[Book Spoilers] EP506 Discussion v. 2

[dannyk65]

http://i.imgur.com/deGVgpa.png

Q: what you liked the most about the episode.

The answer... :/

I don't speak Spanish, but was 'Mr. Eko says the dwarf lives until we find a cock merchant' in there?

[Lady Fevre Dream]

I don't think it's fair to say your opinion doesn't matter anymore just because you haven't had the same terrible experience. I think we all have the right to speak our opinions.

Speaking of which, this is... lol and accurate:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/whitleypedia/aunbowed-unbent-unbrokena-a-what-aadult-h8au#.evBm4PE92

ETA: I laughed at the part when they say that GoT has managed to offend both gay people and religious people at the same time :lol:

Thanks for the link, I'm off to read it now and hoping I can manage a good laugh or two out of it.

I found this sub titling of the post very interesting and right on target.

Game of Thrones has sacrificed adult storytelling for adult content

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I was busy a moment ago: the image goes like this

Q. Fav scene

Answers (literal translation):

Arya continues her preparation in the B/W House 6%

Jorah and Tyrion finds the slavers 7%

The SS try to kidnap Myrcella Baratheon 7%

LF fools Cersei about Sansa Stark and Roose Bolton 11%

Jaqen tells Arya she's ready to be trained 16%

Loras Tyrell is accused by the HS 25%

Sansa Stark and Ramsay Bolton's wedding night 29%

Yes. It says "wedding night".

Remember I always told you that my background is different to yours and we have here very different sensibilities and blah? well, I maintain what I said. It's more complicated than just say "all latinoamericanos are rape apologists!" so I won't go there. Yet, it's sadly to say many people who call themselves "feminists" praise the show, and it's also funny that me, the one who refuses to be called like that and doesn't like to be involved with the movement (for reasons, let's not go there either) is so revolted by it. As a friend told me, "maybe is because you're biased by the books". Maybe it is.

The thing is that I wish I still have my old twitter account, with my 3000 followers because some of them were also people who identify themselves as heavy feminists who clashed with me about those topics and that were also fans of game of thrones, and some of them were Unsullied, because I would love to see their opinions on this. Because I don't think it's fair to see that a known beloved local politician who is heavily involved in LGTB and feminists causes, someone that I admire heavily and who last year was in charge of shutting down many illegal brothels (prostitution here is legal only when it's heavily audited first and after many health controls have approved it) with very tact and respoct sports now a Tyrion Lannister avatar in her twitter account :dunno: I'm thinking on sending him a letter, tbh.

Because, many Unsullied keep telling me to shut up, it makes sense in the show, and that's the problem. It does make sense that this things happen because "it's so shocking!". That's one of the reasons I don't watch tv anymore. I like a good plot twist like any other but since when became a norm that good tv or good narrative equals to 'oh, the main protagonist is walking and he's--- OMG ROCK FALL FROM THE SKY AND KILLED HIM! SO SHOCKING! BEST TV EVER!'?. Who we blame for this? This is beyond game of thrones and it's beyond TV. Just look at how many threads we have about how people expect the next book to have completely unexpected resolution because "that would shock us!!!". That's, imo, an easy way out, a simplistic approach to narrative and an underestimation of the audience's intelligence.

[Modesty Lannister]

I feel compelled to address an argument that I have read on this and other show related threads often. The same argument has been used by formidable D&D duo on talk shows and in interviews. There it goes: "It doesn't matter how the plots develop. What matters is that they reach the same conclusion as in the books".

So, following that logic, let's examine a story well known to us all - Cinderella. There is Cinderella, her nasty stepmother and her two daughters. Oh yes, and a fairy godmother. There is a prince. In some versions optionally we can also find Cinderella's father and a king. In some versions, mice talk and so do horses and dogs. In some they don't. But, in all versions, stepmother (side character) mistreats Cinderella (main character), favours her own daughters (sidekicks) and tries to prevent Cinderella from going to the ball. In all versions Cinderella is kind and gets magical help (plot catalyser) to appear at the ball. In all versions, the prince (main male character) falls in love with her. In all versions Cinderella loses her shoe fleeing (Chekov's gun) and the shoe is the means for the prince to find her. And they live happily ever after.

