Jump to content

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


Snark88

Recommended Posts

We must keep in mind that even if BookStannis now decided to burn Shireen, the decision would be much more justified than the decision that ShowStannis has taken. George has done some decent job in showing how difficult Stannis situation is. He has time to add much more justification for this, and can make it develop as an organic decision to be taken.

The problem is not the "what", but the "how". And how D&D have depicted the decision of Stannis burning Shireen can only be described as very bad writing.

No. No justification for that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they are ok. they are not as good as some fans make them out to be. They have better logic than the show, generally but not always better drama and some character motivations become so convoluted they feel silly.

I used to be a fan of both - now I am a critic of both, as it is clear the story is starting to lose it's way on page and screen.

What has that got to do with what you posted?

Even if Stannis does ever burn Shireen (which he won't) the context will be wildly different. I'm not sure how anyone who's read the books can disagree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Wow, again, this has been coming in the book and the show virtually since the character of Shireen was introduced. I don't see how this isn't a natural progression of the character who has done increasingly desperate things - he started on this path when he took the coward's way out and had his little brother murdered instead of face him like a Mannis...er, Man, on the battle field. I mean, so afraid of Renly of all people?





Because wanting to avoid direct martial combat with someone whose army outnumbers yours solely with his calvary is suddenly a bad choice. Like mock Renly all you want; His army was larger than both the Lannisters and Starks combined, and Stannis had the smallest. If he hadn't tried subterfuge I'd be calling him an idiot (Unless he'd prepped the battlefield hugely, which is a theory that I personally like. I just don't think there's enough if any textual evidence to suggest it, and thus any reasonable choice on that location other than the one he made would've been stupid)




Also, you've been saying for a while that this event is the natural progression of his character in the show; But I'd ask you if this is the natural progression over the whole series, why then have the scene establishing how much he loved Shireen, and refusing to burn her initially without showing any step between and just jumping into this is good execution of this development?



Like, I will agree with you that this kind of action is more in-keeping with how Stannis has been portrayed over the course of the show. But it does not change that the execution of the development across this season can be seen as underwhelming.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

But since you just admitted we don't know really what is or isn't written in the books. Why not leave the books out of it, and just defend what we saw on the screen independent of the books. Or are you afraid to because without the Martin shield the emperors are actually naked.

No, I'm more afraid that they are co-joined emperors that are both naked. It's not an either or thing for me, I'm just pointing out that it is for you. For me they are both starting to show faults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has that got to do with what you posted?

Even if Stannis does ever burn Shireen (which he won't) the context will be wildly different. I'm not sure how anyone who's read the books can disagree with that.

Because we haven't read where Stannis burns Shireen - GRRM may write it exactly the same and, until it's written, any argument you make to the contrary is entirely conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has that got to do with what you posted?

Even if Stannis does ever burn Shireen (which he won't) the context will be wildly different. I'm not sure how anyone who's read the books can disagree with that.

Who cares what the context is? If he burns his daughter he will join Ramsay and Gregor for biggest piece of shit in the story.

Hell, even if it is Mel, he left Shireen with her knowing what she wanted to do with Edric.

Stannis is not going to come out of this looking good no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who actually reads the books would know that Stannis burning Shireen like this would be physically impossible. The two characters aren't even close to each other and Stannis just named her his heir if he were to die. These are not the actions of someone who would throw shireen into the fire for a chance to beat roose bolton.



I think its beyond obvious that Mel and selyse were behind it if it did happen in the books but that won't stop D&D from making Stannis the bad guy.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we haven't read where Stannis burns Shireen - GRRM may write it exactly the same and, until it's written, any argument you make to the contrary is entirely conjecture.

You can keep saying that if it makes you feel any better but it's plainly obvious it cannot be the exact same scenario. Technically conjecture, but it's fairly obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, did you guys miss that this is per GRRM? This will be in WoW.

I really hope he releases the chapter soon. But of course, show haters will claim that they somehow forced him to write it, right?

The show and the books have been very clear this event was going to take place. We all hoped it wouldn't, but just because you guys can't read the subtext that was always there, doesn't mean it wasn't so.

Just because you don't like something does not mean it's "bad writing" - they have left so many clues and this has been built up for several years, it's not "bad writing" it's "inattentive viewing/reading". If they didn't do it, that would have been bad writing - because they have left the trail of breadcrumbs to follow for quite some time.

