Does Stannis still have your respect?

[ummester]

What are you talking about? Books or show? And why quote me? I don't understand what this has to do with my post. I was commenting on Benioff saying 'Stannis doesn't change his mind', and well, he does. Ok, he didn't tell the Black Dread to 'fuck off', that was hyperbole.

And since I'm here, replying already... That last paragraph... I have no words. :)

Those are quotes from the show - I'm quoting you because you said show Stannis changed his mind, suggesting he told Mel to fuck off. He didn't. He mulled the idea over, as reprehensible as he found it.

When the books and show end up something very similar to my last paragraph then you really will have no words :) Stannis will sit on the IT and Stannis is exactly what humanity is supposed to represent in this story, flawed, corrupt and in need of replacement - just like the throne he desires occupying. ASoIaF is basically a story about adults turning the next generation into monsters and reaping what they have sown - it's also got some mythological and ecological allusions.

[kissdbyfire]

Those are quotes from the show - I'm quoting you because you said show Stannis changed his mind, suggesting he told Mel to fuck off. He didn't. He mulled the idea over, as reprehensible as he found it.

When the books and show end up something very similar to my last paragraph then you really will have no words :) Stannis will sit on the IT and Stannis is exactly what humanity is supposed to represent in this story, flawed, corrupt and in need of replacement.

Right. I suppose it's all in how different people will interpret different things in different ways. Variety truly is the spice of life. :)

I think he changed his mind there, and if I were a bigger masochist, I would re-watch series 2, 3 & 4 and I bet I'd find other instances. Since I'm not that much of a sucker for pain, I won't.

As to that last paragraph... I think it's safe to say we see this story very differently.

ETA: I'll add to my reply so it broaches what you've ETA:

Well, I can agree with some of what you've ETA in a broad sense.

[Lord Roivas]

I also agree with whoever said they were disappointed Stephen Dillane didn't get to portray book Stannis as opposed to the current Show Stannis. I could imagine how awesome Stephen could have delivered some of Stannis' better quotes.

If there is one thing I'll give D&D a pass on is the lack of depth for certain characters. It's hard in a timed TV show with as many characters this series has to really flesh out and show every side of a character. Just sadly they showed the worse side of Stannis and made him noticeably more terrible and one dimensional than he is the books.

[kissdbyfire]

I also agree with whoever said they were disappointed Stephen Dillane didn't get to portray book Stannis as opposed to the current Show Stannis. I could imagine how awesome Stephen could have delivered some of Stannis' better quotes.

If there is one thing I'll give D&D a pass on is the lack of depth for certain characters. It's hard in a timed TV show with as many characters this series has to really flesh out and show every side of a character. Just sadly they showed the worse side of Stannis and made him noticeably more terrible and one dimensional than he is the books.

That's not entirely true, though. They did give us that sweet scene with Stannis and Shireen where he tells her how much he loves her. So, when it's in their best interest, they do take the time. It's a pity that 'their best interest' in only to emotionally manipulate and shock the audience.

[ummester]

ETA: I'll add to my reply so it broaches what you've ETA:

Well, I can agree with some of what you've ETA in a broad sense.

I think most of us who are invested in either the show or the books can agree in broad senses - I think the differences in interpretation are (primarily) down to how readers/viewers feel about the characters (when they give up on them, as a whole) and (secondarily) due to the ambiguous nature of prophecy and other mythological elements in the saga.

I'd seen the show (up to season 4) before I read the books - I knew there were no heroes, or protagonists in this saga before I started, so it may well have changed how I interpreted the books but, if anything, the books made the show's most sympathetic characters (Jon, Dany, Bran & Tyrion) far less sympathetic - the books proved this was a story without heroes to me, even though the show gave me the notion.

When I say no heroes, of course, that is sans the Nights King and his troops, for I view them as the heroes (even though I know they aren't really and are just another faction that is no better, or worse than the human factions - they just have an original claim to the land, like the CotF, so I can logically view them as more righteous).

