Season 4 Impressions

[Sun]

It's of no consequence whether they explain it as Joff or they don't. If they do, it's a dangling thread that's been tidied up. If they don't, nothing of consequence will have been lost.

However, if they pin the assassination on Littlefinger on the show, then we'll have something interesting to talk about, and one or two plot holes to plug lol.

[kephv]

They pretty much do restrict the scenes to material that advances the plot in some way. Even in seemingly gratuitous scenes that add nothing, there's something in there that moves the plot forward.

Pod? Theon's torture? Ton's of wasted time there that added nothing. Anyway, that's actually a point against the show, not for it. Certain characters, like Dany, have been harmed by this. She's been reduced to shouting about her dragons and how she's going to take what is her's and blah blah.

It's actually pretty poor storytelling.

It's really good storytelling if you weren't expecting some overblown solution to the whole thing. I assume people were disappointed because this wasn't revealed to be part of LittleFinger's plan. But if anything that have been way too convoluted. It makes sense that Joff's the one who did it (there's no reason the explanation given doesn't) and that Tyrion called him out on it. This also creates more tension between them as sets up the fact that Tyrion's living on borrowed time, because if Joff was willing to have a kid killed on an order, what he's going to do once he feels like Tyrion's overstayed his welcome.

I suspect the reason they didn't include it in the show was because there simply wasn't enough time in the episode, or because they would think most people would have forgotten about it. That said, it could still come up later, so we'll see.

[Beric175]

I still think the Pod scenes can be explained by: he had a nice conversation with the girls, had no sex and the only reason he's got that "Tripod" reputation now is because of Bronn and Tyrion bragging about it. I'm sure at some point we'll get a scene where he explains to Brienne that it's all the result of a misunderstanding. Plus, I think people would care about Pod more if he did something other than just obey Tyrion and follow him around, 'cause that's what he was in the books to me until AFFC.

theon's torture now explains why Reek is behaving the way he does right now. Without all the torture viewers might not have believed the evolution. They might even have asked "why are they telling me about the torture when tv is a visual medium"? You can't please anybody and I'm glad they had all those scènes last year because it provided some empathy for the character that a simple line of dialogue cannot create as easily on a show.

Regarding Joffrey: it's a humanizing moment that achieves nothing on the show because the character is so despicable to the viewers that it literally makes no difference to their perception of him and I have listened to and read reviews that praised the lack of humanizing moments with that character because it's such a trope at this point. They liked hating an unapologetically evil character so why not?

In the worst case scenario, you can always attribute the assassination attempt to Cersei or Littlefinger. No big loss oveall.

I feel like people obsessing over this piece of character develomment of such a tertiary character looks like an attempt to shout once more "oh no, they ruined everything, start the tableflipping." You can get around this and if you don't, the payoff is not big enough, because the audience already hates Joffrey and that tiny bit of sympathy gets lost in a whole sea of hate. It is literally pointless to include this because it has no effect whatsoever. It did not for me in the books anyway.

[Newstar]

It's really good storytelling if you weren't expecting some overblown solution to the whole thing.

So it's really good storytelling if you expected that the resolution of one of the pivotal mysteries of the books will be completely irrelevant to the story? It's really good storytelling because its resolution was pointless and anticlimactic? I don't think you quite get what "really good storytelling" entails.

I assume people were disappointed because this wasn't revealed to be part of LittleFinger's plan.

Others have explained why the resolution was so pointless, and how the whole thing falls apart with any amount of scrutiny (as King Tommen has outlined so nicely). I will say that if Littlefinger had had something to do with it, it would at least tie in nicely to the revelation of Littlefinger's villainy at the end of ASOS, which does have relevance to the story, but that of course isn't the case.

But if anything that have been way too convoluted. It makes sense that Joff's the one who did it (there's no reason the explanation given doesn't) and that Tyrion called him out on it. This also creates more tension between them as sets up the fact that Tyrion's living on borrowed time,

...which is completely deflated once Joffrey dies not 30 pages later and erases any potential tension resulting from the reveal. It's the same as if Littlefinger died thirty seconds after Lysa revealed the extent of his villainy to the reader. It's nice to know, but if it has no bearing on the story from here on in, and the responsible individual died almost immediately, who cares? The ASOS revelations about Littlefinger pack such a punch because he's still very much in play. The revelation about Joffrey loses whatever teeth it had--not many, in my opinion--as he dies almost immediately after the reveal, negating any impact it might have.

