Season 4 Impressions

[Swordofthemornin]

Hi, How have we been given no more than 7 Episode names so far? is that normally the case?

[Miodrag]

Miodrag, you should reread Denam_Pavel's post:

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.

First, theoretically, good storytelling doesn't rule out anything, not even ridiculous coincidences. One of the most famous dramas ever kicks off when a dead father visits his son as a ghost, for example. One of the most celebrated novels of the 20th century is "One Hundred Years of Solitude", and it's full of ridiculous events of all kinds. Now, you can say that some authors, like Marquez, were making a point with ridiculousness in their novels. ASOIAF is definitely not such a case, so any ridiculous coincidence there may stand out more than ridiculousness in novels like OHYOS, but that's not a reason to say that good storytelling can never ever use any far-reaching or highly unbelievable coincidence. As a matter of fact, a good storyteller will use anything - even ridiculous coincidences - that can make the story stronger and more remarkable.

Second, I read those posts and I didn't find anything about some ridiculous coincidence being crucial for anything about Joff's attempt on Bran's life. The fact that the dagger is Petyr's played no role at all. For example, he could easily have said that he recognizes the dagger as Tyrion's, without mentioning it was his, Petyr's, before that. What would it change? Nothing! Everything would be the same. Petyr's lie is not dependent on his previous possession of the dagger in any way. What it depends on, is for Varys not to know whose dagger it is. Once Varys said he doesn't recognize the blade, Petyr saw an opportunity to strengthen the hate between Starks and Lannisters. That the dagger belonged to him once, has no meaning whatsoever. Now, you can say that the way the scene was written suggested the dagger's possession has some meaning, and that GRRM did that out of some need for suspense or whatever, and perhaps you didn't like it, because it ultimately lead nowhere. If you ask me, that would've been a more valid complaint, though dependent on a personal taste.

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.

It's not on topic in a strict sense, but it isn't a derail either, because many show-fans keep 'defending' the show by criticizing the source material, which is a little strange, have to say. Like, the story wasn't that great to begin with, so D&D are doing the best they can under those circumstances. Not saying that's what you're saying, just that this notion comes up in show threads every now and then, so it's fair to discuss "sloppy, poorly executed contrivances" from the novels.

A story like ASOIAF is bound to have some developments that are not as believable as others. With this many characters and plot-lines, it'd be practically impossible to avoid any coincidence whatsoever, and, honestly, it wouldn't be worth it even, because the story wouldn't be possible that way, most probably: for a saga to contain a dynastic carnage, a social revolution, a religious conflict and a quest against an oppressive system such as slavery - all happening simultaneously - and to be told through POVs of such distinctive characters, some things just have to be little contrived. Like, there's a reason why no period in actual human history was as crazy as ASOIAF. Did GRRM cross the line and stepped into fully ridiculous ground is up for a reader to decide, just like the settings and the themes are matters of personal taste. But, at any rate, I don't see "sloppy, poorly executed contrivances" are as numerous as you say. In fact, many complaints in that regard that I saw all over internet are simply ridiculous. As for Jorah and Tyrion meeting, it is a stretch all right, just like Tyrion's travels tend to be (his meeting with Penny is also a coincidence, though, strange enough, people rarely complain about it). But, is it ridiculous? Wouldn't say so. Even in real life, people do meet each other in strange and unexpected places. Again, I'm not sure ASOIAF would've been possible without developments that depend only on fluke, and, for my taste, GRRM didn't overuse those. And, considering how fanatically analyzed his novels are, and for how many years, and by how many readers from all over the world, I'd say contrivances are very rare and never ridiculous.

[boojam]

No place to put this.

New York Times:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/game-of-thrones-recap-a-regression-to-the-mean/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

May have to be a subscriber to read it.

Ever since Mike Hale's less than lukewarm review (at odds with almost every other media reviewer)... the NYt runs a blog for every S4 episode that is positive.

Should let JEREMY EGNER do the reviews.

[boojam]

So what's the deal?

HBO now does list the titles of Episodes 8 and 9.

Wikipedia has them listed.

IMDB has them listed.

But not here.

[Ran]

It's called being pretty fucking busy. ;) We'll get to it.

