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

[StepStark]

21 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

No, Robb will be risking a major Bannermam with a major part of the North force leaving. There is nothing moronic about it.

So Robb would rather have his sisters killed in KL, than Karstarks to leave? Is that what you are saying?

22 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I am doing no mental gymnastics of any sort.  The show put out that Cat in the end had one of two choices to make with Jaime. 

And because the show put it like that it has to be logical? LOL! No it isn't logical because the show completely forgot about the most logical solution and that is to hide Jaime over night. But then you, not the show but you, answered with even more absurd suggestion that Jaime would die anyway because Robb would kill him AND THEREFORE EFFECTIVELY KILL HIS TWO SISTERS IN KING'S LANDING.

You are simply ignoring two most obvious facts that protect Jaime's life: 1) he is surrounded by Stark men who follow orders from the Starks and who, unless they are the most incompetent soldiers in history, should be able to defend anyone from a few drunk Karstark soldiers; 2) Sansa's and Arya's life depend directly on Jaime's life.

32 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

No it is not stupid to think alcohol can cause violet situation. I suggest you observe a few nights out to see the effect that alcohol can have on people.

That is not what I said, you are twisting my words again. I didn't say that alcohol can't cause violent situations so you don't have to prove to me that it can. I very well know that alcohol can cause violent situations, thank you very much. So please stop with strawman argumentation already.

What I'm saying is that few drunken Karstark soldiers is not the reason to send Jaime back to the Lannisters. It can be only in a completely unrealistic situation in which king Robb's loyal troops in the middle of their camp can't defend their most important prisoner from a few drunken Karstarks. Now that is as cartoonish as it gets.

The show wants us to believe that Stark guards would abandon their duties if faced with drunk Karstark soldiers. That is what Brienne literally says, that is the meaning of her line. Sorry to say but you can believe that only if you really don't know anything about military camps, and D&D obviously don't know anything.

[TheKitttenGuard]

57 minutes ago, StepStark said:

So Robb would rather have his sisters killed in KL, than Karstarks to leave? Is that what you are saying?

And because the show put it like that it has to be logical? LOL! No it isn't logical because the show completely forgot about the most logical solution and that is to hide Jaime over night. But then you, not the show but you, answered with even more absurd suggestion that Jaime would die anyway because Robb would kill him AND THEREFORE EFFECTIVELY KILL HIS TWO SISTERS IN KING'S LANDING.

You are simply ignoring two most obvious facts that protect Jaime's life: 1) he is surrounded by Stark men who follow orders from the Starks and who, unless they are the most incompetent soldiers in history, should be able to defend anyone from a few drunk Karstark soldiers; 2) Sansa's and Arya's life depend directly on Jaime's life.

That is not what I said, you are twisting my words again. I didn't say that alcohol can't cause violent situations so you don't have to prove to me that it can. I very well know that alcohol can cause violent situations, thank you very much. So please stop with strawman argumentation already.

What I'm saying is that few drunken Karstark soldiers is not the reason to send Jaime back to the Lannisters. It can be only in a completely unrealistic situation in which king Robb's loyal troops in the middle of their camp can't defend their most important prisoner from a few drunken Karstarks. Now that is as cartoonish as it gets.

The show wants us to believe that Stark guards would abandon their duties if faced with drunk Karstark soldiers. That is what Brienne literally says, that is the meaning of her line. Sorry to say but you can believe that only if you really don't know anything about military camps, and D&D obviously don't know anything.

Robb will have a very difficult decision to make. There is risk with Karstark leaving and the general mood of the North being muched soured for the action. Cat's action removed a lot of issues for Robb by not needing to make that decision. 

There is nothing presented that made hiding a realistic option. I am not going to fill in for it to be so. 

The meaning of Brienne line is that men will not be so willing to risk their over the life for their enemy. Does not mean they will not for the King's mother. 

I gave my opinion on why not and do not need to explain every other sceaniro involved. The show setted up that Jaime will not live long and Cat had to act on it.

[StepStark]

30 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Robb will have a very difficult decision to make. There is risk with Karstark leaving and the general mood of the North being muched soured for the action. Cat's action removed a lot of issues for Robb by not needing to make that decision. 

You're still conveniently avoiding my question: would Robb execute Jaime? Is that a realistic possibility? If it is, then show Robb is a moron. If it isn't, then your excuse makes no sense.

30 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

There is nothing presented that made hiding a realistic option. I am not going to fill in for it to be so. 

Are you for real? You're taking everything backwards! Hiding is a realistic option and it is the show's stupidity that they forgot about it. That was my whole point. You can't answer to that by stating that "there is nothing presented that made hiding a realistic option"! Well good morning, that is what I was saying the whole time! The show didn't even consider hiding and the show expects you to not consider hiding! If you are so servant to the show that you decided to suspend critical thinking and don't even want to question rational and logical possibilities they forgot about, it's your choice, but it's not a very admirable choice.

30 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

The meaning of Brienne line is that men will not be so willing to risk their over the life for their enemy. Does not mean they will not for the King's mother.

And their lives would be attacked by who exactly? A bunch of drunk Karstark men, that's who! Again, you're ignoring the main point of disagreement. Nobody wants to die, whether for a Lannister or for whatever. But in this example their lives and Jaime's life are in danger because of drunk Karstaks. Lives of Stark men are at risk because of a bunch of drunk Karstarks, and that is just stupid.

30 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

The show setted up that Jaime will not live long and Cat had to act on it.

So because the show set it up we are not supposed to question it? LOL! You actually gave up on critical thinking, right?

[TheKitttenGuard]

30 minutes ago, StepStark said:

You're still conveniently avoiding my question: would Robb execute Jaime? Is that a realistic possibility? If it is, then show Robb is a moron. If it isn't, then your excuse makes no sense.

Are you for real? You're taking everything backwards! Hiding is a realistic option and it is the show's stupidity that they forgot about it. That was my whole point. You can't answer to that by stating that "there is nothing presented that made hiding a realistic option"! Well good morning, that is what I was saying the whole time! The show didn't even consider hiding and the show expects you to not consider hiding! If you are so servant to the show that you decided to suspend critical thinking and don't even want to question rational and logical possibilities they forgot about, it's your choice, but it's not a very admirable choice.

And their lives would be attacked by who exactly? A bunch of drunk Karstark men, that's who! Again, you're ignoring the main point of disagreement. Nobody wants to die, whether for a Lannister or for whatever. But in this example their lives and Jaime's life are in danger because of drunk Karstaks. Lives of Stark men are at risk because of a bunch of drunk Karstarks, and that is just stupid.

So because the show set it up we are not supposed to question it? LOL! You actually gave up on critical thinking, right?

Yes I think it is realistic that Robb could execute Jaime Lannister. I do think it is realistic that he will think the damage keeping Jaime alive out weigh his sisters' safety. 

I do not find the need for everything to be discussed to determine the best option. Jaime presence is creating an escalating danger at this point and a decision is needed.

Brienne specified about dying for a Lannister.

You have a right to your opinion.

My main point was that the situation given  to release Jaime had nothing to do with Cat's character.

[StepStark]

19 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I do not find the need for everything to be discussed to determine the best option. Jaime presence is creating an escalating danger at this point and a decision is needed.

If you don't ever want to question anything about the show, why do you care if I do??? Why are you even arguing with me then? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just asking because I'm genuinely curious, because it really sounds very odd that someone who, like you, clearly doesn't want to question the show, cares so much about some posts on some internet discussion.

22 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

My main point was that the situation given  to release Jaime had nothing to do with Cat's character.

I heard you the first time. I understand your point. But that doesn't close the case because the situation is utterly absurd and unrealistic. You can continue to ignore that, but it doesn't make it any less absurd.

[Cron]

6 hours ago, StepStark said:

Of course that I do. Death of Bran and Rickon changed everything for everyone. In the books it is strongly implied that Roose and Freys started thinking about betraying Robb only after they've heard that Theon captured Winterfell (that's the conversation Arya overhears late in ACOK when she's Roose's cupbearer but of course that scene was not in the show because there Arya is Tywin's cupbearer for "reasons"). Roose says it directly to Theon in ADWD that the war was decided once Theon captured Winterfell (one more scene that of course didn't find its way into the show because Ramsay fucking his girlfriend is probably more important).

I think we can't know for sure whether Robb would have fallen in love with Jeyne if Theon had not killed those boys and/or claimed they were Bran and Rickon.  In fact, there are extensive, detailed theories that Jeyne's mother used a love potion on Robb, and I'm inclined to believe that is true (b/c so many clues exist to support it, that I find it hard to believe all those subtle clues were placed just as misdirection)

I believe I mentioned this love potion theory before in this thread, and to my memory you have not addressed it.   You seem utterly convinced that if Theon had not killed those boys and/or claimed they were Bran and Rickon, that Robb would never have fallen in love with Jeyne, and would never have married her and broken his promise to Walder, but how can you KNOW that?  I don't think we can know that for a fact.

Robb and Jeyne might have naturally fallen in love anyway.  He was hurt (shot by an arrow), she treated him and cared for him.  It's possible that she first "comforted" him when he heard the alleged information about Bran and Rickon, but that DOES NOT prove it would never have happened otherwise if Theon had not done what he did, especially in light of the love potion theory, which I think is pretty compelling. 

6 hours ago, StepStark said:

People in feudal societies didn't break promises as easily as the show portrays. Book Robb would never break his promise to Frey just because he fell in love with some girl. Even GRRM said himself that he researched history and that there isn't a single example of someone losing his kingdom for love.

