A Balanced Review of Show Stannis [Book Spoilers]

[Chebyshov]

1. Stannis in the books does not ban public worship.

2. If Stannis banned public worship in the show, and burns a person to death over it, than the show is changing Stannis for the worse.

3. If by burning him the man's soul is "cleansed" and he joins R'hllor (as Selyse is happy to tell Davos), than it is not execution over disobeying, it's forced conversion dead or alive.

Eh, it's not forced conversion...it's more Show!Stannis has implemented a "don't ask don't tell" rule for non-R'hllor worshippers. It is certainly a worse portrayal than in the books.

[Ran]

I don't think it matters if Stannis outlaws something in the show and not the books. The idea is that they wanted to find some way to show that he's inflexible when it comes to his commands, a reminder that he's still very much an absolutist authoritarian despite bending enough to keep Davos around. They also want to emphasize the position he's in: defeated, few men left to him, trying to hold on to his base of power by hook or by crook.

The interpretations of Selyse and Melisandre of Stannis's actions don't interest me. We've a scene immediately following the burning where Stannis's remark sure seems to reflect back on what just happened: he looks like he hates doing it, he says he hates lots of things, but he tolerates them (because he sees them as necessary, or he sees as he has no choice; though really, I think for Stannis the two are more or less the same concept), so I think you've got to frame the burning scene in the context of that.

He hates it, but he tolerates it for a reason. What reason? My guess is that it's an attempt to reassert his authority and stamp out dissent. I don't think the Stannis of the show is a R'hllorian zealot. But while there's King's Men who worship the Seven still, I've a feeling that in the books it's a lot of private worship; I doubt the sept gets much usage anymore, if any, because no one wants to risk offending the king.

Perhaps I'm being too generous to the writers and assuming they're trying to walk a fine line with Stannis. Which they should be, and which George does. He's the Rorschach of Westeros.

[Konradsmith]

^Does he make his "weddings are more perilous than battles" quip in ep. 3, Ran?

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

1. Stannis in the books does not ban public worship.

2. If Stannis banned public worship in the show, and burns a person to death over it, than the show is changing Stannis for the worse.

3. If by burning him the man's soul is "cleansed" and he joins R'hllor (as Selyse is happy to tell Davos), than it is not execution over disobeying, it's forced conversion dead or alive.

Didn't Lord Sungrass get burned alive for not tearing down his Sept? I don't think Stannis was there for that, but he didn't punish Selyse or Melisandre for it either.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

He hates it, but he tolerates it for a reason. What reason? My guess is that it's an attempt to reassert his authority. I don't think the Stannis of the show is a R'hllorian zealot.

Selyse talked about Shireen being sinful and even considered to beat her. Ever met parents who are religions nutjobs? Because Selyse is one of them. Stannis, otoh, is not. He doesn't approve her beating Shireen. He doesn't say it but he seems to imply that Shireen is a limit she doesn't want her to cross: everything else, he tolerates. Otherwise, why wouldn't they bring the girl into the fire ceremony?

[Guard of the Rainking]

Didn't Lord Sungrass get burned alive for not tearing down his Sept? I don't think Stannis was there for that, but he didn't punish Selyse or Melisandre for it either.

Lors Sunglass forswore his allegiance with Stannis after they burned the sept at Dragonstone. Stannis imprisoned him, and while he was away Selyse burned him.

[Ran]

Sunglass refused to serve Stannis or raise his banners for him, because Stannis followed R'hllor. Stannis saw this as treason -- a vassal can't just go ahead and do that -- and Stannis had him burned. It seems Melisandre does this at his behest.

But the argument here is whether Stannis burned the men for refusing to convert, or because they refused to remove evidence of their holding to the Seven when Stannis wants to remove any significant public signs of dissent against his rule, in a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of way (as Chebyshov put it).

[Cas Stark]

Sunglass refused to serve Stannis or raise his banners for him, because Stannis followed R'hllor. Stannis saw this as treason -- a vassal can't just go ahead and do that -- and Stannis had him burned. It seems Melisandre does this at his behest.

But the argument here is whether Stannis burned the men for refusing to convert, or because they refused to remove evidence of their holding to the Seven when Stannis wants to remove any significant public signs of dissent against his rule, in a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of way (as Chebyshov put it).

