posters. They love the books so see nothing wrong with romanticized rape, but they hate the show so realistic rape with consequences is a problem. 

While it may be true that I'm biased in favor of the books, and against the show, it's because the books are awesome, and the show sucks. This is the criteria that has formed my bias.

And for the record, I do have a problem with romanticized rape, it's just that that does not exist in the books. It's kind of difficult to criticize the books for something that is not in them.

And to claim that any actions in the show have consequences is just an absurd assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

It really depends on how one decides to read 

There isn't explicit consent, and the pain/tears can move many people to read that as rape.  I don't (see post above), but I won't say it's "dead wrong." 

While it's true that Danny had no say in the matter, she did marry Drogo. I would say that once they were married (in the setting of the books only of course), all sex that Drogo decided to have with her, regardless of whether she wanted to or not, would be considered consensual. As well, there is no indication in the text that implies that Danny was not a willing participant.

The pain/tears is really the only thing that does imply, to some, that it was rape, but that is not an accurate means of identifying an incident as rape. It is possible for consensual sex between two willing partners, to also be painful. Honestly, I'm surprised that this needs to be stated.

JS4P, I realize your stance on the subject, my latter comments are not directed towards you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

While it's true that Danny had no say in the matter, she did marry Drogo. I would say that once they were married (in the setting of the books only of course), all sex that Drogo decided to have with her, regardless of whether she wanted to or not, would be considered consensual. As well, there is no indication in the text that implies that Danny was not a willing participant.

The pain/tears is really the only thing that does imply, to some, that it was rape, but that in not an accurate means of identifying an incident as rape. It is possible for consensual sex between two willing partners, to also be painful. Honestly, I'm surprised that this needs to be stated.

JS4P, I realize your stance on the subject, my latter comments are not directed towards you. 

There's what is considered rape in the setting and then there's rape. In setting, Sansa wasn't raped (show). So I could see someone saying Dany was raped based on the modern conceptions of marital rape being a thing that doesn't exist in universe, even ignoring the age.  That's not how I read it, but it doesn't have the screaming neon signs saying mutual like the first encounter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

There's what is considered rape in the setting and then there's rape. In setting, Sansa wasn't raped (show). So I could see someone saying Dany was raped based on the modern conceptions of marital rape being a thing that doesn't exist in universe, even ignoring the age.

Fair enough.

Quote

That's not how I read it, but it doesn't have the screaming neon signs saying mutual like the first encounter.

True. But considering that their first encounter was mutal, and there is no indication anywhere in the text (and we have Danny's own personal thoughts on the matter) that she wasn't a willing participant, I think it's quite the stretch to come to the conclusion that she was being raped. I would imagine we would see Danny thinking about how Drogo forced himself on her, if this was the case. We do get insight to her thoughts on these specific nights with Drogo.

There were no screaming neon signs indicating that Ned and Cat's encounter was mutual, but nobody is calling that rape. And I'm sure that when Ned took her maiden hood, it's likely that it hurt, yet nobody claims that Ned is a rapist.

Again, sorry if my argument seems directed towards you, its not intended.

@dsug

but they hate the show so realistic rape with consequences is a problem. 

I'm curious as to what these consequences you are referring to were? If I recall correctly, Drogo raped Danny, and then she fell in love with him. I'm sorry, but I don't find that very realistic, and fail to see what the consequences were.

Oh, and I don't have a problem with the scene because I hate the show. I hate the show because of the multitude of these, imho, problematic and awful scenes.

ETA:

Oops sorry. On topic, this is why I think the show version is not better than in the books. Danny did not fall in love with the man who raped her in the books, as opposed to that happing in the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Fair enough.

True. But considering that their first encounter was mutal, and there is no indication anywhere in the text (and we have Danny's own personal thoughts on the matter) that she wasn't a willing participant, I think it's quite the stretch to come to the conclusion that she was being raped. I would imagine we would see Danny thinking about how Drogo forced himself on her, if this was the case. We do get insight to her thoughts on these specific nights with Drogo.

I think that's when show creep starts influencing how a lot of people see things.  It took me about a year for me to distinguish the two consistently, and even now I get little moments that I swear I could find in the books but were show only (although all of those are legacy things from season 4 or earlier). 

