A Balanced Review of Show Stannis [Book Spoilers]

[Nyrhex]

The Inside the Episode piece (got it linked at our <a href="http://www.westeros.org/GoT/Episodes/Entry/The_Lion_and_TheRose">episode guide</a> in the Extras section) which I think others have referenced seems to make it pretty plain that "full Melisandre" is not the same as "full fanatic". He's throwing his lot with her, and so the burning and so on seems to be, to some extent, for her benefit in regards to his relationship with her; he needs her support, and will do anything to keep it. But he's not genuinely interested in the religious thing. He's very pragmatic in that respect, which is, frankly, pretty much exactly how he is in the novels.

If he needs to burn a few people to win his crown and defend the realms of men, he'll do it.

You are missing context and tone.

Unlike the books, we have no context to show how this burning goes along with saving the world. Stannis burns people for no other reason than not converting. The show does not explain how that helps him to save the world. Hell, it does not even show that it helps him get the crown. He does it simply because Mel told him and he takes her at her word. Logically, he is wasting men and getting even further from the crown, but he trusts Mel 100%. That has never been the case in the books, as even when he is moments from making a decision to burn Edric, he orders Mel to swear on her life that it will work or she would die by inches. He has doubts every step of the way. In the show he is more of "meh" about killing people who have done no wrong, because Mel told him to do it.

That is the opposite of the books, where Stannis considers burning an innocent only if he has proof that it will save the world. The other burnings are of people who are already going to die, and the burnings are simply one of the types of executions we see Stannis contemplating/using (together with hanging and decapitation). They don't replace the others, as we see in the Theon gift chapter how Stannis is willing to give a clean death to the Karstarks if they confess. Completely different from burning infidels who refuse to convert.

I agree that Stannis would sacrefice one, or a few people, to save the world. He knows full well that he is one of those people, as he tells Davos that he knows the cost after seeing a vision of a king consumed by his own crown. The point is that in the show Stannis did not tell Davos about his vision, nor is he telling us that the burnings are to save the world. It's because the guy was an infidel.

The context and tone of the burnings depitct Stannis in a totally different light.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

The Inside the Episode piece (got it linked at our <a href="http://www.westeros.org/GoT/Episodes/Entry/The_Lion_and_TheRose">episode guide</a> in the Extras section) which I think others have referenced seems to make it pretty plain that "full Melisandre" is not the same as "full fanatic". He's throwing his lot with her, and so the burning and so on seems to be, to some extent, for her benefit in regards to his relationship with her; he needs her support, and will do anything to keep it. But he's not genuinely interested in the religious thing. He's very pragmatic in that respect, which is, frankly, pretty much exactly how he is in the novels.

If he needs to burn a few people to win his crown and defend the realms of men, he'll do it.

So he just jumps from strugling between killing or not Gendry to get himself a DRAGON to burning Shireens uncle with no other porpouse than to make the Red W happy? This doesnt even make sense in D&D already twisted logic.

And Im not even bringing up book Stannis who refuses to burn Edric through half a book with two leeaches already working. Big difference between "Robb Stark was killed by his bannermen" "get of me woman" "he got you there, two is not three"....mocks to Alex, Selyse and even Mel, against mr happy trigger who wants to burn Gendry from day one.

[Thelastactionhero]

I have read the books but apparently you have not.

“You will not hear me scream,” Mirri responded as the oil dripped from her hair and soaked her clothing.

“I will,” Dany said, “but it is not your screams I want, only your life. I remember what you told me. Only death can pay for life.”

Lol. So firstly, even though if you don't Dany was burning her, at least in part, out of revenge for the death of her husband and unborn child, then you just weren't paying attention. It's the reason she chooses Mirri for the ritual rather than any other random person. Secondly, since you find Dany's burning of Mirri acceptable on the grounds that it's "blood magic" for a specific goal, it might be wise of you to consider that Stannis, the "monster" as you call him, burns Alester to ensure prosperous winds so that they can reach the Wall in time to save the Watch from the Others. To be frank, while burning Alester isn't a righteous act, Stannis' intentions are actually a bit more noble here than Dany's all in all, considering the lives at stake. But yeah, context does matter when you're assessing a character's actions. How would viewers have felt if Dany simply burned Mirri without a proper precedent on the show? These ludicrous rationalizations for the show are starting to get old, especially when they dissolve into the sort of drivel that you're posting.