This is part of the reason why I don't subscribe to the theory that Jaime and Cersei are Targ twins. It would explain a lot, sure, but it wouldn't have any bearing on the story unless Jaime is going to be riding a dragon and needs Targ blood to do it.

because if Joff was willing to have a kid killed on an order, what he's going to do once he feels like Tyrion's overstayed his welcome.

Because we would never think Joffrey as of ASOS would go so far as to have an innocent child killed, seeing as how Joffrey by the time the PW rolls around has shown himself to be such an upstanding young man. That Joffrey would have an innocent child killed is perfectly in character, not some shocking revelation, another reason for which the reveal is boring: Joffrey's a sociopath, film at eleven.

[Maia]

I never liked Joffrey being behind the dagger. IMHO, motivation and hints of evidence weren't properly established in advance. And it didn't really provide any new insight into his character or any new avenues of plot development. LF theory was a bit over-complicated, but more grounded in what we were shown prior to the revelation.

But personally, in the later years before Joff reveal, I have favored Robert as a culprit. Robert wanting to give Bran and the whole suffering Stark family a gift of mercy and closure re: Bran would have been wholly in character, as would the sloppy execution. And he was the owner of the dagger. He had means, motive and opportunity. It would also have been awesomely ironic if the Lannisters had nothing to do with most of the fateful events that initially set the Starks to suspect them. Petyr and Lysa being behind Arryn's poisoning was a great revelation, Robert being behind the attempt of Bran would have been even better and fit the antler in direwolf's throat to a T. Oh, well....

[PatrickStormborn]

So it's really good storytelling if you expected that the resolution of one of the pivotal mysteries of the books will be completely irrelevant to the story? It's really good storytelling because its resolution was pointless and anticlimactic? I don't think you quite get what "really good storytelling" entails.

... You do understand that it was supposed to be anticlimactic, right? It had the impact on readers that GRRM intended it to have; therefore it's good storytelling. It's honestly that simple.

GRRM sets up two "mysteries" that trigger the events of the first three novels: the death of Jon Arryn, and the attempted assassination of Bran. The first is never really presented as a mystery; we learn of Jon Arryn's death, and then we are told that he was killed by the Lannisters. The attempted assassination of Bran, on the other hand, is presented as a mystery, as Catelyn seeks to find the culprit and one of the POV characters is arrested. As this action is the most important short-term cause of the outbreak of war, the identity of the person who tried to have Bran assassinated seems significant... But it isn't. It was just Joffrey trying in some unconscious way to prove himself to his father (and, if you analyse Joffrey's actions, it appears more than clear that Robert - and to a lesser extent Cersei - are very much to blame for the way he turned out). It was not part of a conspiracy to fuel conflict between the Lannisters and Starks. And that is incredibly important in reflecting the themes of ASOIAF.

The reveal that Lysa murdered Jon Arryn on Littlefinger's behalf is deliberately juxtaposed with this. If you're looking for a climactic reveal, look no further than that. It's supposed to demonstrate Littlefinger's cunning... but it means a whole lot less if we don't know that Joffrey was behind the attempt on Bran's life, because it shows that the War of Five Kings wasn't all about plots and conspiracies. The war started primarily because tension between the Lannisters and the Starks spiralled out of control through not only manipulation or lack of communication, but also sheer luck.

It also illuminates our reading of the various characters: Catelyn is quick to assume it was the Lannisters, Tyrion assumes it was deliberately to target him, and Littlefinger uses something completely unpredictable to spin things to his advantage. And of course, how ironic is it that Tyrion is falsely imprisoned twice because of Joffrey?

But if you're just looking for everything in the series to shock, excite or thrill, then I guess it would be "poor storytelling".

[Mr Fixit]

... You do understand that it was supposed to be anticlimactic, right? It had the impact on readers that GRRM intended it to have; therefore it's good storytelling. It's honestly that simple.

I don't quite get what you're trying to say. Do you mean that good storytelling is supposed to be anticlimactic? Or that the intended impact, whatever it may be, is in and of itself evidence of good storytelling? Am I missing something?