See above.  The love potion theory could easily destroy your entire argument, plus, of course, the possibility that Robb and Jeyne would have naturally fallen in love anyway.  When two people meet, and are physically attracted to each other, there are any number of possible catalysts for a physical, romantic relationship, and just cuz one thing (Theon's actions) actually DID provide the initial catalyst does not prove that no other initial catalyst could ever be possible.   It's also possible Robb said what he said as an excuse, to gain sympathy for him for what he had done, rather than saying "Hey, she was smoking hot, I had a chance to have sex with her, so I did!!"

6 hours ago, StepStark said:

There is no "big jump" there. If you don't see that the news from Winterfell were crucial for Robb falling for Jeyne, then I don't know what else to say honestly. It is there, in the text, three times. Not even once Robb says "I fell in love with her" (he did, but only AFTER she comforted him when he was grieving for his brothers), but he talks about Bran and Rickon three times.

See above, especially my comment about the possibility that, even in the books, Robb said what he said to try to gain sympathy for himself for what he had done.  The "excuse" that he was grieving and she was comforting sounds a LOT better than "She was smoking hot, I had a chance to have sex with her, so I did."\

See also the love potion stuff.

And as I've said, I think we can never know for sure what would have happened if Theon had not done what he did.  It is A piece of the puzzle, but I think we CAN'T know that the whole puzzle would fall apart without that ONE piece.

6 hours ago, StepStark said:

Do you think that my love for the books gets in the way of my enjoyment of the show? I don't see why would you, because I clearly separated how I judge the show on its own and how I judge it as adaptation.

Well, I want to be careful here, cuz ultimately it's for you to say what is going on in your own brain, and I respect that.

Having said that, I do have an opinion that you love the books A LOT (nothing wrong with that, so do I; in fact, I love the books more than the show), and I do think that you compare the books to the show so much that the fact that the show can't measure up to the books (which I agree with) makes you dislike the show intensely, possibly a lot more intensely than if you had never read the books and only watched the show.  That's my opinion, which you asked for.   It's not a terrible thing, though.  I actually AGREE with a lot of stuff you say.  As I've said, if I had been the showrunner, the show would have followed the books a LOT more closely, too.

But there's an old saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."  Have you ever heard that saying?  I try to keep that in mind when I watch the show.

All of our discussion here is fine, but let me ask you this out of curiosity.  Look at the title of this topic (which was started by me).  So, here's my question to you now:  IS there anything in the show you like better than the books?

6 hours ago, StepStark said:

Do you see how deep and wide one has to go to justify just s ingle line from the show? That is a prefect example of bad writing: if you want to make any sense of Bran's line, you have to come up with a mini-tale about Howland And the scene is on Youtube, you can check for yourself if you want and here is what Bran says: "But my father beat him. I know he did, I've heard the story a thousand times". So either Ned or Howland or both talked a lot about that fight and obviously not in a truthful manner. And that's the opposite of how Ned was depicted even in the show itself, and Howland is someone who didn't say a single word in the show or in the books - so to make sense of Bran's line, one has to invent some elaborate theory about Howland and what he was doing in his life after the fight, even though we don't know anything about him.

I'm comfortable with my position here.  Some people want every detail explained (Like, "How DID Bran hear about that? Who told him, and when??"), but I guarantee you that some people call that "spoon feeding" writing and do NOT want every detail explained.  And I really don't think I'm going very far out of my way to say 'Hey, maybe Howland did not tell Bran directly, but maybe Howland told someone who told Bran."  I'm comfortable with that.

6 hours ago, StepStark said:

That is why I keep repeating that D&D's writing falls apart under any scrutiny.

For me, that's just too broad a statement.   I AGREE with you on a fair amount of what you are saying, but at the same time there IS stuff in the show that I like better than the books.  Each person forms their own opinion about that, though, which is fine.  As I've mentioned, it's part of what makes these boards fun, as it would surely be boring here if we all agreed on everything all the time.

[TheKitttenGuard]

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

If you don't ever want to question anything about the show, why do you care if I do??? Why are you even arguing with me then? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just asking because I'm genuinely curious, because it really sounds very odd that someone who, like you, clearly doesn't want to question the show, cares so much about some posts on some internet discussion.

I heard you the first time. I understand your point. But that doesn't close the case because the situation is utterly absurd and unrealistic. You can continue to ignore that, but it doesn't make it any less absurd.

You made paragraphs railing against Cat's characterization when what happen in the show had nothing to do with Cat's character. It was an external matter which I found to be missed.

It is not the finding faults or questioning, it is that these difference are judgement on people intellect and morale character that I have problems with. 

[StepStark]

22 minutes ago, Cron said:

I think we can't know for sure whether Robb would have fallen in love with Jeyne if Theon had not killed those boys and/or claimed they were Bran and Rickon.  In fact, there are extensive, detailed theories that Jeyne's mother used a love potion on Robb, and I'm inclined to believe that is true (b/c so many clues exist to support it, that I find it hard to believe all those subtle clues were placed just as misdirection)

I believe I mentioned this love potion theory before in this thread, and to my memory you have not addressed it.   You seem utterly convinced that if Theon had not killed those boys and/or claimed they were Bran and Rickon, that Robb would never have fallen in love with Jeyne, and would never have married her and broken his promise to Walder, but how can you KNOW that?  I don't think we can know that for a fact.

Robb and Jeyne might have naturally fallen in love anyway.  He was hurt (shot by an arrow), she treated him and cared for him.  It's possible that she first "comforted" him when he heard the alleged information about Bran and Rickon, but that DOES NOT prove it would never have happened otherwise if Theon had not done what he did, especially in light of the love potion theory, which I think is pretty compelling. 

Actually we do know that Robb wouldn't fall in love with Jeyne without the news from Winterfell, because if GRRM wanted to write that character in that story he would write that character in that story. Sometimes it really is as simple as that. And if even that isn't enough for you, there are GRRM's statements about season 2 and differences between books and the show, specifically Talisa, he directly said that he didn't write a romance. And if all that isn't enough for you, there are his statements I already wrote about, that in the entire human history nobody ever gave up the kingdom for love.

About love potion, I forgot to address it before sorry, but I find that theory absolutely ridiculous. It is so childish that GRRM would definitely loose my respect if that turns out true. ASOIAF is not supposed to be Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, this is a story where human interactions are supposed to be based on realism and not magic potions of any kind. I'm pretty confident that it's just one more crazy fan theory and that all the "evidence" is just fans reading too much into it.

1 hour ago, Cron said:

It's also possible Robb said what he said as an excuse, to gain sympathy for him for what he had done, rather than saying "Hey, she was smoking hot, I had a chance to have sex with her, so I did!!"

Sorry but this is even less convincing. Using your brothers' deaths as an excuse is pretty pathetic and disgusting. I'm pretty sure that that wasn't GRRM's intention.

1 hour ago, Cron said:

I do think that you compare the books to the show so much that the fact that the show can't measure up to the books (which I agree with) makes you dislike the show intensely, possibly a lot more intensely than if you had never read the books and only watched the show

That is definitely not the case. Just look at this discussion, there is not a single instance where I confused the two mediums in any way. All my questioning and doubting of the show is based on pure logic and inconsistencies on the show itself.

But sorry to say, you seem to be too forgiving to the show. You are polite and well-intention, which is rare quality among show lovers, but if you look at your arguments, it's mostly theories that aren't supported by the text in the books or by the show. That doesn't necessarily mean that those theories are denied by the text or by the show either. Look at "love potion" theory for example, there is no hard evidence that love potion wasn't used on Robb. But like many other show lovers, you are often following this logic: if something isn't explicitly ruled out by the text, then it is possible. And then you go on and make theories like "Robb married Jeyne because he fell in love with her and the news from Winterfell was just coincidence".

But most probably, you are just too much influenced by the show. I read the books long before the show was made and as far as I can remember in those days, before the show, nobody thought that Robb married Jeyne because he was attracted to her. That and many other misconceptions came with the show. And that's not anybody's fault really. D&D aren't guilty for being cosmically incompetent, it's just what they are, and people like you aren't guilty for watching the show first before reading the books.

And of course, even before the show there were wild theories. Love potion is one of them, it was created long before the show. There is literally nothing in the text that supports it, but because the books also don't specifically deny that Robb wasn't under the influence of magical potion, the theory is going to stay around until hopefully GRRM dismisses it one day, just like he dismissed another stupid theory that Benjen is Coldhands.

The books are great because reasons for everything are either directly in the text, or just one realistic suggestion away. You don't need wide theories to explain anything from the books. I remember when R+L=J appeared, it was as complex a theory as it gets, and yet everything was based purely on the text itself. While on the other hand, to make any sense of that Bran's line you had to come up with theory about Howland which isn't supported by the show in any way. It's neither supported nor dismissed by the show, because there is nothing about Howland in the show except that one scene where he doesn't speak a single word.

Whenever books are put under scrutiny, they hold their own, and every answer you need is in the text itself. That is the case with every good story, from Godfather movies to classic books. But when the show is put under the smallest scrutiny, it falls apart because it requires explanations that aren't even addressed in the show itself. And even when the show offers explanations, they are ridiculous and illogical for the most part. Just look at this discussion and you'll see it.

[StepStark]

1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

You made paragraphs railing against Cat's characterization when what happen in the show had nothing to do with Cat's character. It was an external matter which I found to be missed.

But not in discussion with you. In discussion with you I specifically stuck to the external matter. But the thing is that the external matter is also illogical and absurd, just like I showed in my posts, which you conveniently continue to ignore.

1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

It is not the finding faults or questioning, it is that these difference are judgement on people intellect and morale character that I have problems with. 

I don't understand this. Whose intellect and morale are you talking about?