I actually came to the books because of the show (binge watched the first 3 seasons, then started reading as season 4 was coming out).  While I'm not 100%, I think when I read the books, I completely missed them taking their time, and her guiding him in so to speak, because I had the show version in my head.  When I'm slowed down reading since then, I have no idea how I could have missed it (like I said, Neon signs), but I can understand the confusion with people who watch and read.

 

6 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Again, sorry if my argument seems directed towards you, its not intended.

 

I know it's not.  No worries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

Aye, it's hard to tell what role Young Griff will play in the future. I assume that he could end up a big fat red herring and just die, while we're sitting there with popcorn and waiting eagerly for a Dance of Dragons 2.0 to happen. If fAegon would be really gamechanging, the show would have introduced him at some point.

Maybe.

Maybe.

But I wouldn't bet on it.  My strong understanding is that GRRM has told the showrunners some things, and has NOT told them other things.  The showrunners do NOT know everything, and frankly, I don't even think they care.  As I'm sure you know, GRRM has flat out basically stated that the showrunners have already killed off a character that will play an important role in the future in the books, regarding which, as far as I know, the showrunners either didn't now and/or don't even care.

There are lists of people who are dead in the show but alive in the books, and vice versa (again, as I'm sure you know).  They have now done roughtly one and have seasons beyond the books, we have almost NO idea what is or is not canon on many issues, and they changed other things in the first four seasons that remain inexplicable to me even now.

Again...maybe.

Finally, it's also possible that Young Griff IS gamechanging, and will be shoehorned into the story next season.  Frankly, almost nothing would truly surprise me..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Lady of Whisperers said:

Thank you :)

I think the show was always best when it stayed close to the books and only made changes that didn't change the story and the characters to much. Not just because I'm a book fan. I know many show-only fans who didn't like Jon's and Dany's storylines in Season 2 and didn't have a very high opinion of the whole Robb/ Talisa thing. These are also the storylines where season 2 diverged the most from ACOK and it didn't have a positive effect on the characters involved. 

7 Seasons might have been too much, but they could have easily done 6 seasons, by not trying to put AFFC and ADWD in 1 Season. Sure these books are slower than ASOS, but there is still enough good stuff in there that would have made for great television. They even took some stuff out of the books (like the introduction of Dorne), but pretty much chopped of everything that was important for that storyline. Before season 5 came out I loved the show. I didn't like some of the changes the show made, but I liked the show in general. Now season 5 and 6 have turned me from a showlover to a showhater, because all my favourite characters and storylines where butchered (there are some other reasons, like the bad writing of the last two seasons, that increased this feeling). From what I see on this board, I believe that many people here have a similar opinion and that the show would be more popular around here if AFFC and ADWD had been adapted properly. 

I liked that storyline in the books , butI can understand why the cut it. It would have been difficult for many show-only watchers to understand this storyline, especially without giving them tons of historical information. However, I think that the problem of that cut is that there is currently no one in Westeros who presents a realistic challenge to Daenerys. It will be highly unrealistic if Euron manages to build a fleet with 1000 ships on an island with barely any trees and not enough people to man them. The show will probably go this way, but it will be extremely illogical (well there is not much logic left in the show anyway). 

I think cutting Griff and Young Griff would have worked under the following conditions:

- Introducing Euron with the dragon horn and all the magical stuff, so that he seems like a real threat to Dany and her dragons.

- Not having Dorne ally with Daenerys. Her army is allready big enough. They should have stayed closer to book Dorne. They could have developed a plot were a Martell (it doesn't necessarily have to be Quentin) gets send to Meeren and then gets killed by the dragons. Due to that the Martells turn against Daenerys. Instead of allying with Young Griff, like they will probably do in TWOW, they could have declared independence. Just show that Dorne is different than the other kingdoms and mention the fact that Dorne stayed independent when Aegon and his sisters arrived in Westeros and you could develop a storyline where Dorne decides to become independent. That might even make it harder for Daenerys, because you don't just have several families that are against Daenerys, you have 3 kingdoms which don't want to be part of the 7 kingdoms at all. 