[PatrickStormborn]

I don't quite get what you're trying to say. Do you mean that good storytelling is supposed to be anticlimactic? Or that the intended impact, whatever it may be, is in and of itself evidence of good storytelling? Am I missing something?

Lol, I'm sure you're very well aware that the latter is what I meant. My point was very clear: "It had the impact on readers that GRRM intended it to have; therefore it's good storytelling." Not sure how that's confusing unless you disagree, in which case it's just a matter of preference. I prefer a well-constructed story over a story where the goal is only to thrill and shock readers with every revelation.

[Mr Fixit]

Lol, I'm sure you're very well aware that the latter is what I meant. My point was very clear: "It had the impact on readers that GRRM intended it to have; therefore it's good storytelling."

Yeah, I thought that's what you meant. :cool4:

I still don't agree. That would seem to imply that the only prerequisite of good storytelling is author's intent getting through to the audience. I can't support that position.

[Ran]

The other thing is if the intent is worth going through with.

And obviously, Patrick, I, and others think so. The notion that all mysteries need have a climactic point of revelation seems fairly simplistic to me. Revelation can do a lot of things. It can reconfigure perceptions, it can change the course of narrative, it can change the scale at which something is understood, it can provide an additional layer, etc. It doesn't need to be one specific sort of thing.

[PatrickStormborn]

Yeah, I thought that's what you meant. :cool4:

I still don't agree. That would seem to imply that the only prerequisite of good storytelling is author's intent getting through to the audience. I can't support that position.

But why not? The text is supposed to do what the author intends it to do. If it does, the text is evidently successful. You may not enjoy it as much, but that means very little in the construction of the story itself.

[Miodrag]

If this didn't happen in the books and D&D had it play out this way on the show, they would be absolutely raked over the coals.

Show-apologists post this notion quite frequently, but actually it's completely illogical, because it disregards any context whatsoever. It's wrong to add events and developments and twists that are out of context, e.g. not in accordance with the world and/or characters, let alone with themes of the story. If you're adding stuff that didn't happen in the source material, you have to be careful of the context you're putting those into. For example, the show did add one thing skillfully enough: when Ned sees Arya in "Baelor" and directs Yoren toward her. Since they had a much smaller set than the one described in the books, at least they used it for something clever. And, as far as I know, not a single reader objected that addition, which means that, opposite to what show-apologists often claim, book-admirers aren't going around nitpicking every change the show made. In fact, only bad (pointless, damaging, unreasonable) changes get criticized. The vast majority of changes are very bad indeed, but it's not our fault.

In this particular example, Joff being the one who ordered the attempt on Bran's life is a good, rewarding development, for all the reasons other posters explained already. Regardless of who came up with it, it made the story richer, and the storm that is The War of the Five Kings even more perfect (that is, created by personal and social forces that coincided in a bloody mess of epic proportions). Had Martin failed to explain who's behind the attempt, then it'd be more than welcomed if the adaptation explained it, especially if the explanation is as skillful and meaningful as Joff's father/self-esteem issues (which, in turn, adds only more to the horrific influence Robert-Cersei-Jaime triangle had on the entire realm). But, then it would mean that the books have a huge failure, because the author failed to clarify one of the events that triggered the main storyline. Somehow, I very much doubt that the author whose storytelling is so lacking, would ever come up with a story that is as good as ASOIAF is. He'd have inconsistencies and plot holes and ridiculous developments all over his story, and we'd have no reason to discuss his story, unless someone makes a good adaptation of it. And, true enough, bad source material sometimes can lead to an inspired adaptations - that is what happened to "Battlestar Galactica", for instance: in the 1970s it was a stupid show with an interesting premise, and 30 years later other authors took that premise and adapted it into a significantly better (though far from great) TV show.

But, GoT is not such a case. On the contrary, in this case the adaptation is infinitely weaker than the source material, and significantly weaker than it could've been, precisely because of all the unnecessary and damaging changes and additions the show made (changes that, truth be told, have nothing to do with budgetary or scheduling issues, but with the show-runners' storytelling inclinations). In this case, numerous aspects from the source material didn't find their way into the adaptation. You may find some of those aspects boring or insignificant or whatever, but the fact is that those aspects are present in the source material. If those aspects ruined the story for you so much that you don't like nor respect it any more, that's another matter, and then the omission of those aspects in the show might please you. But, if you do like and respect the source material, then it probably means those aspects you didn't like at least didn't hurt the story for you. And, for what it's worth, the vast majority of book-readers seems to be in agreement that 'details' like Joff ordering the hit on Bran make the story ever more rich and rewarding.