Now, imagine Cinderella according to D&D and his followers. Stepmother is not always nasty to Cinderella. It varies from scene to scene. She allows Cinderella to go to the ball. But, one of her daughters is more beautiful then Cinderella and she outshines the main protagonist. So, the prince falls in love with her and compliments her on her flowery shoes. The second daughter is omitted for the budget reasons. The fairy godmother seeks revenge on the stepmother for no one can outshine her goddaughter. And she turns the stepmother into a rose, beautiful, but prickly. Soon, Cinderella's stepsister, pregnant at the time, dies after a horrible fall while hunting with her beloved prince. Cinderella happens to be close by picking mushrooms, sees the incident and calls for help. She tries to give her sister a CPR (although it has not been invented yet), but fails. The prince sees her compassion and after a period of mourning and courtship marries Cinderella who reminds him of his first wife. While walking down the aisle, Cinderella loses her shoe, but a nice courtier picks it up and places it on her foot. The wedding continues. And they live happily ever after.

So, we got there in the end, didn't we? Same story? No. The story is in the telling.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Modesty Lannister

[Modesty Lannister]

dp

Edited May 22, 2015 by Modesty Lannister

[OldGimletEye]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/all-hopefully-of-the-bad-arguments-about-rape-on-game-of-thrones-debunked/

You maybe should all read this

Yes, this article totally nails it. What you "Sansa got raped" crybabies are forgetting here is that this was Sansa's choice. It was her choice to do a marriage with the Boltons. Her choice. This is a key point of the article. For you "Sansa got raped" crybabies, I'll just quote a key passage:

As Laura Bradley at Slate noted, it’s arguable that this whole storyline shows how strong Sansa is, because she went into this with open eyes and a will to survive—and to try to take Winterfell back.

And this is exactly how Cogman brilliantly explains the situation, "This is a hardened woman making a choice and she sees this as the way to get back her homeland."

Now some of you crybabies are going to complain that the idea of Sansa getting married to the Boltons was absurd and ridiculous given the scenario the show had set up. You ask, why would she do that? It makes little sense for her to do that you say. If you crybabies would just get your head out of your wominiz studies textbooks, for like two minutes, and do some research, you would know how devastating a Sansa marriage can be to one's enemies. But you crybabies aren't going to do that are you? Nope, you'll just keep reading The Feminine Mystique, rather than picking up a copy of Jane's Defense Weekly to educate yourself. How, typical. So emotional.

So, I guess I'll have to do it for you. Here is a short history that explains what a Sansa marriage can do. Hopefully, after reading it, you'll come to appreciate how the Boltons are fucked:

By the 1950s, the Sansa Marriage Option was seen as so effective that the Eisenhower Administration began to make the Sansa marriage the center piece of its defense policy towards the Warsaw Pact. As the Eisenhower Administration put it, the Sansa marriage delivered more "bang for the buck" over more conventional forces. Of course, the Eisenhower Administration hoped that after arranging a Sansa marriage, within the Soviet Union, the Soviets would be so devastated that they wouldn't be able to retaliate with their own Sansa marriage within the United States or Central/Western Europe.

Later, game theorist at the Rand Corporation determined that, in some cases, a Sansa marriage would be a too heavy handed approach, leading to sub-optimal outcomes. As a result of the Rand Study, the concept of flexible response began to be developed, which included, among other things, the idea of just having Sansa go on a few dates within the Soviet Union, causing some destruction, but not the extensive mass destruction resulting from a full blown Sansa marriage. The Kennedy Administration endorsed the concept of flexible response, while somewhat cynically claiming that the United States had a "Sansa marriage gap" capability because the United States wasn't producing enough lemon cakes, as compared to the Soviet Union, when in fact the United States had more lemon cakes in its arsenal. Lemon cakes are known to keep Sansa happy and are key to persuading her to agree to marriages with hostile enemies.

Later, the Kennedy Administration would confront the Cuban Sansa Marriage Crises as Sansa had been persuaded by Fidel Castro that Cuba had way better lemons than Florida did. Fearing that Castro and his Warsaw Pact allies might be able to arrange a marriage for Sansa in Florida, wrecking utter havoc there, the United States began a naval blockade of Cuba. Fortunately, however, the tensions around the Cuban Sansa Marriage Crises subsided as Sansa decided that Cuba didn't have better lemons after all and because the United States agreed to not let Sansa know that Turkey had great lemons too, relieving Soviet fears of any possible Sansa marriages in southern Russia.

