JonCon's Red Beard

They aren't spoiling that. It was not just very obvious to all readers but GRRM himself said it would happen. He has said that even back in 2011 after Dance: "they will meet, but not yet". He has recently confirmed they will briefly meet or cross paths. Everything in Tyrion's latest chapters indicates he's on path to meet Dany ("dragons, dragons and you're in the middle"), and he's going to make the SS to turn allegiances to her favour Martin has also said that Jon is not dead. Not like that, but indirectly. "Oh, you think he's dead, right?". Considering Jon is being set up to be a big player in the books, it's very obvious he can't kill him now. The thing is, some storylines and developments are so naturally leaded in a way, that the line between something spoiling it or simply confirming it is too thin. This is what is happening with the show. The show is confirming theories that a big percentage of the readership already believes will happen or are just hinted in books (like VS killing Others). The scene with Shireen is particularly tricky because Stannis is in no position to be anywhere close to Shireen at the moment in the books. In the show, Shireen is burned because they need to improve their odds before leaving to Winterfell. But in the books, Stannis has already parted and he's enduring a blizzard by saying "no more burnings, pray harder" and "if I die, put my daughter on the throne". While many believe Stannis will die while facing the Boltons, some others are sure -me, among them- that Stannis still has a role to play. He might be able to burn Shireen, but not because of the reasons of the show, as he's past beyond that scenario at the moment. For that to happen as in the show, Stannis or one of his men would have to fly back to the Wall and give the order. Shireen will be burned. I'm sure that will happen, sadly. Yet, one thing is to die for Stannis' cause and another one, by his hand. I think the first scenario is more likely. The situation at the Wall is about to get quite desperate. Not only due to the Others being about to invade, but because Jon has just been stabbed and hell is about to break. Remember that among the people in there, Val wanted the girl dead while Melisandre would do it if she believes Stannis is dead and they need to bring back Jon, who she already is starting to believe being AA and she's there to fight him, not to win a crown. I think, rather than spoil Stannis doing it, it does confirms Mel doing the deed for the sake of Jon's.

He doesn't do it in the show either. That's DD's job, who, for some reason, believe Ramsay deserves a much spotlight than better character and more development :dunno:

He doesn't do it in the show either. That's DD's job, who, for some reason, believe Ramsay deserves a much spotlight than better character and more development :dunno:

It's really sad that the arguments eventually diverge into "but GRRM also have women raped and children hurt in the books". Wouldn't that be an "ad hominem" argument? Blaming others for your mistakes or saying "but they do worst!" is the worst and most desperate tricks when something is debated. No one here is saying that GRRM writes flowers and rainbows for his characters, whether male or female. Sansa has been beaten by the back of a sword of her legs, children were burnt and butchered, Cersei was made to walk naked, one woman was raped 50 times (two, actually), etc, etc. In fact, many people who had a problem with the now infamous Sansa scene wondered why not cast Jeyne Poole for this, implying the scene, with the proper context, could have worked right. This is a plain underestimation of the readers and people who complain in general. We're not softy wallflowers who faint with blood. I have no problem with gore and rape in any media. The problem is the characterization. If I have a movie about a woman who starts from zero and gets her dream job and suddenly, she gets raped on screen because "omg, shocking!" and then, she becomes empowered by the rape, it will feel very random. It will feel like many tv shows (I'm looking at you, Shonda Rhimes!) in which all of their narrative is based on disgrace after disgrace yet, the characters shake it off by the next season. GRRM does hurt his characters. Jeyne Poole is broken by what is happening to her. She's not "omg, I'm killing Ramsay! Revenge!!". Sansa has definitely learned her lessons, she doesn't trust people so easily anymore. She does with LF because she has no other choice. The show gave her more choices and next season, she forgot. With Stannis is the same. The show has portrayed Stannis as the guy who ate the glue of his books rather than surrender his castle. And, not even one week passde after they were attacked and killed Shireen? Not to say that they have made Ramsay so incredibly impossible to defeat so Stannis would have to make this decision. Readers aren't getting spoiled. We're having our theories confirmed. A great number of us is convinced Shireen will get burnt. The show confirmed. But Stannis won't do it. Because it's geographically impossible and unlike in the show, in the books, people need weeks or months to travel. Stannis was facing a blizzard the last time we saw him. Is he going to cross through it back to the Wall to say "please, burn my child so the blizzard I can't defeat but I just did because I got here alive can go away"?. I'm very very sure that GRRM said something of the likes of "Shireen will die in name of Stannis' cause after they believe his chances are doomed". That is definitely not the same as "Stannis will burn his own daughter". And that would make more sense with the man who GRRM has created. Because yes, I can see how people would believe -in the book universe- that Stannis would want that to happen. And maybe it's too late for Stannis to realise how much he's losing on the way of the Throne. The guy who doesn't bend (allegedly) might eventually break when he finds out his daughter is dead in name of his own cause.