Having all that in mind, I fail to see what good is there to come from fantasizing about some hypothetical universe in which D&D, and not GRRM, came up with the richness of the story that is ASOIAF. This is not that universe. In our universe, it is GRRM who came up with a meticulously built story that is covered from any number of angles and developed with a perhaps unparalleled depth, while D&D only proved they're capable of adapting that story by simplifying it to something that not so rarely looks like the lowest common denominator.

[Denam_Pavel]

... You do understand that it was supposed to be anticlimactic, right? It had the impact on readers that GRRM intended it to have; therefore it's good storytelling. It's honestly that simple.

GRRM sets up two "mysteries" that trigger the events of the first three novels: the death of Jon Arryn, and the attempted assassination of Bran. The first is never really presented as a mystery; we learn of Jon Arryn's death, and then we are told that he was killed by the Lannisters. The attempted assassination of Bran, on the other hand, is presented as a mystery, as Catelyn seeks to find the culprit and one of the POV characters is arrested. As this action is the most important short-term cause of the outbreak of war, the identity of the person who tried to have Bran assassinated seems significant... But it isn't. It was just Joffrey trying in some unconscious way to prove himself to his father (and, if you analyse Joffrey's actions, it appears more than clear that Robert - and to a lesser extent Cersei - are very much to blame for the way he turned out). It was not part of a conspiracy to fuel conflict between the Lannisters and Starks. And that is incredibly important in reflecting the themes of ASOIAF.

The reveal that Lysa murdered Jon Arryn on Littlefinger's behalf is deliberately juxtaposed with this. If you're looking for a climactic reveal, look no further than that. It's supposed to demonstrate Littlefinger's cunning... but it means a whole lot less if we don't know that Joffrey was behind the attempt on Bran's life, because it shows that the War of Five Kings wasn't all about plots and conspiracies. The war started primarily because tension between the Lannisters and the Starks spiralled out of control through not only manipulation or lack of communication, but also sheer luck.

It also illuminates our reading of the various characters: Catelyn is quick to assume it was the Lannisters, Tyrion assumes it was deliberately to target him, and Littlefinger uses something completely unpredictable to spin things to his advantage. And of course, how ironic is it that Tyrion is falsely imprisoned twice because of Joffrey?

But if you're just looking for everything in the series to shock, excite or thrill, then I guess it would be "poor storytelling".

We are not told it was the Lannisters, we are meant to assume it along with the main characters because the Lannisters had everything to lose. What does it tell us that Ned was faulty in not coming to the conclusion that Cersei and Jaime were completely willing to roll the dice on Jon Arryn and Stannis not coming forward with their evidence to Robert, or the very real to them possibility of Bran waking up? That he vastly overestimates Cersei's concern for her children's, Jaime's and her own life?

And an anti-climax doesn't do it justice. Cause it actually WAS Littlefinger's dagger. Joffrey had a whole armory to choose from to pick a blade to assassinate a Stark right after the Lannisters and Baratheons left Winterfell and by genuine coincidence picks the one that very recently belonged to someone that was currently trying to start a war between the Starks and Baratheon-Lannisters.

[Newstar]

... You do understand that it was supposed to be anticlimactic, right? It had the impact on readers that GRRM intended it to have; therefore it's good storytelling. It's honestly that simple.

All writing is a deliberate act, so intent is no measure of quality storytelling. Moreover, you're not even correct in that small measure; since many are rightly taking issue with the Joffrey reveal for being pointless and resting on an implausible coincidence, and since the TV writers have apparently elected to omit the reveal altogether, couldn't you say that it didn't have the impact he intended it to have? I doubt GRRM would want readers accusing him of lousy storytelling and pointing out the problems with the reveal, or that he would want the TV writers acting as if his great reveal never happened.