[averde]

I sincerely believe that the showrunners realize that would be a fatal blow in the eyes of all Stannis fans and those who defended the decisions made in the show would join the riot. In other words - that would be the dumbest decision possible and would show their absolute lack of respect for the character, source material and fans, so I hope it's not gonna happen.

I also agree it would be a final straw of sorts for many book readers who watch the show and have supported the tv guys creation of Stannis so far. My last straw was the whole infidel thing this season so my hopes aren't high. It just seems like all the pieces are in place for Stannis to be a bad guy at the battle for the wall. A great many Wildlings have been introduced and are pretty sympathetic, as someone else pointed out through a video it's clear Jon kills the "bad" Wildlings Thenns.

[averde]

I remain hopeful because of Stannis mentioning how he suffers the things he hates and the inclusion of his care for Shireen. Why do that if they wanted to make him the villain at the Wall?

Every season I never give up hope for a better written Stannis, and I actually think the actors really good for the the role. I just felt that after viewing Stannis burning an infidel and what not it makes him seem like an even more horrible human being that he loves his daughter because we know he has human feelings. It's like when historians talk about Hitler love of dogs.

Like I said though I hope I'm wrong and show Stannis is headed towards a redemption and I'll love it, I just want to point out the evidence that is leaning towards that not happening.

[Mr Fixit]

Like I said though I hope I'm wrong and show Stannis is headed towards a redemption and I'll love it, I just want to point out the evidence that is leaning towards that not happening.

Well, there is that Bryan Cogman interview? tweet? something, where he he implies that Stannis is being shown in such an unfavourable light to make a starker contrast with his later story.

[Bronn Urgandy]

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.

Wrong! His claim didnt die at BW. Anyway, execution for treason offers us sympathy for both parties, this scene takes away our choice completely. Poor innocent Axell :(

Can one of the complainers please explain to me why it is more acceptable to burn someone at the stake for negotiating a treaty with your enemies without permission than it is to burn a man at the stake for publicly disobeying your orders to take down your religious symbols? Both are acts of treason, both punishable by death, except one is the way it happened in your gospel and the other isn't. Its all a matter of perception.

What if I put it this way: Stannis burnt a man alive even though his intentions were to end the war and save all of their lives and even though the deal he sought with the Lannisters was more than fair given their meager position. As opposed to burning a man alive for openly disobeying royal orders and insulting the religion whose god has intervened on their side multiple times and is the only reason they still have a chance of winning the war. See what I mean about perception?

Outraged StanStan: "But it subtly changes the motivation of the character, oh noes!" Oh well, get over it. This has happened to a lot of characters and is inevitable. I think its pretty clear Stannis begrudgingly went through that whole process and the beginning of his break-away from Melisandre to being more independent is already being set up, so relax. If he is still unsympathetic at the end of this season, then you will have a reason to be upset. No one really liked Stannis all that much at this point in the book series anyways.

This has crossed my mind, but on top previous Stannis and all his best lines removed or bastardised, combined with shit like Jorah the little boy sex trafficker angel, you can understand our reservations?

It's because Stannis would never make life-or-death decisions on the basis of people's religious beliefs conforming to his own...

Oh, wait. He makes the wildlings convert if they want to get south of the Wall. Never mind.

Still yet to see that as a religious conversion as opposed to a symbolic act for a violent people.

[Mithras]

Lol. So firstly, even though if you don't Dany was burning her, at least in part, out of revenge for the death of her husband and unborn child, then you just weren't paying attention. It's the reason she chooses Mirri for the ritual rather than any other random person.