Yes, if I controlled the show, I would have stayed much closer to the books, too.  

You mention Robb and Talisa...I was really disappointed when the show passed on the opportunity to show us Robb meeting and getting together with Jeyne Westerling (which all happened "off stage" in the books, of course).  That sub-plot could have given an extra hour or two of showtime all by itself, and could have been completely cosistent with canon, but no.  Instead we got the Talisa sotryline (no offense to the actress, I guess she could have played Jeyne Westerling and I wouldn't have cared).

You're a "showhater" now?  Aw, too bad.  To me, the books and show are alternate realities in my mind.  I'm very flexible about these sorts of things, and even though I DO prefer the books over the show, I still like a lot of stuff from the show that a lot of other people seem to intensely dislike.

Nevertheless, in my opinion GRRM predicted a lot of the chaos years ago when he talked about the "butterly effect."  The show has now made some changes that are so major that I don't think the show can be fully reconciled with the books on certain subjects.  I've been kind of surprised that the showrunners, in my opinion, made a decision to try to "compete" (my word) with GRRM to see who can tell the story better, but that's what it appears to me they have done.   Guess we'll see who comes out on top in the end  (my guess: GRRM) 

(If any of my comments seem inconsistent, please remember:  The books are among the best I've ever read, and the show IS my favorite t.v. show of all time. but overall the books are better to me.  Thus, I can praise the show, and the MANY things they did do right, but still lament the fact that the show didn't follow the source material more closely, which to me would have been even better to me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

http://turtle-paced.tumblr.com/post/135312176762/book-2-vs-season-2-cain-and-abel-baratheon

I despised that scene, although it's largely for an adaptational gripe.  It also doesn't fit with Renly being the type who would invite chaos into all of Westeros with a "might makes right" philosophy to rule, by pressing his claim in season 2.

Maybe.

People (including me, for sure) sometimes talk about apparent inconsistencies in the behavior of characters in fiction, but actually...human beings are sometimes inconsistent, and sometimes even flat out hypocrites, saying one thing when talking about someone else's behavior (e.g., Renly commenting on Robert), but taking a radically different view when their own decisions are being made.

Sorry to hear you despised the scene, but as I said, i liked it. It did not contradict the books, and COULD have happened just as we saw it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6.10.2016 at 2:58 AM, Cron said:

Yes, if I controlled the show, I would have stayed much closer to the books, too.  

You're a "showhater" now?  Aw, too bad.  To me, the books and show are alternate realities in my mind.  I'm very flexible about these sorts of things, and even though I DO prefer the books over the show, I still like a lot of stuff from the show that a lot of other people seem to intensely dislike.

Well to each their own :) 

I think that book-adaptations should not deviate too much from the books they are based on. 

However, even when I judge the show on its on merits it don't really like it anymore. 

I think season 6 and to some extent also season 5 have only focused on two things:

1. Shocking/ epic moments

2. Death

However, when I started the show I loved it because of the characters and the intelligent story the show was telling. While I liked episodes such as "Blackwater" or "The Rains of Castamere", the shocking moments weren't the most important parts of the show for me. I liked the discussions between Varys, Littlefinger and Tyrion about the nature of power. I liked the scene between Cersei and Robert, because it was a good character moment. Scenes like these are something that has been completely absent from season 6. Here are examples of things I would have liked to see in Season 6: 

- Learning to ride and controll a dragon was supposed to be an important moment for Daenerys which also had something to do with her embracing her Targaryen heritage, but in the show she just suddenly managed to do so and we never saw what it meant to her. Similarly, going back to the Dothraki should not have been about her gaining an even bigger army, but about her going back to her past.

- The show completely swepped Jon's ressurection under a rug and it was barely mentioned. While I think that he was changed he seemed to be back to his old self in episode 10. Despite the fact that ressurections are supposed to lead to permanent changes in a character.I really don't like how they dealt with it. It seems like the only reason why Jon was dead, was for having a cliffhanger. 

- Bran only seems to serve as an exposition machine now. I can tell what kind of magical powers we has, but I cannot name you any of his character traits. I would have liked to see more of his personality. 