But it isn't. It was just Joffrey trying in some unconscious way to prove himself to his father (and, if you analyse Joffrey's actions, it appears more than clear that Robert - and to a lesser extent Cersei - are very much to blame for the way he turned out). It was not part of a conspiracy to fuel conflict between the Lannisters and Starks. And that is incredibly important in reflecting the themes of ASOIAF.

Again, it resolves the mystery, which was certainly trumpeted as central, in a way which exists completely peripheral to the narrative which has no bearing on it except for "reflecting the themes" of ASOIAF, as you yourself admit. Moreover, the resolution rests on an extremely implausible coincidence. Both of these are the mark of poor storytelling, not good storytelling. With good storytelling, everything ties together with no random bits dangling here or there unconnected to the story except in a vague "thematic" way, everything matters and is relevant, and no implausible coincidences are required as connective tissue to make the story work. With the best storytelling, everything ties together so perfectly that the story has an almost jewel-like structure, with every development seamlessly linked to everything else; the plot feels less like a creaky, laboured jerking from point A to point B and more like a rock tumbling down a mountain, with every development the inevitable result of everything preceding it. None of that is the case with the Joffrey reveal (...or with other aspects of ASOIAF, but I digress).

...I gotta admit, this conversation is starting to sound like the writing equivalent of The Emperor Has No Clothes. You can swear up and down that the Joffrey reveal storytelling suit in question is a fine, meticulously tailored one, but it's manifestly clear that there's nothing there.

The reveal that Lysa murdered Jon Arryn on Littlefinger's behalf is deliberately juxtaposed with this.

I do agree that the Lysa reveal demonstrates how shoddy the Joffrey reveal is, although there's still a good deal of contrivance there: Lysa happens to blabber useful information in an expository dialogue. That doesn't make the Joffrey reveal any less shoddy, though. In fact, it calls GRRM to task; he's capable of doing better and clearly dropped the ball.

[Miodrag]

Again, it resolves the mystery, which was certainly trumpeted as central, in a way which exists completely peripheral to the narrative which has no bearing on it except for "reflecting the themes" of ASOIAF, as you yourself admit. Moreover, the resolution rests on an extremely implausible coincidence. Both of these are the mark of poor storytelling, not good storytelling.

Sorry, but no. There is no "extremely implausible coincidence" in regards to Joff ordering the hit on Bran. Because of his twisted idea of strength, Joff wanted Bran dead, and he used a weapon found in the possession of his 'father'. What is coincidental there? Not a thing. Is there something coincidental in the reveal itself, during the wedding? Hardly - on the day of his wedding, and after presented with a gift from his dreams, Joff says a line he otherwise wouldn't, and Tyrion, thanks to his well established intelligence, makes the connection to the crime he almost lost his own head for. No coincidence there, either. The only real coincidence is the fact that the dagger used to be Petyr's, but it had no significance whatsoever for the Joff's attempt, nor for the revelation about it. And Petyr's lie about the dagger didn't influence the outbreak of the war too much, neither: remember that, in the inn, Cat did try to hide herself from Tyrion at first, hence, the fact she was exposed while coming back from KL is what made her decide to capture him. The dagger story gave her a pretext, true enough, but, with lives of her daughters and her husband at stake, a pretext looses its significance, and it's not irrational to presume Cat would act the same even without the pretext.

So, all in all, Petyr's lie about the dagger, a lie that does depend on pure coincidence, influenced only what Cat thinks of Lannisters. An opportunity to turn Cat against one absent Lannister presented itself to Petyr, and he seized it. But, given the animosity between Starks and Lannisters, and Petyr's talent for scheming and gossiping, it was bound to happen sooner or later. If not the dagger, Petyr would use something else to persuade Cat that Lannisters are behind the attempt on her son's life, and he'd definitely single out the Tyrion as the guiltiest one, because Tyrion is actually not in KL, so he can't answer those allegations in any way, not even unwittingly. From the moment Cat told Petyr about the attempt, there was no return, it seems.

You're entitled to dislike GRRM's storytelling for whatever reasons you choose, of course, but, if coincidences are what annoys you, there's very few of those in ASOIAF, and in this particular case coincidence played a very little part, and it certainly wasn't "extremely implausible". Not to mention that GRRM does explain even coincidences, as it is the case here, where the biggest coincidence - Joff's decision to have Bran murdered - is given reasons for and an explanation rooted in characterization.

