Jump to content

[Book Spoilers] EP510 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

This season though has been up and down, i felt they seemed to be going for the 'shock factor' and contriving instances that would get talked about on media etc.

Im not bothered by gore, or horrid things happening, but in the early seasons it felt logical and plot driven (red wedding, ned stark killing etc)

This season it hasnt, it has felt like the producers have gone 'hey lets do a shocking scene that gets the media talking'

I felt the way they built stannis up with his daughters touching scene then shortly after had her burning was a particularly contrived plotline

and felt completely off.

I didn't feel this season was any more 'shocking' or gratuitous than previous ones to be honest. For me, Shireens death felt pretty organic within the story, given what we've seen. Extreme, yes, but within the realms of believability.

Edited by Fyrewolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest i dont know if thats the reason or not, like i said the main issue is that too many things felt contrived or done purely for shock value (burning shireen, making trant a pedo, brienne turning away JUST as the candle was lit)... i could go on but basically several things have made me cringe

I dont know if the producers have done this because they found the source less inspiring, or because they are misunderstanding what the audience wants to see.

I do know my unsullied friends find this the worst season though.

I have been watching old episodes lately, compare this season to the scenes with say... arya and the hound and its no comparison.

Oh btw, im not a book hater, 1-3 were the best fantasy i have read

Yeah, compared with previous seasons this one has been very lacklustre. One thing was the contrived writing. Another is, imo, their dedication to adhering to plot points even if the changes they have made no longer allow the point to happen organically.

Incidentally, Dance is my second favourite book, but it's not as well written as the first three. It just contains some of my favourite chapters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, compared with previous seasons this one has been very lacklustre. One thing was the contrived writing. Another is, imo, their dedication to adhering to plot points even if the changes they have made no longer allow the point to happen organically.

Incidentally, Dance is my second favourite book, but it's not as well written as the first three. It just contains some of my favourite chapters.

As an example, my colleague who i share an office with got to game of thrones very late (hes show only). He started watching 6 weeks ago

The first 4 seasons he was totally addicted watching 3 or 4 hours a night, badgering me with questions about characters when i was trying to work.

This season he has gradually lost interest- although he loved hardhome.

I personally think that HBO had a deal with GRRM about how many book spoilers they could reveal, and that may have impacted the show.

As for the books, well its been a few years since i read them but i didnt 'hate' 4 and 5, i just remember thinking they could have been edited into 1 book,and that it would have been a good book. I actually felt nervous about admitting i didnt 'love' those books :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think you are bringing in modern concepts of separation of church and state which don't really apply to a culture based on feudal Europe. Remember that whole 'crime against an ordained King is a crime against God' concept?

No, I'm bringing in medieval concepts of the struggles between church power and state power (which are the struggles that led to the need for that concept in the first place, but not until much later), which are paralleled by similar struggles in Westeros.

Kings often used charges of blasphemy or heresy, whether against their political enemies or against the Faith itself (see Philip's trial of the Templars for the most obvious case). But the Church almost never used charges of treason or other such state crimes against their enemies. Even the Royal Inquisitions founded by Ferdinand in Spain and later in New Spain, Portugal, and Goa, which were chartered for the specific purpose of discovering whether any moriscos and morranos were still loyal to foreign powers, rarely if ever judged anyone for treason.

The only major exceptions come after the Protestant Reformation (and Westeros's equivalent to that, if they ever have one, is obviously still far in the future), most notably Henry VIII arresting various subjects of the Holy Roman Empire and other sovereign states for treason in his capacity as head of the Church of England rather than of the Kingdom of England. (Henry's trials were cited by the Federalists as the reason the American Constitution needed a definition of treason, and were then one of the main arguments for the First Amendment. They were also part of the reason why the Counter-Reformation-era Catholic Church didn't set up inquisitions that paralleled state trials, the way the earlier Church had.)

Setting boundaries on themselves, or negotiating those boundaries with kings, allowed the Church to have unconstrained (or much less constrained) power within those boundaries. Since they are only judging crimes against God, no one has grounds to dispute their judgments, not even kings. (Of course kings could always try to negotiate with or subvert the church, or assassinate an archbishop in hopes of getting a better one, or set up an anti-pope, or declare themselves a Protestant church...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't a Queen's adultery treason in pretty much any medieval monarchy? Let's face it, if a Queen is committing adultery, the legitimacy of her children will be called into question. There's no real way the show can say that it isn't treason and maintain any realism.

That may seem like "common sense", but actually look at medieval history instead of just guessing.