I believe the the show is extremely good when it comes to things like special effects, music, acting and costumes, but one thing was extremely bad during the last two seasons and that was the writing. I think the Emmys in that category were completely undeserved. Due to the focus the show has put on shocking moments other things were lacking and these were:

- Logic: There is a lot of stuff that makes absolutely no sense and wouldn't make sense in any other show either. An army with 20.000 men manages to cross hundreds of kilometers and conquers a castle (Moat Cailin) without anyone noticing and informing the Warden of the North? Arya manages to run, jump and fight only 2 or 3 days after having been stabbed into the stomach repeatedly? Furthermore, the show doesn't have internal logic anymore. Tyrion tells Theon that Theon was making jokes about his height when they first met, but when you go back to Season 1 Episode 2 you will see that it was actually the other way round: Tyrion was making jokes about Theon. The faith wants to abolish Trial by combat, but it has been previously established that trial by combat is a sort of religious trial. What did Tyrion say Season 4 Episde 6 when he demanded trial by combat? "I will let the gods decide my fate."

- Characters: Sometimes the behaviour makes absolutely no sense at all and some characters seem to change their behaviour from episode to episode. For me it feels like characters behave in a certain way, because they know that they a characters in a TV series which needs shocking moments. 

I do not agree with most of Preston Jacob's theories, but he has made a good video about season 6 in which  he analyses the different characters and the different storylines. He shows that most storylines make no sense at all and that the behaviour of a lot of characters goes against how they have been characterised it past seasons. 

I'm a writer myself so I probably have a bit higher standards in terms of writing than other people do, but the last seasons have repeatedly violated some of the  most basic rules of writing:

- The plot follows the characters. In this show it is actually the other way round the characters follow the plot and they always behave in a way that is necessary in order to advance the plot or in order to achieve the next epic moment. 

- Actions have consequences: We have so many shocking moments and so many character deaths, but we never see the consequences of these acts. Hodor dies and the next time we see Bran it doesn't seem to matter at all. Bran doesn't even say something like "Hodor died for us". 

For me season 6 felt like writers were just crossing things on their checklist: Jon ressurrected: Check. Arya left the FM: Check. Hodor sacrificed himself for Bran and Meera: Check. Dany leaves Meereen; Check. 

The consequences of these actions were never really explored and the ways in which some of these things came to pass (Arya leaving the FM) were highly illogical. 

For me the show is now similar to badly written action movie. You know these movies that have a good cast, nice effects and cool-looking action scenes, but stories that make no sense. The kind of movies that you can only watch when you turn your brain off. I don't have something against these movies per se and I enjoy to watch them occasionally, but I didn't start watching GoT because I wanted to see such a movie. 

On 6.10.2016 at 2:58 AM, Cron said:

Nevertheless, in my opinion GRRM predicted a lot of the chaos years ago when he talked about the "butterly effect."  The show has now made some changes that are so major that I don't think the show can be fully reconciled with the books on certain subjects.  I've been kind of surprised that the showrunners, in my opinion, made a decision to try to "compete" (my word) with GRRM to see who can tell the story better, but that's what it appears to me they have done.   Guess we'll see who comes out on top in the end  (my guess: GRRM) 

(If any of my comments seem inconsistent, please remember:  The books are among the best I've ever read, and the show IS my favorite t.v. show of all time. but overall the books are better to me.  Thus, I can praise the show, and the MANY things they did do right, but still lament the fact that the show didn't follow the source material more closely, which to me would have been even better to me)

I don't understand why D&D try to compete with GRRM either. It's a competition they cannot win. GRRM has several years to write his books while they write their scripts in a few months. If they try to come up with better stuff than GRRM did in that short amount of time it will obviously not be better. That's why I don't understand why the showrunners have changed so much. 

 

Back to the original topic: I re-read a few scenes in ASOS yesterday and I found another small thing that was better in the show than in the books: The reason which Jon gives to Mance for wanting to join the wildlings: "I want to fight for the side that fights for the living" is a better explanation than "did you see where they put the bastard."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lady of Whisperers said:

Back to the original topic: I re-read a few scenes in ASOS yesterday and I found another small thing that was better in the show than in the books: The reason which Jon gives to Mance for wanting to join the wildlings: "I want to fight for the side that fights for the living" is a better explanation than "did you see where they put the bastard."