[Newstar]

Miodrag, you should reread Denam_Pavel's post:

Joffrey had a whole armory to choose from to pick a blade to assassinate a Stark right after the Lannisters and Baratheons left Winterfell and by genuine coincidence picks the one that very recently belonged to someone that was currently trying to start a war between the Starks and Baratheon-Lannisters.

As I said.

King Tommen also explained it far better than I could.

Good storytelling, among other things, doesn't rely on ridiculous coincidences. GRRM seriously dropped the ball here.

there's very few of those in ASOIAF

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about that. This isn't the thread for it, but I could scare up a number of sloppy, poorly executed contrivances in the books: Jorah and Tyrion meeting, for one.

[Ran]

Not really coincidence, in the sense that Joffrey wanted the sharpest, most bad-ass knife to do the job. That's Valyrian steel. That the blade in question one belonged to Littlefinger is a coincidence, but it actually doesn't matter, since nothing genuinely hinges on his having owned it. It just hinges on his informing Catelyn and Ned who "did" own it, which he could explain with pretty much any knife just by saying, "Oh, it's mine."

Maybe down the road, LF's actual original ownership will be a plot point. Right now it's nothing much. There's no coincidence in Joffrey being an aggressive dullard impressed by sharp things, or Littlefinger taking advantage of an opportunity, OTOH.

[Newstar]

Ran, as King Tommen said:

We are supposed to believe that Littlefinger, the mastermind who is intent on attempting to start all this chaos and bring all of these families into conflict, owned the murder weapon in question but had absolutely nothing to do with the assassination that starts everything. It was just one big massive coincidence.

It is terrible writing.

[Ran]

Not really, because the Stark side of things really doesn't hinge on whether he owned it or not. That said, we know Littlefinger makes wagers, we know that Robert makes expensive wagers, we know Robert has a massive collection of knives -- the pieces fit together well enough that the one Valyrian steel dagger Robert owns happens to formerly have belonged to Littlefinger.

But again, it does not matter. It is incidental. The main thing his ownership has to do with is that it gives the lie to his particular claims regarding Tyrion, since we later see from the Littlefinger-Renly wager a confirmation of Tyrion's claim that he always bets on family. But note that that's for our benefit, since Ned nor anyone else ever figures anything out from it.

It could have been any random fancy knife, which Littlefinger would have again claimed belonged to him, but he lost it to Tyrion, etc.

[Lord Varys]

If you really believe Littlefinger masterminded the War of the Five Kings, you are all wrong. The guy had about as much luck as anyone else. It would make sense from a 'he was behind it all/masterminded everything' POV to assume that he had also a hand in the attempt on Bran, but that's not what actually happened.

Littlefinger jumped on chance to win the trust of Cat and Ned, and deepen their mistrust of the Lannisters. He did not want an all-out War of the Five Kings. He wanted to get close to the Starks, to assess his chances of rekindling Cat's affections, and then make himself invaluable in the coming struggle for succession - for Ned Stark. Cersei and the Lannisters were his second choice, he only chose them after Ned spit him in the face (and failed to follow his ideas/suggestions due to Littlefinger's own meddling), and he had do more or less the same thing at a much higher risk with Cersei/Tyrion/Tywin that he had already successfully done with Ned. Only to end with Lysa and the Vale instead of Ned/Cat and the Iron Throne (which would have been the case had he helped Ned to install himself firmly as Lord Regent for King Joffrey).

The all-out War of the Five Kings could have easily ruined and destroyed Littlefinger, and it still can. He thrives only on limited chaos, and only as long as no one is looking in his direction. That is going to change, too, I imagine...

As to the dagger, Littlefinger lost it to Robert during the tourney at Joff's nameday. It's easily imaginable that Joff acquired the weapon back then; I'd be very surprised if Robert took that dagger with him to Winterfell. It's much more likely that Joff wanted the Valyrian steel dagger as another nameday present, and Robert shrugged, gave it to him, and never thought of it again. Joff later mocks the Stark children because they are not allowed to train with sharp steel. That indicates that he was allowed as much - or at least that he, if he was not allowed to train with real weapons, did at least own such weapons...