She could have just get MMD beheaded or tied to her horse until she dies like the wineseller, if her primary motive was to punish her. I am talking about choosing to burn people alive as a punishment rather than hanging or beheading them. Dany’s primary motive was to work that magic and MMD was the best person she had for the sacrifice. Claiming that she burned her only because of the murder of Drogo and Rhaego is a very misleading idea and it is in obvious conflict with the quote I provided.

Secondly, since you find Dany's burning of Mirri acceptable on the grounds that it's "blood magic" for a specific goal,

Show us where I stated this as "acceptable" before.

it might be wise of you to consider that Stannis, the "monster" as you call him, burns Alester to ensure prosperous winds so that they can reach the Wall in time to save the Watch from the Others.

I thought you and your Stanfan buddies were claiming that Alester was burned because of his treason. I claim that if he burned him primarily for the wind, then he is no different than Dany and if he burned him primarily for his treason, he is no different than Aerys. Note that I am not claiming any of these as acceptable or not. I am just stating the position of Stannis.

And Stannis didn’t save the Watch from the Others.

To be frank, while burning Alester isn't a righteous act, Stannis' intentions are actually a bit more noble here than Dany's all in all, considering the lives at stake.

Are you again claiming that Stannis burned Alester primarily for the wind? Why are Dragons less useful in the fight against the Others than Stannis and his fake sword?

How would viewers have felt if Dany simply burned Mirri without a proper precedent on the show?

This is your idea which I don’t agree. For me, the TV show captures the essence of Stannis very well.

These ludicrous rationalizations for the show are starting to get old, especially when they dissolve into the sort of drivel that you're posting.

No need to make insults, unless you have an argument to make. If majority of the readers and the show makers think of Stannis as a villain, then maybe this Stannis minority should reconsider their opinions about Stannis.

[Frumpus]

Stannis's actions in this episode are in line with his character.

The problem of course is that this situation, him burning his wife's brother for heresy, is exactly the sort of thing to make the audience turn against him. If that's what the writers wanted, then they accomplished it.

[Mr Fixit]

If majority of the readers and the show makers think of Stannis as a villain...

Was there a poll I missed?

[Belisarius09]

I decided to watch HBO's inside the episode to see what they said of this. David Benioff was quite reasonable, and explained Stannis's struggle. He's witnessed Mel's power, he knows she can make a shadow vagina monster. He remains a skeptic but he's fighting to survive and she is an asset. That said he is very annoyed by his wife's fervent fanaticism and he tolerates it. OK. That works for me. David Benioff seems very reasonable in his approach to Stannis.

How about Dan Weiss? Stannis is jumping in with both feet embracing the religion. He is burning those who don't agree with him and embrace the red god, he's casting all bets with Melisandre....

Fuck you Dan.

Here's the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNpyDpWX4CM

[Konradsmith]

^Well they don't seem to be on the same page about him, but then it is only natural to disagree about a character like Stannis.

[Aldi_AA]

If the majority of stannis fans don't like how he's being portrayed on the show they're obviously doing something wrong. The only people I see defending the changes are those who either hate stannis in the books or are indifferent towards him.

[Thelastactionhero]

She could have just get MMD beheaded or tied to her horse until she dies like the wineseller, if her primary motive was to punish her. I am talking about choosing to burn people alive as a punishment rather than hanging or beheading them. Dany’s primary motive was to work that magic and MMD was the best person she had for the sacrifice. Claiming that she burned her only because of the murder of Drogo and Rhaego is a very misleading idea and it is in obvious conflict with the quote I provided.

Show us where I stated this as "acceptable" before.

I thought you and your Stanfan buddies were claiming that Alester was burned because of his treason. I claim that if he burned him primarily for the wind, then he is no different than Dany and if he burned him primarily for his treason, he is no different than Aerys. Note that I am not claiming any of these as acceptable or not. I am just stating the position of Stannis.

And Stannis didn’t save the Watch from the Others.

Are you again claiming that Stannis burned Alester primarily for the wind? Why are Dragons less useful in the fight against the Others than Stannis and his fake sword?

This is your idea which I don’t agree. For me, the TV show captures the essence of Stannis very well.