[oierem]

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.

So, for example, if Jon Snow's mother turns out to be a random woman who has to relevance at all, would you say (since it's a deliberate move from Martin) that's good storytelling?

If Dany suddenly dies at the beginning of WOW killed by a random dothraki (again, deliberately), would you say that's good storytelling?

Not everything an writer does can be called "good narrative" just because the author deliberately wrote that. A mystery should have a revelation that ties to the main narrative and helps the story go forward. A main character shouldn't die before he's fullfilled his purpose or in a way that doesn't help the story advance. Checkov's gun.

If there had been any mention of Joffrey being somehow interested in Bran, or around Robert when he said something about Bran, or any other hidden hint ON THE TEXT, the revelation might have worked. As it is now, it seems that Martin had other intentions and three books later suddenly decided that he needed to address somehow that issue.

[Ran]

Oierem,

All of those things could, indeed, be good storytelling, depending on the presentation and context and how it ties thematically to other things. Why couldn't it be? It's like the moment in Kubrick's The Shining with Dick Hallorann, which was rather brilliantly subversive.

It all has to do with the writer does with it.

It's worth noting, though, that Joffrey's public humiliation at the hands of Tyrion was specifically due to the Bran situation, and that when Joffrey insults Tywin Cersei tries to explain it away as Joff picking up ideas from Robert. These are little things Martin obviously felt were potential clues, if one was minded to make the argument that it was Joffrey. And as I recall, a few lone wolves actually did argue it was Joffrey prior to ASoS. Unfortunately, a popular, contentious theory drowned out all other possibilities back then... *cough cough GUCT cough*

[oierem]

Oierem,

All of those things could, indeed, be good storytelling, depending on the presentation and context and how it ties thematically to other things. Why couldn't it be? It's like the moment in Kubrick's The Shining with Dick Hallorann, which was rather brilliantly subversive.

It all has to do with the writer does with it.

It's worth noting, though, that Joffrey's public humiliation at the hands of Tyrion was specifically due to the Bran situation, and that when Joffrey insults Tywin Cersei tries to explain it away as Joff picking up ideas from Robert. These are little things Martin obviously felt were potential clues, if one was minded to make the argument that it was Joffrey. And as I recall, a few lone wolves actually did argue it was Joffrey prior to ASoS. Unfortunately, a popular, contentious theory drowned out all other possibilities back then... *cough cough GUCT cough*

I honestly don't believe most readers would feel that Jon Snow's mother being a random woman of no relevance or Dany dying without ever getting to Westeros is good storytelling. No matter how well it ties to any themes. Same as every reader would feel cheated if Jon Snow was really dead (which, of course, nobody believes, and for good reason).

And sorry, but I can't see how Joffrey being humilitated by Tyrion would lead him to hire a guy to kill Bran in secret. As to the other example, it's from ASOS, a few hundred pages later than the events. What I would've like to read is, at least, Robert making some comments about Bran while Joffrey is around, at Winterfell.

(same as I would've like to read a mention of a bard at the Winterfell feast)

Of course, some people believed Joffrey sent the assassin. Some people believed it was Jaime or Cersei. Basically, any "bad guy" could've been. That doesn't mean there were hints pointing at him.

[Ran]

I'm not sure I need to care about what "most readers" want. Many viewers of Game of Thrones seem happiest with the show when it's as bloody as possible, and I don't care about their opinion, either.

Art is not a democracy, as Martin himself notes.

I'm not sure what it matters if clues come fairly close to the resolution of the story. It suggests Martin never intended there to be a "mystery novel" moment of someone going Hardy Boys on it and following a trail of crumbs evenly distributed through the novels. The event creates chaos, and understanding who was behind it matters only in so far as it suits different thematic goals of the author. That we had a process of elimination going -- not Tyrion, not Jaime, not Cersei, not Littlefinger unless you want to put together an insanely elaborate theory for the hows and whys -- is, of course, in its way a clue. By the start of ASoS, Robert and Joffrey are really the only _reasonable_ candidates remaining. GUCT was so fun that it blinded a lot of us to that fact.