[TheKitttenGuard]

Just now, StepStark said:

But not in discussion with you. In discussion with you I specifically stuck to the external matter. But the thing is that the external matter is also illogical and absurd, just like I showed in my posts, which you conveniently continue to ignore.

I don't understand this. Whose intellect and morale are you talking about?

I found the point of what is going on within the Camp not being done. The focus was on Cat's characterization. 

Mainly D&D, you can not just disagree about what they do. They most have some defect for their decisions.

[StepStark]

6 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I found the point of what is going on within the Camp not being done. The focus was on Cat's characterization. 

In all my replies to you I never talked about Cat's characterization, but only about the situation in the camp and things related to that. It is you who are ignoring the absurdity of that situation.

6 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Mainly D&D, you can not just disagree about what they do. They most have some defect for their decisions.

I'm not sure what are you trying to say here, but let me assure you that I really don't need anyone's permission to disagree with D&D. They aren't saints or god as you may think. And a lot of what they write and do is stupid beyond belief. Again, it is you who chose to ignore it.

[Cron]

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

Actually we do know that Robb wouldn't fall in love with Jeyne without the news from Winterfell, because if GRRM wanted to write that character in that story he would write that character in that story. Sometimes it really is as simple as that. And if even that isn't enough for you, there are GRRM's statements about season 2 and differences between books and the show, specifically Talisa, he directly said that he didn't write a romance. And if all that isn't enough for you, there are his statements I already wrote about, that in the entire human history nobody ever gave up the kingdom for love.

Well, I think the position you're taking now is basically that it can't be different, cuz that's not how GRRM wrote it.

Well...yeah, I know that's not how GRRM wrote it.   But let's say the love potion theory is true.  Okay, are you telling me that in a theoretical GoT universe where Theon did not do what he did (kill those boys, and claim they were Bran and Rickon), Robb would NOT have fallen in love with Jeyne, despite the fact that he had been given a magical love potion??

My friend, in my humble opinion, you are placing way too much emphasis on the impact of what Theon did on the story of Robb's life.  But that's just my opinion.

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

About love potion, I forgot to address it before sorry, but I find that theory absolutely ridiculous. It is so childish that GRRM would definitely loose my respect if that turns out true. ASOIAF is not supposed to be Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, this is a story where human interactions are supposed to be based on realism and not magic potions of any kind. I'm pretty confident that it's just one more crazy fan theory and that all the "evidence" is just fans reading too much into it.

You may find the love potion theory ridiculous, but it's possible ti's true, right?  Sure, lots of things are "possible," including the love potion theory.  

And while it's true that magic is de-emphasized in ASOIAF as compared to Harry Potter, and LOTR, the world of ASOIAF does have magic.  Indisputably, as I'm sure you and I would agree.  In fact, a love potion is NOTHING compared to many of the things we know actually HAVE happened in ASOIAF.

By the way, I'm not sure if you've read topic threads on the love potion theory, but if not, you might want to check them out.  It's pretty interesting stuff, in my opinion.

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

Sorry but this is even less convincing. Using your brothers' deaths as an excuse is pretty pathetic and disgusting. I'm pretty sure that that wasn't GRRM's intention.

You could be right that it would have been disgusting for Robb to do that, and I might even agree, but that does not make it impossible.  ASOIAF has NO perfect paragon of virtue. Such a person does NOT exist.  Every character has flaws and weaknesses, that's a huge part of what makes GRRM such a great writer.

By the way, the theory I set forth does NOT have to have Robb flat out lying.  It could have happened the way he said.  In fact, I'd say that's likely.  My belief is that, yeah, the first time Robb and Jeyne had sex, he had just heard about the "news" about Bran and Rickon.  Sure.  But that does NOT mean that they would not have had sex anyway.  For all we know, Jeyne went to his room that day (night, whatever) with the strong intention of seducing him.  I'm not saying that's TRUE, my point is that we just don't know, and can never know for sure (unless GRRM decides to speak on the subject, I guess)

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

That is definitely not the case. Just look at this discussion, there is not a single instance where I confused the two mediums in any way. All my questioning and doubting of the show is based on pure logic and inconsistencies on the show itself.

I did not say you "confused" the mediums.  I do NOT believe you are confusing the mediums (in fact, i believe you have VERY clear and strong understandings of the differences between the books and show).  My opinion is that you are comparing them and finding one a LOT better than the other (which I AGREE with you about, by the way), and finding that, b/c the show can't measure up to the books, the show sucks.   Which, I believe, is what I referred to as "letting the perfect be then enemy of the good."

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

But sorry to say, you seem to be too forgiving to the show. You are polite and well-intention, which is rare quality among show lovers, but if you look at your arguments, it's mostly theories that aren't supported by the text in the books or by the show. That doesn't necessarily mean that those theories are denied by the text or by the show either. Look at "love potion" theory for example, there is no hard evidence that love potion wasn't used on Robb. But like many other show lovers, you are often following this logic: if something isn't explicitly ruled out by the text, then it is possible. And then you go on and make theories like "Robb married Jeyne because he fell in love with her and the news from Winterfell was just coincidence".

Different people like different kinds of stories.  That's okay.  Some people want every detail explained and verified (in my opinion, that's the type of experience you want, generally speaking, and by the way, I TEND to be more like that than you might suspect.).  But some people don't WANT every detail explained and verified in absolute terms, and some people claim that is NOT good storytelling, they claim that is "spoon feeding" the story to the reader/watcher, and is a very weak thing to do.

Consider art.  Now, I'm not much of an art fan myself, but I DO know that different people like some VERY different kinds of art.  Some people like very abstract stuff, where it can "mean" LOTS of different things, depending on the viewer's own interpretation and perspective.  And other people like VERY intense realism.  To them, great art is as realistic as possible, and they don't want to see bizarre distortions of scenery or people.  Is one art fan "right," and the other "wrong"?  I would say, not necessarily, and I view ASOIAF in a VERY similar way.   You may love a strict reading which explains, justifies and verifies every aspect and angle of the story, but not everybody does, and only GRRM can say what he intended when he wrote certain things, but even HE cannot say some things for sure, cuz, as I understand it, he admits he has forgotten some of the stuff he wrote (b/c he's an imperfect mortal human, presumably)

In my opinion, you have a strong tendency to believe there is only ONE single, correct answer, but in my opinion, that's not necessarily so.  "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."  So is art.  So is literature.  These are HIGHLY subjective experiences, NOT objective experiences wich can only be experienced in ONE objectively correct way, in my opinion.

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

But most probably, you are just too much influenced by the show. I read the books long before the show was made and as far as I can remember in those days, before the show, nobody thought that Robb married Jeyne because he was attracted to her. That and many other misconceptions came with the show. And that's not anybody's fault really. D&D aren't guilty for being cosmically incompetent, it's just what they are, and people like you aren't guilty for watching the show first before reading the books.

I read the books years before the show was made too.  I had read all four books which were out at the time years before GoT was even announced as  a project, and I have read all books twice.

By the way, my understanding is not that Robb married Jeyne b/c he loved her (although he DID love her), but rather, my understanding is that he married her b/c he considered it the honorable thing to do b/c he had had sex with her.  That's my memory of it, but you or someone else here may correct me with exact quotes if I'm wrong, I suppose.

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

And of course, even before the show there were wild theories. Love potion is one of them, it was created long before the show. There is literally nothing in the text that supports it, but because the books also don't specifically deny that Robb wasn't under the influence of magical potion, the theory is going to stay around until hopefully GRRM dismisses it one day, just like he dismissed another stupid theory that Benjen is Coldhands.

It's just a theory.  i don't know anyone who claims it is confirmed, including me.  It's possible it's true, and it's possible we'll never know for sure, one way or the other.  In my opinion, it's likely true, but I don't claim it is confirmed (just so we're clear on that)

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

The books are great because reasons for everything are either directly in the text, or just one realistic suggestion away. You don't need wide theories to explain anything from the books. I remember when R+L=J appeared, it was as complex a theory as it gets, and yet everything was based purely on the text itself. While on the other hand, to make any sense of that Bran's line you had to come up with theory about Howland which isn't supported by the show in any way. It's neither supported nor dismissed by the show, because there is nothing about Howland in the show except that one scene where he doesn't speak a single word.

Time will tell.  It will be VERY interesting to read GRRM's version of highly specific events at the Tower of Joy, assuming we ever actually get it.

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

Whenever books are put under scrutiny, they hold their own, and every answer you need is in the text itself. That is the case with every good story, from Godfather movies to classic books. But when the show is put under the smallest scrutiny, it falls apart because it requires explanations that aren't even addressed in the show itself. And even when the show offers explanations, they are ridiculous and illogical for the most part. Just look at this discussion and you'll see it.

We agree that the books are better than the show.

By the way, unless I missed it, you did not answer my question (or maybe you are not replying here to that post of mine, I'm not even sure).  It is crystal clear, i think, that you love the books a LOT more than the show, but is there ANYTHING in the show that you like better than the books (which is, in fact, the question posed by the title of the topic we are posting in rignt now)?

[TheKitttenGuard]

2 hours ago, StepStark said:

In all my replies to you I never talked about Cat's characterization, but only about the situation in the camp and things related to that. It is you who are ignoring the absurdity of that situation.

I'm not sure what are you trying to say here, but let me assure you that I really don't need anyone's permission to disagree with D&D. They aren't saints or god as you may think. And a lot of what they write and do is stupid beyond belief. Again, it is you who chose to ignore it.

Your replies are based on the characterization foe reasons for the action taken. Releasing is totally irrational action and  cause based on the action can make it understandable. 

It is not the disagreeing , it is that they are horrible people for making the decisions they make when it does not match what occurred in the book.