No need to make insults, unless you have an argument to make. If majority of the readers and the show makers think of Stannis as a villain, then maybe this Stannis minority should reconsider their opinions about Stannis.

I said that Dany chooses to sacrifice Mirri "at least in part" as a form of revenge for the death of her husband and unborn child. Nice of you to overlook my post and then create a strawman out of it. But yeah, we'll go point by point here.

Perhaps you don't find this use of sacrifice "acceptable" but you seemed to have been defending it on the the strange grounds that having this woman burned alive in order to get dragons is somehow less morally egregious than using it as a form of punishment (I'd say it functions as both but whatever). If I misrepresented your position, my bad, but in both the case of Dany and Stannis, there are multiple motivations which drive these burnings. Stannis burns Alester for planning to sell his daughter to the Lannisters (a point you haven't really bothered talking about because it conflicts with your oversimplification of this story arc) and offering peace terms without his leave, thereby gaining back Brightstone Keep and ending the war, but also, as the text tells us, because the sacrifice will ensure prosperous winds, hastening them to the Wall to save the Night's Watch. I don't know why it's so mind boggling for you that human beings are complex and that they can have more than one reason to follow a certain course of action?

And regarding your point that this admiration, or at the very least respect for Book Stannis is confined to a very small vocal minority that conflicts with the vast majority of readers, you wouldn't mind showing us all the statistics would you? I'm certain you've compiled all the data and have a strong evidence to support this claim. It's also very telling that you lumped me and all my "Stan buddies" together into a single entity, with no individual thoughts whatsoever. I've argued from the beginning here that there are multiple reasons for why Stannis burns Alester, and that while it isn't righteous, the book arc is far more compelling and his reasoning is more understandable. This change in context does mean a great deal, as there isn't even a practical gain to be had from this sacrifice and it paints him as a fanatic without any agency. Just because you happen to have this disdain for the character, (based more on your hatred of his fans, rather than the character from the actual text from what it seems) doesn't really make this rather large deviation from the source material aesthetically justifiable. Even if you hate Stannis, there's no doubt that utilitarian ethics are at the core of his character, and stripping him of that in favor of religious fanaticism does nothing but cheapen this arc.

Also, since Stannis is just some stupid villain in your reading, would you mind explaining why George R Martin finds his rescue of the Wall to be a righteous act? You know, the action that defines his character and proves that he is in fact a "righteous man" despite the mistakes he's made along the way? He also points out that Stannis is one of the few characters to fully understand that the real battle is beyond the Wall, which is why when you say Stannis wasn't going north to the fight the Others, it falls upon you to explain this quote:

Stannis pointed north. "There is where I'll find the foe that I was born to fight."

Regarding your point about whether or not Dany's dragons are more "useful" than Stannis and Lightbringer, I spoke about moral intention and utility when I analyzed their different reasons for sacrifice. It's quite possible that Dany and her dragons, (not that it's working out too great for her at the moment) could be the turning point in the battle with the white walkers later on, but the fact is, she sacrificed a woman, (who is portrayed equally as sympathetic as Alester) so she could wake up Dragons for the purpose of conquest. At least in the case of Stannis, whatever you think of him as a person, Alester's death was at least partially motivated by utilitarian motives, since those winds are arguably what made the difference in them reachng Castle Black in time. Still, I think it's important to note that burning people alive is never a good thing, whether its for sacrifice or for punishment as you seem to be fixated on. Fans of the character clearly don't like that he burns people, but I think that your disdain for his fandom has clouded you from seeing that this lack of nuance has cheapened him as a character and over simplified his story arc.

[Metrael]

How do you guys know this scene was not writen by GRRM?
I mean, I totally agree with it since it has nothing to do with book Stannis and looks like just one more of the thousands butchery D&D has done to the character. But where is the proof that this was writen by D&D?

[Aldi_AA]

How do you guys know this scene was not writen by GRRM?

I mean, I totally agree with it since it has nothing to do with book Stannis and looks like just one more of the thousands butchery D&D has done to the character. But where is the proof that this was writen by D&D?

