Jump to content

Archived

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

Cron

Is There Anything On The Show That You Think Is Better Than The Books?

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Cron said:

 

Wow, you think if Cat knew Jon wasn't Ned's son she would have betrayed Ned, and somehow given Jon to the Lannisters?  That wouldn't be my guess, but I suppose only GRRM knows for sure.  I see no reasonably possible way that Cat could ever have given Jon to the Lannisters in exchange for Sansa or Arya anyway, though.  By that time, Jon was WAY outside Cat's ability to do such a thing, I think.  My goodness, Cat was ni the south, Winterfell was held by the Boltons, plus Umbers and Karstarks had turned against Starks (meaning the north in general was a pretty hostile place for Starks), and Jon was with the Night's Watch (even further away), ranging beyond the Wall at the time. no less.  Not sure how Cat could just decide to hand Jon over to the Lannisters under such circumstances.

(Your last line was not directed to me.)

Indeed, and what the hell would the Lannisters want with Jon? Robert was the one with the vendetta against Targaryens. 

I find the Cat-hate kind of silly, really. It's a fictional character! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

Concrete is something like "It should have been you." Clearly a deplorable action.  

Concrete is not Jon thinking she cheered internally for every lump she took.  If you have a kid and are cheering for him when he scores a goal every time he beats the neighbor kid 1v1, are you abusing the other kid?  Aside from making it clear he is not a trueborn Stark, there is no evidence she ever does anything but be cold to Jon outside of Bran's chamber.  

@Cron, just as a formatting tip, you can hit enter twice when quoting someone with multiple paragraphs and it will automatically separate them into separate quotes if you want to respond to each in kind (wish someone had told me earlier).  

Thanks for the tip, I was getting ready to ask someone about that (seriously).

However, I still don't quite understand.  I used the mouse cursor to click on "quote" to bring your stuff down to where I can respond, then hit enter twice, and it didn't separate them.  Do you mean to use the mouse cursor to click twice on the "Quote" button?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TepidHands said:

Indeed, and what the hell would the Lannisters want with Jon? Robert was the one with the vendetta against Targaryens. 

I find the Cat-hate kind of silly, really. It's a fictional character! 

I thought about raising that first issue you raised myself (about whether the Lannisters would even want Jon, much less trade Arya or Sansa for him), but decided against raising it (mostly b/c, as I basically pointed out above, i think it would have been nearly impossible for Cat to arrange such a deal anyway), but generally, yeah, i tend to agree with you.  

It could be a timing issue, though.  MAYBE the Lannisters MIGHT have considered such a trade BEFORE Jaime was captured, but once Jaime was captured there's no way I believe the Lannisters would have used a bargaining chip on Jon Snow when Jaime was in captivity.   It's also entirel possible, if not probable, that the Lannisters would have flat out declined to believe Cat's claim about Jon's lineage anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Darkstream said:

This again? :rolleyes: You keep using this thought by Ned to back up your desire that Ned did not trust Cat, when in fact it means quite the opposite.

 Some secrets are safer kept hidden. Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust.

Notice that he says "even with those you love and trust". This means that he does trust Cat. Ned is saying that even though I do trust her, I still can't tell her this particular secret. Your go to quote to prove that Ned didn't trust Cat is the most substantial piece of evidence against this unfounded claim.

That is what you think. What I think is that he knew that Cat would had betrayed Jon in a heart beat.

Concrete is not Jon thinking she cheered internally for every lump she took.  If you have a kid and are cheering for him when he scores a goal every time he beats the neighbor kid 1v1, are you abusing the other kid?  Aside from making it clear he is not a trueborn Stark, there is no evidence she ever does anything but be cold to Jon outside of Bran's chamber.  

Even in this case we have concrete evidence that Cat verbally abused Jon. A sane person wouldn’t had wished for an innocent child’s death no matter how hurt he would be. The fact that she said it meant that she was wishing for him to die before Bran’s accident. Also we have to notice that when she was wishing for Jon’s death it was the only time she used Jon’s name.  So those all points to the fact that Jon is more to trust on this matter and as I said before I would trusted the feelings of an innocent child much more than an adult's feelings.

Wow, you think if Cat knew Jon wasn't Ned's son she would have betrayed Ned, and somehow given Jon to the Lannisters?[snip]  Not sure how Cat could just decide to hand Jon over to the Lannisters under such circumstances.

 

4 hours ago, TepidHands said:

Indeed, and what the hell would the Lannisters want with Jon? Robert was the one with the vendetta against Targaryens. 

No one said that the Lannisters would want Jon. She would had sold him to them because she would think that they would want him, just like how she betrayed Robb and committed high treason with no reassurance that the Lannisters would actually free Arya and Sansa.

4 hours ago, Cron said:

Far as I know, no one forced Ned to marry Cat, and no one forced Jon Arryn to marry Lysa.  They may have felt great political pressure to do it, but ultimately, far as I know, they made the decisions to do it themselves, and to me that's NOT the same thing as being forced.  Indeed, I have NO reason to believe either Ned or Jon Arryn had any hesitations about it or problems with it, either.  I'm honestly not sure where you're getting the idea that either one of them was even pressured into it at all, much less "forced."