I do not think they are Gods but you think they are the Devil.

[StepStark]

15 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Your replies are based on the characterization foe reasons for the action taken. Releasing is totally irrational action and  cause based on the action can make it understandable.

You obviously didn't read or understand anything that I posted. Pity.

16 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

It is not the disagreeing , it is that they are horrible people for making the decisions they make when it does not match what occurred in the book.

I see that you are taking this very personal for some reason, but honestly, I have no idea what are you talking about.

16 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I do not think they are Gods but you think they are the Devil.

You said with your own words that you don't want to question anything that is "established" in the show. That makes you a worshiper of D&D, which makes them your gods. I don't think they're devils, I just think they're unbelievably incompetent. And why do I think that? Because I THINK about what I watched and I'm not afraid to question what I watched, unlike you.

[StepStark]

1 hour ago, Cron said:

Well, I think the position you're taking now is basically that it can't be different, cuz that's not how GRRM wrote it.

Well...yeah, I know that's not how GRRM wrote it.   But let's say the love potion theory is true.  Okay, are you telling me that in a theoretical GoT universe where Theon did not do what he did (kill those boys, and claim they were Bran and Rickon), Robb would NOT have fallen in love with Jeyne, despite the fact that he had been given a magical love potion??

My friend, in my humble opinion, you are placing way too much emphasis on the impact of what Theon did on the story of Robb's life.  But that's just my opinion.

That's not what I meant and you probably know it. No, I don't think that GRRM can't be questioned. Just because he wrote something, it doesn't mean it has to be accepted. But his decisions and storytelling choices also shouldn't be dismissed, that's my point.

About this particular instance, there are two different layers: 1) emotions, 2) acting on those emotions. GRRM obviously didn't put much emphasis on Robb's emotions toward Jeyne as a person. You can theorize as much as you like about how he was attracted to her sexually, but the fact is that the author didn't think that's relevant for the story and didn't bother to describe it in details. If you like romances you may think that it's a mistake, but I don't because to me the story about Robb's decision to act on those emotions is much more interesting, and there the news from Winterfell obviously mattered a great deal, because the author himself keeps mentioning them and their impact on Robb and on war. I remembered five instances in which losing Winterfell and his brothers was described as crucial for the outcome of the war or for breaking the promise to Freys. On the other hand, nobody in the books even talks about love as the reason Robb lost his kingdom.

1 hour ago, Cron said:

And while it's true that magic is de-emphasized in ASOIAF as compared to Harry Potter, and LOTR, the world of ASOIAF does have magic.  Indisputably, as I'm sure you and I would agree.  In fact, a love potion is NOTHING compared to many of the things we know actually HAVE happened in ASOIAF.

The magic is never used against people's feelings and emotions. One thing that will always separate ASOIAF from average fantasy is that human interactions are both complex and realistic, and you can't have that with potions that influence human feelings. There is magic in ASOIAF, but none of it affects human heart, the very thing GRRM always emphasizes as the most important thing in his work.

1 hour ago, Cron said:

My opinion is that you are comparing them and finding one a LOT better than the other (which I AGREE with you about, by the way), and finding that, b/c the show can't measure up to the books, the show sucks.

I have no idea why would you think something like that. In all of my posts for everything I dislike about the show I gave examples from the show itself. I'd like to know what example did you based your opinion on.

Or maybe you're saying that because I love the books so much it must affect my judgement of the show? Oh man, that's not even close. As I said, I'm not confusing the two mediums. Unlike some people, I worked for a TV production and I know the limitations of TV. My expectations weren't exaggerated, and the disappointment is real. Feel free to prove me wrong and find anything I said about the show that wasn't based on what actually happened in the show.

In fact, it's usually the opposite: love for the show is what makes many viewers not to question anything about it.

2 hours ago, Cron said:

In my opinion, you have a strong tendency to believe there is only ONE single, correct answer, but in my opinion, that's not necessarily so.  "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."  So is art.  So is literature.  These are HIGHLY subjective experiences, NOT objective experiences wich can only be experienced in ONE objectively correct way, in my opinion.

Wrong again. It's not about one single correct answer, but about not recognizing ANY of the logical and realistic possibilities, which is sadly often the case with this show.

2 hours ago, Cron said:

By the way, unless I missed it, you did not answer my question (or maybe you are not replying here to that post of mine, I'm not even sure).  It is crystal clear, i think, that you love the books a LOT more than the show, but is there ANYTHING in the show that you like better than the books (which is, in fact, the question posed by the title of the topic we are posting in rignt now)?

No there isn't. Even those parts of the books that I don't like, they made even worse in the show. For example, I don't really care about Tullys in the books, and I think that Edmure and Hoster were pretty much a waste of time. Not too big a waste of time, fortunately, but I still didn't see a reason for Cat to spend all that time with them. And at first, I was pleasantly surprised that the show cut them out. And I knew that they'll have to introduce Edmure because of the Red Wedding, but I thought he's going to be a very minor character. But again, D&D can always surprise you with their incompetence, because their Edmure is even worse than GRRM's. In the books Edmure is not interesting, but in the show he's a cartoonish buffoon.

At least they left Hoster out, but if they didn't, he'd possibly be fucking prostitutes on his deathbed in the show.

I also wasn't happy with Euron in the books, because he appears out of nowhere and becomes the most important Ironborn. But in the show he's even worse and it's not even close.

[The Coconut God]

14 hours ago, StepStark said:

That is definitely not the case. Just look at this discussion, there is not a single instance where I confused the two mediums in any way. All my questioning and doubting of the show is based on pure logic and inconsistencies on the show itself.

I'm sorry, but you are constantly misrepresenting both the show and the books in order to make them suit your argument. The show gave Robb & Talisa a very simple narrative, yet you act like you don't understand it at all. He isn't lusting after her, like you claim here, he grows to respect her because she is assertive and fierce, and challenges him in a good way. He admires her strong character and values, and thinks the positive influence she has on him would make her a better queen than some random Frey girl he agreed to marry under duress. Her story about the slave who saved her little brother, which I thought was a rather nice story, btw, is what seals the deal for him.

In the books, on the other hand, we aren't told exactly what happens. George gives us a lot of hints and lets the readers make up their own minds, as they would about a real historical event with insufficient information. He is right to say that he didn't write a romance, because we never see their story directly, but George gave readers plenty of reasons to frame it as a love story if they are so inclined.

Here's some of the language Robb uses when telling his mother about Jeyne: "Love's not always wise, I've learned. It can lead us to great folly, but we follow our hearts... wherever they take us."; "I know what it is to love so greatly you can think of nothing else"; "For love of me, Jeyne may lose all."; "I took her castle and she took my heart."; "Robb bristled at that 'The Westerlings are better blood than the Freys. [...] there was another Jeyne Westerling who was queen to King Maegor three hundred years ago'.".

We don't know how much of this is Robb being sincere and how much it's him trying to paint his mistake in a better light. But his admission that marrying her "was the only honorable thing to do" after she comforted him in his grief comes in the same context.

Would he have done the honorable thing for any girl, or did he do it for Jeyne because he already cared about her? They certainly don't sleep with each other out of the blue. Robb is wounded at the Crag and Jeyne takes care of him for a while before they get the news about Bran and Rickon, and all the while Jeyne's mother is trying to get them to fall in love because she's purposely trying to ruin Robb's alliance with the Freys. Why would Jeyne care enough to sleep with Robb and why would Robb accept if they don't already have some sort of bond developed during the weeks(?) she cared for him?

But whether or not you see it as a love story or a mere moment of weakness, or (as it is more likely), a complex situation that combines both, plus a bunch of other factors, it is not realistic to expect 25 year old show Robb to make the same mistakes  as 16 year old book Robb. From the moment they aged up the actors, it became inevitable that they would have to give Robb a different motivation to break is pact with the Freys.

 

If you want to judge the show properly, you have to cut it some slack first. Accept that it is an adaptation. The story is condensed. You won't have all the juicy details from the books. Some characters will be different. Some scenes will be changed. Some themes and motivations will be reworked. Production has to be budgeted. Time has to be budgeted. Audiences have to be taken into consideration. Judge the show it on its own internal logic.

If you're going to pick on decent scenes and story arcs just because they didn't play out like in the books, the motivations were different, the focus was on a different character, they didn't have the same theme, they were missing some detail you liked, you feel they clashed with some off-handed commentary Martin made in some interview, or any such purely subjective nonsense, the only thing you are doing is weakening the overall position of show critics. You're making us all look like the little boy who cried poor adaptation.

This kind of criticism gives D&D the perfect excuse to ignore us. Why would they bother listening to people who hate everything that isn't exactly like in the book? Why would they bother with people who say their story is crap when they don't even understand it? Why would you want to be in this weak position? The show has gotten so bad in the last two or three years that you can cut them generous slack and still not get them a passing grade.

[StepStark]

6 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

This kind of criticism gives D&D the perfect excuse to ignore us. Why would they bother listening to people who hate everything that isn't exactly like in the book? Why would they bother with people who say their story is crap when they don't even understand it? Why would you want to be in this weak position?

Oh I'm so sorry for interrupting your fight against D&D with my brutish criticism. Just one thing, sorry but I have to ask: you were challenging D&D and making them heed your criticism... how exactly??? What exactly is your grand achievement in the fight for GOT quality which I somehow managed to endanger???

From what I see all you do is go from thread to thread and defend Talisa as character and Robb's love story in the show. That must be brilliant strategy since you obviously have so high hopes in it, but since I'm just blinded lover of books can you please explain your strategy to me? How is it going to result in anything other than you feeling good about yourself?

6 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

If you want to judge the show properly, you have to cut it some slack first.