It's the other way around for me. In the show, Jon's explanation actually depends on that moment from the second season, when Jon realizes that Mormont knows about the WW but doesn't care. That moment is absurd in and out of itself, because why would Mormont just let Craster sacrifice his children to some entity? Isn't Mormont on a mission to find out what is happening beyond the Wall? Shouldn't he care very much about what Jon just told him? And then in the next season there's the conversation with Mance which strongly implies that Mance also is aware of Mormont not caring about WW at all. In the show universe, not only that Mormont and the Night's Watch don't fight "for the living", but also it seems that everybody knows they don't. How can that make any sense? Because of all this, I don't think that the show version is logical or reasonable at all. On the other hand, in the books Jon states his deep internal reasons, that really make sense and actually are consistent with his character. He really was hurt with the way he was treated in Winterfell. Perhaps he shouldn't be, because he was way more lucky than great many other bastards, but he was hurt. It's stated in his very first chapter in AGOT. And then at the end of ASOS he is tempted to accept Stannis' offer and take Winterfell for himself. He ultimately rejects, which is why he is an admirable individual, but it is true that part of him dearly wanted to accept. When he met Mance for the first time, he was speaking from that part. He even thinks so prior to the conversation, that he must come up with a reason that is at least partially true, or otherwise Mance isn't going to buy it.

In short, the show version messes with the internal logic of the entire universe, while the original version not only makes sense, but also puts an emphasis on the side of Jon that is going to play a very important role in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

There isn't explicit consent, and the pain/tears can move many people to read that as rape.  I don't (see post above), but I won't say it's "dead wrong." 

That's probably because to some people if there was no explicit consent then it's a rape, which I find very strange to say the least. I think that anyone who's been married can find it strange, and that's nowadays. In the medieval times it was even less depending on explicit consent, especially in marriages. And ASOIAF is clearly based on medieval times, which is why I don't see how can anyone confuse that with rape. In a traditional understanding, rape is when you know the other person doesn't want to have sex but you still have sex with that person. I think it's pretty obvious that Martin had that definition in mind, because he undoubtedly emphasized that Drogo had no idea he was hurting Dany, because she was hiding it from him. I think it was clumsily written, because Martin created unrealistic situation in which Drogo hurts Dany constantly without even realizing it, but Martin's intention is still very clear and obvious and yes that's how he wanted it to be understood. Not as rape, but as Drogo hurting Dany without realizing it, which was definitely not considered a rape in the setting and in medieval times. Even nowadays you'd have a hard time finding someone guilty of rape if he really had no idea that he was hurting the other person and he thought that the other person also enjoyed it (as unrealistic as the hypothetical situation actually is), let alone in medieval times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, StepStark said:

It's the other way around for me. In the show, Jon's explanation actually depends on that moment from the second season, when Jon realizes that Mormont knows about the WW but doesn't care. That moment is absurd in and out of itself, because why would Mormont just let Craster sacrifice his children to some entity? Isn't Mormont on a mission to find out what is happening beyond the Wall? Shouldn't he care very much about what Jon just told him? And then in the next season there's the conversation with Mance which strongly implies that Mance also is aware of Mormont not caring about WW at all. In the show universe, not only that Mormont and the Night's Watch don't fight "for the living", but also it seems that everybody knows they don't. How can that make any sense? Because of all this, I don't think that the show version is logical or reasonable at all. On the other hand, in the books Jon states his deep internal reasons, that really make sense and actually are consistent with his character. He really was hurt with the way he was treated in Winterfell. Perhaps he shouldn't be, because he was way more lucky than great many other bastards, but he was hurt. It's stated in his very first chapter in AGOT. And then at the end of ASOS he is tempted to accept Stannis' offer and take Winterfell for himself. He ultimately rejects, which is why he is an admirable individual, but it is true that part of him dearly wanted to accept. When he met Mance for the first time, he was speaking from that part. He even thinks so prior to the conversation, that he must come up with a reason that is at least partially true, or otherwise Mance isn't going to buy it.