[Lord Varys]

I don't know the details of the GUCT (only read the series shortly before AFfC came out), but I'd have been rather irritated if it turned out that any of the major players/suspects - Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, Littlefinger - had been involved in the attempt on Bran. That would have been story-telling, since any of these characters would have found a way to get this whole thing done in a more competent way.

That said, the Jon-Snow-story could easily work if Jon's mother turns out to be just 'some woman'. Why not? He is in the NW anyway, and the whole bloodline/true king thing can only become relevant in light of supernatural prophecy (Azor Ahai/promised prince) or if a chain of events frees Jon Snow permanently from his oath to the NW. GRRM first has to start such a chain of events before he can go down with 'the return of the (true) king' trope.

It's just as easily imaginable that Jon is Rhaegar's son by Elia but that this whole thing has no real bearing on the story - because Jon decides in the end to stay at the Wall, like Maester Aemon did, to help rebuild it. Or he could decide to join the remnants of the free folk beyond the Wall.

As to murder mysteries:

We still don't know who sent Mandon Moore after Tyrion. If it was Joffrey - as they seem to think in the show - we'll never learn who did it, because both Ser Mandon and Joff are dead. Things like that happen in real life as well. People are attacked or murdered, and there is neither a resolution nor justice. GRRM actually makes his world much more real if he does not give us every perspective or resolves every riddle. At least not as long as Bran could not see pretty much everything happening in the past...

I don't believe that Joff had anything to do with Ser Mandon, by the way.

[Mithras]

I think Cersei as the motivator and Joffrey as the tool is the best theory on Bran's assassination. After all, Cersei forced Jaime to kill Bran and she was concerned about his awakening. As I explained here, she has the means and the motive to see Bran dead. She never thought about it again because the assasination was a failure and she simply refuses to think about her failures. Also Bran and Joffrey were dead when we get Cersei POVs as far as she knows.

[Ran]

She didn't force Jaime to do anything. He made the decision.

[boojam]

If Dany suddenly dies at the beginning of WOW killed by a random dothraki (again, deliberately), would you say that's good storytelling?

George , besides being a great story teller, is very inventive, but as much of his work as I have read and as twisty as it can get he remains , for want of a better work, 'linear' prose narrative writer.

Song of Ice and Fire is not the first adult fantasy by any means, the Iliad and the Odyssey are pretty strange, but that was way before any concept of fiction was born, in the 20th and 21st century there has been some other 'adult' fantasy (for his time), there is a GEM of a novel by Poul Anderson THE BROKEN SWORD (the framing is Norse mythology), for it's time very adult. In modern times George is not the only writer to write 'slightly unconventional fantasy' (I have not really kept up since about 90% of sword and sorcery fantasy is not entertaining to me).

On the other hand George is not going to write a Tristram Shandy or a Blood Meridian...

So in East who do we have to carry the narrative, well Tyrion will be there soon, but if one killed off Dany where lands the narrative thrust? Barristan Selmy and Ser Jorah are not going to spring forth as major characters.

Tyrion will be an important plot character , but I can't see him taking Dany's role, he plays something important tho.

There is a going to be a monstrous assemblage military forces at Meereen , if Tyrion were to lead them you get a cigar.

Arya show up as a new 'Napoleon' , she's in the East, I don't think so.

Victarion might command the navy but what land forces are going to follow him, he just does not fit the bill.

Without Daenerys and a military force aimed at Westeros, the whole plot becomes a shaggy dog story!

(Don't forget the dragons!)

Anyway the Wild Card is the invasion of the Others and 'winter'... I sure hope George is up to it in pulling that Cracker Jack prize out the box!

(That 'random Dothraki' or even not 'random Dothraki' has got go thru Drogon to get at Dany!)

[oierem]

I don't know the details of the GUCT (only read the series shortly before AFfC came out), but I'd have been rather irritated if it turned out that any of the major players/suspects - Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, Littlefinger - had been involved in the attempt on Bran. That would have been story-telling, since any of these characters would have found a way to get this whole thing done in a more competent way.

That said, the Jon-Snow-story could easily work if Jon's mother turns out to be just 'some woman'. Why not? He is in the NW anyway, and the whole bloodline/true king thing can only become relevant in light of supernatural prophecy (Azor Ahai/promised prince) or if a chain of events frees Jon Snow permanently from his oath to the NW. GRRM first has to start such a chain of events before he can go down with 'the return of the (true) king' trope.