A good real-life parallel to Cersei is Isabella of France, wife of Edward II. She and Roger Mortimer were accused of adultery, conspiring with the Lancasters, killing Edward II, misusing their regency over Edward III to rule without justification, and attempting to assassinate Edward III. (The last one was a complete fabrication; it was needed to justify their arrest, but not pressed during the trial. The others were all manifestly true, except possibly killing Edward.) During the trial, Mortimer admitted to not only sleeping with Isabella both before and after Edward's death, but also getting her pregnant. He was hanged for his crimes (which was considered lenient--Parliament wanted him disemboweled, but Edward III produced his milder sentence before them, and they ratified it). She was placed under house arrest for two years and had some of her lands stripped, and then allowed to retire peacefully.

Margaret of Burgundy was caught in flagrante by her sister-in-law, putting the paternity of Princess Joan in doubt. Margaret was accused of adultery, but not treason, and imprisoned in Chateau Gaillard until such time as the King saw fit to grant mercy (which didn't happen, because she died a year and a half into her sentence).

For other examples, look at King John's two wives and Henry IV's widow in England, or Louis VII's in France, or just google "queen adultery" or "queen adultery" and find more examples for yourself.

You're probably thinking of Anne Boleyn as a typical case. She and her brother were, of course, executed for "treasonous adultery". But the whole reason Anne Boleyn is famous is that there was nothing at all typical about her case. Henry VIII ran roughshod over all of the laws and practices of both England and the Catholic Church, until he finally declared himself head of a new Church of England so he could do whatever he wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further thoughts:



- I don't know why I thought this - Sansa walks right by men saddling up their horses - but when that cavalry first charged out, I did think for a moment that it was a host of rebel Northern lords coming to aid Stannis, and that the season might end with the Battle of Winterfell still to come.



- How many things have D&D described as "the worst thing you can imagine" in their "Inside the Episodes?" 'Cause it seems like they use that phrase for a lot of stuff.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

- How many things have D&D described as "the worst thing you can imagine" in their "Inside the Episodes?" 'Cause it seems like they use that phrase for a lot of stuff.

They're just trolling the book purists, trying to get them to say, "But the way you butchered the last episode was already the worst thing I can imagine" so many times that everyone stops listening to them. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further thoughts:

- I don't know why I thought this - Sansa walks right by men saddling up their horses - but when that cavalry first charged out, I did think for a moment that it was a host of rebel Northern lords coming to aid Stannis, and that the season might end with the Battle of Winterfell still to come.

- How many things have D&D described as "the worst thing you can imagine" in their "Inside the Episodes?" 'Cause it seems like they use that phrase for a lot of stuff.

And thats the problem, they drive characters to do 'the worst thing you can imagine' even when it makes no sense this season.

I am convinced it is purely to get the media reporting on it the next day, but in some cases it spoils characterization

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about Mel's visions of Bolton banners burning and her roaming in the crypts of Winterfell?

The thing about Mel in the books is that her visions are true but her interpretations suck.

When she told Stannis that she saw herself on the battlements at Winterfell and not him as well raised a red flag with me. Among other things throughout this season like Mel trying to seduce Jon.

But I was not expecting it to end so badly for Stannis so quickly...it was like Westeros' version of 'Worst Day Ever'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may seem like "common sense", but actually look at medieval history instead of just guessing.

A good real-life parallel to Cersei is Isabella of France, wife of Edward II. She and Roger Mortimer were accused of adultery, conspiring with the Lancasters, killing Edward II, misusing their regency over Edward III to rule without justification, and attempting to assassinate Edward III. (The last one was a complete fabrication; it was needed to justify their arrest, but not pressed during the trial. The others were all manifestly true, except possibly killing Edward.) During the trial, Mortimer admitted to not only sleeping with Isabella both before and after Edward's death, but also getting her pregnant. He was hanged for his crimes (which was considered lenient--Parliament wanted him disemboweled, but Edward III produced his milder sentence before them, and they ratified it). She was placed under house arrest for two years and had some of her lands stripped, and then allowed to retire peacefully.

Margaret of Burgundy was caught in flagrante by her sister-in-law, putting the paternity of Princess Joan in doubt. Margaret was accused of adultery, but not treason, and imprisoned in Chateau Gaillard until such time as the King saw fit to grant mercy (which didn't happen, because she died a year and a half into her sentence).

For other examples, look at King John's two wives and Henry IV's widow in England, or Louis VII's in France, or just google "queen adultery" or "queen adultery" and find more examples for yourself.

You're probably thinking of Anne Boleyn as a typical case. She and her brother were, of course, executed for "treasonous adultery". But the whole reason Anne Boleyn is famous is that there was nothing at all typical about her case. Henry VIII ran roughshod over all of the laws and practices of both England and the Catholic Church, until he finally declared himself head of a new Church of England so he could do whatever he wanted.