In short, the show version messes with the internal logic of the entire universe, while the original version not only makes sense, but also puts an emphasis on the side of Jon that is going to play a very important role in the near future.

I can understand your argument and you make a really good point. I first thought that Mormont knew in the books as well (I last read ACOK a few years ago), but now I checked again and apparently he thought that Craster was making sacrifices to the old goods. I really need to re-read the books, because I sometimes confuse some stuff that happened in the show with things that happened in the books and vice versa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, StepStark said:

And you can bet your favorite body parts that you're dead wrong. Drogo never raped Dany in the books. How can anyone see that as a rape when Martin clearly wrote that Drogo has no idea he's hurting her??? You could say that it's unrealistic that Drogo doesn't realize he's hurting her. I might even agree with that. But it is obviously written that way: Dany hides her agony from Drogo. He never realized he was hurting her. It may be somewhat silly, but rape it isn't.

Agreed.

Drogo doesn't know he is hurting Dany. Ramsay knows he is hurting Sansa. These are very different stories.

Also with Dany and Drogo, there's a love story the author is telling, and it begins well before the wedding night. As the author explains, there's a lot going on between them in the scenes leading up to the wedding night scene (a scene that he describes as consensual, sexy and romantic). Lots of symbolism...

On the wedding night, Drogo places Dany up on a rock so they are on the same level, that's about equality. She watches him, then reaches out to take off his bells, to undress him, signaling her desire. There's quite a lot going on there, and he is a big part of it, this is about realizing her potential...

And then she develops painful saddle sores. She is having a hard time getting used to riding, she is resisting her inner dragon (the conflict with Viserys). She has the dragon dreams, and when she embraces the dragon (her true self) she let the silver teach her how to ride, and then she rides Drogo like she rode her silver...

And then she rides Drogon. From Drogo comes Drogon....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lady of Whisperers said:

I really need to re-read the books, because I sometimes confuse some stuff that happened in the show with things that happened in the books and vice versa.

It's impossible not to confuse the two at least sometimes, especially if you watched the show or parts of it before you read the books. I read the books years before the show, and I still confuse some things between the two. And honestly, that's my biggest gripe with the show, that they're messing with the reading experience. You can't enjoy the books alone any more, because you're constantly surrounded by the show and the buzz. Of course, that is not D&D's fault but the nature of TV business, but their fault is the inferior story they're putting on the screen. Their incompetence and TV business' influence make for a powerful combination, and sadly it's very damaging.

17 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

Drogo doesn't know he is hurting Dany. Ramsay knows he is hurting Sansa. These are very different stories.

Of course, it's very different. And in the books as well, Ramsay knows he's hurting Jeyne, he knows he is raping her. And many people inside Winterfell are upset because of his actions. Rape as a crime is recognized in the setting, and Martin is very clear on what is a rape and what isn't in that setting. That's why I'm so puzzled when people start making things up, like "Drogo raped Dany in the books too". And then they go even further and start accusing Martin of writing rape unintentionally. But honestly, I'm not sure they really mean that. I think they're just trying to blame Martin for show's stupidity. Because if they really thought Martin wrote and effectively promoted rape unintentionally, they probably wouldn't read the books after that. Why would anyone read something that promotes rape, even unintentionally? I know I wouldn't! So I really think it's just a way for show-lovers to defend the show at all costs, and not the reflection of their true feelings and opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Of course, it's very different. And in the books as well, Ramsay knows he's hurting Jeyne, he knows he is raping her. And many people inside Winterfell are upset because of his actions. Rape as a crime is recognized in the setting, and Martin is very clear on what is a rape and what isn't in that setting. That's why I'm so puzzled when people start making things up, like "Drogo raped Dany in the books too". And then they go even further and start accusing Martin of writing rape unintentionally. But honestly, I'm not sure they really mean that. I think they're just trying to blame Martin for show's stupidity. Because if they really thought Martin wrote and effectively promoted rape unintentionally, they probably wouldn't read the books after that. Why would anyone read something that promotes rape, even unintentionally? I know I wouldn't! So I really think it's just a way for show-lovers to defend the show at all costs, and not the reflection of their true feelings and opinions.

Exactly. (There are a bunch of quotes from the books, but he is very clear.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...