A Balanced Review of Show Stannis [Book Spoilers]

[Konradsmith]

Well its not as though his facial expressions are irrelevant either. How he carries himself while he does something is very important and shows the psychology behind what he's up to. If they wanted him to react differently to it, it would have been in the script or the director would have told him otherwise. So, as Will Graham often says in Hannibal, "it is by design" that Stan looks as pissed off/reluctant as he does.

[A Man Has Said]

The insistence on his "obsession with his birthright" isn't great either. Stannis is obsessed with a lot more than just taking the throne, why single out this in every second interview?

I don't mean to quibble over such a small point, but the word birthright is just wrong.

Stannis claims to have inherited the right to the Iron Throne from his brother Robert.

But Robert wasn't king when Stannis was born, so you can't really call it a birthright.

In fact, when Robert became king, he had no real right to it, though Ned seems to have thought his claim was better than any of the other participants in Robert's Rebellion; Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully, and Ned himself.

[Nyrhex]

Well its not as though his facial expressions are irrelevant either. How he carries himself while he does something is very important and shows the psychology behind what he's up to. If they wanted him to react differently to it, it would have been in the script or the director would have told him otherwise. So as Will Graham says in Hannibal, "it is by design" that Stan looks as pissed off/reluctant as he does.

No, they are not irrelevent. They are simply not good enough. When you compare Stannis in the books not being happy and comfortable with converting by himself, and the notion that he has to kill a single innocent boy in order to save all life on the planet agonises him half a book, with show Stannis not being overly fond of burning innocent men becuase they are infidels, it's not bloody close to good enough.

His facial expressions just don't cut it. Instead of having the person who is literally asked if he would rather one innocent die to save the world, we have an asshole that burns innocents for no fucking reason other than them defying his religious oppression. A religious oppression that serves no pragmatic goal. They already brought him men. Most of them died. Thier ships burnt for him. He has no other sources of income, other than what Saan can bring from "taxing" merchant ships. And Saan does'nt give a rat's ass over Stannis' religion, nor is Stannis trying to convert him to keep him closer. In fact Saan, Stannis' only remaining fleet, is sickened with how Stannis burns innocents. How is Stannis going to keep what little he has with the burnings? They are doing the exact opposite of establishing his rule. Saan can just up and go at any moment.

Instead of choosing fire as execution when the person is already dead either way, and it may actually help the cause of saving the world, Florent is burning for not converting. As a fan, seeing your favourite character being shown as a bad guy sucks. The attempt to claim that show Stannis is not that different, and actually very close or even spot on with Book Stannis, is salt in the wound. It would be like that for any fan, seeing his favourite portrayed differently by fans of other characters. And D&D are fans. Fans with the rights, and not much holding them from altering the story according to how they see things were, or should have been, in the books. Some characters are white-washed, some are practically screaming "I'M EVIL" at the watchers. In GRRM's books most of the characters are some sort of grey. In the TV show it's D&D's version of who should be darker, and who should be brighter, and how to play with the source material so the ones they want look worse or better.

[Thelastactionhero]

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."

This is pretty laughable. Would you mind if I poke a few holes in your logic? Firstly, while there are definitely fans of the character who have a super-imposed image that doesn't match up to the text, I am not one of them, and dismissing the arguments of anyone who views the character as a protagonist on the grounds that "Stannis the anti-hero" is simply a big conspiracy devised by a club of internet forum nerds is pretty ludicrous.