Actualy by the time of Henry VIII adultery by a queen was in fact legally treason in England. Moreover, there are many examples in British and continental history where it eas deemed treason. Really what was done in any case depended on the paricular facts and the relative power of the parties. For instance in the case of Edward II's wife, since it was known that Edward was gay and that Mortimer confessed to having sex with the Queen prior to Edwards's death a major reason that the Queen was not fully made to pay was that if her aultery was seriously stressed Edward II's paternity and his right to the crown might be questioned. Moreover, the Queen was a French Princess having her beheaded would have been a cause bellie at a time England was not ready for war. Much more, the times where adultery was not deemed treason can be said to be exceptions to the general rule. If the Queen's virtue is held in question the future of the dynasty is put at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm bringing in medieval concepts of the struggles between church power and state power (which are the struggles that led to the need for that concept in the first place, but not until much later), which are paralleled by similar struggles in Westeros.

Kings often used charges of blasphemy or heresy, whether against their political enemies or against the Faith itself (see Philip's trial of the Templars for the most obvious case). But the Church almost never used charges of treason or other such state crimes against their enemies. Even the Royal Inquisitions founded by Ferdinand in Spain and later in New Spain, Portugal, and Goa, which were chartered for the specific purpose of discovering whether any moriscos and morranos were still loyal to foreign powers, rarely if ever judged anyone for treason.

The only major exceptions come after the Protestant Reformation (and Westeros's equivalent to that, if they ever have one, is obviously still far in the future), most notably Henry VIII arresting various subjects of the Holy Roman Empire and other sovereign states for treason in his capacity as head of the Church of England rather than of the Kingdom of England. (Henry's trials were cited by the Federalists as the reason the American Constitution needed a definition of treason, and were then one of the main arguments for the First Amendment. They were also part of the reason why the Counter-Reformation-era Catholic Church didn't set up inquisitions that paralleled state trials, the way the earlier Church had.)

Setting boundaries on themselves, or negotiating those boundaries with kings, allowed the Church to have unconstrained (or much less constrained) power within those boundaries. Since they are only judging crimes against God, no one has grounds to dispute their judgments, not even kings. (Of course kings could always try to negotiate with or subvert the church, or assassinate an archbishop in hopes of getting a better one, or set up an anti-pope, or declare themselves a Protestant church...)

That's very late in the Middle ages. In the earlier part, the Church and Crown tended to have very overlapping jurisdictions. Indeed the best example you give-- The Teemplers-- is one in which both the French Crown and Catholic Church found the Templers to have committed High Crimes both against the State and the Chhurch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To be honest i dont know if thats the reason or not, like i said the main issue is that too many things felt contrived or done purely for shock value (burning shireen, making trant a pedo, brienne turning away JUST as the candle was lit)... i could go on but basically several things have made me cringe"



Trent being a pedo mirrors the Mercy Chapter. Burning Shareen was not done for shock value it signaled Stannis's lose of perspective and his final spiral into utter ruin. Brianne turing away goes along with the entire episodes theme of a character making a choice between two alternatives and making arguably the wrong choice. Arya, Brianne, The members of the Knight's Watch, Cersi all decided to make the choice on personal preferences and not their duty.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actualy by the time of Henry VIII adultery by a queen was in fact legally treason in England.

Not according to the wording of the Treason Act 1351 (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2).It's treason for a man to violate the king's companion, but Henry VIII had to convince Parliament to stretch that to the point of silliness to claim that Anne counts as a man violating the king's companion by willingly allowing her brother to violate her. It was never used that way before or after Henry.

When Piers Morgan tried to get one of Princess Diana's ex-lovers charged with high treason to protect Diana's name and/or to sell newspapers? He apparently never even considered the possibility that it might also implicate Diana for treason until a letter to the editor asked about it; he claims that the Mirror legal staff looked into the idea and decided no judge would even consider the precedent of Anne Boleyn.

Moreover, there are many examples in British and continental history where it eas deemed treason.

If there really are many, then name just one. I named many examples where it wasn't, and I can name many more if you want.

Really what was done in any case depended on the paricular facts and the relative power of the parties. For instance in the case of Edward II's wife, since it was known that Edward was gay

No it wasn't. It was suspected that he had an affair with Piers Gaveston, but it was also suspected that he'd had affairs with at multiple men and women before and after Gaveston. And, more importantly, it was well known that he'd actually consummated his marriage with Isabella. Also, Mortimer didn't meet Isabella until Edward III was already 12 years old, so he couldn't possibly put the paternity in doubt. And finally, Edward III had already been recognized as Edward II's heir in an Act and in Edward II's treaty of abdication.

and that Mortimer confessed to having sex with the Queen prior to Edwards's death a major reason that the Queen was not fully made to pay was that if her aultery was seriously stressed Edward II's paternity and his right to the crown might be questioned. Moreover, the Queen was a French Princess having her beheaded would have been a cause bellie at a time England was not ready for war.