Because, the Sansa marriage is such a potent weapon, its use has always been a contentious political issue. During the 1964 campaign, Barry Goldwater, in an attempt to make Lyndon Johnson look "soft on Communism", suggested that the United States should arrange a marriage between Sansa Stark and the communist forces in Vietnam. The Johnson Administration, wanting to limit the conflict in Vietnam,however, pushed backed by releasing the infamous "Daisy Commercial". The "Daisy Commercial" showed a little girl, "Daisy", in the foreground playing in a field, while in the background Sansa Stark ominously said her wedding vows underneath a Weirwood tree. The public uproar over the "Daisy Commercial" caused Barry Goldwater to speak no more about any Sansa marriages with communist forces in Vietnam.

Since Vietnam, fears of inadvertent Sansa marriages weighed heavily on the public mind, given the utter destruction that a Sansa marriage can bring. Films such "The Day After" began to be made. The "Day After" explored life in an American small town, devastated by a Sansa marriage, after the United States and its Nato allies exchanged Sansa marriages with the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. The film, "War Games" depicted a large and powerful computer almost starting a devastating war when the computer seemingly, on its own with no human input, began to arrange a Sansa marriage within the Soviet Union. Fortunately, the computer was stopped from completing the Sansa marriage within the Soviet Union, which would have caused mass destruction there, and would have likely caused the Soviet Union to retaliate by arranging its own Sansa marriage within the United States, causing mass carnage there as well.

With public awareness growing about the dangers of Sansa marriages, political leaders were forced to act. Eventually, United States President Reagan and Soviet Union Premier Gorbachev were able to agree to a treaty, which called for both nation states to reduce their lemon cake arsenals. With fewer lemon cakes, it was thought that persuading Sansa to do a marriage would be much more difficult, lessening the likelihood of a devastating conflict.

Although the ending of the Cold War has lessened fears about potential exchanges of Sansa marriages between hostile nations or actors, fears remain. A key problem is the proliferation of lemon cakes, which makes it possible that rogue nations or actors maybe able to arrange Sansa marriages, with devastating effect. Currently many nations are working to together to control the proliferation of lemon cakes and aluminum pans, which evidently are used in the making of lemon cakes, a key precursor in setting off Sansa marriages.

The only potential problem with a Sansa marriage to the Boltons is that the Boltons or their loyalist may survive the Sansa marriage and decide to retaliate by marrying off Sansa to LF or Robert Arryn, potentially causing mass destruction in the Vale. But, given the Bolton's weakened state, they are not likely to survive Sansa's marriage to them. Therefore, Sansa's marriage to the Boltons was a completely rational action, as the risk of it backfiring was very small.

Edited May 22, 2015 by OldGimletEye

[JonCon's Red Beard]

[snip]

Thank you. You've described the problem with every other single movie/tv adaptation of books or classic literature. Including, of course, Game of Thrones.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Sansa went to her wedding with open eyes, bravely.

That's why she cried.

Right?

Even narratively it makes little sense.

Let's forget for a moment is a rape. Let's say it's about cutting Theon's head. She says "this is my choice. I will do it because it will prove them I'm strong and I've grown and I can take control of my destiny". Then, she's given a sword. She cuts Theon's head and while doing it, cries and says "I don't actually want to do this...".

She would look weak.

Why make Sansa take a choice (their words) and then make her look like a victim of her own choices? If they want to make Sansa look like that's something she decided on her own, then why oh why she was portrayed as completely shocked on what was happening? :dunno:

[Modesty Lannister]

Sansa went to her wedding with open eyes, bravely.

That's why she cried.

Right?

Even narratively it makes little sense.

Let's forget for a moment is a rape. Let's say it's about cutting Theon's head. She says "this is my choice. I will do it because it will prove them I'm strong and I've grown and I can take control of my destiny". Then, she's given a sword. She cuts Theon's head and while doing it, cries and says "I don't actually want to do this...".

She would look weak.