It's still a big difference from the book though, where he burns them for treason, e.g. not calling the banners. Being executed because you say "I won't submit to you as my liege lord" is still quite a different thing from "I won't tear down the holy relics of my faith".

All things being equal, it wouldn't be that huge of a thing, and maybe it isn't, but they've already had Stannis following Mel and making a fool of himself in front of his own men and completely changing his mind and plans within the span of 5 seconds because Mel told him to. So, when you add in pure religious extremism, it gets harder and harder to say he isn't being changed for the worse by the show.

[Nyrhex]

I don't think it matters if Stannis outlaws something in the show and not the books. The idea is that they wanted to find some way to show that he's inflexible when it comes to his commands, a reminder that he's still very much an absolutist authoritarian despite bending enough to keep Davos around. They also want to emphasize the position he's in: defeated, few men left to him, trying to hold on to his base of power by hook or by crook.

The interpretations of Selyse and Melisandre of Stannis's actions don't interest me. We've a scene immediately following the burning where Stannis's remark sure seems to reflect back on what just happened: he looks like he hates doing it, he says he hates lots of things, but he tolerates them (because he sees them as necessary, or he sees as he has no choice; though really, I think for Stannis the two are more or less the same concept), so I think you've got to frame the burning scene in the context of that.

He hates it, but he tolerates it for a reason. What reason? My guess is that it's an attempt to reassert his authority and stamp out dissent. I don't think the Stannis of the show is a R'hllorian zealot. But while there's King's Men who worship the Seven still, I've a feeling that in the books it's a lot of private worship; I doubt the sept gets much usage anymore, if any, because no one wants to risk offending the king.

Perhaps I'm being too generous to the writers and assuming they're trying to walk a fine line with Stannis. Which they should be, and which George does. He's the Rorschach of Westeros.

1. I think it matters. It shows him in a darker light. It's not him converting in person, he forces others to convert, or at least offends thier rights as well. To show watchers, Stannis is being showen as more of a bad guy, a thrall of Mel, doing all she wants. In the books it takes three kings (not just one) dying for him to accept that maybe the power she claims to have is real, and he can end this war for the throne in order to fight for the Dawn. Even then he threatens her that if it does'nt work she would die by inches for making him kill an innocent for something short of saving all life on the planet. Nope, here it's just Stannis burning people who refuse to tear down thier own idols.

2. Showing Stannis trying to re-assert authority by burning loyal men, after they brought him men and ships, is daft. They already follow him, why limit thier religious freedom? Thier ships burnt and thier men died for him. What is he going to get out of this? Less men than he currently has? Saan is all the fleet he has, and he works directly for Stannis, not for any of Stannis' lords. The Men Stannis has are what he has, no more would pop up.

3. How is "don't ask, don't tell" going to work, if Stannis and all of his men know that one of his two closest advisors is not converting? Davos tries to kill Mel openly, spends time in the dungen, and is set free by Stannis. Still unconverted.

It's does'nt make any sense. Stannis has no reason to burn his own lords for not tearing down thier own "idols". He should already be halfway to the Wall by now. Not only does he waste his time on Dragonstone with burning people who already follow him, he already knows about the Others too. Book Stannis gets a letter warning about the danger to the Wall from the Wildling host that is marching south. Show Stannis knows what Sam knows - The Others are coming close behind. Now he just seems to be wasting time with bullshit while he should be on his way north.

Is the burning to get better winds? Nope. It's because the guy refused to convert/tear down his false idols. Two options: Either we don't get that part, or Stannis adds more burnings, and one is still over someone's religion. At this rate I'm starting to wonder if the Thenns are cannibals now because in the books they serve Stannis.

Didn't Lord Sungrass get burned alive for not tearing down his Sept? I don't think Stannis was there for that, but he didn't punish Selyse or Melisandre for it either.

No, Stannis arrests lord Sunglass for being an oathbreaker. The Greatjon threatened to return to his hold with all his men if Robb Stark won't give him the Vanguard. Robb told him that if he goes he would hang as an oathbreaker. Sunglass, like Manderly, faced a situation where his liege lord has other gods than the Seven. Unlike Manderly, he tells Stannis that he will not serve him any longer for that. That is oathbreaking.

