A Balanced Review of Show Stannis [Book Spoilers]

[Van West]

Again, subtle character differences are going to happen. He has said in the show that the only reason he believes in the Lord of Light is because he has brought him results. That is why he is going along with it, it is still about utility for him. He just believes in the religion more broadly in the show as opposed to believing solely in Mel's abilities. I don't see why this makes a huge difference as to how he is perceived by viewers.

Stannis had the sept and the weirwood at Dragonstone destroyed, Jon was sure he was going to do the same at Winterfell. Stannis wouldn't allow any Widlings through the Wall unless they took the Lord of Light as their god (meaning if they didn't, he would let the Others take them, as they say). Melisandre has made it clear on multiple occasions that her religion is incompatible with those other ones and she is looking to convert everyone she can. There is no reason to think he isn't trying to make it the official religion.

Jesus Christ!

The show had Stannis murder Renly.

Whereas in the books he's unaware he even did it and has nightmares about it.

Show Stannis begs Mel for sex. Can you see Book Stannis doing the same?

Show Stannis goes north because Mel told him to.

And Show Stannis didn't execute Davos because Mel told him to.

Show Stannis has no agency of his own. He is a puppet of Mel. It's not hard to see that. You have to take it all in to figure what they're trying to turn Stannis into.

Hell look how they portrayed Renly in comparison to Stannis. Show Renly is a serious, thoughtful, educated person while Book Renly is a douche with entitlement issues. Also they made it seem like he sincerely respected Brienne when Book Renly mocked Brienne behind her back.

And Book Stannis did that to the Wildlings as a show that they were his men now rather than because he actually cares about converting them for religion's sake.

Jon was sure of that, but he also thought that Mel might try to burn Mance's son. Doesn't mean it's true.

These aren't subtle differences. These are huge.

[Widows_Blood]

Jesus Christ!

The show had Stannis murder Renly.

And he murdered him in the books as well. Whats your point?

Whereas in the books he's unaware he even did it and has nightmares about it.

And Stannis in the show expresses regret for the death of Renly to. 2 X 10

Show Stannis begs Mel for sex. Can you see Book Stannis doing the same?

How do you know this doesn't happen? Stannis or Mel do not have a POV together. We have no actual knowledge what takes place between them. Besides the point is moot, they did sleep together in the books as well. I highly doubt Mel forced him.

Show Stannis goes north because Mel told him to.

Books Stannis goes north because Davos told him to. How does this demonstrate agency?

Hell look how they portrayed Renly in comparison to Stannis. Show Renly is a serious, thoughtful, educated person while Book Renly is a douche with entitlement issues. Also they made it seem like he sincerely respected Brienne when Book Renly mocked Brienne behind her back.

Book Renly was also quick with his tongue. “Renly offered me a peach. At our parley. Mocked me, defied me, threatened me, and offered me a peach. I thought he was drawing a blade and went for mine own. Was that his purpose, to make me show fear? Or was it one of his pointless jests?

And Book Stannis did that to the Wildlings as a show that they were his men now rather than because he actually cares about converting them for religion's sake.

This makes zero sense. He would not let them pass unless they converted which meant death for those that did not. He could have allowed them to keep their god's but swear to keeping the Kings laws. He chose to make conversion a point of emphasis. If he gets the throne, those that follow the seven or old gods will also be his subjects. If "his people" are those that follow LoL, than what will he do to those who reject conversion?

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

Actually (and this may have been brought up in the few days I haven't posted), I realized the burning of Florent is really fucking stupider than I first thought.

How can take down "idols" to lands he can't even reach (and quite possibly doesn't even hold)?

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

Actually (and this may have been brought up in the few days I haven't posted), I realized the burning of Florent is really fucking stupider than I first thought.

How can take down "idols" to lands he can't even reach (and quite possibly doesn't even hold)?

D&D Logic.

[Widows_Blood]

Hell look how they portrayed Renly in comparison to Stannis. Show Renly is a serious, thoughtful, educated person while Book Renly is a douche with entitlement issues. Also they made it seem like he sincerely respected Brienne when Book Renly mocked Brienne behind her back.