Why make Sansa take a choice (their words) and then make her look like a victim of her own choices? If they want to make Sansa look like that's something she decided on her own, then why oh why she was portrayed as completely shocked on what was happening? :dunno:

The argument is moot. Sansa is one of the main protagonists of ASOIAF. She does not get raped in the books. End of story. Some minor character does get raped so that we do not forget that Ramsey is a sick sadist. Minor character plot lines have different purpose. Main character plot lines cannot be changed in an adaptation. Minor characters can be merged or even omitted, but not the main characters. Parts of main characters' plots can be omitted, but not altered. That is basic. There is no argument. The rape itself is not the problem. Total alternation of the story without any justification is.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Modesty Lannister

[Lady Fevre Dream]

I feel compelled to address an argument that I have read on this and other show related threads often. The same argument has been used by formidable D&D duo on talk shows and in interviews. There it goes: "It doesn't matter how the plots develop. What matters is that they reach the same conclusion as in the books".

So, following that logic, let's examine a story well known to us all - Cinderella. There is Cinderella, her nasty stepmother and her two daughters. Oh yes, and a fairy godmother. There is a prince. In some versions optionally we can also find Cinderella's father and a king. In some versions, mice talks and so do horses and dogs. In some they don't. But, in all versions, stepmother (side character) mistreats Cinderella (main character), favours her own daughters (sidekicks) and tries to prevent Cinderella from going to the ball. In all versions Cinderella is kind and gets magical help (plot catalyser) to appear at the ball. In all versions, the prince (main male character) falls in love with her. In all versions Cinderella loses her shoe fleeing (Chekov's gun) and the shoe is the means for the prince to find her. And they live happily ever after.

Now, imagine Cinderella according to D&D and his followers. Stepmother is not always nasty to Cinderella. It varies from scene to scene. She allows Cinderella to go to the ball. But, one of her daughters is more beautiful then Cinderella and she outshines the main protagonist. So, the prince falls in love with her and compliments her on her flowery shoes. The second daughter is omitted for the budget reasons. The fairy godmother seeks revenge on the stepmother for no one can outshine her goddaughter. And she turns the stepmother into a rose, beautiful, but prickly. Soon, Cinderella's stepsister, pregnant at the time, dies after a horrible fall while hunting with her beloved prince. Cinderella happens to be close by picking mushrooms, sees the incident and calls for help. She tries to give her sister a CPR (although it has not been invented yet), but fails. The prince sees her compassion and after a period of mourning and courtship marries Cinderella who reminds him of his first wife. While walking down the aisle, Cinderella loses her shoe, but a nice courtier picks it up and places it on her foot. The wedding continues. And they live happily ever after.

So, we got there in the end, didn't we? Same story? No. The story is in the telling.

This is an illustration of why I basically say...........maybe the closing epilogues will match, book and show, but it doesn't mean it will be a similar story.

[Ser Quork]

I feel compelled to address an argument that I have read on this and other show related threads often. The same argument has been used by formidable D&D duo on talk shows and in interviews. There it goes: "It doesn't matter how the plots develop. What matters is that they reach the same conclusion as in the books".

[...]

So, we got there in the end, didn't we? Same story? No. The story is in the telling.

Exactly so.

[Facebookless Man]

Not to mention they removed pretty much everything else from the original Northern material. They wanted to do the rape, because that's what they wanted their show to be about. Period.

Of all that happens in the books, the one thing they wanted to keep was JEYNE FUCKING POOLE, How can anyone even begin to argue that's not about abuse????

Edited May 22, 2015 by Facebookless Man

[Winter's Knight]

Pro-tip: maybe not refer to people upset by a girl being raped as crybabies. It achieves very little apart from making you look like a douchebag.

[Winter's Knight]

<snip>

:cheers:

Good illustration.

[Lord Damian]

The argument is moot. Sansa is one of the main protagonists of ASOIAF. She does not get raped in the books. End of story. Some minor character does get raped so that we do not forget that Ramsey is a sick sadist. Minor character plot lines have different purpose. Main character plot lines cannot be changed in an adaptation. Minor characters can be merged or even omitted, but not the main characters. Parts of main characters' plots can be omitted, but not altered. That is basic. There is no argument. The rape itself is not the problem. Total alternation of the story without any justification is.