[artihcus022]

That said, with no independent legal system in Westeros, claims of who has a legal right to the throne don't matter, you either have a high enough level of support from the lords that no one else would challenge you or if the level of support is even enough between two or more claimants a civil war decides the outcome.

My advice, please stop reading the books forever. You are a deeply childish person, incapable of grappling with the slightest complexity and selfishly projecting your narrow middle-class worldview in a time and setting where that doesn't matter at all.

But with GRRM, characters don't overcome their tragic flaws, they are destroyed by them.

If you have read plays, you will know that "tragic flaws" by definition are not supposed to be overcome. Hamlet, King Lear, Oedipus Rex, Antigone, Medea and so many others never got over their "tragic flaws" no matter how much they want to and no matter how much they knew what awaited them. That's what made these characters tragic. They wouldn't do what they did if they were some other kind of person.

[artihcus022]

The position that the book has more grey, on one hand, and the show is wrong by humanizing Ramsay, on the other,making the show worse, is hypocritical and/or character biased.

We better be clear what we mean by "hypocritical" and "character-biased" here.

First of all, the show does not "humanize" Ramsay, it whitewashes him. It whitewashes an actual poor bastard foundling, left to rot in the care of a confirmed psychopath for all his childhood, into the Bastard Prince, pampered and spoiled by his father, educated by the Dreadfort's Master-At-Arms, good looking and better groomed than the book counterpart. That is whitewashing pure and simple. If they want to humanize Ramsay, they should try and humanize book!Ramsay. By making Ramsay into someone who has relationships, they convert actual innocent victims of rape and murder into willing dupes and participants of abuse. That is what the show does.

Ramsay's rage and anger in the books, coming from being a bastard and trying to be a Lord by oppressing and brutalizing the weak in a manner Lords don't do openly is converted into Ramsay in the show, the spoiled pampered Bastard boy who is good at everything he does, whose resentment makes zero f--king sense.

So please tell us what you mean by character-biased and hypocritical, and please don't equate "humanizing" with "whitewashing".

[ummester]

We better be clear what we mean by "hypocritical" and "character-biased" here.

First of all, the show does not "humanize" Ramsay, it whitewashes him. It whitewashes an actual poor bastard foundling, left to rot in the care of a confirmed psychopath for all his childhood, into the Bastard Prince, pampered and spoiled by his father, educated by the Dreadfort's Master-At-Arms, good looking and better groomed than the book counterpart. That is whitewashing pure and simple. If they want to humanize Ramsay, they should try and humanize book!Ramsay. By making Ramsay into someone who has relationships, they convert actual innocent victims of rape and murder into willing dupes and participants of abuse. That is what the show does.

Ramsay's rage and anger in the books, coming from being a bastard and trying to be a Lord by oppressing and brutalizing the weak in a manner Lords don't do openly is converted into Ramsay in the show, the spoiled pampered Bastard boy who is good at everything he does, whose resentment makes zero f--king sense.

So please tell us what you mean by character-biased and hypocritical, and please don't equate "humanizing" with "whitewashing".

When it comes to ASoIaF villains, humanizing and whitewashing are often interchangeable.

Book Ramsay is a monster, a wafer thin caricature of a human being, meant only to disgust and scare the reader. Book Ramsay is like book Cersie - they feel very 1 dimensional and no where near as human as their show counterparts. So, I say, in the case of Ramsay and Cersie - the show has humanized them - as the show has added depth to their characters that the books didn't have.

Why does show Ramsay's resentment make zero sense? His father is a cold and emotionless individual who rejected Ramsay as a child. Roose has only started embracing Ramsay since he used Reek to retake the Dreadfort. I never got the feeling Ramsay was pampered, or fully in Roose' fold, before then. If Roose had any respect for Ramsay, he would have taken him to war with Robb, instead of hiding his dirty secret away.

With Tyrion, the show has whitewashed, or taken character depth away from the book counterpart. Interestingly, some of book Tyrion's depth was revealed only via GRRM putting the character in situations that were dehumanizing. The show does whitewash the less villainous characters, I would agree.