Your argument here seems based around the assumption that Stannis develops into a fanatic later in the series. While this is a poor aesthetic justification for rushing the process in such an uncompelling manner, even if it were true, I have to strongly disagree with your assessment of his arc in aDwD. As I mentioned before, Stannis doesn't try and force the Northerners who join his army to convert to Rhillor. In fact, at this point in the story he actually seems to be quite tolerant of their beliefs, despite his burning of the cannibals, an act which I think functioned as both military execution and religious gesture in equal measure. If you remember from the Winds of Winter sample chapters, Asha actually urges Stannis to execute Theon in the traditional Northern fashion rather than give him to the flames. The fact that he is clearly entertaining this course of action doesn't really seem to indicate a growing sense of fanaticism, as you wrongly suggest. In fact, I think the fall out from that scene is likely to be the deciding moment for Stannis. You're right to say that his relationship with Rhillor is dynamic though, and that he isn't a strictly pragmatic atheist, but he certainly doesn't burn any innocent people simply for being "infidels" in the text. Whatever you think of the character, I don't see why we shouldn't be critical of a storyline that is clearly being cheapened by changing the context of events in such a way that present him in an overwhelming negative light, rather than one that is dark, but morally gray. There are plenty of reasons to hate Stan the Man, so please have at it. Regardless, the reason that we're all so pumped on Martin's work is because he has the ability to develop intriguing figures that are morally ambiguous, and I think something was clearly lost in translation from book to the television screen. I don't expect Stannis the Ubermensh to appear from the sky killing all his foes with a magic sword, but I do expect the cold, unyielding, morally conflicted figure I found so interesting to appear, and he just simply hasn't. And now I doubt he ever will.

Also, since we're speaking of aDwD, there's a reason why Jon Snow calls Stannis "the king who still cared", and its not something readers should overlook. Jon, while being critical of Stannis, sees the good in him and his cause, even if he is sceptical of the Lord of Light buisness. The reason so many of us find Stannis compelling is because he grudgingly does the right thing when it counts at the Wall, and its something that Jon comes to understand too as they develop this respect for one another. It's a primary reason I feel Stan is being set up as a tragic hero of sorts, rather than as a big bad. Even this arc is a bit tainted now though, because Stannis is headed north solely for religious reasons, since his adherence to duty has been completely thrown to the wind. I mean seriously, even if some fans go overboard deifying him, it's more than clear that Stannis in the show lacks a good deal of autonomy. I really don't see what's so terrible about criticizing an arc that lacks the poignant nuiance of the books, especially when aesthetic changes to narrative, such as what we witnessed on sunday night, feel unneccessary, and do little more than simplify his moral complexity.

[A Man Has Said]

This is pretty laughable. Would you mind if I poke a few holes in your logic? Firstly, while there are definitely fans of the character who have a super-imposed image that doesn't match up to the text, I am not one of them, and dismissing the arguments of anyone who views the character as a protagonist on the grounds that "Stannis the anti-hero" is simply a big conspiracy devised by a club of internet forum nerds is pretty ludicrous.

Your argument here seems based around the assumption that Stannis develops into a fanatic later in the series. While this is a poor aesthetic justification for rushing the process in such an uncompelling manner, even if it were true, I have to strongly disagree with your assessment of his arc in aDwD. As I mentioned before, Stannis doesn't try and force the Northerners who join his army to convert to Rhillor. In fact, at this point in the story he actually seems to be quite tolerant of their beliefs, despite his burning of the cannibals, an act which I think functioned as both military execution and religious gesture in equal measure. If you remember from the Winds of Winter sample chapters, Asha actually urges Stannis to execute Theon in the traditional Northern fashion rather than give him to the flames. The fact that he is clearly entertaining this course of action doesn't really seem to indicate a growing sense of fanaticism, as you wrongly suggest. In fact, I think the fall out from that scene is likely to be the deciding moment for Stannis. You're right to say that his relationship with Rhillor is dynamic though, and that he isn't a strictly pragmatic atheist, but he certainly doesn't burn any innocent people simply for being "infidels" in the text. Whatever you think of the character, I don't see why we shouldn't be critical of a storyline that is clearly being cheapened by changing the context of events in such a way that present him in an overwhelming negative light, rather than one that is dark, but morally gray. There are plenty of reasons to hate Stan the Man, so please have at it. Regardless, the reason that we're all so pumped on Martin's work is because he has the ability to develop intriguing figures that are morally ambiguous, and I think something was clearly lost in translation from book to the television screen. I don't expect Stannis the Ubermensh to appear from the sky killing all his foes with a magic sword, but I do expect the cold, unyielding, morally conflicted figure I found so interesting to appear, and he just simply hasn't. And now I doubt he ever will.