[Thelastactionhero]

I don't think it matters if Stannis outlaws something in the show and not the books. The idea is that they wanted to find some way to show that he's inflexible when it comes to his commands, a reminder that he's still very much an absolutist authoritarian despite bending enough to keep Davos around. They also want to emphasize the position he's in: defeated, few men left to him, trying to hold on to his base of power by hook or by crook.

The interpretations of Selyse and Melisandre of Stannis's actions don't interest me. We've a scene immediately following the burning where Stannis's remark sure seems to reflect back on what just happened: he looks like he hates doing it, he says he hates lots of things, but he tolerates them (because he sees them as necessary, or he sees as he has no choice; though really, I think for Stannis the two are more or less the same concept), so I think you've got to frame the burning scene in the context of that.

He hates it, but he tolerates it for a reason. What reason? My guess is that it's an attempt to reassert his authority and stamp out dissent. I don't think the Stannis of the show is a R'hllorian zealot. But while there's King's Men who worship the Seven still, I've a feeling that in the books it's a lot of private worship; I doubt the sept gets much usage anymore, if any, because no one wants to risk offending the king.

Perhaps I'm being too generous to the writers and assuming they're trying to walk a fine line with Stannis. Which they should be, and which George does. He's the Rorschach of Westeros.

Sorry, was there a power vacuum on Dragon Stone that opened up while I wasn't looking? There's no indication, either in the show or the books, that Stannis is at risk for losing his last stronghold to dissent from within. This is really the big problem that I think people like you are overlooking, because context does mean a great deal when it comes to these burnings. Doesn't make burning people alive acceptable by any means, but his reasons for executing in this fashion still matter. Stannis is a pragmatist, and he commits his share of brutal acts throughout the series, though more often than not they serve what he sees as the greater good. There's absolutely nothing practical about him burning Axel Florent in this scene. He's not even doing it to ensure properous winds to reach the Wall in time. This change in context serves no other purpose than to tinge him an even darker shade of gray, one that is all but devoid of all the aspects that made so many of us fall in love with his book counterpart. The infidel line reaks of fanaticism, despite these weak defenses of him using the term. Stannis is a grim man, and a flawed one as well, but I see absolutely no indication that he's headed north because he realizes its his duty as a king, as is made clear in the books and by the author himself. In the show I see only a weak willed man lacking any autonomy following the whims of his red priestess in pursuit of power. Another thing to consider, which shoots down this theory that this stupid infidel plotline somehow works in showing how practical he is, is that Stannis never forces any of the Northmen that join his cause in aDwD to convert. He doesn't make this a neccessary condition for joining his army because he's smart enough to know how fucking stupid and impractical such a move would be.

But really, what it comes down to is that Stannis doesn't burn innocent people. He burns criminals, and the traitor who wanted to sell his daughter to the Lannisters. Stannis is a hard, brutal, morally gray, but righteous man, and for him to kill innocents in such an arbitrary fashion conflicts not only with his moral disposition in the books, but also with how he was portrayed in Season 3. Though he doesn't agonize over sacrificing Gendry the way he agonizes over sacrificing Edric, we spend three episodes where Stannis contemplates whether or not the sacrifice of an innocent life is worth the utilitarian ends he hopes to achieve. While Stannis ulitimately makes the wrong choice in the show, it feels completely out of character for him to suddenly make this ideological and moral shift, especially since the sacrifice serves no visible practical gain outside of, as you suggested, putting down some non-existant internal rebellion. It's a silly, unneccessary aesthetic change that does nothing but cheapen the character and his arc. I'm not one of the Stannis fans who looks at him through rose tinted glasses, but I find it absolutely astounding that our objections to the changes are dismissed with such weak justifications.

[The Red Melli]

I didn't like that Stannis said the word "infidel".

But I'm not giving my hopes up there's clearly a difference between Stannis and Selyse regarding the Lord of light facial expression said it all this episode.

All in all, I liked the Dragonstone scenes. They were very well acted and I'm hoping to see more.

