[Book Spoilers] EP410 Discussion

[Here Shaggydog]

Aegon is significant to the story whether he be Targaryen, Blackfyre, or neither. Whoever said he's filler is a total dumbass.

[mr.mop]

He does come from nowhere tbf.

And it does seem late in the game to Introduce him, although I suppose he could be around for potentially 3 or 4 books.

Exactly. At the end of the day, you expect the main people to be the ones who've been around since Book 1 -- the Stark siblings, the Lannister siblings, and Dany. Everything else is support staff

[mr.mop]

Aegon is significant to the story whether he be Targaryen, Blackfyre, or neither. Whoever said he's filler is a total dumbass.

He's not filler, and he's certainly important, but it's not HIS story, he's definitely a supporting character, not a main.

[Deadwood]

I was wrong :(

About what?

[Deadwood]

That't the one. I'm not sure how I misunderstood? She says she was thinking about it until he started talking down to her. And by pestering her further her the sick, twisted girl from the beginning of the season (I did get that bit wrong) comes back - entire season of character development wasted to have one cool scene.

OK the season1/4 thing was a misread, but I believe you have misunderstood the dynamic there as a patronising Hound creating a childish/stubborn Arya, which is what I thought you meant by season 1.

Looking at that interview, it could go either way, until the Hounds utter weakness and abject state (of mind) is revealed and his pathetic state tips the balance to fuel Arya's dark side to fully push her into killzone Arya, that part of her personality that she has been nurturing but not really fully embraced.

From this point on she has the strength to not go back and take on anything, which will serve her greatly in Braavos. It's almost as if she hoovers the strength straight out of the Hound.

[Deadwood]

Introducing a new character (who was expected since book 1) in book 5 is not stupid. You may not like the character because he was a game changer, but don't say that's stupid...

You expected him after reading book 1?

[Here Shaggydog]

You expected him after reading book 1?

Lolz

[Theodore James II]

Don't know about that. I doubt D&D are going down the stupid route of introducing a new Targ this late in the story (bad move George) so Stannis having the GC on side could be quite good fun.

Exactly. At the end of the day, you expect the main people to be the ones who've been around since Book 1 -- the Stark siblings, the Lannister siblings, and Dany. Everything else is support staff

So, Ned should be the one on the Iron Throne? The mere fact we feel we expect the main people to be certain people is exactly why Martin is trying to revolutionise the fantasy genre. Because reality doesn't work out where the beginning of an importnt event in history starts with these good guys and these bad guys and ends with these same good guys victorious and these same bad guys un-victorious. The mere fact such a vital (potentially very VERY vital) character was introduced so late in the game shouts that Martin knows what he's doing -- prioritising realism over what will make his readers (and retrospectively, viewers) most comfortable. Martin isn't going to go with the sequence of events that is most pleasing to the status quo. In fact, he often intentionally defies the status quo. So, although I respect how you feel, it's a double standard. (And the series hasn't finished yet.)

[Maid So Fair]

Throughout this whole season, Arya's had this very complicated relationship with the Hound. They've been friendly at points, but he's still on her list of people to kill, for what he did to Micah, the butcher's boy. Is that why she walks away?

Yeah. It's that saying — keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. And I think that's so true with Arya and the Hound, where they have an uneasy truce and they do kind of help each other, but they know at any given moment, they could turn on each other. They're both kind of dangerous people, and they both have strengths and weaknesses that the other doesn't, and it makes it interesting, because they could try to kill each other. Although now, can she really bring herself to kill him? And finish it? I think in her head, it's not a spiteful thing. It's not like, "I'm going to leave you here to die." I think there's so much more going on in her head at that point than, "Okay, I'm going to kill you," or "I'm not going to kill you." It's almost what he wants, so she's not going to give it to him.

- from Vulture

I read this quote as quite different than the other. Note that here she says it's not a spiteful thing. It's just complicated. As it was in the books.