Also, since we're speaking of aDwD, there's a reason why Jon Snow calls Stannis "the king who still cared", and its not something readers should overlook. Jon, while being critical of Stannis, sees the good in him and his cause, even if he is sceptical of the Lord of Light buisness. The reason so many of us find Stannis compelling is because he grudgingly does the right thing when it counts at the Wall, and its something that Jon comes to understand too as they develop this respect for one another. It's a primary reason I feel Stan is being set up as a tragic hero of sorts, rather than as a big bad. Even this arc is a bit tainted now though, because Stannis is headed north solely for religious reasons, since his adherence to duty has been completely thrown to the wind. I mean seriously, even if some fans go overboard deifying him, it's more than clear that Stannis in the show lacks a good deal of autonomy. I really don't see what's so terrible about criticizing an arc that lacks the poignant nuiance of the books, especially when aesthetic changes to narrative, such as what we witnessed on sunday night, feel unneccessary, and do little more than simplify his moral complexity.

I'm sorry if you feel that my logic is 'laughable,' but I AM in the middle of another re-read, and am perhaps at the point in the books where Stan gets quite a few negative perceptions from various points of view. (about a fifth of the way through ASoS - Davos is still in the dungeon at Dragonstone)

You can quibble all you want about his motivations, but the RESULTS of his actions are almost entirely negative. Review the Catelyn chapters in ACoK and ASoS, she clearly feels that Stannis, whether his intent was villainous or not, has totally shit on the fortunes of Houses Stark and Tully by killing Renly. Renly, with the full support of The Reach and the Stormlands, had a very good chance of winning at King's Landing. Stan had none, because he alienated the Tyrells, who had the most powerful army in the Seven Kingdoms. What he did gain at Storm's End he squandered at Blackwater.

What difference does it make if he burned the Florent (or which Florent) for being an infidel or for treason? In my opinion, it WASN'T treason, because after losing at BW Stannis could no longer consider himself to be king. The Florent recognized that political reality, so burning him was just Stan playing 'sore loser' in the worst possible way. That's looking at how it goes down in the book. A non-king burning someone for treason is not justice, it's murder. How much worse is the show portrayal than that? Not much, IMO.

"..there are definitely fans of the character who have a super-imposed image that doesn't match up to the text, I am not one of them."

Did I say or even imply that you were?

Was my comment directed at any individual in particular? No.

"..his burning of the cannibals, an act which I think functioned as both military execution and religious gesture in equal measure."

Which is exactly how I characterized it, so what's your point?

Are you objecting to my perception that human sacrifice is fanatical?

I kind of thought that was non-controversial, a given.

"Asha actually urges Stannis to execute Theon in the traditional Northern fashion rather than give him to the flames. The fact that he is clearly entertaining this course of action doesn't really seem to indicate a growing sense of fanaticism, as you wrongly suggest."

First off, I never mentioned Theon's impending execution,

(which might have been put in spoiler tags? It's from the WoW sample chapter, isn't it?) - I'll respond anyway.

We have no idea what Stan's decision in this matter is going to be. I don't think the fact that he's 'entertaining' a certain course of action is very compelling evidence one way or another. I'd say that pokes a huge hole in your 'logic.'

"..he grudgingly does the right thing when it counts"

I think this is where the GRRM statement "He is, in spite of everything, a righteous man." comes into the light.

The one time that Stannis does the right thing (prior to his setting out to rescue "Arya") is among the most morally ambiguous moments in his story arc. IOW, while he admits that he must protect the kingdom to become the king, it's clear to me at least that his goal is still primarily becoming king, and protecting the kingdom is now seen by him as his new path to that goal. YMMV.

I agree with more of what you said (underlined in the quotes block) than I disagree with, especially about portraying the character with nuance and complexity. But my initial point was that many people on this forum strip him of that by whitewashing his every deed, FAR worse than anything D&D have done in the other direction.