[Jasta11]

Sorry, was there a power vacuum on Dragon Stone that opened up while I wasn't looking? There's no indication, either in the show or the books, that Stannis is at risk for losing his last stronghold to dissent from within. This is really the big problem that I think people like you are overlooking, because context does mean a great deal when it comes to these burnings. Doesn't make burning people alive acceptable by any means, but his reasons for executing in this fashion still matter. Stannis is a pragmatist, and he commits his share of brutal acts throughout the series, though more often than not they serve what he sees as the greater good. There's absolutely nothing practical about him burning Axel Florent in this scene. He's not even doing it to ensure properous winds to reach the Wall in time. This change in context serves no other purpose than to tinge him an even darker shade of gray, one that is all but devoid of all the aspects that made so many of us fall in love with his book counterpart. The infidel line reaks of fanaticism, despite these weak defenses of him using the term. Stannis is a grim man, and a flawed one as well, but I see absolutely no indication that he's headed north because he realizes its his duty as a king, as is made clear in the books and by the author himself. In the show I see only a weak willed man lacking any autonomy following the whims of his red priestess in pursuit of power. Another thing to consider, which shoots down this theory that this stupid infidel plotline somehow works in showing how practical he is, is that Stannis never forces any of the Northmen that join his cause in aDwD to convert. He doesn't make this a neccessary condition for joining his army because he's smart enough to know how fucking stupid and impractical such a move would be.

But really, what it comes down to is that Stannis doesn't burn innocent people. He burns criminals, and the traitor who wanted to sell his daughter to the Lannisters. Stannis is a hard, brutal, morally gray, but righteous man, and for him to kill innocents in such an arbitrary fashion conflicts not only with his moral disposition in the books, but also with how he was portrayed in Season 3. Though he doesn't agonize over sacrificing Gendry the way he agonizes over sacrificing Edric, we spend three episodes where Stannis contemplates whether or not the sacrifice of an innocent life is worth the utilitarian ends he hopes to achieve. While Stannis ulitimately makes the wrong choice in the show, it feels completely out of character for him to suddenly make this ideological and moral shift, especially since the sacrifice serves no visible practical gain outside of, as you suggested, putting down some non-existant internal rebellion. It's a silly, unneccessary aesthetic change that does nothing but cheapen the character and his arc. I'm not one of the Stannis fans who looks at him through rose tinted glasses, but I find it absolutely astounding that our objections to the changes are dismissed with such weak justifications.

This. They had no reason to change why Florent was burned. Treason is met by death all over Westeros, but burning people for being ''infidels'' is fanatism no matter how grumpy you are about it. And Stannis is many things, not all of them good by any means, but he's not a fanatic. I see no other reasoning for this than to (yet again) paint him as a weak pawn of Melissandre. All the Unsullied I know think he's at best a very dark grey in the vein of the Lannisters, and at worst a villain. They removed much of his moral ambiguity in favor of making him a weak, power-hungry jerk.

I mean, after the beach scene where's hes horny for her, him giving her Gendry far sooner than Edric in the books and then only going to the Wall and sparing Davos because she tells him to, you'd think the showrunners would have made their point.

[A Man Has Said]

Stainnus is claiming to be THE King.

And as was mentioned upthread, his style is very much in the absolutist, no-questions-asked mold.

FFS, he repeatedly says in the books, "Some Would Call It TREASON." (Disobeying him.)

As such, anything done by his followers is going to be perceived as having been done by his will, if not under his orders.

Anything done in his presence is surely to be seen as having been done with his approval.

It doesn't matter if he ordered it or not.

If he doesn't denounce it on the spot, and punish the person responsible, he has given it his tacit approval.

"With great power comes great responsibility." ;)

[Konradsmith]

The showrunners have said that they don't think Stannis is a fanatic though. And they said that again in the new inside the episode which for some reason has given rise to renwed StanStan complaints.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Ran. Seriously, At this point of the story Edric is an "infidel" and Stannis struggles half a book about sacrifice him or not to get himself a DRAGON. Three leehes need to work to make him doubt. And he is just one single boy.

At this point of TV show he burns people just for being infidels and for not any particular magic "benefit". Big difference.

Im lovinf your debate with Nyrhex. Both excellent posters.

[Jasta11]

The showrunners have said that they don't think Stannis is a fanatic though. And they said that again in the new inside the episode which for some reason has given rise to renwed StanStan complaints.

Well, from my experience that's not working. As soon as people hear ''infidel'' their thoughts immediately go towards religious fanatism.

[Konradsmith]

Mel and Selyse reacted to the burning ecstatically. Stan reacted with a scowl. I think that separates the goats from the sheep more surely than his using the word "infidel" once. After Davos questioned his use of the word he didn't defend it either, he immediately jumped to political justifications. Stannis is going through the motions, which is a change in itself, but still, not as monumental a one as you all are making it seem to be. He's not Savonarola.