A lot of people do have a problem with the scene. Doran is sending his only heir to the place where both his sister and brother got killed and trusting only the word of the guy who horned his King and killed the other one. Sending Trystane along with Myrcella will give KL back the one important hostage they had and now they won a new one. Look how that end up for Sansa Stark :dunno: If next season, somehow, Dany joins Dorne, they will be neutralized by the fact KL can kill him at any moment. It's a very stupid move specially considering when Arianne asks his father to send her, Doran tells her "no, you're my heir and the future of Dorne. I cannot". He sends her to a very different mission.

Yeah, because he is going to say "I hate the show". Lol. Stop impressing me with your lack of understanding of reading between lines...

Nah, I'm confident we'll have book 6 by the next year (before Season 6) and it will be awesome. Of course, our beloved characters will die, but they will die awesomely. OTOH, I'm starting to doubt that him wanting to finish writing tWoW is the only reason he won't go to ComicCon. He might want to simply stay away from the mess it will be.

He's been saying a lot of things, lately, Like how he didn't create Garlan and Willas for "hoots and laughs". He's in full Sansa mode: being courteous but tearing the show apart inside.

He is there praising a show and a book that have been adapted good. He also said "and the books are better". Also, he's saying Edmure actor is there, and he hopes they can call him again. Subtext: They ruined my books. I hate GoT. Go and see something else. Bastards. ETA: fixing a lot of mistakes cuz my brain kinda blinked :lol:

Argh, Martin updated. The post is this: http://grrm.livejournal.com/428946.html

I fixed the post. A post from his blog.

For what it matters, read his second to last (erm... penultimo?) post in his blog. He's very pissed.

//

Wait... are you trusting D&D's interpretation of whatever Martin told them? Lol, honey, you're better than that! I tell you. I'm 99.999999% the conversation was like this: GRRM: So, Shireen gets burned in name of Stannis' cause. DD: Awesome. Stannis burns Shireen. GRRM: No, no... I said she gets burned on his name... DD: So, he orders to burn her. GRRM: Yes... :rolleyes: he burns her. :dunno: DD: Cool.

Sorry if people get offended by this, but believing Stannis is "just a villain and a fanatic" is showing a very basic and poor capacity of reading comprehension. Read a book (any book, not only ASOIAF) is not decipher symbols from a paper. It's understand motifs and characterization. Also, being an asshole or a dislikeable person doesn't equals being a villain.

It's even better when you imagine the ones roasted are the writing team.

I usually would agree with you. In the books, I do. Men have it as bad as women, and that also happened in the medieval times as well. Being born with a penis meant you were thrown into a battle whose cause you did not even believe and probably die for it. But GoT has changed EVERY SINGLE FEMALE CHARACTER into a cliché. ALL OF THEM. There is not one single female that remains unchanged from the books, all of them are either violent, dumb or rape victims. And about the men, they turned mostly of the actions from men who are a bit progressive about women into "rapists!" or whitewashed their crimes. So, no, they don't deserve a pass. I mean, consider this. There are three Greyjoy Uncles: Aeron, The Fanatic Victarion, The lovable Dumb Euron, the one who invaded the Shield Islands and got his men to rape the daughters of the Lord they defeated and also sexually abused his younger brothers. Guess which of them they are casting for next season?

What about if you all stop worrying whether I watch or not the show and try to use better defences than "if you don't like it, don't see it!". Again, GoT is a very popular show that has a terrible portrayal of women. It deserves criticism and hard. If I see an offensive billboard on the street, I'm suppose to simply shut my eyes? No. Believe me. I live in a place with shows that are 1000% more offensives than GoT. For years, people has been saying "if you don't like it, don't watch it, then!". And guess what? We have even more offensive shows that portray racism and homophobia in a positive light and people still says "if you don't like it, don't see it!".