Yeah, there really is no way to "spin" the logic behind all this and make sense of it. There really is not. The only thing they can say is that according to Sansa, she is the last of the Starks, marry Ramsay and have his kid and work out a way to kill them all off but raise the kid to love house Stark, which does not exist anymore while house Bolton actually does, thanks to her, Sansa. It makes no sense as it ultimately rewards the house she hopes to seek revenge upon.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

The argument is moot. Sansa is one of the main protagonists of ASOIAF. She does not get raped in the books. End of story. Some minor character does get raped so that we do not forget that Ramsey is a sick sadist. Minor character plot lines have different purpose. Main character plot lines cannot be changed in an adaptation. Minor characters can be merged or even omitted, but not the main characters. Parts of main characters' plots can be omitted, but not altered. That is basic. There is no argument. The rape itself is not the problem. Total alternation of the story without any justification is.

I know. I'm just pointing it out for those who say it made sense narratively. Even if we take aside the book and the original storyline, it does not make sense. It's a mess. And yes, the rape is not the problem. Because I believe they show should have included the one scene with Tyrion and the red haired slave. Not as in the show, but as in the books, when Tyrion forced himself to her. Because that one scene was about Tyrion. That's the reason such girl has no name or face or anything. Because we, as readers, are meant to know how low Tyrion has sunk and that's the bottom he needed to resurface. Because after that, he's kidnapped by Jorah and realise how his problems aren't caused by him being a dwarf but because his own vices and self-pity. But that they cut because Tyrion couldn't look bad :dunno:

Ironically, that scene, done right, could be Emmy worth :dunno:

[TheKitttenGuard]

Sansa went to her wedding with open eyes, bravely.

That's why she cried.

Right?

Even narratively it makes little sense.

Let's forget for a moment is a rape. Let's say it's about cutting Theon's head. She says "this is my choice. I will do it because it will prove them I'm strong and I've grown and I can take control of my destiny". Then, she's given a sword. She cuts Theon's head and while doing it, cries and says "I don't actually want to do this...".

She would look weak.

Why make Sansa take a choice (their words) and then make her look like a victim of her own choices? If they want to make Sansa look like that's something she decided on her own, then why oh why she was portrayed as completely shocked on what was happening? :dunno:

Ramsey is a psycho, he wants her in pain and agonist. If she will not be than he will continue to up it until she is.

Quite shocked that this is used by those who hate scene. Saw it posted a few days and than on Oz review. This is not a great line that the rape victim did not handle it right.

[Modesty Lannister]

Yeah, there really is no way to "spin" the logic behind all this and make sense of it. There really is not. The only thing they can say is that according to Sansa, she is the last of the Starks, marry Ramsay and have his kid and work out a way to kill them all off but raise the kid to love house Stark, which does not exist anymore while house Bolton actually does, thanks to her, Sansa. It makes no sense as it ultimately rewards the house she hopes to seek revenge upon.

Even if D&D think that makes sense, it is irrelevant. It is pure fan fiction. Fan fiction by definition is a story set up in a world created by another author and uses the same characters, but invents new relations and plots. D&D go even further. They alter the characters themselves (see poor Jaime Lannister for example). So, this is not an adaptation of anything. This is fan fiction and inferior brand of writing that forgets (or doesn't know) about the main moral of the overall story. If the moral of the story is lost, the story is lost. And the moral of the story is that there is a huge misbalance in the world, prompted by all sorts of evil, and the world need balance. Some characters work towards the restoration of the balance (the song of ice and fire). Some oppose them. It is not about shock beheadings, rapes and lots of sex. I do not know what kind of contract GRRM signed with D&D, but I am sure he did not sign up for this. And neither did we. So, no discussion is necessary. ASOIAF has not been adapted at all. The world of ice and fire has been used by two mediocre writers for their own plot development. I so wish I was GRRM's lawyer.

[OldGimletEye]

Pro-tip: maybe not refer to people upset by a girl being raped as crybabies. It achieves very little apart from making you look like a douchebag.

If you are referring to me, I hope you understand that I wasn't serious. I was horrified by that scene. However, there is an argument out there that Sansa chose to marry the Boltons. A scenario so ridiculous it needs to be mocked relentlessly. And a point made by the article, which I found to be ridiculous.

Edited May 22, 2015 by OldGimletEye

[protar]

Sansa went to her wedding with open eyes, bravely.

That's why she cried.

Right?

Yesterday I literally had some one deny that Sansa was crying at all during the scene. The lengths some people will go to excuse the writing here...it's some of the worst cognitive dissonance I've ever seen.