[A Man Has Said]

The showrunners have said that they don't think Stannis is a fanatic though. And they said that again in the new inside the episode which for some reason has given rise to renewed StanStan complaints.

I'm still catching up on the thread, but my impression is that the OP title IS deceptive.

It's not about a balanced view.

It's not even about Show Stannis being different from Book Stannis.

It's about Show Stannis being different from the "King's Men" view of Stannis,

Which is nowhere close to Book Stannis, IMnsHO.

They've created this "Stannis the Mannis" Great Hero image, more from reading each other's posts and comments than from reading the character as written by GRRM.

The fact that Show Stannis doesn't follow that mold is simply a function of the fact that D&D aren't members of their club.

As to the issue of Stannis' fanaticism, that's a simple enough issue to deal with.

Later in ADwD, Stannis does become far more fanatically devoted to R'hllor.

He won't let the Wildlings through the wall into the gift unless they perform a symbolic act of conversion,

burning weirwood branches.

When he burns some men (for cannibalism) during the snowbound trek to Winterfell,

there is a clear implication that he is doing it as a sacrifice, and hoping that R'hllor will change his fortunes.

So D&D are doing something they've already done many times in the series,

which is to present things in an order differently than they appear in the books.

I think the quote goes something like, "We're doing the show in chronological order, not bookalogical."

[Señor de la Tormenta]

I'm still catching up on the thread, but my impression is that the OP title IS deceptive.

It's not about a balanced view.

It's not even about Show Stannis being different from Book Stannis.

It's about Show Stannis being different from the "King's Men" view of Stannis,

Which is nowhere close to Book Stannis, IMnsHO.

They've created this "Stannis the Mannis" Great Hero image, more from reading each other's posts and comments than from reading the character as written by GRRM.

The fact that Show Stannis doesn't follow that mold is simply a function of the fact that D&D aren't members of their club.

As to the issue of Stannis' fanaticism, that's a simple enough issue to deal with.

Later in ADwD, Stannis does become far more fanatically devoted to R'hllor.

He won't let the Wildlings through the wall into the gift unless they perform a symbolic act of conversion,

burning weirwood branches.

When he burns some men (for cannibalism) during the snowbound trek to Winterfell,

there is a clear implication that he is doing it as a sacrifice, and hoping that R'hllor will change his fortunes.

So D&D are doing something they've already done many times in the series,

which is to present things in an order differently than they appear in the books.

I think the quote goes something like, "We're doing the show in chronological order, not bookalogical."

Yours is a beasided post. ADOD Stannis book is as less Rhlorrian as he could ever be. He doesnt allow burnings. "half of my army is made of unbelivers" "pray harder". The "Cannibals" he lets burn has more to do with helping the morale of his southern knight than any other magical intention.

He refuses several times to burn Asha. And he is even seamingly likely to behead Theon against a Weirtree insted of burning him.

[Thelastactionhero]

Mel and Selyse reacted to the burning ecstatically. Stan reacted with a scowl. I think that separates the goats from the sheep more surely than his using the word "infidel" once. After Davos questioned his use of the word he didn't defend it either, he immediately jumped to political justifications. Stannis is going through the motions, which is a change in itself, but still, not as monumental a one as you all are making it seem to be. He's not Savonarola.

I'm so tired of hearing that Stephen Dillane's facial expressions are somehow a consolation for how badly he's being portrayed. He's still burning an innocent without a just cause, something that feels completely out of character, even for Show Stannis (we just spent an entire season of him agonizingly contemplating whether or not to sacrifice one innocent life for utilitarian ends, even if it was less compelling than Edric's original storyline). Even you don't like the character, (there are plenty of reasons not to like Stannis) don't you think that giving him compelling reasons for committing these brutal acts makes for a more interesting story arc? Religious fanaticism is a hell of a lot less interesting to me than his cold pragmatism, unyielding resolve, and adherence to duty. Unlike his book counterpart, however, Stannis hasn't made the shift he's supposed to during this arc where he gets his mojo back and remembers what duty truly is. He does questionable things in the series, no doubts there, but come'on, the man has agency, and he's certainly not Mel's lapdog, which is why this is all so disappointing. And yet time and time again we get treated like crazy people for taking issue with D&D's interpretation.