As for poking holes in my logic, I think you failed at that, primarily because instead of addressing what I said, you addressed sections of the book I'd never even mentioned.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

I'm sorry if you feel that my logic is 'laughable,' but I AM in the middle of another re-read, and am perhaps at the point in the books where Stan gets quite a few negative perceptions from various points of view. (about a fifth of the way through ASoS - Davos is still in the dungeon at Dragonstone)

You can quibble all you want about his motivations, but the RESULTS of his actions are almost entirely negative. Review the Catelyn chapters in ACoK and ASoS, she clearly feels that Stannis, whether his intent was villainous or not, has totally shit on the fortunes of Houses Stark and Tully by killing Renly. Renly, with the full support of The Reach and the Stormlands, had a very good chance of winning at King's Landing. Stan had none, because he alienated the Tyrells, who had the most powerful army in the Seven Kingdoms. What he did gain at Storm's End he squandered at Blackwater.

What difference does it make if he burned the Florent (or which Florent) for being an infidel or for treason? In my opinion, it WASN'T treason, because after losing at BW Stannis could no longer consider himself to be king. The Florent recognized that political reality, so burning him was just Stan playing 'sore loser' in the worst possible way. That's looking at how it goes down in the book. A non-king burning someone for treason is not justice, it's murder. How much worse is the show portrayal than that? Not much, IMO.

"..there are definitely fans of the character who have a super-imposed image that doesn't match up to the text, I am not one of them."

Did I say or even imply that you were?

Was my comment directed at any individual in particular? No.

"..his burning of the cannibals, an act which I think functioned as both military execution and religious gesture in equal measure."

Which is exactly how I characterized it, so what's your point?

Are you objecting to my perception that human sacrifice is fanatical?

I kind of thought that was non-controversial, a given.

"Asha actually urges Stannis to execute Theon in the traditional Northern fashion rather than give him to the flames. The fact that he is clearly entertaining this course of action doesn't really seem to indicate a growing sense of fanaticism, as you wrongly suggest."

First off, I never mentioned Theon's impending execution,

(which might have been put in spoiler tags? It's from the WoW sample chapter, isn't it?) - I'll respond anyway.

We have no idea what Stan's decision in this matter is going to be. I don't think the fact that he's 'entertaining' a certain course of action is very compelling evidence one way or another. I'd say that pokes a huge hole in your 'logic.'

"..he grudgingly does the right thing when it counts"

I think this is where the GRRM statement "He is, in spite of everything, a righteous man." comes into the light.

The one time that Stannis does the right thing (prior to his setting out to rescue "Arya") is among the most morally ambiguous moments in his story arc. IOW, while he admits that he must protect the kingdom to become the king, it's clear to me at least that his goal is still primarily becoming king, and protecting the kingdom is now seen by him as his new path to that goal. YMMV.

I agree with more of what you said (underlined in the quotes block) than I disagree with, especially about portraying the character with nuance and complexity. But my initial point was that many people on this forum strip him of that by whitewashing his every deed, FAR worse than anything D&D have done in the other direction.

As for poking holes in my logic, I think you failed at that, primarily because instead of addressing what I said, you addressed sections of the book I'd never even mentioned.

Are you kiddin? Alister does this at Stannis backs puting brightwaters (his keep given to Garlan Tyrell) on the table. He offers Shireen to marry Tommen, at Stannis backs. Everything the girl inherits from him ends for the Lannisters, so everything Stannis gets from the deal goes to the Lions...a poisoned gift, were they lose nothing else than Black Waters.

Remember. His main goal is to get back his keep.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

The word "Infidel" is the key here.

This was just as bad as Catelyn saying "It should've been you", Asha using the word "Cunt".

