Jump to content

(Book Spoilers)PSA: Regarding E09's controversial moment. It was GRRM's idea.


Snark88

Recommended Posts

Agree. I don't doubt Stannis would, in a situation like, dunno, having the Great Other facing him and realising he cannot win and humanity is doomed. Here, he ordered her execution because he was overplayed by Ramsay. RAMSAY. The one man who ate his own shoes rather than surrender a castle, for God's sake.

Amen... This was bad on so many levels...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree. I don't doubt Stannis would, in a situation like, dunno, having the Great Other facing him and realising he cannot win and humanity is doomed. Here, he ordered her execution because he was overplayed by Ramsay. RAMSAY. The one man who ate his own shoes rather than surrender a castle, for God's sake.

This is another thing.

Ramsay has tortured Theon into submission and made Theon believe Ramsay is unescapable and unbeatable. But there's no reason for Ramsay's cruelty and adeptness at torture should translate to great combat ability. In the books it's suggested that it, indeed doesn't and that Stannis is gonna be the one to show that off. In the show Ramsay is just an all round badass for no reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we really need to play this game? I agree that Shireen's burning is an atrocity and goes straight to the top of the list of what bad things happened in Westeros, but the idea of calling people hypocritical because they found rape a bit difficult to process is completely wrong. Just because another character got it worse, doesn't mean that sufferings of other are immediately negated.

It's about calling people out on making a fuss over things that rationally matter less, because of their emotional bias. It's about trying to insert some reason and remove all the high horse morality from the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis fandom has to have been one of the most mysterious phenomena I've ever witnessed. He was never anything more than a doubtful contender, and it was always clear to me (and I'm on record here) that GRRM never actually wrote him as anything more than that. Davos was already having doubts about him latterly, and Davos is clearly meant to be a moral compass of sorts.

I always felt Stannis fandom was a perverse, contrarian reaction against Dany fandom, an aberration, and I'm glad it's going to come to an end.

Stannis fandom largely comes from how the show has totally misunderstood both him and Melisandre. Melisandre in ADWD became a POV character and her perspective is totally different from before and how the show saw her. But the main thing is that by dialing down the prophecy and the magical element they kind of ruin that, without it she comes across as a psycho satanic cult leader or fantasy Taliban. The point is she has actual magical powers that can affect outcomes.

In the books, Stannis isn't a simple good guy by any means. He's cold, jealous of slights and bitter, but he's also got several positive qualities. In the show, they make Renly sympathetic for no goddamn reason at all, they make Renly a smart intellectual guy even if that guy is upsetting and challenging the entire line of succession and that's the main reason Robb Stark doesn't go for him. They also removed the crucial speech where Stannis says, "Save the Kingdom to win the Throne" without that idealism, the showrunners said he burned Shireen for ambition, when the show's dialogues have Melisandre saying he's important for the Long Knight.

But more importantly, human sacrifice is a general theme throughout the entire books. The whole idea of killing children is a part of the books, whether its Tywin killing the Rhaegar's kids for Lannister's rise to power, or Ned Stark refusing to kill Joffrey and then being killed by him anyway. And The World of Ice and Fire implies strongly that Egg planned to sacrifice Rhaegar to resurrect dragons but Dunk stopped him. So in the books, if it does come Stannis' way its part of a larger narrative and thematic arc and not a shocking turn to evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another thing.

Ramsay has tortured Theon into submission and made Theon believe Ramsay is unescapable and unbeatable. But there's no reason for Ramsay's cruelty and adeptness at torture should translate to great combat ability. In the books it's suggested that it, indeed doesn't and that Stannis is gonna be the one to show that off. In the show Ramsay is just an all round badass for no reason.

He's controversial, that's it. It's easier to have one villain for the heroes to fight rather than make those heroes fight with their own decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about calling people out on making a fuss over things that rationally matter less, because of their emotional bias. It's about trying to insert some reason and remove all the high horse morality from the discussion.

Do you actually see people being OK with happened to Shireen? Even the book purists (and the producers obviously have, or at least believe to have, GRRM's blessing on this one) are angry and frustrated. No one considers this to be OK, so playing "why you whined about Sansa's rape, it is not that bad" argument is borderline misogynist BS.

Again, just because someone got worse, doesn't mean someone else didn't get bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shireen's burning was the most horrible thing in the whole show to me. Now I can understand the fury and despair of my unsullied frieds after the the Red Wedding, I can even relate to their oaths never to watch again.

And yet I will go on on loving books and show.

There is no need to play one awful moment against the other and yet I am doing this on purpose since I am enraged about the hypocrisy around the whole Sansa debate when we already could be quite sure that the burning of Shireen would happen.