Oh, the famous "There can be only one criticism!" philosophy, which is definitely one of the most absurd things about GOT. Sorry for bursting your bubble, but I don't really have to criticize the show the same way you do, if that really is what you're doing. I don't think it's necessary to become fascinated with Talisa before you earn the right to speak negatively about GOT. That's just ridiculous snobbery invented by people who don't really want to analyze anything. And it's especially hypocritical when combined with your next outlandish accusation.

6 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Accept that it is an adaptation. The story is condensed. You won't have all the juicy details from the books. Some characters will be different. Some scenes will be changed. Some themes and motivations will be reworked. Production has to be budgeted. Time has to be budgeted. Audiences have to be taken into consideration. Judge the show it on its own internal logic.

So let me get it clear: you're saying that I'm wrong for demanding that adaptation has to be identical as the books, but at the same time you're attacking me for writing criticism that isn't identical as yours!

Because that is fairly hypocritical and illogical, allow me to give you some news here, just so we can continue this discussion reasonably:

1) You are not really GRRM of criticism and I'm not really adapting your criticism and I don't need to do anything you did or to follow the spirit of your criticism, especially because I'm not even sure you are criticizing GOT at all. You seem to be thinking that your posts are The Renaissance of criticism which will lead all the criticism into some new and enlightened era, but if you need advice from me (I know you won't heed it, but anyway): try not to confuse that feeling of yours with confidence. D&D obviously suffer from the same kind of confusion and mistake their overblown ego for confidence, but since you want to criticize them then at least don't make same mistakes as them. 

2) Disliking Talisa and Robb's romance in the show doesn't have to come from the position of book snobbery or purism. In fact in all of my posts you can't find even one example of something like that. And just to be clear, I don't think that book purism is wrong and I don't think what you seem to be thinking, that expecting adaptation to be as faithful as possible is wrong. But in this exact example book purism is hardly needed, because Talisa is poorly written character from her first scene to her last.

3) Don't take my words out of context and then use them for cheap shots at me. This is internet forum so I'm not really obliged to explain everything scientifically in every one of my posts. I used "lusting" simply because the man I was replying to used the same word, and since I'm not very good in English that is what I do sometimes, I repeat words that were used toward me.

If you want to know, I realize that D&D tried to portray Talisa as some super-morale woman who fascinates Robb with her progressive values. But they did it poorly, because her values are too progressive and modern and therefore anachronistic, and her lines are ridiculous. And her story is not that fascinating too. Here's her complete story:

Quote

When I was 12, my mother and father went to a wedding. Weddings in Volantis last for days, you know. And they left me with my little brother.
The second afternoon they were gone was the hottest day in the three-year summer. We couldn't bear to be inside, so we ran down to the Rhoyne. Every child in Volantis was in the Rhoyne that day. The rich, the poor, we were all there, naked, screaming, racing to the little islands. Drummers were playing for coppers on the east bank.
I was treading water, talking to a friend when I realized I hadn't seen my brother. I called his name. Then I started screaming his name. And then I saw him floating facedown. My heart just... stopped. I was...
I dragged him from the water. My friend helped me, I think. I don't even remember. He was so little. Then we pulled him onto the riverbank... and I screamed at him and I shook him and he was dead. Just dead.
A man ran over. He had a fish tattoo on his face. In Volantis the slaves have tattoos so you know what they are without having to talk to them. And this man worked on a fishing boat. And he pushed me out of the way. You have to understand, for a slave to push a highborn girl, that's death for the man, a terrible death. But he pushed me out of the way and he started pressing on my brother's chest again, and again, and again, until my brother spat out half of the Rhoyne and cried out. And the man cradled his head and told him to be calm.
I decided two things that day: I would not waste my years planning dances and masquerades with the other noble ladies, and when I came of age... I would never live in a slave city again.

The concept of a slave saving her brother is not ridiculous on its own, but here it's poorly executed because it tries too hard to dramatize the entire event by portraying the situation idealistic before tragedy happens. That is a cliche that not so good writers often use, so D&D are not alone in that, but it's still poorly written because nobody in real life tells their memories in that way. That over-dramatization can look good in the script, which is why many writers go for it, but on screen it needs an extremely powerful performance to support it, which in a way defeats the purpose of performances (they are not meant to correct the script, but to give it life).

Also, such over-dramatization usually telegraphs the hidden intention too strongly. The conversation doesn't come as natural, but pointed, and that's not good for storytelling especially in a character-driven story. Oh, and that part where the slave pushed her away is simply silly (one more unnecessary over-dramatization).

But that story is maybe the least troubling thing about Talisa. 

6 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

he grows to respect her because she is assertive and fierce, and challenges him in a good way

This is the first problem with Talisa: she doesn't challenge him "in a good way", because in their first conversation she's very rude to him even for today's standards. Even today no soldier would tolerate someone berating him in that way, unless he's sexually attracted to her and just wants to sleep with her most probably. It is that stupid notion that Robb needs someone like Talisa to come and inform him that people die in wars! No shit that people die in wars! And in feudal times it would be even worse because she's not only annoying but also impudent.

It is one thing GRRM specifically said he dislikes in fantasy novels, and that is feisty girl lecturing a knight.

And before you say it, no, it isn't impossible that some feisty girl does lecture or challenge a knight or a king in feudal society. But that girl would definitely be aware of the possible consequences. Maybe she'd do it despite the consequences, but she'd have to expect them anyway. But the entire scene is filmed as if Talisa has no reason to fear any consequences, as if that doesn't even cross her or his mind, and that is completely absurd.

The entire scene would be better if Talisa paused at least for a moment, realizing that she maybe went too far, and stared at Robb waiting his reaction, and then he reacts politely because he maybe likes her being feisty. That detail would at least show that D&D understand the setting and that they're giving us the exception. But no, they didn't even think about it because they have no understanding of the setting.

6 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

He is right to say that he didn't write a romance, because we never see their story directly, but George gave readers plenty of reasons to frame it as a love story if they are so inclined.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote: having feelings for someone is one thing, acting on those feelings is something different. Robb+Jeyne in the books isn't love story but not for the lack of feelings, because feelings are there. But the story is not about those feelings, but about Robb acting on those feelings and consequences of his actions. That is why it isn't love story.

GRRM wrote Robb act on his feeling only AFTER he heard about Bran and Rickon. Denying the impact the news had on Robb is simply ridiculous, sorry to say. The very fact that he never punishes Cat makes it obvious that he understands her grief because he also did something irrational because of the same grief. Of course Robb didn't marry Jeyne just because she was the first to comfort him, of course there was some attraction between them before that, but GRRM very strongly suggests that death of Bran and Rickon is what made Robb act on those feelings.

6 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

it is not realistic to expect 25 year old show Robb to make the same mistakes  as 16 year old book Robb

Are you aware what you wrote there? Let me give you some news again:

1) Show Robb actually MADE THE SAME MISTAKE as book Robb, he broke his promise to Walder Frey just like book Robb. D&D of course ignored the consequences of his decision until just a few episodes before Red Wedding, but Robb's decision is devastating in both mediums.

2) Reasoning for his decision in the show is only weaker, and not stronger than in the books. Everything show Robb sees in Talisa is the same book Robb sees in Jeyne. The only difference is that Talisa "challenges" him, but I already explained why is her "challenging" silly and anachronistic, but even besides that, challenging is not more powerful than comforting. Usually it's the opposite, your appreciate someone for comforting you after tragedy more than someone who challenges you.

That's it, now you can continue with your courageous but sophisticated fight against D&D, sorry for disturbance.

[The Coconut God]

51 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Disliking Talisa and Robb's romance in the show doesn't have to come from the position of book snobbery or purism. In fact in all of my posts you can't find even one example of something like that. And just to be clear, I don't think that book purism is wrong and I don't think what you seem to be thinking, that expecting adaptation to be as faithful as possible is wrong. But in this exact example book purism is hardly needed, because Talisa is poorly written character from her first scene to her last.

Expecting an adaptation to be faithful isn't wrong, it's just a subjective preference, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with quality. Many unfaithful adaptations are very good films on their own. Stanley Kubrick was pretty much hated by every author whose book he adapted because he always radically changed the story. The re-imagined BSG radically changed the concept and story of the original series. Disney, of course, famously transforms some pretty dark and tragic tales into highly acclaimed family friendly cartoons. Different doesn't need to be bad.

You're free to prefer faithfulness if you want, but don't do use it as on objective criteria for judging quality... which you do even as you say you don't need to, as I'll be pointing out below.

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

Don't take my words out of context and then use them for cheap shots at me. This is internet forum so I'm not really obliged to explain everything scientifically in every one of my posts. I used "lusting" simply because the man I was replying to used the same word, and since I'm not very good in English that is what I do sometimes, I repeat words that were used toward me.

If you want to know, I realize that D&D tried to portray Talisa as some super-morale woman who fascinates Robb with her progressive values. But they did it poorly, because her values are too progressive and modern and therefore anachronistic, and her lines are ridiculous.

This is what you said in the post I linked to:

And about Robb, yes it is obvious that he broke his promise to Walder just because he was lusting after Talisa, and that is precisely what is the problem in the show. In the show Robb is a horny fool who lost his kingdom and his life because he had a hard-on for a sexy foreigner. I have to ask again: do you really think that that is good storytelling? And just compare that to the source material, where he is struck with grief and even guilt! It's just not comparable, really.

It doesn't sound like I took your words out of context, but if you really didn't misunderstand the story arc, it comes off as if you dislike the change on so many levels it doesn't even matter to you which angle you are attacking it from.