It made sense to me in the books, where their relationship, while still complex, is much more clear-cut and where the Hound comes across as much darker IMHO. In the show, the characters are in a completely different place by the time the Hound is dying. They might not be friends, but they understand each other and have grown increasingly supportive. And HE DIES PROTECTING HER, after having just found out that any prospect of financial reward for doing so is practically non-existent. I don't think they're best buddies or that she has forgiven him for Mycah completely but IMHO she is well past hating him and that's what it would take for her actions to make sense to me. It's too cold when regarding someone you have spend a significant amount of time with, who's been a sort of a mentor, and who just died for you. But to each their own.

OK the season1/4 thing was a misread, but I believe you have misunderstood the dynamic there as a patronising Hound creating a childish/stubborn Arya, which is what I thought you meant by season 1.

Looking at that interview, it could go either way, until the Hounds utter weakness and abject state (of mind) is revealed and his pathetic state tips the balance to fuel Arya's dark side to fully push her into killzone Arya, that part of her personality that she has been nurturing but not really fully embraced.

From this point on she has the strength to not go back and take on anything, which will serve her greatly in Braavos. It's almost as if she hoovers the strength straight out of the Hound.

I think there's a difference between killing someone and leaving them to suffer. It's possible to recognise that he deserves to die for his previous crimes without truly hating him, but not giving him a gift of mercy is on a whole different level. What I mean is that she was in a very dark place at the beginning of the season, but I though that she has been developing ways to cope with it and also that her relationship with the Hound has progressed a lot since then. If this scene happened at the beginning of the season that would be one thing, but I just felt that at this point their relationship has passed the stage where it was still plausible from her character's POV.

[mr.mop]

So, Ned should be the one on the Iron Throne? The mere fact we feel we expect the main people to be certain people is exactly why Martin is trying to revolutionise the fantasy genre. Because reality doesn't work out where the beginning of an importnt event in history starts with these good guys and these bad guys and ends with these same good guys victorious and these same bad guys un-victorious. The mere fact such a vital (potentially very VERY vital) character was introduced so late in the game shouts that Martin knows what he's doing -- prioritising realism over what will make his readers (and retrospectively, viewers) most comfortable. Martin isn't going to go with the sequence of events that is most pleasing to the status quo. In fact, he often intentionally defies the status quo. So, although I respect how you feel, it's a double standard. (And the series hasn't finished yet.)

There's a difference between subverting genre formulas and archetypes, and bad writing. Having the most important person in the story not make an appearance until half-way (or more) into it isn't breaking the mold, it's bad writing. That doesn't mean he can't have an important role to play; of course he can.

Martin hasn't been afraid to kill characters we like, are invested in, and smack of being a "hero" or at the least are main protagonists, and that's realistic, but their deaths haven't been random, they've all moved the plot forward in important ways and helped set the chessboard. That's not really comparable at all to simply hiding THE guy from the reader for the length of time Martin hid Aegon. Especially since there was no reason to hide Aegon. We could've had an Aegon-in-exile POV from day 1, much like Dany's; nothing narratively was accomplished by hiding him from us except having him hidden. "Surprise, everyone you thought was so important really isn't, the important guy is over there!" after the midway point of the series...nah. By telling us Dany's story for so long when really it's Aegon that mattered all along at the end of the day, Martin wouldn't be accomplishing "realism" because it was his authorial choice to show us Dany & not Aegon. He easily could've had Aegon POVs and Dany would be just a whisper and a rumor at the small council meetings. That's just a cheap trick and frankly a waste of the reader's time.

[thepooperthatwaspromised]

It made sense to me in the books, where their relationship, while still complex, is much more clear-cut and where the Hound comes across as much darker IMHO. In the show, the characters are in a completely different place by the time the Hound is dying. They might not be friends, but they understand each other and have grown increasingly supportive. And HE DIES PROTECTING HER, after having just found out that any prospect of financial reward for doing so is practically non-existent. I don't think they're best buddies or that she has forgiven him for Mycah completely but IMHO she is well past hating him and that's what it would take for her actions to make sense to me. It's too cold when regarding someone you have spend a significant amount of time with, who's been a sort of a mentor, and who just died for you. But to each their own.