It's just as easily imaginable that Jon is Rhaegar's son by Elia but that this whole thing has no real bearing on the story - because Jon decides in the end to stay at the Wall, like Maester Aemon did, to help rebuild it. Or he could decide to join the remnants of the free folk beyond the Wall.

As to murder mysteries:

We still don't know who sent Mandon Moore after Tyrion. If it was Joffrey - as they seem to think in the show - we'll never learn who did it, because both Ser Mandon and Joff are dead. Things like that happen in real life as well. People are attacked or murdered, and there is neither a resolution nor justice. GRRM actually makes his world much more real if he does not give us every perspective or resolves every riddle. At least not as long as Bran could not see pretty much everything happening in the past...

I don't believe that Joff had anything to do with Ser Mandon, by the way.

It's true that there are many mysteries that remain unanswered, and while it's true that it makes the story feel more "real", it irritates me a bit. I do like answers to the plot points and mysteries rised within the text.

IMO, if Jon's mother's identity is not relevant to the story, it should've been addressed long ago. Either if it happens to be a random woman, or even if it happens to be Lyanna but the reveal doesn't have any impact in the narrative, I will call it poor writing.

Similarly, if the whole "Azor Ahai" thing turns out to be unimportant, some readers will feel cheated. Of course, the revelation can be unexpected. But it has to be of some importance.

There are some rules to a narrative, and you have to be careful if you want to break them. If you want a revelation to work, you need to present some clues prior to it. If you have set up a mystery/prophecy/dragons comming, you have to address them.

Therefore, I think it's fair that some readers don't like a random answer ("oh, it was Joffrey") to a mystery that seemed important in the first book.

[Lord Varys]

In my opinion, ADwD already confirmed the Lyanna-Rhaegar-thing. Ashara Dayne is clearly out of the race, and the fishwife story is clearly a red herring. Bran's vision was also nearly conclusive, and no one ever believed that Wylla was Jon's mother in the first place. Ashara was the only real candidate, because there were clues that Ned was in love with her before he had to marry Brandon's bride.

The Azor Ahai savior thing most certainly will become important (with Dany and/or with Jon). But this doesn't mean that Jon's heritage will become important politically. Jon is already in the right place to fight the battle of Azor Ahai, it does not really matter if he has the right blood or not. This may influence the outcome - if a false Azor Ahai lacks the magical ability to win the war - but it does not figure into Jon's (or Stannis') motivation to fight the war.

That said, I'd call something poor writing that's supposed to make sense but doesn't. Not necessarily the creation of a world that feels real, and makes use of bad luck, stupid decisions, bad character assessment, and stuff like that.

From a fairy tale POV it would make much more sense if the devil (i.e. Littlefinger) was masterminding the War of the Five Kings, but in reality (i.e. in GRRM's books) the war is caused as much - or even more - by bad luck and happenstance, then by Littlefinger's or Varys' manipulations.

Joffrey participating in fucking things up is a much better way than, say, insisting it must have been Littlefinger because it fit his modus operandi with the letter - and later - the dagger.

[oierem]

From a fairy tale POV it would make much more sense if the devil (i.e. Littlefinger) was masterminding the War of the Five Kings, but in reality (i.e. in GRRM's books) the war is caused as much - or even more - by bad luck and happenstance, then by Littlefinger's or Varys' manipulations.

Joffrey participating in fucking things up is a much better way than, say, insisting it must have been Littlefinger because it fit his modus operandi with the letter - and later - the dagger.

I agree with many of the things you said. I just wanted to point out that I (and probably others who don't like the Joffrey revelation) don't think Littlefinger should've been responsible because he is the masermind behind everything.

I'm just saying that, if it was Joffrey, I would have like to read actual clues or hints pointing at him (that would become clear when re-reading the books) and/or the revelation having an impact on the narrative in some ways. That's not making the story more like a fairy tale; that's making the story have a better narrative-logic (a revelation doesn't come out of nowhere, and has an impact on the present).

