LuisDantas

The changes were even deeper this time. Mostly worked, however. Theon - I love his lost look after butchering Rodrik. I can almost hear he doubting he did it himself. Maester Luwin and Bran had some great lines and delivery as well. I particularly liked Bran's to-the-point question, and how even Theon himself seems to wonder if he always hated the Starks or if he does even now. If only he had followed a bit more of Maester Luwin's advice. I felt like telling him that in order to be respected as Lord of Winterfell he would have to show a willingness to follow the Northern ways of good will and show mercy at least at first. ETA: oh, and Rodrik's last line was just perfect. I found myself fully agreeing. Daenerys - I never expected such a strong deviation from the books. Still, the plot seems to be moving fast. Jon - I disliked that Jon promised to kill Ygritte in this version of the tale. It is surprising that he seems to have lost the other Rangers. On the plus side, Jon and Ygritte have great chemistry on the screen. I loved their scene together. Robb - Great lines here as well. Talisa does indeed amputate far better than she lies. Maybe she _is_ a spy for Tywin? I feel that we are expected to suspect so. Tywin - The dislexia line caught me unaware. I don't know what to make of Tywin as a parent after that. Arya - Great justification for choosing Amory Lorch. Arya probably expects to have some use as a spy for Robb and therefore would rather not ask for Tywin's head, particularly now that he has bonded somewhat with her. Great scene with the book of Houses, as well. Catelyn - She picked up on Robb's feelings the moment she saw him with Talisa. I liked that. I wish I could disagree with her reminder about Robb's duties. Asha - I am not in love with the changes seen, but are they even changes at all? They fit perfectly with Asha's pragmatism. Roose Bolton - So now he is intentionally loosing Ramsay on Winterfell, and announcing that he is doing so? Quite a change, although it might not have lasting consequences. Petyr Baelish - Does the timeline in the books fit his suggestion that the Lannisters pursue an alliance with the Tyrells? It does sound exactly like the sort of insidious counsel that he would give to weaken everyone else. On that note, it is interesting that apparently the unholy magic used to kill Renly isn't such a secret in the TV show. I have a feeling that we will have more clear reason to question Davos' opinion about Stannis here. Which, of course, is a good thing - Stannis gets the "get out of prison free" card way too often. ETA: I found myself wondering about Lollys. Does she even exist in this continuity? It could go either way. A pity that the riot scene did not involve horses. They would have added a lot. Budgets are a sad reality.

More like it is pretty obvious that it will take far better and more convincing facts than the books offer to convince me to overlook Stannis' betrayal of Renly's trust and good will, you mean.

You really have a hard time following me, don't you?

I guess one of us is. You're overstating the weight - and the rules - of fealty. Rebelling is a real option. It has happened, time and again. Often enough, it in fact must happen. That is the goal, sure. And no serious claimant will ever openly admit lacking the means to attain it. In practice, to rebel against their supposed overlords. People don't actually get tired of having their own lands with any frequency. Most certainly. Were the realm in peace, he would still do the same, but with far less urgency and mostly for ceremonial purposes. Note however that you are illustrating my point. Joffred needed to consolidate his power, because it was anything but certain, despite having proper support of the law. The same would be true of Stannis, had he managed to turn the letter of the law towards supporting him. Still, consolidating military and political power is if anything even more of a priority for those claimants that can't appeal to the letter of the law. The difference is small, but it does exist. You mean it just happened that way, cleanly and without military conflict? Every time? Somehow I doubt it. Or so the overlords said. Of course, the idea that people can actually own large tracts of land and can therefore give them freely is arguable at best, but that is medieval politics for you and me.

The division of Renly's former troops has been remarkably glossed over in the books. I would assume that those with a significant fleet in Storm's End would prefer to take their chances with Stannis, which is why the Florents sided with him. The Tyrells, obviously, had good reasons to prefer the Lannisters instead. Those caught between probably decided by their particular preferences and it stands to reason that at least a few Houses probably split apart on this matter. In any case, I would never give Stannis' evaluation a lot of credit. The man is notoriously delusional and unreliable.

Where did you get such an idea? It is patently absurd. Political, economical and military circunstances may well direct that choice. It may even be a degenerated choice. But being some Lord's bannerman is not an automatic situation. There is a reason why time and again we go through scenes of specific Lords offering support and fealty for Joffrey, Tommen, the Starks or even Stannis. How do you think affiliation is decided, if not by expressed choice? They could, although the odds are small and the motive dubious. If fact, we do have specific cases of Northern Houses changing loyalties, sometimes quite openly. It has been a big deal in the last few books, don't you agree? Nope. The expectation will be there, but it must be reinforced and reinstated periodically. It most definitely must be reinstated whenever the King changes, and most of all when there is open warfare about the rights to the throne. Stannis may have been rigid once, perhaps even until shortly before we first meet him. But he is letting go of that quite quickly if the books are any indication. He has consistently bent and openly challenged rules, laws and traditions in most every scene we saw him in. His reputation for inflexibility is an artifact from his past at this point.