The anachronism, though, is entirely subjective. On one hand it's very low impact, probably not noticeable for most viewers, and on the other hand it could have legitimately been done on purpose to increase the impact of the Red Wedding (since the most modern-thinking characters wold be the stand-ins for the audience).

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

The concept of a slave saving her brother is not ridiculous on its own, but here it's poorly executed because it tries too hard to dramatize the entire event by portraying the situation idealistic before tragedy happens. That is a cliche that not so good writers often use, so D&D are not alone in that, but it's still poorly written because nobody in real life tells their memories in that way. That over-dramatization can look good in the script, which is why many writers go for it, but on screen it needs an extremely powerful performance to support it, which in a way defeats the purpose of performances (they are not meant to correct the script, but to give it life).

Also, such over-dramatization usually telegraphs the hidden intention too strongly. The conversation doesn't come as natural, but pointed, and that's not good for storytelling especially in a character-driven story. Oh, and that part where the slave pushed her away is simply silly (one more unnecessary over-dramatization).

But that story is maybe the least troubling thing about Talisa. 

You're just splitting hairs here just to say something bad about it. It's not a brilliant scene, mind you, just decent enough to elicit some emotion. I do not find it overly dramatized. You see the hot summer day as idyllic set up, I see it as a reason for them to be in the water and for Talisa to be distracted. The concept of the slave having to shove her away to get to the unconscious child is also not unrealistic. There really is no point in nitpicking here.

2 hours ago, StepStark said:

This is the first problem with Talisa: she doesn't challenge him "in a good way", because in their first conversation she's very rude to him even for today's standards. Even today no soldier would tolerate someone berating him in that way, unless he's sexually attracted to her and just wants to sleep with her most probably. It is that stupid notion that Robb needs someone like Talisa to come and inform him that people die in wars! No shit that people die in wars! And in feudal times it would be even worse because she's not only annoying but also impudent.

Talisa's first scene begins by establishing visually that the silent sisters are taking care of wounded soldiers on the battlefield, including Lannister men, and nobody's batting an eyelash at them, implying there is some sort of widely respected tradition or religious custom that allows them to do that. When we see Talisa for the first time, she is with a silent sister, implying some sort of connection (like an eccentric European living with Tibetan monks), so she would expect to be protected by whatever tradition is in place to protect the silent sister.

Also, she is not impertinent to Robb. She is impertinent to Roose Bolton, after the king already knelt down to help her hold down her patient.

In their first conversation, she doesn't simply "point out that people die in wars" (in fact she doesn't even say that). She makes him realize he doesn't have anything planned for the realm once he kills Joffrey, basically encouraging him to take responsibility for the war he started. This obviously resonates with Robb's sense of honor, the same way Davos's advice resonates with Stannis.

2 hours ago, StepStark said:

It is one thing GRRM specifically said he dislikes in fantasy novels, and that is feisty girl lecturing a knight.

GRRM said he dislikes spunky peasant girls lecturing princes, because princes would just rape them.

Of course, first of all Talisa is not a peasant girl, so that point is moot, and second George has a lot of exceptions from this rule in his own texts... He also has princes who give up their crown to be with an actual peasant girl, so I doubt he has anything against that either.

2 hours ago, StepStark said:

And before you say it, no, it isn't impossible that some feisty girl does lecture or challenge a knight or a king in feudal society. But that girl would definitely be aware of the possible consequences. Maybe she'd do it despite the consequences, but she'd have to expect them anyway. But the entire scene is filmed as if Talisa has no reason to fear any consequences, as if that doesn't even cross her or his mind, and that is completely absurd.

See the part I wrote above about the silent sisters. It's also safe enough to assume that a king who is chivalrous enough to kneel down and help you operate on an enemy footman wouldn't rape or do any horrible things to you if you lecture him. At the very least he'll give you a warning first. Besides, if things go south, all she has to do is say "I am Talisa Maegyr of the old blood of Volantins. Send an envoy to my parents and they will ransom me" and she'll probably be fine.

Could the dialogue have been written better? Absolutely. But it's not terrible. It's something like a 7-8 and you insist it has to be a 10++ or you'll crap all over it and act like it's a -1. I agree with @Cron about "not letting perfect be the enemy of good (*enough)". Not even GRRM is a 10++ at dialogue. He is sometimes 10, often 9, and yes, sometimes dips into 8 as well.

3 hours ago, StepStark said:

You obviously didn't read what I wrote: having feelings for someone is one thing, acting on those feelings is something different. Robb+Jeyne in the books isn't love story but not for the lack of feelings, because feelings are there. But the story is not about those feelings, but about Robb acting on those feelings and consequences of his actions. That is why it isn't love story.

GRRM wrote Robb act on his feeling only AFTER he heard about Bran and Rickon. Denying the impact the news had on Robb is simply ridiculous, sorry to say. The very fact that he never punishes Cat makes it obvious that he understands her grief because he also did something irrational because of the same grief. Of course Robb didn't marry Jeyne just because she was the first to comfort him, of course there was some attraction between them before that, but GRRM very strongly suggests that death of Bran and Rickon is what made Robb act on those feelings.

The problem with this is that it doesn't make the character better, or more complex, or more realistic. Which version you like best is entirely subjective.

What does Robb's grief bring to the table, other than washing away all responsibility for his mistake in the eyes of the reader? Why is this necessary to the story on a meta level? Usually characters are considered more interesting when they are allowed to be responsible for their own mistakes. Certainly George doesn't explore Robb's inner struggle directly, so it's not about addressing this emotional state.

In the books, it's more about the puzzle than the psychological implications, so this works better because it connect more pieces together. But the show can't present the story as a puzzle, it simply doesn't work in that medium (and this is one of the main reasons the books would still be better no matter the quality of the show). The show is about character and drama, so you want a character who actually has agency.

3 hours ago, StepStark said:

1) Show Robb actually MADE THE SAME MISTAKE as book Robb, he broke his promise to Walder Frey just like book Robb. D&D of course ignored the consequences of his decision until just a few episodes before Red Wedding, but Robb's decision is devastating in both mediums.

2) Reasoning for his decision in the show is only weaker, and not stronger than in the books. Everything show Robb sees in Talisa is the same book Robb sees in Jeyne. The only difference is that Talisa "challenges" him, but I already explained why is her "challenging" silly and anachronistic, but even besides that, challenging is not more powerful than comforting. Usually it's the opposite, your appreciate someone for comforting you after tragedy more than someone who challenges you.

Show Robb breaks his promise to Walder Frey directly. Book Robb makes the mistake of sleeping with Jeyne, then makes the mistake of marrying her to protect her honor - breaking his promise to Walder Frey is simply the unfortunate result.

The problem is, book Robb is a 16 year old teenager full of raging hormones. I can accept that, given his state of mind, he couldn't control them. Show Robb is 25; he's long out of puberty. Grief or no grief, it's a lot harder to believe he would allow himself to think with his manhood. It's a lot harder to accept that he would be naive enough to marry some other girl unless he actually wanted to.

Saying book Robb makes more sense is full on book purism. Even if you accept the changes to the story, you still judge show Robb as if he was book Robb. And for some reason you find it unacceptable that any of them would break their promise to Walder Frey for anything other than a series of reason that grow from something completely inevitable. Why exactly is that so important.

[StepStark]

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

Expecting an adaptation to be faithful isn't wrong, it's just a subjective preference, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with quality. Many unfaithful adaptations are very good films on their own. Stanley Kubrick was pretty much hated by every author whose book he adapted because he always radically changed the story. The re-imagined BSG radically changed the concept and story of the original series. Disney, of course, famously transforms some pretty dark and tragic tales into highly acclaimed family friendly cartoons. Different doesn't need to be bad.

You're free to prefer faithfulness if you want, but don't do use it as on objective criteria for judging quality... which you do even as you say you don't need to, as I'll be pointing out below.

Some adaptations or maybe even many adaptations were successful because they diverged from source materials. But GOT is clearly not that case. So I really don't know why are you even mentioning other adaptations that are successful, when this one is not really. It is commercially, but I guess we're not talking about that.

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

It doesn't sound like I took your words out of context, but if you really didn't misunderstand the story arc, it comes off as if you dislike the change on so many levels it doesn't even matter to you which angle you are attacking it from.

It's not my fault that Talisa is poorly written on so many levels. If you want me to attack something from fewer angles, find something that is written better.

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

The anachronism, though, is entirely subjective. On one hand it's very low impact, probably not noticeable for most viewers, and on the other hand it could have legitimately been done on purpose to increase the impact of the Red Wedding (since the most modern-thinking characters wold be the stand-ins for the audience).

This is contradicting to itself. First of all, modern-thinking character is anachronistic by definition, and because of that anachronism is not subjective as you say but fairly objective. Second, anachronism is definitely noticeable and impact for most viewers if modern-thinking characters are stand-ins for the audience, as you say.

If what you're saying is true, then modern-thinking characters won't be noticed by audience only if the viewers don't think too much about what they're watching. I tend to agree with that description of show lovers.

What is absolutely absurd is the whole idea of "increasing the impact of the Red Wedding", which is fairly common in these discussions. I don't know what to say to that, really. In the entire fiction ff there is anything impact of which doesn't need to be increased, then it's the Red Wedding, It'd be like making a remake of The Godfather and trying to increase the impact of Sony's death by putting his sexy lover in the car with him. Like really? You had no other concerns but to "increase the impact" of that scene???

But even worse is the idea that viewers need modern-thinking characters as their stand-ins. At this point I have to ask you: do you remember what source material is adapted in GOT? It is a story famous around the world precisely for CHARACTERS. Modern audience was already in love with ASOIAF characters, maybe even to previously unseen levels. Maybe in 1996 somebody could doubt it, but in 2012 it is widely known that modern audience overwhelmingly sympathize with ASOIAF characters and setting and story.