I re-quoted this because I find it quite funny and ironic. Didn't notice this the first time I read it. Here you criticize D&D for portraying Renly as "a douche with entitlement issues". In the very next statement you criticize D&D for not making Renly act like a douche to Brienne. Lol wut.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I re-quoted this because I find it quite funny and ironic. Didn't notice this the first time I read it. Here you criticize D&D for portraying Renly as "a douche with entitlement issues". In the very next statement you criticize D&D for not making Renly act like a douche to Brienne. Lol wut.

I think you miss read him. He's saying Book!Renly is a douche with entitlement issues, not that's how D&D portrayed him. His complaint about Renly's treatment of Brienne (not being the douche he is in the books) is consistent with his previous statement.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

D&D Logic.

Stannis, Mel and Renly meet in land.

Melissandre needs Davos to take her to Renly by ship.

D&D logic.

[Nyrhex]

he has doubts but is still willing to make the sacrifices. i'm not clear how so many believe a bit of doubt or even tons and tons of it (which was not the case!) washes away all the ramifications of making a decision like burning someone alive. he isn't sure but he knows he needs to do something and melisandre is offering to provide all sorts of miracles. he is indeed trusting in her in the books and willing to give her what she wants because she says she can deliver.

and he makes the decision to go through with sacrificing his own nephew because of melisandre's words alone. yes, she proves that her leeches can kill someone as far as stannis is concerned but does nothing to prove edric's death can save anything. how does one prove that? in fact, to date, stannis has only seen melisandre's magic kill NOT create a miracle that will wake a stone dragon and save the world thereby allowing him to finally get the throne. stannis agrees to a sacrifice based on the hope that 3 leeches will somehow translate into saving the realm and being crowned. he is going on faith, hope and desperation and is determined to do much and more in his quest.

Then I think you need to re-read Davos IV, V, VI in ASOS.

Stannis sees a vision with his own eyes, of the Fist of the First Men, and is certain that what Mel is saying about a battle for the Dawn, against a cold that never ends, is true. From that vision he agrees to use the leeches that are already filled with Edric's blood because he was sick and was leeched. The three leeches ending up seeming to perform as required prove that Mel's use of King's Blood indeed has the power she claimed to have. The part about a battle for the Dawn Stannis is already sure about from his first vision, which he would later realise was from north of the Wall. The doubts Stannis has are not that a great evil is coming, they are that Stannis is the one that needs to lead the fight against it, and that Mel has the power that she claims to aid him in that. Exactly because those suspicions Stannis still makes Mel swear on her life even after proof-of-concept with the leeches worked.

How can Mel prove that she can creat life? Only death can pay for life, so how can she prove she can bring something to life without killing something else? A sacrifice is never easy, or it is no true sacrifice. If there is no sacrefice, you can't bring something to life. That's the whole point. Stannis knows that there is a great evil coming, he has this option that he can test to a limit without losing anything, but never realy prove that it's 100% guaranteed until it's too late. And he calls it out:

“—is one boy! He may be the best boy who ever drew breath and it would not matter. My duty is to the realm.” His hand swept across the

Painted Table. “How many boys dwell in Westeros? How many girls? How many men, how many women? The darkness will devour them all,

she says. The night that never ends. She talks of prophecies . . . a hero reborn in the sea, living dragons hatched from dead stone . . . she

speaks of signs and swears they point to me. I never asked for this, no more than I asked to be king. Yet dare I disregard her?”

He can't take the chance that she is right and he refuses because to try and prove that it works 100% would potentially risk an innocent. There is simply too much on the line here for playing safe.

Instead of this, the show has Stannis trying to burn Gendry after one king is dead, and then even after he knows what Sam wrote in the letter about the Others coming, Stannis is still sitting on his hands on Dragonstone, burning infidels because they refused to tear down thier idols. It's not even remotely similar to the character in the books, who is faced with the classic "1 life versus the world" question. It does'nt make sense that he knows what he knows and is still on Dragonstone. It does'nt make sense that he would burn infidels. It does'nt make sense that Davos is still alive after Stannis burns others for not converting, and if anything here is unclear, it's how people try to defend D&D's presentation of Stannis with these weak defenses that Stannis is essentially the same thing. No, it's not the same thing. It's a lot less gery, and the watchers are spoon fed that this guy is the asshole that burns people because the red witch told him to do it. He is "obsessed with his birth-right", and will "do anything to get it". Not a fucking word that these actions are aimed at saving the human fucking race from extinction. The whole tone of Stannis' actions is changed from 1 act of evil to save humankind - to a bunch of acts of evil to gain the throne for his own selfish obsession with his birth-right. And even those actions of evil are fucking retarded when you realise that he is on an island, and is not gaining anything from this. It's not even Tywin killing a few at dinner than 10,000 on the field evil, it's just fanatical evil. And Stannis being the religious fanatic or burning people simply because the religious fanatic told him to, are one and the same here.