This type of things totally against their book counterparts, which are always better than D&D's fanfiction characters.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before Stan the Man joined this "balanced thread". Did he read any of my defences of the scene as written? Or anyone else's? Most importantly, Ran's posts because he may actually know Stannis's fate because of certain TWOW chapters that would have been in ADWD. Did he not hear the brilliant Stan quips: "A good deal more than you." "I hate good many things but I suffer them all the same." "Of course I remember." It was a good scene goddamnit!

So? Even if he knows then what? That doesn't change it one thing. D&D apologists are trying to milk the "decent" portrayal.

Those all quips will be forgotten since it came from Osama. The infidel word is just horrendous and that too from Stannis. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[FNF]

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.

I disagree with pretty much everything you have posted here but THIS especially sticks out as completely silly. You can pick out piles of quotes in the book, even from opposing characters, which add to his 'badassery'- emphasising his most appealing traits such as his unyielding attitude and righteousness. I'm not going to pick them out because you can personally find them no problem at all. The claim that this is some sort of fabricated persona is unfounded and the quotes provided by GRRM in interviews and the books can easily be viewed as painting Stannis as a somewhat heroic figure.

[Konradsmith]

Well Stan, if you are inclined to judge a four minute scene by a single word, then that's fine. Just remember that the thread is supposed to be balanced. Is it balanced to judge a scene by a word? I've said my piece and I'll take my leave.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

Well Stan, if you are inclined to judge a four minute scene by a single word, then that's fine. Just remember that the thread is supposed to be balanced. Is it balanced to judge a scene by a word? I've said my piece and I'll take my leave.

What if that is the first word? No matter how great is Stephen in portrayal of Stannis, the writing leaves much to be desired.

Infidel is the word we get introduced to by Stannis. From the onset of this season we get that Stannis is a religious nutjob created by D&D's fanfiction writing.

No matter what he says next is more or less irrelevant from most people's perspective, because they have got the idea that he is Westeros' Osama.

[Thelastactionhero]

I'm sorry if you feel that my logic is 'laughable,' but I AM in the middle of another re-read, and am perhaps at the point in the books where Stan gets quite a few negative perceptions from various points of view. (about a fifth of the way through ASoS - Davos is still in the dungeon at Dragonstone)

You can quibble all you want about his motivations, but the RESULTS of his actions are almost entirely negative. Review the Catelyn chapters in ACoK and ASoS, she clearly feels that Stannis, whether his intent was villainous or not, has totally shit on the fortunes of Houses Stark and Tully by killing Renly. Renly, with the full support of The Reach and the Stormlands, had a very good chance of winning at King's Landing. Stan had none, because he alienated the Tyrells, who had the most powerful army in the Seven Kingdoms. What he did gain at Storm's End he squandered at Blackwater.

What difference does it make if he burned the Florent (or which Florent) for being an infidel or for treason? In my opinion, it WASN'T treason, because after losing at BW Stannis could no longer consider himself to be king. The Florent recognized that political reality, so burning him was just Stan playing 'sore loser' in the worst possible way. That's looking at how it goes down in the book. A non-king burning someone for treason is not justice, it's murder. How much worse is the show portrayal than that? Not much, IMO.

"..there are definitely fans of the character who have a super-imposed image that doesn't match up to the text, I am not one of them."

Did I say or even imply that you were?

Was my comment directed at any individual in particular? No.

"..his burning of the cannibals, an act which I think functioned as both military execution and religious gesture in equal measure."

Which is exactly how I characterized it, so what's your point?

Are you objecting to my perception that human sacrifice is fanatical?

I kind of thought that was non-controversial, a given.

"Asha actually urges Stannis to execute Theon in the traditional Northern fashion rather than give him to the flames. The fact that he is clearly entertaining this course of action doesn't really seem to indicate a growing sense of fanaticism, as you wrongly suggest."

First off, I never mentioned Theon's impending execution,

(which might have been put in spoiler tags? It's from the WoW sample chapter, isn't it?) - I'll respond anyway.

We have no idea what Stan's decision in this matter is going to be. I don't think the fact that he's 'entertaining' a certain course of action is very compelling evidence one way or another. I'd say that pokes a huge hole in your 'logic.'