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

You're just splitting hairs here just to say something bad about it. It's not a brilliant scene, mind you, just decent enough to elicit some emotion. I do not find it overly dramatized. You see the hot summer day as idyllic set up, I see it as a reason for them to be in the water and for Talisa to be distracted. The concept of the slave having to shove her away to get to the unconscious child is also not unrealistic. There really is no point in nitpicking here.

Hopefully I don't have to tell you how subjective you are in there. But I don't know why are you insisting on this. The wording of her monologue is unlucky, but I already said that I don't hold it against D&D because even better writers have problems when their characters have to do some narration. It's a common mistake to write such monologue as narration, instead of part of dialogue. Even GRRM does it sometimes in the books.

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

Talisa's first scene begins by establishing visually that the silent sisters are taking care of wounded soldiers on the battlefield, including Lannister men, and nobody's batting an eyelash at them, implying there is some sort of widely respected tradition or religious custom that allows them to do that. When we see Talisa for the first time, she is with a silent sister, implying some sort of connection (like an eccentric European living with Tibetan monks), so she would expect to be protected by whatever tradition is in place to protect the silent sister.

Oh yes, this is very convincing: tradition that protects silent sisters should also protect a strange girl who's anything but silent and obviously doesn't belong to silent sisters!

But really, the only thing that is not only implied here but as proven as fact, is that D&D on some level at least realize that they have no understanding of the setting. Because otherwise they might try to explain who the hell is this 19th century medic worker and what is she doing in a medieval battlefield. Now that would be probably the most ridiculous scene ever seen on television, but fortunately for them D&D know that their Talisa is impossible in that setting so they didn't even offer any explanation. They thought that Red Wedding impact needs to be increased, but not that any word of explanation about Talisa's job is necessary. Way to go.

Just one question: since you're all for separating the books from the show, how can show watcher who didn't read the books know what silent sisters are? And what tradition are you talking about? When was any kind of tradition about silent sisters ever mentioned in the show?

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

Also, she is not impertinent to Robb. She is impertinent to Roose Bolton, after the king already knelt down to help her hold down her patient.

So then Roose was out of line, questioning the medical operation (good lord!) his king is helping with? It cuts both ways, you know,

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

In their first conversation, she doesn't simply "point out that people die in wars" (in fact she doesn't even say that). She makes him realize he doesn't have anything planned for the realm once he kills Joffrey, basically encouraging him to take responsibility for the war he started.

Well, I tried to avoid going into details because it takes too much time, but if you insist...

It's much worse than I initially described, when you go into details. For example, when Robb justifies the campaign by saying: "They killed my father", Talisa replies with: "That boy did?", referring to the boy whose leg they just cut off. What kind of a question is that??? It's beyond rude! Even in modern times, no soldier, let alone general, would ever tolerate such questioning, especially if he's on a mission to avenge the murder of his father!

Moving on. Robb answers: "The family he fights for", to which Talisa retorts: "Do you think he's friends with king Joffrey?"

It is laughable, really. It's impossible to take any line from that dialogue seriously, but this specific line is special kind of wrong. Really, what is Robb to do with Lannister soldiers who aren't "friends with king Joffrey"? LOL!

But the stupidest line has to be this: "You're fighting to overthrow a king and yet you have no plan for what comes after?"

Again, it's wrong on so many levels. First, he's not fighting to overthrow a king. He's the king of the kingdom that just seceded from The Iron Throne, and he specifically says that he doesn't want to sit on the IT. Second, why then would he even care for what happens with IT after he kills Joffrey? And third, and most important: who the hell is she to question him about his plans? He's the king, she's just a girl he just met and he knows nothing about her, except that she's rude beyond belief. Why the hell would he tell her anything about any of his plans?

And on top of everything, during the entire conversation she never shows any respect to him, not even once.

Oh yes, I forgot, silent sisters, right, sorry...

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

This obviously resonates with Robb's sense of honor, the same way Davos's advice resonates with Stannis.

I don't think you want to go there.

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Of course, first of all Talisa is not a peasant girl, so that point is moot, and second George has a lot of exceptions from this rule in his own texts...

Her Volantis titles mean nothing in Westeros, she is a low-born in Westeros. We've been throught this before in that other thread. about exceptions that George made, what do you have in mind?

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

He also has princes who give up their crown to be with an actual peasant girl, so I doubt he has anything against that either.

I didn't read anything other than five ASOIAF books, so I had no idea about this. Now I do, all I can say is that it's very stupid, especially with GRRM's statement about real history which is actually accurate as far as I know.

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

See the part I wrote above about the silent sisters. It's also safe enough to assume that a king who is chivalrous enough to kneel down and help you operate on an enemy footman wouldn't rape or do any horrible things to you if you lecture him. At the very least he'll give you a warning first. Besides, if things go south, all she has to do is say "I am Talisa Maegyr of the old blood of Volantins. Send an envoy to my parents and they will ransom me" and she'll probably be fine.

Could the dialogue have been written better? Absolutely. But it's not terrible. It's something like a 7-8 and you insist it has to be a 10++ or you'll crap all over it and act like it's a -1. I agree with @Cron about "not letting perfect be the enemy of good (*enough)". Not even GRRM is a 10++ at dialogue. He is sometimes 10, often 9, and yes, sometimes dips into 8 as well.

You see the part I wrote above, to see why I think that the entire scene is absolute crap. And no, your explanation doesn't make it any better at all because noble children don't go around the world and offer themselves to be imprisoned and then ransomed back,

As I already said, you don't need to compare Talisa to any kind of perfection, she's simply a poorly written character on her own right.

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

The problem with this is that it doesn't make the character better, or more complex, or more realistic.

Maybe not, but the show version makes the character stupider, simplified and unrealistic. For reasons, see the part I wrote above.

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

What does Robb's grief bring to the table, other than washing away all responsibility for his mistake in the eyes of the reader? Why is this necessary to the story on a meta level? Usually characters are considered more interesting when they are allowed to be responsible for their own mistakes.

May I ask what are you talking about? Where did you come up with "washing away all responsibility"?

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Show Robb breaks his promise to Walder Frey directly. Book Robb makes the mistake of sleeping with Jeyne, then makes the mistake of marrying her to protect her honor - breaking his promise to Walder Frey is simply the unfortunate result.

The problem is, book Robb is a 16 year old teenager full of raging hormones. I can accept that, given his state of mind, he couldn't control them. Show Robb is 25; he's long out of puberty. Grief or no grief, it's a lot harder to believe he would allow himself to think with his manhood. It's a lot harder to accept that he would be naive enough to marry some other girl unless he actually wanted to.

You're contradicting yourself again. Before you posted all those quotes trying to prove that Robb genuinely fell in love with Jeyne. If you remember that, then this new post of your make no sense. Book Robb also loved the girl he married, and he also actually wanted to marry her (nobody forced him, after all), and protecting her honor doesn't make it any less direct. He is fully aware what he did to Walder Frey, much more than show Robb who remembers Walder Frey only few episodes before Red Wedding.

You're implying that book Robb was "thinking with his manhood", and if you really believe that, in the show it's only even more true. Even if we out aside the fact that Talisa's "high morality" and "integrity" is ridiculous, Jeyne in the books is actually very moral and of high integrity, as evidenced not by some overwritten memories she shares with Robb but when she's put under pressure. The age difference is actually one more reason against the change.

The only thing that Robb's decision in the show is "more" is more romantic, because there's nothing but mutual attraction between two of them. But that's hardly more mature than the book version. Maybe it isn't necessarily less mature, but it's certainly not more.

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Saying book Robb makes more sense is full on book purism. Even if you accept the changes to the story, you still judge show Robb as if he was book Robb. And for some reason you find it unacceptable that any of them would break their promise to Walder Frey for anything other than a series of reason that grow from something completely inevitable. Why exactly is that so important.

You keep talking about my book purism but I criticized the entire Talisa nonsense purely from the show perspective, except when you yourself were comparing the show with the books, but because you were often contradicting yourself in those instances, it wasn't so hard to prove you wrong. In any case, book purism absolutely doesn't have to affect judgement of Talisa, because, as I already wrote long ago and you became angry with me, majority of her lines are simply ridiculous and don't belong to the setting.

And yes big unprecedented events in real history also were caused by series of factors. Robb breaking his promise is unprecedented event with even more serious consequences, so of course that I'm going to respect more the story in which events like that aren't set in motion by someone's physical attractiveness and feisty manners. Ned's downfall is also a result of series of factors, and the same can be said for any crucial event in ASOIAF. But that's not something GRRM invented, it is the well established wisdom in serious storytelling. That is why Robb's romance in the show would be problematic or at least odd even if it was executed competently (but it wasn't, read above).

[The Coconut God]

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

This is contradicting to itself. First of all, modern-thinking character is anachronistic by definition, and because of that anachronism is not subjective as you say but fairly objective. Second, anachronism is definitely noticeable and impact for most viewers if modern-thinking characters are stand-ins for the audience, as you say.

If what you're saying is true, then modern-thinking characters won't be noticed by audience only if the viewers don't think too much about what they're watching. I tend to agree with that description of show lovers.

It's not contradicting in any way. Just because some characters express moral values that subconsciously appeal to a modern audience doesn't mean the audience must find those characters anachronistic. Moral values aren't inherently anachronistic. Some cultures may seem more progressive than others by our standards. In Dorne, women are emancipated, for example. They can inherit and take positions of leadership. We can assume Volantis is the same in the show, judging by Talisa.