[Konradsmith]

Senor, Well they were meeting on a coast. They seemed to be moored and waiting on their ships rather than encamped. That's not so implausible, though yes the logistics were a little muddier because they conflated the two shadow baby instances. Generally this speaks more to cinematic or televisual logic than "D and D logic". On TV or in movies you can present things that are logistically vague as long as they flow and make sense while your watching them. D and D aren't to blame for that.

[Van West]

Actually Stannis never ordered Mel to kill Renly in the books. That was Mel's doing. He's oblivious to what happened.

And in 2 x 10 he even chokes Melisandre. lol, villain vibes

We don't but it's not consistent with Book Stannis' character so just use your head.

Er...no. He doesn't go north because Davos told him to. Davos reads the letter and said the horse and cart speech that resonated with Stannis but it was still all Stannis' choice. He chose to pardon Davos and listen to him.

Whereas he's just a puppet of Mel in the books who begrudgingly does what Mel tells him to.

You just quoted a passage that vindicated what I said. Congrats. Yes, we both agree that Book Renly was a douche. Anything else?

Stannis follows the law. There is no law in Westeros that says subjects must be the same religion as the king.

He created a condition for those wildlings to bind them to him. If he really cared about conversion he'd be doing the same with the Northerners. His freaking Hand follows the Seven for God's Sake.

[Van West]

I think you miss read him. He's saying Book!Renly is a douche with entitlement issues, not that's how D&D portrayed him. His complaint about Renly's treatment of Brienne (not being the douche he is in the books) is consistent with his previous statement.

Thank you, ser

[Khal-a-bunga]

D&D Logic.

Yes, because the show has clearly established where Florent is from, and where those 'lands' are. Say it with me: This isn't the books.

Also, whose to say what the time frame for all of this is, and what 'idols' Stannis is talking about? It could have been idols he wore on his person, or idols he kept in his quarters, or on his ship - any number of things.

Stannis, Mel and Renly meet in land.

Melissandre needs Davos to take her to Renly by ship.

D&D logic.

Again, you're the one who seems to have problems with logic. Renly is camped, Stannis and his men are stationed on their ships. They meet on land to parlay, then Stannis returns to his ship with Davos & Melisandre. Since we can see that Mel isn't pregnant during the meet with Renly, we can assume that her and Stannis did the deed, then she was sent with Davos back to shore.

[Van West]

Again, you're the one who seems to have problems with logic. Renly is camped, Stannis and his men are stationed on their ships. They meet on land to parlay, then Stannis returns to his ship with Davos & Melisandre. Since we can see that Mel isn't pregnant during the meet with Renly, we can assume that her and Stannis did the deed, then she was sent with Davos back to shore.

Actually in the show they did the deed on Dragonstone.

Mel makes some BS about Stannis not having a son and giving him one

[Khal-a-bunga]

^ I don't think a shadow baby demon thing is born every time they have sex. Just because she tells Stannis that she can/will 'give him a son' doesn't mean that was the point of conception. That could have been where they formulated the plan to kill Renly, should he not back down and concede to Stannis' authority, or it could have just been a quickie...

[Van West]

^ I don't think a shadow baby demon thing is born every time they have sex. Just because she tells Stannis that she can/will 'give him a son' doesn't mean that was the point of conception. That could have been where they formulated the plan to kill Renly, should he not back down and concede to Stannis' authority, or it could have just been a quickie...

I think purpose of that scene was to create that shadowbaby. Mel even says that she will give him a son.