[Lord Varys]

I with you on that one. I think there could have been additional hints. On the other hand, GRRM is very subtle on a lot of things - I totally missed the Frey pie during my first ADwD read -, so more clues would not necessarily have made things better. There are hints/confirmations that the main suspects in AGoT - Tyrion (who figured out what Bran saw), Cersei, and Jaime - were not involved in the thing, which actually indicates that there was no 'political motive' involved in that kind of thing.

But I guess there could have been further clues in ACoK or ASoS during conversations between Joff and Tyrion or Joff and Sansa.

[PatrickStormborn]

I'm just saying that, if it was Joffrey, I would have like to read actual clues or hints pointing at him (that would become clear when re-reading the books) and/or the revelation having an impact on the narrative in some ways. That's not making the story more like a fairy tale; that's making the story have a better narrative-logic (a revelation doesn't come out of nowhere, and has an impact on the present).

But there were clues.

• The assassination attempt was sloppy, suggesting that it was unlikely to have been any of the main schemers.

It was never followed up with a repeated attempt after its failure, indicating that the culprit was part of the king's party.

A similarly poor attempt was made on Tyrion's life at the Battle of the Blackwater, and the only suspects are Joffrey and Cersei.

The influence of Robert on Joffrey - evident from Joffrey's revelation that he believed Robert to be the true hero of the war while Tywin "hid under Casterly Rock".

They may not be the clues you were looking for, or even the clues you would hope for from a mystery, but they were certainly there.

[Miodrag]

I'm just saying that, if it was Joffrey, I would have like to read actual clues or hints pointing at him (that would become clear when re-reading the books) and/or the revelation having an impact on the narrative in some ways. That's not making the story more like a fairy tale; that's making the story have a better narrative-logic (a revelation doesn't come out of nowhere, and has an impact on the present).

Why do you think the revelation doesn't have an impact on the narrative "in some ways"? It definitely does, because, even though Joff and Robert aren't around any more, Jaime and Cersei still are. And Joff is just a sidekick in the story of Jaime and Cersei. He's just an aspect of their sick obsession with each other, just a consequence (albeit a grave one) of their twisted relationship. In the TV show they made him a big shot, which resulted in a massive obsession with his long awaited demise, but that decision hardly did any favors to TV Jaime and TV Cersei, it seems (and I think it will backfire, now that there's no Joff any more). in the books, however, Jaime and Cersei were infinitely more important than their wicked spawn, who was there mostly as an evidence of what menace may come out of a perversity like the one that created him. And, as a symbol, as Jaime's and Cersei's dark legacy, Joff is priceless, just like the revelation about his involvement in the hit on Bran is. The revelation is not just thematically important, though it undoubtedly is, but it's also significant for narrative, as long as what Joff did can haunt his parents, who indeed are the most responsible for the way he turned out. And, regardless of what happened to Jaime after Brienne took him on a trip in ADWD, both of them can still suffer dearly for any of Joff's transgressions. Not that they have to, and I don't have any clue what direction Martin will take the story in (and I'm actually happy for it), but even the pure fact that they're aware their spawn triggered all this mess for no reason may be enough of an impact on narrative.

As for clues, Patrick seems to answered that already. Perhaps those weren't clues in the traditional sense, because it wasn't a mystery in the traditional sense (for which I'm also very happy), but they do show GRRM did write all that with the revelation in mind, opposite to the notion, expressed yesterday I believe, that he changed his mind when he realized he can't tie it up any other way.

[Mithras]

But there were clues.

• The assassination attempt was sloppy, suggesting that it was unlikely to have been any of the main schemers.

It was never followed up with a repeated attempt after its failure, indicating that the culprit was part of the king's party.

A similarly poor attempt was made on Tyrion's life at the Battle of the Blackwater, and the only suspects are Joffrey and Cersei.

The influence of Robert on Joffrey - evident from Joffrey's revelation that he believed Robert to be the true hero of the war while Tywin "hid under Casterly Rock".

They may not be the clues you were looking for, or even the clues you would hope for from a mystery, but they were certainly there.

I don't think it was sloppy. Summer was a wildcard. All those stupid ideas of Joffrey seem to come from Cersei and in Season 1, we had an extra scene where Cersei "taught" Joffrey a lesson of ruling.