But Sansa getting raped is not at all comparable to this. Sansa is still alive and still has a story to tell, she is still there and just like Shireen getting burned Sansa's rape or abuse did not yet happen in the books but happened in the show.

Yes, I am shocked about the death of one of my favorite characters as anyone would be. And I am furious bout the glaring hypocrisy of some posters concerning the episodes past. Where is the rage about that other young girl who after all is dead?! You won't read me raging about events since that cruelty like the other one is part of the story.

Martin and the showmakers will know why this turn was necessary.

I guess storywise Stannis is burned now as character representing hope and justice. Rooting for him would be impossible after that and I guess he is doomed sooner or later no less than Tywin was. Stannis has entered the lines of those complex and hugely fascinating villains like Tywin, Baelish and maybe Roose. Potential of self sacrificial redemption but villain nonetheless.

:agree:

Consider that book Stannis:

- Never actually gives the order to burn Edric Storm.

- Is the one who initially refuses and comes up with the idea of leaches.

- Assumes that the leaches work, because the Kings actually die.

- Sounds "more tired than angry" when Davos informs him he's gone, was tortured by the decision.

- Threatens Mel to "die by the inches" unless it produces a dragon.

If you can't see the difference in the depth Martin have to that internal struggle and this decision made on a whim to burn his daughter then you shouldn't really be commenting.

The show have portrayed him as a villain. It's been obvious ever since the Gendry debacle.

I am beginning to think that D&D are making everyone more villianous besides Dany and Jon.

Agree. I don't doubt Stannis would, in a situation like, dunno, having the Great Other facing him and realising he cannot win and humanity is doomed. Here, he ordered her execution because he was overplayed by Ramsay. RAMSAY. The one man who ate his own shoes rather than surrender a castle, for God's sake.

:bowdown: I agree so much. Could it happen in the books possibly but the manner in which it occurs in the show is madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis fandom has to have been one of the most mysterious phenomena I've ever witnessed. He was never anything more than a doubtful contender, and it was always clear to me (and I'm on record here) that GRRM never actually wrote him as anything more than that. Davos was already having doubts about him latterly, and Davos is clearly meant to be a moral compass of sorts.

I always felt Stannis fandom was a perverse, contrarian reaction against Dany fandom, an aberration, and I'm glad it's going to come to an end.

They aren't going anywhere in the immediate future. If Stannis ends up giving the order to burn Shireen in TWOW then I would agree that his fandom would dissipate quickly. A man who burned his daughter to preserve his chances for the throne would be pretty hard to rally around.

But if he does not give the order for her death in the books, and it is done behind his back, then his fans aren't going anywhere. They will just double down on their rabid hatred of D&D for butchering his character...and I really won't blame them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woman of War, I agree with your sentiments entirely - Shireens death was one of the cruelest acts in the entire saga, equaled only by Robb's pregnant wife copping a knife in the womb. Sexual assault is wrong - but the cruelty is nothing like what happened to Shireen - an innocent mind, burnt painfully to death, crying out to your parents as they watch - fuck me, i can't think of much worse.

As for this:

Thank you, I needed this since I have only just, this morning here, watched the episode and I am still trembling.

I may be a hard boiled cineast, reader and series lover but this was (as the Red Wedding would have been if I had not been prepared) about the most heartbreaking I ever watched.

And the execution of the pit scene with Jorah and Tyrion in it was exciting, I never have thought that this great part might be able to calm me down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what this have to do with Sansa's terrible scene, tbh.



If you want to compare them, then... let's consider this. Shireen is the only kid who hasn't been aged to be involved in a sexual scene. Tommen -> sex with Marg. Missandei -> being lusted by GW. Trystane and Myrcella -> replace cyvasse playing by kissing all over Dorne.



Of course she got killed. They couldn't exploit her sexuality.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you actually see people being OK with happened to Shireen? Even the book purists (and the producers obviously have, or at least believe to have, GRRM's blessing on this one) are angry and frustrated. No one considers this to be OK, so playing "why you whined about Sansa's rape, it is not that bad" argument is borderline misogynist BS.

Again, just because someone got worse, doesn't mean someone else didn't get bad.

Saying that trying to rationally rank human cruelty in a given plot is 'borderline misogynist BS' is such a pathetic, emotionally driven response, and exactly my point.

Leave your emotions at the door and then try and discuss it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow i think i am the only one older than 17 years here. I am very old reader but i only recently started to comment. And i loved the book readers prior to this episode. Because today they are behaving childishly , literally, i can not believe i am reading things here from grown up book readers that not even a 12 years old child will say when some one take their toy and give them back similar but in a different color.