[Khal-a-bunga]

It could have been, sure, but I don't think it was definitive. I personally felt that it was more about foreshadowing the shadow baby than anything else. Just to give the audience a heads up that some weird shit was about to go down, but in a way that isn't too obvious. Definitely open to interpretation, though.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

(1) Yes, because the show has clearly established where Florent is from, and where those 'lands' are. Say it with me: This isn't the books.

Also, whose to say what the time frame for all of this is, and what 'idols' Stannis is talking about? (2) It could have been idols he wore on his person, or idols he kept in his quarters, or on his ship - any number of things.

1. Unless they directly counter it, I think it's reasonable to say that locations of known Houses are the same. Otherwise, it gets more ridiculous. They change an entire House's location - and the politics of the Reach with the Florents having a better claim than the Tyrells - just to make Stannis more fanatical.

2. Common sense. He said "tore down" which imply permanent structures. So, not on his person. I'm kinda doubting that he had permanent structures in his quarters or ships.

D&D do a great job at translating the series from books to pages.... except for Stannis. They're pretty sloppy. Which brings up another WTF point.....

3. Shireen is Stannis and Selyse's daughter. She is Stannis's only heir. It JUST occurred to them to introduce their daughter to the religion they are burning people alive for not following? Even if Stannis doesn't give a crap about R'Hollor, Selyse does. I mean, seriously?!?!?!

Oh. I know Shireen's religious beliefs are never brought up in the book. That's fine. She doesn't have much screen time. I would be perfectly happy if she rejected R'Hollor. But I think it's reasonable to believe she has learned about R'Hollor. So, no. I'm not going to buy "well, they didn't show it the books, so anything is possible" argument here either because makes absolutely no sense that they would not bother teaching her even the basics like "how many gods there are in our new religion." Stannis and Selyse probably aren't the most involved parents, but they acknowledge her existence. And let's face it. The child and heir of the man you want to convert would be a high priority target if you were Mel.

[Konradsmith]

Well, given what Mel has said so far, it seems that there is actually some utility to making sacrifices, its not just something to do as standard practise. She said that "a great gift requires a great sacrifice." This beach burning may have been another demonstration of power like frying the leeches was. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next episode someone (bet it Mel, or Stan himself) makes the connection between the sacrifice on the beach and Joffrey dying. Mel called the burning people "tokens of our faith" implying that they were a sort of payment. Given how her magic seems to work, that means that there will likely be a result.

If Ran is still reading this thread, he can confirm or deny if that's the case. ;)

[A Man Has Said]

...Stannis knows that there is a great evil coming, he has this option that he can test to a limit without losing anything, but never realy prove that it's 100% guaranteed until it's too late. And he calls it out:

“—is one boy! He may be the best boy who ever drew breath and it would not matter. My duty is to the realm.” His hand swept across the

Painted Table. “How many boys dwell in Westeros? How many girls? How many men, how many women? The darkness will devour them all,

she says. The night that never ends. She talks of prophecies . . . a hero reborn in the sea, living dragons hatched from dead stone . . . she

speaks of signs and swears they point to me. I never asked for this, no more than I asked to be king. Yet dare I disregard her?”

He can't take the chance that she is right and he refuses because to try and prove that it works 100% would potentially risk an innocent. There is simply too much on the line here for playing safe...

Basically, this is the Westerosi version of Dick Cheney's One Percent Doctrine.

It's the specious 'reasoning' that caused the USA to go to war with Iraq, on the argument that;

"We don't know that they have WMDs, but if there's even a 1% chance that they might, we have to take them out.

Hair on fire! Hair on fire! Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud!!"

(This is how you 'justify' a pre-emptive invasion of another country under the thin excuse that it's in self defense.)

What's the saying about prophecy being like a treacherous woman who'll bite your cock off?

Melisandre at this particular point in time, post-Blackwater, doesn't exactly have a good track record where interpreting prophecy is concerned.

If Stannis is shown to trust her at this point, it makes him out to be a fool.

She murdered Renly with Stannis' unwitting assistance so that Stannis would gain Renly's troops.

But he only gained the smaller part of the troops.

The larger force, the Tyrells, didn't remain neutral - they went over to the Lannister side and eventually are who defeats Stannis.