"..he grudgingly does the right thing when it counts"

I think this is where the GRRM statement "He is, in spite of everything, a righteous man." comes into the light.

The one time that Stannis does the right thing (prior to his setting out to rescue "Arya") is among the most morally ambiguous moments in his story arc. IOW, while he admits that he must protect the kingdom to become the king, it's clear to me at least that his goal is still primarily becoming king, and protecting the kingdom is now seen by him as his new path to that goal. YMMV.

I agree with more of what you said (underlined in the quotes block) than I disagree with, especially about portraying the character with nuance and complexity. But my initial point was that many people on this forum strip him of that by whitewashing his every deed, FAR worse than anything D&D have done in the other direction.

As for poking holes in my logic, I think you failed at that, primarily because instead of addressing what I said, you addressed sections of the book I'd never even mentioned.

I can admit I was being defensive, but seeing as your first point was that this thread has nothing to do with a balanced, or at the very least, adequate critique of Show Stannis in comparison to his book counterpart, I think I had good reason. I am the OP after all, and I really did intend to facilitate some good discussion here. There's a lot of good posts scattered throughout this thread that use textual examples to support why a lot of us are dissatisfied and satisfied with D&D's interpretation, so saying that this is just a place for King's Men to whine about how they didn't get to see their non-existent super hero on the television screen is a bit dickish. That being said, you've made some interesting points, even if I don't buy your reading of the character.

Let's talk Alester though. Now, I can freely admit, having read Davos' POV a few times, that he's intended to have sympathetic qualities. It doesn't really justify him going behind Stannis' back with peace terms, those of which include selling off his only daughter so that he can get Brightwater Keep back, but still, Alester is far from evil, and we're meant to feel bad for him when we find out he's gonna get burned to death. The reason that context matters here, is because burning him for religious reasons, rather than a pretty serious treason, completely changes Stannis' ideology. Burning weirwood trees and not allowing Wildings to through the Wall unless they swear fealty are not equivalent to burning innocents arbitrarily, especially when there is no utilitarian gain to be had. This doesn't even synch up with how Stannis was portrayed last season. Yeah, he doesn't agonize over Gendry's death as much as Edric due to the different nature of their relationship, but he's still visibly distraught over it. It's jarring that the man who just a few episodes ago struggled with sacrificing an innocent to save "all the boys and girls of Westeros" from the night that never ends is now burning people for very arbitrary reasons, and I really don't think there's a good aesthetic justification for it. Let's take the main one you offered though, which was that Stannis becomes a zealot later so they're just rushing things along.

We'll assume for a moment that you're right. Stannis is going to end up as a villain, or at the very least, a strong believer in Rhillor who is willing to sacrifice innocents willy nilly to appease his new found God (he hasn't yet in the text, but we'll go with it). The reason I don't find this a very cogent justification, is because it's along the same lines as saying that Tyrion should have been treating Shae like shit in Season 2 because he's going strangle her to death at the end of Season 4. If and when he kills her in Tywin's bed, people are going to be emotionally distraught because of how brightly colored their relationship has been up to this point. Seeing Tyrion take a dark turn is going to have long term effects on those who love him, specifically because he's been shown to have so many redeeming qualities throughout the series. How we get somewhere is just as important as when, which is why changing the context here not only changes the entire direction of Stannis' arc, but it makes him more two-dimensional. We're meant as readers to sympathize with Alester, but we also understand why Stannis executes him. The prosperous winds, (which speak to the utilitarian morality that is intrinsic to the character) are another added motivation that makes the act more ambiguous for us as readers. By making Alester (Axel in this case) completely innocent, in conjunction with the use of the word "infidel", Stannis is already colored so dark that even if he does make the full jump to villain, it won't be nearly as surprising or compelling.