I read one guying saying that D&D lied to put the blame on GRRM really ??? Or were you joking ...

some are saying it is impossible to happen in the books ??? well again really ?? last time i checked age of ice and fire was famous for being interesting, shocking and unpredictable , and who said it is impossible when their are almost 2000 pages of text left.

I am shocked by this reaction.

I'm 19, so no.

If you're going to lecture everyone here for being children, at least do it with a hint of finesse. You can't expect to tell people off for getting upset at what a character does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hum... Tyrion *cough cough cough* Cersei *cough* even Arya of late *cough*

They are rather whitewashing a good half of characters

Simplifying characters to stuff them into neat boxes... exactly the opposite of what GRRM's story is about.

I'm confident the Stannicide in the book will be treated with the depth and tragedy it deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we really need to play this game? I agree that Shireen's burning is an atrocity and goes straight to the top of the list of what bad things happened in Westeros, but the idea of calling people hypocritical because they found rape a bit difficult to process is completely wrong. Just because another character got it worse, doesn't mean that sufferings of others are immediately negated.

What's the point about debating who suffered more and who suffered less? The lesson here is that everyone suffers, and the reason everyone suffers, is that we exist.

Do you think it was happenstance that got us to the top of the food chain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shireen will burn. That's pretty much a certainty. The rest is uncertain, but I wouldn't be surprised if Stannis was the person to order the burning. People look at the end of ADwD and assume that the situation won't change by the time of the burning, but that's a bit shortsighted. Obviously it can't be done instantly, since Stannis is far away from Shireen. However, that may change easily, too. TWoW will be a massive book, people.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that trying to rationally rank human cruelty in a given plot is 'borderline misogynist BS' is such a pathetic, emotionally driven response, and exactly my point.

Leave your emotions at the door and then try and discuss it.

When you say that people have no right to complain about 16-year-old girl being raped just because there are worse things in the world, that is actually quite problematic view on thing. So, what, now we don't mourn WWI victims, because WWII victims got it worse? And on and on...

Again, strawman arguments like this are totally uncalled for and I don't understand where it comes from. It is not even rationally ranking human cruelty. It is just marginalizing rape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider that book Stannis:

- Never actually gives the order to burn Edric Storm.

- Is the one who initially refuses and comes up with the idea of leaches.

- Assumes that the leaches work, because the Kings actually die.

- Sounds "more tired than angry" when Davos informs him he's gone, was tortured by the decision.

- Threatens Mel to "die by the inches" unless it produces a dragon.

If you can't see the difference in the depth Martin have to that internal struggle and this decision made on a whim to burn his daughter then you shouldn't really be commenting.

The show have portrayed him as a villain. It's been obvious ever since the Gendry debacle.

None of that absolves him of all the people he already has ordered burned. Yeah books are great at displaying internal struggles, because the author has all kinds of tools to convey that, even when it's a non POV character like Stannis. TV and movies are visual mediums and are therefore only able to convey what you can put on screen. The internal struggle has been playing out on Stephen Dillain's face all season long, I can't help you if you choose not to see it.

Sorry, but the show has not portrayed him as a villain, at least no more so than the books do. In fact, if anything they softened him a lot on the show up to this point. Stannis has no touching fatherly moments in the books, he ignores Shireen as much if not more than Selyse does. Patchface is more of a father to Shireen than Stannis is, give me a break!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't view that video as being evidence that GRRM gave them this idea. I think GRRM will have Shireen burned, because there's a tonne of foreshadowing around it. But when Shireen burns, it won't be done like this; It won't be spiting established characterisation for the sake of shock. Which is what this was, the show went 180 on both Stannis's character from just 2 episodes ago, and common sense (Why on earth he'd burn his one and only heir for the sake of his own ambition confuses me still).



As people ever seem to forget; Different circumstances change both the impact of the event, and it's probability. And my issue with this scene wasn't that Shireen burned, it was the circumstances that caused it, and the reasoning as to why.



The idea that Ramsey and 20 riders could managed to sneak into Stannis's camp, and destroy enough of his baggage train to cause starvation to be an immediate threat. Somehow making it there in a Blizzard, and avoiding all of Stannis' scouts and sentries (Which he should have, given he's a sensible leader whose fought in wars before), and then got out again. And then Stannis, despite being the man who would rather eat rats than give in in Storm's End, suddenly decides he needs to burn his beloved daughter, and his heir, of all people as a result.



It's improbable, it's inconsitent, and it looks like it was just done for drama and shock. And it irritates me.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...