So he was actually WORSE off for having killed Renly.

As Doctor Phil would as, "How's that workin' for ya?"

I personally wouldn't trust someone who manipulated me into aiding and abetting a murder without even telling me until after the fact. YMMV

Then she murdered Cortnay Penrose, this time with Stannis' foreknowledge, using the same dark sorcery that was used against Renly. This second murder was committed in part in order to get control over Edric Storm, Stannis' nephew. A boy of 11. Only much later does she reveal her intention to sacrifice him.

What's that saying about sorcery being a sword without a hilt?

If you can't grasp it without wounding yourself, how can you use it against your enemies?

If you read Davos I and Davos II of ASoS, he quite indisputably blames Melisandre for leading Stannis down the garden path to his utter defeat at Blackwater.

It kind of begs the question: WHY doesn't Stannis feel the same way? He just accepts it?!?

Why does he still trust her, even to the point of contemplating killing his innocent nephew?

Your choices here are:

- to accept the fact that Stannis goes along with one dark and dodgy crime after another in his efforts to win the throne,

- or that he has no agency - he's just being manipulated by Melisandre.

Who, incidentally is not shown to have an ounce of remorse over the thousands burned to death because of her failed prophecy.

[Ty K]

Jesus Christ!

The show had Stannis murder Renly.

Whereas in the books he's unaware he even did it and has nightmares about it.

As someone else pointed out, he has regrets it in the show as well. One way or another, he was going to kill Renly if he had a chance.

It doesn't make sense in the books how he is unaware of the shadow demons anyways so its possible they are correcting Martin's shaky logic here. Seriously, Stannis has dreams from the perspective of the shadow demon. It ages him a decade over night and required him having sex with Melisandre to conjure. He orders Davos to take Melisandre under Storm's End to assassinate Penrose. How is it exactly that Stannis wasn't aware something was going on?

Show Stannis begs Mel for sex. Can you see Book Stannis doing the same?

I couldn't see Book Stannis having sex PERIOD and yet we know he does with Melisandre. We have only seen Stannis when Davos, Jon/Sam, and Theon are around him. We don't know what he is like in private. That scene took place right after Blackwater and the book does say he was reclusive and not dealing with almost anyone outside of Mel. Its not outside the realm of possibility.

Show Stannis goes north because Mel told him to.

And Show Stannis didn't execute Davos because Mel told him to.

Show Stannis has no agency of his own. He is a puppet of Mel. It's not hard to see that. You have to take it all in to figure what they're trying to turn Stannis into.

Yes, Stannis is more reliant on Mel. No doubt. I think it is pretty obvious this is part of an effort to make his upcoming face-turn more dramatic. Whether you like this or not, as long as the end result is the same then its not a big deal. Remember how upset people were when Jaime killed his cousin? Again, done to make the turn more dramatic. Jaime is one of non-readers favorites now it seems so it obviously worked.

Hell look how they portrayed Renly in comparison to Stannis. Show Renly is a serious, thoughtful, educated person while Book Renly is a douche with entitlement issues. Also they made it seem like he sincerely respected Brienne when Book Renly mocked Brienne behind her back.

He does clearly become more mature between Season 1 and Season 2 but so what? Its like you StanStans pick and choose what facts to acknowledge and which to ignore. Olenna still says he was a silly boy who was in over his head. He still makes jokes throughout his parley with Stannis. Catelyn points out to him how all he does is play at war and that they are the knights of summer blah blah blah. On the other hand, the show has made changes to Stannis like turning him into a badass at the Battle of the Blackwater or having him seem more protective of his daughter than Book Stannis was that are positive. Why are those ignored?

And Book Stannis did that to the Wildlings as a show that they were his men now rather than because he actually cares about converting them for religion's sake.

That is how you rationalize it. I used the same rationale for his actions in the previous episode and you shot it down.

Jon was sure of that, but he also thought that Mel might try to burn Mance's son. Doesn't mean it's true.

Doesn't mean its not, either. And Mel did want to burn Mance's son but Jon switched it out with Gilly's before she could.

These aren't subtle differences. These are huge.

I don't see why. Again, nothing has been changed so much that it can't be corrected given how they handle this season.