I think there's a difference between killing someone and leaving them to suffer. It's possible to recognise that he deserves to die for his previous crimes without truly hating him, but not giving him a gift of mercy is on a whole different level. What I mean is that she was in a very dark place at the beginning of the season, but I though that she has been developing ways to cope with it and also that her relationship with the Hound has progressed a lot since then. If this scene happened at the beginning of the season that would be one thing, but I just felt that at this point their relationship has passed the stage where it was still plausible from her character's POV.

I actually don't think we're disagreeing on the nature of the end of their relationship, book or show. The most crucial moment in the books for me was when Arya took him off her list. She takes him off her list...and then he wants her to kill him. Show-wise, that moment came in the form of his last act of protecting her. And not only does she willingly step behind him, but she sticks around, tries to offer him water (a small comfort, but a comfort nonetheless). My point with the Vulture interview was that in one interview she seems to have a slightly vengeful tone, while in the quote I put up, she seems to recognize that though he wants her to, she can't really bring herself to, not to spite him, but because as much as he is suffering, he is so broken and as much as she has claimed in the past to want to see him dead, she really can't bring herself to be the one to deliver that final blow. Not because she doesn't care; rather, because she does.

ETA: I think Maisie did an extraordinary job conveying a ton of conflicting emotions in that scene, and I think it's unfortunate that some people might take away a black and white "she did it to spite him because she's stone cold now" vibe. I saw it totally differently and it seems like Maisie did too.

[Magdalena]

Loved the episode. One of the better ones in a while. It started so well with Jon walking North of the wall. This reminded me of the opening of Season 1. I was very disappointed with the lack of Jamie/Tyrion interaction - the telling of the story of Tyrion's first wife, Tysha. One of the most devastating moments that I think really defines his character from that moment forward. This really ruined that whole scene for me by leaving it out. The emotional impact in hearing that story was one of the most pivotal moments of his storyline from now on.

In general, I'm always interested to see what the show creators add and thought the Brienne/Hound fight with Arya looking on was a interesting idea that brings different storylines together for the audience. Arya still leaves Westeros alone but a little happier than I remember her being in the books. I thought she was highly traumatized in the books - not a chipper little girl off on an adventure. Hoping they start the season with LS and Jon gaining power.

[Impfan]

Do you think Tywin was lying when he told Tyrion he was never going to let him be executed?

I do. I think at that point ol' Ty was truly concerned for his life. He was actually quite desperate but couldn't allow himself to get out of character. In fact, I think the lie may have been the thing that really pushed Tyrion over the edge. Probably not, though: Tyrion intended to kill the old man the moment he noticed the crossbow on the wall.

One quibble with the scene: I thought Tyrion's part of the dialogue was sort of wussy. I would much rather he was more witty and forceful during the exchange.

[Here Shaggydog]

Ov

Loved the episode. One of the better ones in a while. It started so well with Jon walking North of the wall. This reminded me of the opening of Season 1. I was very disappointed with the lack of Jamie/Tyrion interaction - the telling of the story of Tyrion's first wife, Tysha. One of the most devastating moments that I think really defines his character from that moment forward. This really ruined that whole scene for me by leaving it out. The emotional impact in hearing that story was one of the most pivotal moments of his storyline from now on.

Yes I felt the same way, the scene was ruined for me when he said Shae instead of Tysha. I don't get why they even bothered to bring her up in season 1 then. I guess this means she doesn't play a very important part in the books, or Tyrion never finds her.

[James Arryn]

Ov

Yes I felt the same way, the scene was ruined for me when he said Shae instead of Tysha. I don't get why they even bothered to bring her up in season 1 then. I guess this means she doesn't play a very important part in the books, or Tyrion never finds her.

The thing is, tv viewers heard her name like once, 3 years ago. So in the climax of a season's plot line, raising her name would mean either explaining it all over again...losing dramatic tension...or having people wondering wtf Tyrion's talking about, again losing dramatic tension.