As the show has actors playing the books more villainous characters, who are actual humans and not monsters in GRRM's head, that are quite good at their craft, they add a layer of their own personality that the books lack, thus making them seem more human. Perhaps it's because they cast better actors, generally, for the more villainous characters? I don't know - I just know that Tywin, Cersie, Joffrey and Ramsay are consistently better in show than book.

[Langsax]

Stannis never had my respect to start with. The character is a disaster.

[kissdbyfire]

We better be clear what we mean by "hypocritical" and "character-biased" here.

First of all, the show does not "humanize" Ramsay, it whitewashes him. It whitewashes an actual poor bastard foundling, left to rot in the care of a confirmed psychopath for all his childhood, into the Bastard Prince, pampered and spoiled by his father, educated by the Dreadfort's Master-At-Arms, good looking and better groomed than the book counterpart. That is whitewashing pure and simple. If they want to humanize Ramsay, they should try and humanize book!Ramsay. By making Ramsay into someone who has relationships, they convert actual innocent victims of rape and murder into willing dupes and participants of abuse. That is what the show does.

Ramsay's rage and anger in the books, coming from being a bastard and trying to be a Lord by oppressing and brutalizing the weak in a manner Lords don't do openly is converted into Ramsay in the show, the spoiled pampered Bastard boy who is good at everything he does, whose resentment makes zero f--king sense.

So please tell us what you mean by character-biased and hypocritical, and please don't equate "humanizing" with "whitewashing".

I said Ramsay had been humanised, ummester was just replying to me. And I stand by what I said. He was indeed whitewashed, but imo he was humanised as well, by the choice of putting him in a relationship. They turned Ben Bones into Myranda to give Ramsay a relationship. Top off my head, Ramsay & Myranda are the most 'normal' relationship n the show. Sure, they're into S&M, but so what?

[kissdbyfire]

When it comes to ASoIaF villains, humanizing and whitewashing are often interchangeable.

Book Ramsay is a monster, a wafer thin caricature of a human being, meant only to disgust and scare the reader. Book Ramsay is like book Cersie - they feel very 1 dimensional and no where near as human as their show counterparts. So, I say, in the case of Ramsay and Cersie - the show has humanized them - as the show has added depth to their characters that the books didn't have.

Why does show Ramsay's resentment make zero sense? His father is a cold and emotionless individual who rejected Ramsay as a child. Roose has only started embracing Ramsay since he used Reek to retake the Dreadfort. I never got the feeling Ramsay was pampered, or fully in Roose' fold, before then. If Roose had any respect for Ramsay, he would have taken him to war with Robb, instead of hiding his dirty secret away.

With Tyrion, the show has whitewashed, or taken character depth away from the book counterpart. Interestingly, some of book Tyrion's depth was revealed only via GRRM putting the character in situations that were dehumanizing. The show does whitewash the less villainous characters, I would agree.

As the show has actors playing the books more villainous characters, who are actual humans and not monsters in GRRM's head, that are quite good at their craft, they add a layer of their own personality that the books lack, thus making them seem more human. Perhaps it's because they cast better actors, generally, for the more villainous characters? I don't know - I just know that Tywin, Cersie, Joffrey and Ramsay are consistently better in show than book.

Yeah, here I disagree with everything top to bottom, but especially the bolded paragraphs.

[ummester]

Yeah, here I disagree with everything top to bottom, but especially the bolded paragraphs.

So you think book Tywin is better than show Tywin? And book Cersie?

Joffrey???? How can anyone think Joffrey is better in the books. I loved to hate him in the show - he was one of the most annoying characters I'd seen or read anywhere - full kudos to his actor - he just made me want to slap him. Book Joffrey was a non-event.

[artihcus022]

So you think book Tywin is better than show Tywin? And book Cersie?

Joffrey???? How can anyone think Joffrey is better in the books. I loved to hate him in the show - he was one of the most annoying characters I'd seen or read anywhere - full kudos to his actor - he just made me want to slap him. Book Joffrey was a non-event.