As for her knowing medicine, there's nothing anachronistic about sawing off a leg. People have been doing that since Ancient times. What else is going to take you out of the story? The fact that she has a wooden box with a shoulder strap? Those existed in medieval times.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

What is absolutely absurd is the whole idea of "increasing the impact of the Red Wedding", which is fairly common in these discussions. I don't know what to say to that, really. In the entire fiction ff there is anything impact of which doesn't need to be increased, then it's the Red Wedding, It'd be like making a remake of The Godfather and trying to increase the impact of Sony's death by putting his sexy lover in the car with him. Like really? You had no other concerns but to "increase the impact" of that scene???

But even worse is the idea that viewers need modern-thinking characters as their stand-ins. At this point I have to ask you: do you remember what source material is adapted in GOT? It is a story famous around the world precisely for CHARACTERS. Modern audience was already in love with ASOIAF characters, maybe even to previously unseen levels. Maybe in 1996 somebody could doubt it, but in 2012 it is widely known that modern audience overwhelmingly sympathize with ASOIAF characters and setting and story.

Again, you don't understand the subtleties of adaptation. In the books, you only see Robb through other PoVs, mostly his mother Catelyn. As a reader, you connect with Catelyn and you connect with Robb through her love of him (and all the hopes his PoV brothers and sisters put in him).

But you can't translate this storytelling device to film. There is no way to define PoVs in the show and get viewers on board with that idea. You can't show all the internal monologues and feelings and memories we see in the books. You can only show things that can be visualized.

And what does this mean? First of all, Robb has to be an actual character. You can't have several Robb-centric scenes in season one, like saving Bran, calling the banners, becoming King in the North, etc., then say "Lol, nope! Sorry guys, you only saw Robb because Cat an Bran were nearby. We're not going to show him in season 2, but you'll see some characters talk about him if you pay attention", and then have him come back married at the start of season 3 and expect people to be invested in that.

Second, this character has to garner sympathy from the audience on his own. Even if you wanted to focus on Cat, again, half of her book character is internalized. George lets you see the contrast between what she says and what she thinks and feels, because you are inside her mind. The show can't really do this without getting to some very corny levels (think Dexter Morgan-style narration for each of the 20+ PoV characters to tell us what they think).

So no, you can't do the story "exactly like in the books", because books and film are entirely different mediums, and sometimes that means you have to tell the story in a different way. Which brings us once again to the argument I made in the other thread: if you're going to do Robb and Jeyne in the show, you actually need to film it, and that would be really bloody expensive, because there's a whole new castle, and a battle, and a host of tertiary characters and all that.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

Just one question: since you're all for separating the books from the show, how can show watcher who didn't read the books know what silent sisters are? And what tradition are you talking about? When was any kind of tradition about silent sisters ever mentioned in the show?

They don't have to mention anything (they don't even need to be called "silent sisters", I just called them that because that's the closest thing that came to mind). It's purely visual storytelling:

Here's the aftermath of a battle. There are several women on the battlefield tending to the wounded and nobody's bothering them, so that must be normal. They have those pennants with the seven pointed star, so it must be a westerosi religious thing. Here's this other character helping one of these women out with a wounded soldier. Done. Established. Self explanatory.

Now, a good film maker would make sure to show these nuns later, at least in the background, since they are now an established part of the lore. If D&D don't that's not a problem with this scene, it's a problem with them keeping continuity.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

It's much worse than I initially described, when you go into details. For example, when Robb justifies the campaign by saying: "They killed my father", Talisa replies with: "That boy did?", referring to the boy whose leg they just cut off. What kind of a question is that??? It's beyond rude! Even in modern times, no soldier, let alone general, would ever tolerate such questioning, especially if he's on a mission to avenge the murder of his father!

Moving on. Robb answers: "The family he fights for", to which Talisa retorts: "Do you think he's friends with king Joffrey?"

It is laughable, really. It's impossible to take any line from that dialogue seriously, but this specific line is special kind of wrong. Really, what is Robb to do with Lannister soldiers who aren't "friends with king Joffrey"? LOL!

This is not stupid at all. It touches on one of George's themes from the books: that all the smallfolk the lords and kings take to war when they call the banners often have no idea what they're fighting for. That in a way all lords are villains to their people.

A good example of this theme being touched upon in the books is Brienne's encounter with Septon Meribald (and Brienne's chapters as a whole, showing the aftermath of the War of the Five Kings).

The lines are fine. Your assessments that she is "beyond rude" and "no soldier would ever tolerate such questioning" are wildly subjective. Just stop and think what you're saying for a second. You are speaking in the name of all the soldiers and generals in present day and history just to make a flimsy point about hating a movie scene.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

But the stupidest line has to be this: "You're fighting to overthrow a king and yet you have no plan for what comes after?"

Again, not stupid. His war is affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Maybe he is justified in waging it, but that doesn't mean he isn't responsible for the consequences. A less honorable person would not care, but Robb does and it gives him pause because he hadn't thought of that (and before you say it, yes, it's realistic that he hadn't). It's a moment of character growth for him.

As for Talisa being rude to ask him, again, you are being very subjective and holding the characters and the story to your own rules, which is never going to win you any argument except in your head. She is a humanitarian, she's angered by all the death and suffering she saw. She thinks he's responsible for all of it, but on the other hand he was caring enough to help her with the wounded soldier. Her first reaction when they meet again is to avoid him, but when he initiates the conversation, she challenges him to gauge his real personality. At no point is he threatening, because let's face it, Robb, in the show or books, is not the kind of king who would rape a peasant girl for being insolent, so the conversation continues. It's fine.

Even if there are issues with the scenes, they don't reach the hyperbolic levels you are talking about, it's just, like I said, a 7-8 instead of 10++.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

Her Volantis titles mean nothing in Westeros, she is a low-born in Westeros. We've been throught this before in that other thread. about exceptions that George made, what do you have in mind?

Foreign nobility certainly does not mean "low-born" in Westeros. It's not going to save her from anything perhaps, but let's not be intellectually dishonest. In many cases it would make other nobles forgive her small transgressions. At the very least, the potential ransom money would keep her alive. The Brave Companions abstained themselves from raping Brienne for promise of emeralds from a small island they never heard of before in the books. Surely Volantis, the most powerful city state in Essos, would carry at least as much weight.

As for examples, sure:

- In his later years, Tytos Lannister, Tywin's father, took a candlemaker's daughter as his mistress and she ended up ordering about the entire household while Tytos was alive.

- Tyrion himself married the peasant girl Tysha. Of course, Tywinn made him think she was a whore, but once he finds out the truth, Tyrion shows nothing but regret for losing her. No issues whatsoever with her being a peasant. Also, Tyrion is very supportive with Penny, who isn't only insolent, but actually tried to kill him. Yes, Tyrion is a noble in exile, but he had plenty of opportunities to ditch or take revenge on her and he didn't.

- Duncan the Tall, from the Dunk & Egg novellas, a hedge knight from Flea's Bottom, beats up a prince of the royal blood and kicks him in the teeth because he was hurting a puppeteer. He is charged to defend himself in a trial by seven, and the heir apparent to the throne fights on his side (and is killed in combat) because he believes it was chivalrous of him to defend the weak and innocent, even from one of royal blood. Later, the father of the prince he beat up allows his youngest son Egg to squire for this hedge knight.

- Duncan Targaryen, who was Egg's son, obviously named after Dunk, is the one I linked. He gave up the throne to marry Jenny of Oldstones (by the way, before you say this is stupid, kings gave up their thrones for love in real life as well, although the example I know of is more recent, that of Edward VIII of England in 1936).

Jenny of Oldstones, Egg and Duncan the Tall are all mentioned in the main series, by the way. I think Catelyn thinks about Jenny's story in one of the stories preceding the Red Wedding, and the Ghost of High Heart (who was a close friend of Jenny's) has Lem sing a song about Jenny in one of Arya's chapters. Egg was Maester Aemon's younger brother. Duncan the Tall is mentioned many times as one of the greatest knights in the realm, but you can read the three Dunk&Egg novellas to find out more about him, they're nice.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

I didn't read anything other than five ASOIAF books, so I had no idea about this. Now I do, all I can say is that it's very stupid, especially with GRRM's statement about real history which is actually accurate as far as I know.

Gotta say, I love how you're willing to throw everything under the bus, including GRRM, just to be right and keep calling something stupid.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

May I ask what are you talking about? Where did you come up with "washing away all responsibility"?

 You said yourself that news about Bran and Rickon make Robb irrational. Therefore, you can't blame him for the mistake of sleeping with Jayne. What he did was inevitable due to the pressure of his grief, and the next morning he is faced with a difficult decision. This means that as a reader you can't hold Robb responsible for sleeping with Jeyne (even though he, as a character, takes responsibility).

He is virtually a blameless victim who only tried to do the right thing, and maybe that's how you like to see Robb, but there's certainly something to be said about a character who genuinely makes a mistake on his own terms, and pays for it.

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

You're implying that book Robb was "thinking with his manhood", and if you really believe that, in the show it's only even more true. Even if we out aside the fact that Talisa's "high morality" and "integrity" is ridiculous, Jeyne in the books is actually very moral and of high integrity, as evidenced not by some overwritten memories she shares with Robb but when she's put under pressure. The age difference is actually one more reason against the change.

You get too hung up on words. Try to keep the conversation in perspective and understand we're talking about parts of a more complex subject. I am not contradicting myself. I'm not even sure it's worth going about this in circles. Just read the paragraph you quoted again. Even with intense grief and a willing partner, I would expect a 25 year old to be smarter and have more self control than a 16 year old. Show Robb would look very different doing exactly what book Robb did.