No, no, no. Nope. No way whatsoever. What is it that makes some people think that Lords can be someone's bannermen against their wish, and without their explicit consent? Or, for that matter, that Stannis can be the "rightful" King when he did not establish his right in any way, shape or form? Without proof that he is Robert's successor, nor a favorable judgement from someone else? Renly had actual support. Stannis had an unproven claim, an unhealthy amount of hurt pride, and a failing and rotten moral character that led him towards broken tactics. The Tyrells, Florents and other Houses were not and could not possibly "be" Stannis' bannermen until and unless they actually gave Stannis support. Even if there was no controversy about who is Robert's inheritor, that would still be true. There is a reason why Joffrey scheduled fealty cerimonies practically at the moment he sat at the Iron Throne; they are needed and not at all optional. Stannis is emphatically not entitled to the support of any specific Lord just because Robert died. Nor is Joffrey, or for that matter anyone else. Fealty is far too important a matter to be actually ruled by something as mundane and mindless as a law.

Maybe you are forgetting that both the Night's Watch and the Ironborn hold actual elections, then. More to the point, if you are willing to allow that there must be a King, both common sense and actual history show that inheritance laws are useless or worse as a way of deciding who should be the King. I can see the appeal of believing that the True Lawful Successor should be King and put the painful matters of succession to rest. Unfortunately, that Does Not Work. Laws are blind, and can't possibly tell an inept or cruel monarch-to-be from an Aegon V. That is why people can and must trump their letter every time. For an actual historical example (and argument against strict laws of succession by blood), see this Wikipedia paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva%E2%80%93Antonine_dynasty#Five_Good_Emperors

To an extent that is true. However, when one puts the notion of a deserved kingship on the table, it is only fair to ask on what basis that kingship would be deserved. Renly had a good answer to that. Stannis has a very lame one, half based on a self-serving and unproven interpretation of the law. The other half of his claim is even worse, based on lies and hypocrisy. None of them knew that he was a betrayer and a kinslayer, however. Odds are good that in fact Stannis changed a lot for the worst since they last saw him.

Do you honestly see a throne as a right? Do you feel that monarchy should be reestablished in countries that gave up on it? Maybe he was that way once. We can't know, since he is so different by the time he meets Renly at Storm's End. Davos seems to believe he was. But on that, at least, Stannis is very honest. He puts up with Melisandre because he needs her power to attain his ambitions. Weren't it for her living shadows, she wouldn't have stolen Renly's bannermen and his campaign for Kingship would be cut short. He is correct in that analysis, albeit choosing to overlook the moral prices involved and the long-term results.

I dislike him because he claims to be a far nobler man than he actually is. And he is getting worse.

So you are putting the letter of the law above actual competence, support and moral character? Would you support Joffrey if he were Robert's son? If not, why? I'll leave the matter of whether Stannis may be fairly described as "just" for another time.

I didn't. It is no coincidence that the two are Asshai characters, I suppose. In fact, they are the only two characters that we know to come from Asshai.

"Face turn"? Book Stannis was fairly likeable up until Renly's death. Then it was all over. Ever since he is at best an anti-hero, and that at his best moments. He is basically a mafia boss that happens to have a reason to protect you - he is even demanding "protection" money and other "favors" from the people he swears to want to serve. If anything, he is getting worse in his morality. As of ADWD he actually claims in a letter to Jon Snow that he will kill the prisoners that he made at Deepwood Motte except for the highborn, yet no one seems to have noticed that. Stannis as a good guy is basically a fandon creation. It lacks support from the actual books.

Some specific comments: - Arya's scenes were very well done. Her conversations with Tywin and Jaqen flowed real nicely. Tywin's cunning kept being shown. - It is a shame that apparently we will have no sign of Ramsay this season, and apparently no Jojen or Meera for a long time if at all. Still, time constraints, I guess it couldn't be helped. - Nice to see that they are allowing no ambiguity about Stannis' knowledge and moral flaws. - Renly and Catelyn seemed to have a better understanding than in the books. Again, I like it. It sort of emphasizes the depth of loss that Renly's death caused. - Dargen's relationship to Theon and Loras recognizing that Brienne did not kill Renly were significant changes, but maybe not so much so in the long run. Same with Qhorin learning of Jon Snow on the fly, but maybe it was for the better as well. - Theon had some killer scenes. His fight for acceptance and respect really showed through, as did his actual competence. No one ever gives him nearly enough credit, which only shows how stern the guy actually is. All in all, a very good episode, albeit one that dares to make significant changes in order to improve on clarity. In some respects it is even better than the books.