Posted this elsewhere here is why I think so:

Edit: And this is why I think it was written by D&D carice van houten had the script for ep 1 and stannis wasn't in that episode http://instagram.com/p/bOs92fCzIN/

[FNF]

http://instagram.com/p/bOs92fCzIN/

Makes sense.

[Bronn Urgandy]

I decided to watch HBO's inside the episode to see what they said of this. David Benioff was quite reasonable, and explained Stannis's struggle. He's witnessed Mel's power, he knows she can make a shadow vagina monster. He remains a skeptic but he's fighting to survive and she is an asset. That said he is very annoyed by his wife's fervent fanaticism and he tolerates it. OK. That works for me. David Benioff seems very reasonable in his approach to Stannis.

How about Dan Weiss? Stannis is jumping in with both feet embracing the religion. He is burning those who don't agree with him and embrace the red god, he's casting all bets with Melisandre....

Fuck you Dan.

Here's the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNpyDpWX4CM

Weiss has always been the worst of the two, like with the Stannis/Renly parley, as always, Stannis got all the criticisms and Renly (if I recall correctly) got none, it was basically a case of "Oh yeah, Renly thinks he'd make a better King than Stannis, which he undoubtedly would *self satisfied smirk* because of... err, reasons. So he decides to do it" without mentioning the drawbacks, and what a dick move that is, the fact that it helps divide a Kingdom, that Renly is starving a city and laughing about it. No, Renly is totally wonderful of course, and then goes on to point out Stannis' faults, which basically sounded like "well, all he has is a claim, but since we plan on completely hiding the 'justice and law' side of his character from viewers and make him look like a religious lapdog, since we want to put what makes him stand out as a good character worthy of some degree of loyalty more on Daenerys to make her look really awesome, yeah, Stannis is ridiculous and nobody wants him blah blah blah. Obsessed with birthright, wants the Throne, etc."

I get that I am paraphrasing and going a bit overboard, but watching Weiss is like reading the worst criticisms aimed at Stannis, most of which can be efficiently countered, except this guy is supposed to have artistic integrity or something. But hey, I've said in other threads they might just be fooling with us.

But you know those Daenerys fans that can't give Stannis any credit and demonise everything he does, and those Stannis fans that do the reverse, well, sometimes it feels like the show is being run by the former without the latter to balance it out. I get it, I get it, changes maybe necessary, and when they talk they are talking about their show interpretations of the character, but it can be quite an irritation, its like a giant simplifying, taking away the murkier aspects in favour of blacker and whiter alternatives.

This isn't one of the worse ones though, since as mentioned before in this thread, it is a very petty version of what happened to Sunglass and the Rambtons, its just that word innit, 'infidel'.

[Frumpus]

Was there a poll I missed?

How has he not been depicted as a villain so far?

He's 1) had innocent people executed, 2) killed his own brother, 3) stuck rigidly to a lawful alignment that makes him look lawful evil, not lawful good. The only characters from the whole Dragonstone side that anyone's rooting for are Davos and Shireen.

I'm sure D&D want him depicted as a neutral third party that antagonizes everyone else, and that is probably GRRM's intention as well, but the sad fact is that Stannis as he's depicted on the tv show is merely viewed as a minor (not even major) villain. Most of the tv show-only audience will probably be shocked that he gets to live for quite a few more seasons if not the rest of the show's run.

edit: Stannis is a villain now, but the audience will probably root for him once he moves his forces to the north to engage against the Boltons and Freys. So he can have his heel turn moment there assuming they don't deviate too much from the books.

[The Abominable SnowOther]

Last night, while out drinking, an unsullied buddy of mine began talking about the episode and how awesome Joffrey's death was, and eventually I tried steering the converation towards Stannis cuz, you know... he da boss!

Anyway, when i asked him about Stannis he was he like,

"Who? oh, you mean the guy With Melisandre!"

To him, Stannis isnt even a man whose name is worth remembering BUT Mels is, remember, that to many she's simply the "red witch" or "psycho sorceress". That is a big problem NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT!!!!!!

Basically, there are people who believe that the story is Mel's NOT Stannis' :bang: WTF