Book Joffrey used a crossbow and fired it at the crowd all the time. Book Joffrey was revealed to be the guy who sent that assassin to kill Bran.

In the show, they have Joffrey kill Ros and brutalize prostitutes but they leave out the Bran part.

[ummester]

Book Joffrey used a crossbow and fired it at the crowd all the time. Book Joffrey was revealed to be the guy who sent that assassin to kill Bran.

In the show, they have Joffrey kill Ros and brutalize prostitutes but they leave out the Bran part.

Yea, which made him more hateful, more snivelling and more full of slap-able cowardice in the show :) Book Joffrey was not nearly as hate-able, as he seemed to have this inkling of bravery, that show Joffrey didn't have. Show Joffrey seemed much more like the product of a father like Robert, that tried to avoid him because he hated his wife and (possibly) suspected the son was not his but was too macho to admit it. Book Joffrey was just another psychopath, like his mother and Ramsay.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Joffrey???? How can anyone think Joffrey is better in the books. I loved to hate him in the show - he was one of the most annoying characters I'd seen or read anywhere - full kudos to his actor - he just made me want to slap him. Book Joffrey was a non-event.

Joffrey was one of those few occurrences in which the show actually took advantage of the skills of the actor and the fact he was older than his book counterpart. In the books, Joffrey is nothing but some spoiled whiny kid but in the show he was not that much childish. He was actually smart and charismatic (in his own sick way).

[Nihlus]

Show Joffrey was hilarious. Such a shame he had to die, he was the only tolerable thing in S3/S4 King's Landing.

Yea, which made him more hateful, more snivelling and more full of slap-able cowardice in the show :) Book Joffrey was not nearly as hate-able, as he seemed to have this inkling of bravery, that show Joffrey didn't have. Show Joffrey seemed much more like the product of a father like Robert, that tried to avoid him because he hated his wife and (possibly) suspected the son was not his but was too macho to admit it. Book Joffrey was just another psychopath, like his mother and Ramsay.

Didn't he "lead" the crossbowmen on the walls of King's Landing during Stannis's assault too?

[artihcus022]

Yea, which made him more hateful, more snivelling and more full of slap-able cowardice in the show :) Book Joffrey was not nearly as hate-able, as he seemed to have this inkling of bravery, that show Joffrey didn't have. Show Joffrey seemed much more like the product of a father like Robert, that tried to avoid him because he hated his wife and (possibly) suspected the son was not his but was too macho to admit it. Book Joffrey was just another psychopath, like his mother and Ramsay.

I think it has more to do with how "TV-sensible" the show's deviations are. "TV-sensible" because it makes sense for people while watching TV, not that it makes actual sense when you step back and stop watching the show.

I mean the Joffrey of the books makes sense because he's a guy raised and pampered into absolutism, but on the show their smaller sense of scale means that we don't really get a sense of where he comes from, so you have to have Joffrey attack "name" people or you have everyone make fun of Joffrey more often in the show than in the books.

Why does show Ramsay's resentment make zero sense? His father is a cold and emotionless individual who rejected Ramsay as a child. Roose has only started embracing Ramsay since he used Reek to retake the Dreadfort. I never got the feeling Ramsay was pampered, or fully in Roose' fold, before then. If Roose had any respect for Ramsay, he would have taken him to war with Robb, instead of hiding his dirty secret away.

Instead Roose left him behind to man the Dreadfort, making him castellan, a huge responsibility that even Book!Ramsay did not have (considering the circumstances of the whole Hornwood mess). Since the show has removed Domeric Bolton altogether, Ramsay seems to have been Roose's only son. In the books, you can explain away Ramsay to the fact that he was raised by a serial killer and rapist (and maybe a victim of abuse himself) and that he's an angry bastard who just hates the world. In the show, its essentially comic-book psycho, I-love-torture behaviour. Book!Ramsay's relationship with Theon in A Clash of Kings comes from RamsayReek's jealousy of Theon's and his torture has that element of humiliation and hatred, you know this ugly hateful boy who wants to make proud, handsome Theon into a shell. In the show, Theon is just the target of some kind of divine agent of retribution and fate...hence Ramsay Magneto Joker!