The pyromancer claimed that it was wyldfire that kept the Targaryens in power after the dragons were gone. It makes some sense. Was it referenced in the books?

I doubt we are meant to know for sure one way or the other, but I would say that this is the most likely interpretation, yes. A human son? Not without seriously derailing the plot from what the books have, for certain. Even allowing for some plot deviation, even I don't quite picture Stannis as favoring a bastard son over Shireen. Then again, it seems that Shireen does not exist in the TV show. My best bet is that in the TV show (as arguably in the books as well) Melisandre is simply using Stannis and playing with him. By the time he fully realizes that he will be too knee deep to turn back, assuming he even cares and survives that long. Personally, I think that makes Stannis too much of a sympathetic victim for my liking. I picture Stannis as more of a self-serving hypocrite in denial. Still (so far) there is nothing to disprove that Melisandre is misleading Stannis, either. We must assume that Stannis has at least a vague notion that Melisandre is indeed working at some kind of magical effect at that point. He is certainly not demanding Davos' help just so that Melisandre can get a good view of the region for inspirational purposes. Just how much a grasp of the situation he has is unclear, however. My personal stance is that Stannis himself could hardly fail to notice the toll the magic causes on his physical health, since Melisandre is actually fearing for his survival if it happens a third time. So I would assume that he is in denial yet fully aware of what is happening. There are other, intriguing possibilities. For one, maybe Melisandre is lying to Davos about the toll of the shadow conceptions; maybe Stannis is in fact dying of some sort of disease (which may or may not have been created or transmitted by Melisandre herself, purposefully or otherwise). That would go a long way towards explaining their hurry and recklessness in the books, as well as the strength of the appeal of a son in the TV series. I hadn't considered that until now, but I like this crackpot speculation. I don't see how it would have trouble fitting with the text of the books, either.

204 had by far the most deviation from the books up to this point. I expect that in the future we will look back to it as the moment where the two narratives let go of each other, albeit following generally similar paths later. For the most part it worked, making the plot that much simpler, easier to follow and less ambiguous. Tywin subbing for Roose at Harrenhal was a good idea. It makes good use of the actors and serves much the same purpose. They seem to be going out of their way to avoid giving the appearance that Joffrey, or even Stannis, have any redeeming qualities whatsoever. As the emphatic disliker of Stannis that I am, I appreciate the effort. The TV show is leaving no margin for appeals that he did not know what would happen to Renly. On the down side, it is leaving no room for Edric Storm either :( Tyrion keeps having the best lines. Clarifying the meaning of a threat and turning Lancel to his service were marvelous scenes, very well handled. I'm uncertain about the plot role of the Volantese girl. She is apparently Jeyne Westerling plus something else. Why Volantis? Is she being merged with Maggie from Cersei's POV chapters, perhaps? That will have some plot impact later on, albeit nothing major.

How is choosing a man he trusts hypocrisy?

I liked Stannis' depiction so far in the series. While I seem to be in a minority, it is clear to me that Stannis is not any kind of moral reference, although Davos and himself see him as such. Stannis has time and again shown a lot of moral shortcomings, not least of all deep hypocrisy, and the TV Series seems to understand that perfectly. Incidentally, I have often wondered why Davos is so loyal to him. Am I the only one wondering if the episode wanted to hint of a homosexual attraction to Stannis, with that talk about he being his God?

I can't think of a reason why it would not fit, personally. I think you are overestimating the differences in cultural mindset between the middle ages and these days. If anything, people back then would be more aware of how optional belief in deities actually is.

Some people think it is Joffrey. I don't understand why. For one thing, Joffrey lacks the information about where to find the bastards. For another, it would require a bit of research and planning that goes against the grain of his whining ways.

@RoamingRonin: I believe Cersei is uncertain about the identities of the bastards and decided to kill anyone who might be a bastard from Robert. Of course, most of those aren't even in King's Landing, but she is trying her best anyway. I don't think she will attempt to kill Edric Storm, but I am not sure Edric even exists in the tv continuity...

Good question. I'm fairly new to the wiki myself, but it seems to me that as long as the headings make it clear that the info is from TWOW, it should be ok. People will supposedly check the table of contents of the article and refuse to read that section. But I understand that there are other, at least equally valid stances on the matter. Not sure which has been chosen for the wiki.

Did anyone else think of The Hunchback of Notre Dame when Cersei mentioned that Tyrion would be hiding in the sept of Baelor playing the bells in Chapter 17 of AFFC?