I stopped caring about this show at all a few episode ago, yes. Considering the last discussion about the books, I agreed it wasn't fair simply rant on simple scenes, so, considering we're just two (well, one now) episodes left, I watched. If you don't like it, you can go and tell on my mom or the police, maybe? So, I decided it was fair to watch how this mess would end to have a proper closure. And I don't even need to, it's not like watching the whole thing makes any more sense, as I realised tonight. Also, if anyone is going to use the good old "if you don't like it, then don't watch it" argument, let me tell you that's very dumb, tbh. If I see an advertising that portrays offensive content, the solution is simply turn off the tv? Whatever that action solves, it won't solve the problem. And we do have a problem. HBO's GoT is a show that is watched by millions. Those millions comment the show. And among those millions, there are people who PRAISE the fact the show is valuing shocking moments over characterization despite those shocking moments exploit female character for the sake of the male ones. And considering mostly of them doesn't read the books -as they aren't obligated- they probably think ASOIAF is the same. I like ASOIAF, I think it's not fair people will have in mind tht the characters are like they are in the show and not about the books. So, yeah. I watched the episode. I changed my mind. Arrest me, whip me or make me watch the Dorne scenes I didn't watch. Whatever floats your... boat.

She, Selyse and Stannis got the three points :dunno:

A 3. Terrible acting. Terrible CGI. Terrible characterization. It's like the show resets itself after every episode.

"[...]but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI". George R R Martin.

I think this is the problem. DD simply don't respect GRRM's work. See, this is something I see many people do about fantasy. Like, how LotR, for instance, is immediately catalogued as "for children" because there is magic and epic battles. Or how many times animation is just labeled as simple entertainment due to the medium. I've fought those stereotypes all my life as much as I've fought the idea that because I'm religious I'm a fanatic freak. All my life I've heard stuff like "so, you read HP? How immature!". Things are changing now, people is more open about adults enjoying what we can call "not traditional adult" entertaining but there will be some idiots here and there that won't give fantasy or sci-fi the respect it deserves. Martin doesn't give his books this "solemn" aspect as other epic sagas have. The guy has no problem with also showing tits and shit. Nevertheless, he's still an author. I mean, he didn't write Jaime because he thought "you know what would be hilarious?! write about a guy who loses his hand and fuck his sister!". There is a point he wants to make with Jaime, how "honour" is a concept that you can't simply blindly obey. Idem for Jon, Dany, Stannis, Cersei and everybody else. They aren't just "characters". They are concepts. They are given an identity because you cannot simply write about and abstract idea. Just like, dunno, Othello is about jealousy but there are still characters driving the plot. Even Stefanie Meyer wants to make a point (one she fails making, but still tries), as Twilight saga is about themes of female virginity, lust, etc, etc. And D&D themselves have said they don't mind about those themes. We mock those words but they are plainly saying "we don't mind that these characters talk about GRRM's points. We don't care about his points. We only mind his characters to make them act shocking". Characters aren't hollow. They exist because the situation they are in NEEDS TO LET THE READERS KNOW what's the author's beliefs about something. I don't make a character being a rapist because I want him to be a rapist and I think it would be cool to make him rape a character. I want him to rape another person because such action talks about something else within his mind and soul: maybe he was abused. Maybe he's crazy. Maybe he needs to represent male lust when it's not controlled, who the f knows. That's why characters need themes. Characters REPRESENT themes. That's how they go through history. Samwise isn't know because he was Frodo's gardener, but because he was LOYAL. He represented LOYALTY. That is HIS ROLE in LotR. He's not there to do stuff. He's there to fulfill an idea. He, and every other characters are full with comparisons, symbolism and figurative speech. DD have simply took everything from them and made them sock puppets to play parts in situations that are just similar to what happens in the books.

To the people saying "but it makes sense Stannis would in the books!", "but he killed Renly!", well, we got it. You didn't understand the books :dunno: There, take a cookie.

http://grrm.livejournal.com/428946.html For all of you who are enjoying OUTLANDER, the marvelous adaptation of Diana Gabaldon's time travel novels that just finished its first season on STARZ... well, the show is terrific, but the books are even better (as is so often the case)