The fact is Show!Ramsay had it better than Jon Snow, no harridan-stepmother (i.e. how the showrunners see Catelyn), no older brothers and sisters to make him feel he doesn't belong and pretty much allowed to seduce/hunt/murder all the girls he wants. This kid has had the life. In the books, that is not true at all.

[RoamingRonin]

If Stannis was so against Mel burning Shireen, he would have killed her on the spot or sent Mel back to the Wall. The fact that he doesn't supports the idea he wasn't entirely opposed to the idea of burning Shireen.

When it comes to ASoIaF villains, humanizing and whitewashing are often interchangeable.

Book Ramsay is a monster, a wafer thin caricature of a human being, meant only to disgust and scare the reader. Book Ramsay is like book Cersie - they feel very 1 dimensional and no where near as human as their show counterparts. So, I say, in the case of Ramsay and Cersie - the show has humanized them - as the show has added depth to their characters that the books didn't have.

I agree, somewhat. I can't accept the Boltons in the books. Ser Jorah sells some men into slavery and Ned rides off to behead him yet Roose and Ramsay rape, flay, torture and kill their subjects, are known for it, yet Ned has no idea what his rival bannermen are up to? Makes no sense. The fact that Ser Rodrik keeps "Reek" alive to confess to Robb makes no sense.

TV Cersei is extremely inconsistent. I once enjoyed how the show humanized her but her motives vary depending on the needs of the plot. It's vexing because Book Cersei is pretty much as you say: one dimensional, evil for the sake of being evil. Even as a kid, she was the same. Insisting she loves her children doesn't do much to give her depth. Cersei is just Cersei.

[ummester]

If Stannis was so against Mel burning Shireen, he would have killed her on the spot or sent Mel back to the Wall. The fact that he doesn't supports the idea he wasn't entirely opposed to the idea of burning Shireen.

I agree, somewhat. I can't accept the Boltons in the books. Ser Jorah sells some men into slavery and Ned rides off to behead him yet Roose and Ramsay rape, flay, torture and kill their subjects, are known for it, yet Ned has no idea what his rival bannermen are up to? Makes no sense. The fact that Ser Rodrik keeps "Reek" alive to confess to Robb makes no sense. The show

TV Cersei is extremely inconsistent. I once enjoyed how the show humanized her but her motives vary depending on the needs of the plot. It's vexing because Book Cersei is pretty much as you say: one dimensional, evil for the sake of being evil. Even as a kid, she was the same. Insisting she loves her children doesn't do much to give her depth. Cersei is just Cersei.

I think show Cersie is far more self aware than book Cersie. Book Cersie is deluded, she thinks she is ruling well when she is being a cluster-fuck.

Reading her was like reading the POV of some deluded, nasty senior executive, a comical bitch who is the head of a company that is falling into ruin or something. It made me laugh but I found her very hard to take seriously.

In the show, Cersie feels likes she knows she does wrong things but she also can't help doing them. Like when she pondered if it was right to love Joffrey, or felt bad about sex with Jamie st his funeral - she is self aware and she is aware that some of her excuses are excuses - but she also seems to know that her life has meaning because of the wrong things she does. She also feels much more like Tywin's daughter than book Cersie did.

[Night'sQueen]

If Stannis was so against Mel burning Shireen, he would have killed her on the spot or sent Mel back to the Wall. The fact that he doesn't supports the idea he wasn't entirely opposed to the idea of burning Shireen.

<snip>

TV Cersei is extremely inconsistent. I once enjoyed how the show humanized her but her motives vary depending on the needs of the plot. It's vexing because Book Cersei is pretty much as you say: one dimensional, evil for the sake of being evil. Even as a kid, she was the same. Insisting she loves her children doesn't do much to give her depth. Cersei is just Cersei.

Very much agree with your first point. At that point the fact that Stanis didn't do either of those things was ... ominous.

As to Cersei, she was more interesting to me in the books before we got her POV. Once we got inside her head she seemed so cartoonish.