Now that being said, I don't think Stannis is being set up to go that way in the books. Doesn't really make sense to me, given the Winds of Winter chapter sample, and Jon Snow's growing enthusiasm for Stannis' cause. I feel like it's more likely he's set up for a more tragic heroic end, but this is really just speculation on both our ends. The fact is though, I don't think that Stannis' arc has been handled with care the last two seasons, and whether or not you like him, I don't think the show has done a good job at giving the viewer reasons to sympathize with him, with the exception of his love for Shireen. There's no amount of bromancing with Davos that's going to wash away this horrendous scene of pointless brutality, and I find it suspect that they'll even give him his due at the Wall based on their assessment of him, but I am open to the possibility that he's being portrayed as darker and more villainous here to make it more shocking when he comes through and starts doing the right thing.

When it comes to the whole Renly-Catelyn arc you mentioned, there's no question that the results of the Baratheon feud didn't bode well for the Starks, (or many people for that matter) but saying that things would have worked out had he supported Renly is as true as saying that things would have been totally fine if Renly had done his duty by Stan the Man. Stannis even laments this in SoS, remorseful for Renly's death, and regretful that they never achieved their great victory together, "one that even Robert would be proud of." There's no question that Stannis' heroism in the latter half of the book is where readers started to look at him as more than just a dark brooding hardass, (Assassinating Penrose was anything but noble) but the reason people were even willing to reassess him as a character is because he didn't senselessly murder innocent people for no reason. This is a tough pill to swallow, doesn't really have a whole lot of aesthetic justification outside of cheapening and simplifying his arc, and I'm still in the dark here for why people are so surprised at the outrage that's come as a result.

[eyeheartsansa]

Stannis is one of my least favorite people in the book, so none of these changes bother me much. From my understanding George actually wrote this episode so apparently he is down with the changes.

Stannis just seems like regular poopypants Stannis to me, honestly. I like the idea of him destroying books, a precious, irreplaceable resource, to make stew during the siege.

[Van West]

Stannis is one of my least favorite people in the book, so none of these changes bother me much. From my understanding George actually wrote this episode so apparently he is down with the changes.

Stannis just seems like regular poopypants Stannis to me, honestly. I like the idea of him destroying books, a precious, irreplaceable resource, to make stew during the siege.

GRRM didn't write the scene though. Someone else did since it was supposed to be in episode 1.

[Stubby]

[MOD]

Let's keep personal attacks out of the discussion please.

[/MOD]

[Konradsmith]

^Was my (formerly) above comment deleted and considered a personal attack? I assure you it wasn't intended as such.

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

What if that is the first word? No matter how great is Stephen in portrayal of Stannis, the writing leaves much to be desired.

Infidel is the word we get introduced to by Stannis. From the onset of this season we get that Stannis is a religious nutjob created by D&D's fanfiction writing.

No matter what he says next is more or less irrelevant from most people's perspective, because they have got the idea that he is Westeros' Osama.

In most parts of the world the word infidel does not equate with Osama. The only place I have seen such a link made is on these boards by Stannis fans who would have decried any word used.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

In most parts of the world the word infidel does not equate with Osama. The only place I have seen such a link made is on these boards by Stannis fans who would have decried any word used.

Yeah well "Infidel" from where i come from is a very very strong word to use.

[Stubby]

^Was my (formerly) above comment deleted and considered a personal attack? I assure you it wasn't intended as such.

No.

It was deleted as it was related to the personal attack in the interests of removing the entire derail effort.

[Van West]

The worst part is that I actually want Book! Stannis to be king.

But I can't in good consciousness actually root for TV! Stannis.

He's shown that he would burn someone for not taking their religious idols down.

Now imagine what'd he do if he got the Iron Throne.

So many good people will be burned at the stake for not converting.

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

Yeah well "Infidel" from where i come from is a very very strong word to use.

Oh I get that totally. Extrapolating that to everyone is something that should be done with caution.

For me the scene was pointless. It added nothing. Unsullied I have spoken to have said similar but did say "He just did it to appease the Red Woman and his wife" and are focused more on the "I suffer them just the same" line and Davos's "I am sure they are much happier" line. I feel that they are are setting Stannis up for a redemption at the end of the season but they are creating problems for themselves.