Edward III was actively trying to start a war with France at the time. It took him a decade to convince the nobles to go along with it. If he could have found a shortcut to doing so, he would have.

Much more, the times where adultery was not deemed treason can be said to be exceptions to the general rule. If the Queen's virtue is held in question the future of the dynasty is put at risk.

Again, if it's a general rule, what examples do you have?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To be honest i dont know if thats the reason or not, like i said the main issue is that too many things felt contrived or done purely for shock value (burning shireen, making trant a pedo, brienne turning away JUST as the candle was lit)... i could go on but basically several things have made me cringe"

Trent being a pedo mirrors the Mercy Chapter. Burning Shareen was not done for shock value it signaled Stannis's lose of perspective and his final spiral into utter ruin. Brianne turing away goes along with the entire episodes theme of a character making a choice between two alternatives and making arguably the wrong choice. Arya, Brianne, The members of the Knight's Watch, Cersi all decided to make the choice on personal preferences and not their duty.

One cannot label an event in and of itself as shock value. What made the Shireen burning shock value was the fact that they didn't show any kind of problematic suffering or grappling with an impossible decision in Stannis' camp and also the fact that we had seen Stannis give Shireen a beautiful speech telling her the story of her greyscale proving his devotion to her. He was of sound mind up until 20 ridiculous fires flared up simultaneously all over the snow-buried camp without anyone seeing these magical assailants.

It was shock value storytelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cannot label an event in and of itself as shock value. What made the Shireen burning shock value was the fact that they didn't show any kind of problematic suffering or grappling with an impossible decision in Stannis' camp and also the fact that we had seen Stannis give Shireen a beautiful speech telling her the story of her greyscale proving his devotion to her. He was of sound mind up until 20 ridiculous fires flared up simultaneously all over the snow-buried camp without anyone seeing these magical assailants.

It was shock value storytelling.

I agree, it was a case of 'get to shocking scene no matter how contrived and jarring it is' for me.

If we had some build up then maybe it would have worked, but instead we had time devoted to crap about sand snakes flashing breasts and playing some daft slapping game.

The earlier seasons had stuff i loved (arya and the hound, robert and cersei discussing their marriage, walder frey trolling rob etc)

This season i loved... hard home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, it was a case of 'get to shocking scene no matter how contrived and jarring it is' for me.

If we had some build up then maybe it would have worked, but instead we had time devoted to crap about sand snakes flashing breasts and playing some daft slapping game.

The earlier seasons had stuff i loved (arya and the hound, robert and cersei discussing their marriage, walder frey trolling rob etc)

This season i loved... hard home.

Yep, Hardhome was it. The only decent episode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's very late in the Middle ages. In the earlier part, the Church and Crown tended to have very overlapping jurisdictions.

The Church and the Crown fought over their jurisdictions pretty much from the start of the middle ages, starting with Pope Hormisdas and John I and King Theoderic in the 510s. Which was followed by Felix IV getting both King Theoderic and Emperor Justinian to pass edicts allowing the Pope rather than the state to hear cases against clergy. And, meanwhile, Felix declared that in the continuing religious disputes between the King and the Empire, the Pope was not obliged by any law of God or man to take either the King's side or the Emperor's, and therefore John I taking the Emperor's side was not a religious but a personal matter, so his imprisonment by Theoderic was just. How much earlier do you want than that?

Indeed the best example you give-- The Teemplers-- is one in which both the French Crown and Catholic Church found the Templers to have committed High Crimes both against the State and the Chhurch.

No they weren't. In fact, the reason Philip chose to prosecute them for heresy is that the Templars were not answerable at all for crimes against the State. To try them at all, he had to exploit a loophole left over from the Albigensian Crusade, where the King had been deputized to act on behalf of the Pope in cases of vile heresy, which nobody had thought to cancel. Pope Clement V held his own trials, where he found that they were guilty of "the sin of wicked apostasy, the crime of detestable idolatry, and the execrable outrage of the Sodomites" (from the Vox in Excelso) but that these were crimes against God and therefore their assets should be turned over to the Hospitallers (from the Ad Providam). Philip agreed with this, on the stipulation that all assets already disposed of could be kept, and the Hospitallers would pay 200000 livres to the Crown for, in effect, administrative costs in collecting those assets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, Hardhome was it. The only decent episode.

I am doing a rewatch at the moment (ill do a reread at some point too)

and there are some brilliant moments, i will say the robb stark story was better on the show than books for me

The king of the north scene worked for me, and robs grief when he is chopping the tree and speaks to cat REALLY worked for me

Here is hoping that S6 produces moments like that in bucketfuls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...