Tv audiences don't have the time, interest or recall of avid readers who have poured over the books at their heart's content, thought about and discussed the significance, etc.

IMO that was the smart tv choice to make.

[Here Shaggydog]

But Shae sucks. No pun intended.

[Lady of Dragonstone]

There's a difference between subverting genre formulas and archetypes, and bad writing. Having the most important person in the story not make an appearance until half-way (or more) into it isn't breaking the mold, it's bad writing. That doesn't mean he can't have an important role to play; of course he can.

Martin hasn't been afraid to kill characters we like, are invested in, and smack of being a "hero" or at the least are main protagonists, and that's realistic, but their deaths haven't been random, they've all moved the plot forward in important ways and helped set the chessboard. That's not really comparable at all to simply hiding THE guy from the reader for the length of time Martin hid Aegon. Especially since there was no reason to hide Aegon. We could've had an Aegon-in-exile POV from day 1, much like Dany's; nothing narratively was accomplished by hiding him from us except having him hidden. "Surprise, everyone you thought was so important really isn't, the important guy is over there!" after the midway point of the series...nah. By telling us Dany's story for so long when really it's Aegon that mattered all along at the end of the day, Martin wouldn't be accomplishing "realism" because it was his authorial choice to show us Dany & not Aegon. He easily could've had Aegon POVs and Dany would be just a whisper and a rumor at the small council meetings. That's just a cheap trick and frankly a waste of the reader's time.

Like another said before me a few pages back, you should keep in mind that these books were meant to be a trilogy, so Aegon would have been revealed much earlier in this series if GRRM hadn't expanded it to a seven-book trilogy.

Do you think Tywin was lying when he told Tyrion he was never going to let him be executed?

I asked myself the same question. I wish we knew. I can't see Tywin get away with spiriting Tyrion off while there are crowds of people around to witness the execution. He's smart, but he would have to be damn good to get away with that and we see he is outsmarted by his sons before he can even get to that point.

[James Arryn]

I can see Tywin lying, but I can also see Tywin completely believing 'you're a Lannister' to be absolute grounds for disallowing an execution, irrespective of how that fulfills his private interests.

It's even possible he hadn't made up his mind yet.

Edit: my most likely scenario would have had him using Tyrion's life to pry a last minute concession from Jamie. Like, you agree to quit the KW and become heir, I agree to send Tyrion to the Wall. It's up to you.

[Lady of Dragonstone]

The thing is, tv viewers heard her name like once, 3 years ago. So in the climax of a season's plot line, raising her name would mean either explaining it all over again...losing dramatic tension...or having people wondering wtf Tyrion's talking about, again losing dramatic tension.

Tv audiences don't have the time, interest or recall of avid readers who have poured over the books at their heart's content, thought about and discussed the significance, etc.

IMO that was the smart tv choice to make.

Just to chime in here, I definitely agree with you on this issue.

I know just about everyone has that special storyline they love. I do love the complexity of Tyrion's character. I believe adding in the Tysha material, and especially at such a late hour, would have overcomplicated it.

I think they are setting Shae up to fulfill this role in Tyrion's story. As for where whores go, that was an internal dialogue for the most part, and it makes sense in a way that we wouldn't get that in the show either.

[species5618w]

Do you think Tywin was lying when he told Tyrion he was never going to let him be executed?

I do. I think at that point ol' Ty was truly concerned for his life. He was actually quite desperate but couldn't allow himself to get out of character. In fact, I think the lie may have been the thing that really pushed Tyrion over the edge. Probably not, though: Tyrion intended to kill the old man the moment he noticed the crossbow on the wall.

One quibble with the scene: I thought Tyrion's part of the dialogue was sort of wussy. I would much rather he was more witty and forceful during the exchange.

I don't think he was lying. Taking the black would have served Tywin's purpose of getting rid of Tyrion, he wouldn't have to be a kinslayer then. In the books, Tywin readily offered Tyrion the chance to take the black without an exchange for Jaime quitting the KG.