Its not that Shireen gets burnt that is the issue - only 'inattentive viewing/reading' would make that claim about the criticism.

The issue is how Stannis could get to the point of doing it.

You mention the 'breadcrumbs'. This is 'painting the targets after the arrows have landed'. What about the other 'breadcrumbs'? The guy held out besieged for a year eating rats and all of a sudden 20 guys kill a few horses and he goes "Yep, better burn the kid". This is weak. This is poor writing. This is bad story telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its beyond obvious that Mel and selyse were behind it if it did happen in the books but that won't stop D&D from making Stannis the bad guy.

I thought the show pretty clearly showed it was Mel and Selyse' idea, something that Stannis gave into regretfully - but, when the fire hit the flesh, Selyse became regretful and Stannis remained resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. No justification for that.

Let's not argue semantics here. I wasn't using justification with the sense of "an acceptable reason for doing something", but in the sense of "a credible explanation of someone's action".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's planned to be written that idiotically in the books nad Martin told D&D that, it's no excuse. They have already changed so much they should have changed that either.



But I am sure it won't be that bad or anywhere near. Martin on his worst day is 10 times the writer these two hacks are.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's going to get burned back at the castle to awaken the stone dragons. That's my bet.

Mel is incredibly evil and conniving. She's one character I'd like to see face a grim end besides Ramsay.

But why? The stone dragons have already been awakened in this story. And even if it's for something more metaphorical, like resurrecting Jon, there's isn't even any proof that Jon Snow needs to be resurrected via Shereens sacrifice. We've seen multiple resurrections that don't involve a sacrifice. Shireen dying for Jon makes no sense, but yet people are clinging to that idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&D's character assasination of Tyrion and Jaime these past 2 seasons is waaaaaaaaay more egregious and infuriating than what they have done to Stannis.

Show Tyrion and Jamie are way more moral than their book counterparts.

Nothing in the video confirms that this is Stannis' decision in the books. Shireen gets burned - we all called it four years ago after ADWD was published.

Yes but it is pretty obvious Stannis has to burn her. Otherwise it makes no sense. Stannis is Agamemnon, Sylese will try to kill him.

I think people is giving too much credit to the whole "GRRM told us" quote.

Look, in the show, Sansa marries Ramsay, who is a monster, and gets raped by him in order to achieve revenge. In the books

1. Ramsay gets a fake Stark wife and he abuses her physically and sexually

2. Sansa might get married to a guy and this could end up putting her in a position of power.

Technically, D&D get Sansa's storyline from the books: she gets married to a guy she doesn't like in order to achieve something. But that will definitely not happen in the books at all. Harry won't rape Sansa. She might have sex with him and believe it was awful, but that's very different to what happened her in showWinterfell.

The show is much better than the books. The Lemoncakes are just wrong.

Book Sansa does nothing.

Oh wow Stannis haters crawling out of the woodwork

The guy murdered his brother with a daemon spawned by his court witch and has already burned members of his family alive for the throne.

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.

Oh it hasn't come to an end. The Stannis deniers will continue even after book Stannis has burned Shireen alive.

Come on guys lay off a bit. Stannis was a serious role model for some people, including myself.

This reminds me of the Alester Florent scene. In the books we know he was burnt for treason.

But the cancerous TV show said he was burnt because he wouldn't follow The Lord of Light.

Im sure Shireen will die, Stannis won't be around to stop it, let alone carry it out himself.

They killed my favourite character (Stannis) for mere shock factor.

I hope your brother doesn't hear that.

Stannis is not a grey character. He is evil from the very start.

The burning literally cannot go down as D&D filmed it.

Stop.

Of course it can and it will. Only making it even more clear that Stannis is to blame

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Than your argument is one of baseless faith - it can't be proven, beyond your interpretation, until it is written and published.

The books have gone beyond the situation he's in right now and he's not managed to burn his daughter.

The fact that he's refused to burn anyone despite his men resorting to cannibalism tells me the circumustances will not be the same. In the books he's in worse circumstances and being encouraged by his men to burn someone not even remotely as close as Shireen. He hasn't given in.

Again - Literally cannot happen in the same way with the same motivations. Not possible.

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...