Not true. Cat herself had told that JonA. had to marry Lysa in order to gain her father's support at the war. Ned married her because that is was the custom and not because he wanted to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

That is what you think. What I think is that he knew that Cat would had betrayed Jon in a heart beat.

You're entitled to think that but the supposed evidence is nowhere near concrete. It's one of those cases of seeing something you want to see where the argument is about as watertight as a sieve. The use of the words "love and trust" go entirely against your reasoning and conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

You're entitled to think that but the supposed evidence is nowhere near concrete. It's one of those cases of seeing something you want to see where the argument is about as watertight as a sieve. The use of the words "love and trust" go entirely against your reasoning and conclusion.

The fact that Ned hadn't said anything to Cat speaks for itself. He didn't told her the truth because he knew that even if he loved her she wasn't trustworthy and would had betrayed Jon in order to save her children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cron said:

Thanks for the tip, I was getting ready to ask someone about that (seriously).

However, I still don't quite understand.  I used the mouse cursor to click on "quote" to bring your stuff down to where I can respond, then hit enter twice, and it didn't separate them.  Do you mean to use the mouse cursor to click twice on the "Quote" button?

So I take the above quote.  Then, I click just to the right of the period after (seriously).

7 hours ago, Cron said:

Thanks for the tip, I was getting ready to ask someone about that (seriously).

And this is what happens when I press enter twice rapidly with the cursor at that spot.  It has to be a paragraph break.

7 hours ago, Cron said:

However, I still don't quite understand.  I used the mouse cursor to click on "quote" to bring your stuff down to where I can respond, then hit enter twice, and it didn't separate them.  Do you mean to use the mouse cursor to click twice on the "Quote" button?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

The fact that Ned hadn't said anything to Cat speaks for itself. He didn't told her the truth because he knew that even if he loved her she wasn't trustworthy and would had betrayed Jon in order to save her children.

Yeah, she probably would have in a clear situation.  I know many mothers who would trade another child for the safety of their children in a heartbeat, and I don't think that makes them bad people at all.  It speaks to humanity valuing those closer to us above those we don't know, but Catelyn is not unique in that regard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I am not a fan of what happens in the books in her first chapters but the fact Dany is aged up in the show doesn't make me feel less unconfortable, she is miserable there and would always be, regardless of her age

being forcedor raped (even if you are married in Medieval times) is always a gross thing. period.

Oh, I didn't mean that her situation was any better in the show. What I meant was that in the books, this scene was written with a romantic undertone, even though it's a problematic, rapey scene. In the show, it was clearly portrayed as rape and as something wrong, which made me less uncomfotable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

The fact that Ned hadn't said anything to Cat speaks for itself. He didn't told her the truth because he knew that even if he loved her she wasn't trustworthy and would had betrayed Jon in order to save her children.

He didn't say anything to anybody because it is such a game-changing and dangerous secret and also probably because it was very likely part of his promise to Lyanna. There are a multitude of different ways of explaining why he didn't tell her. Sure, you can argue to your heart's content that she might have betrayed Jon to protect her own children.

But tell me honestly, how would Cat's own children be in jeopardy because Jon turns out to be their cousin? He was more dangerous to Cat's children as a bastard half-brother in the same way that Ramsay was a bastard half-brother to Domeric Bolton. I would think had Cat known the truth, she would have been happier about the situation and more a mother to Jon for the sake of her dead sister-in-law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

Yeah, she probably would have in a clear situation.  I know many mothers who would trade another child for the safety of their children in a heartbeat, and I don't think that makes them bad people at all.  It speaks to humanity valuing those closer to us above those we don't know, but Catelyn is not unique in that regard. 

Yeah, but the situation is completely different when the other kid is the Jon Snow. Then any bad thoughts are worse than any other atrocity against anyone else. At least according to his most devoted fan Jon's Queen Consort.

After all, that's the poster who once said that Cat is a worse stepmother than Cersei even though Cersei ordered the murder of Barra, who according to the same poster in the same thread was her stepchild. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

 

But tell me honestly, how would Cat's own children be in jeopardy because Jon turns out to be their cousin? He was more dangerous to Cat's children as a bastard half-brother in the same way that Ramsay was a bastard half-brother to Domeric Bolton. I would think had Cat known the truth, she would have been happier about the situation and more a mother to Jon for the sake of her dead sister-in-law.

Ned suddenly becomes a traitor, risking war against the other 6 kingdoms with Robert leading the way, with new Lords in the North installed when the Starks lose the war. There is no danger from Jon, but much more danger from other sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

Ned suddenly becomes a traitor, risking war against the other 6 kingdoms with Robert leading the way, with new Lords in the North installed when the Starks lose the war. There is no danger from Jon, but much more danger from other sources.

If Ned's becomes a traitor then all his family becomes traitors too as we have seen in AGOT. Would Cat risk safety of her family just to reveal Jon's identity? I think not.

If Jon's identity would be known only to Ned and Cat, it wouldn't change things for other Stark children. And after Robert's death it would be even less relevant. Even as L+R son he would be a bastard for society and have no more claim then any Blackfyre pretender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

If Ned's becomes a traitor then all his family becomes traitors too as we have seen in AGOT. Would Cat risk safety of her family just to reveal Jon's identity? I think not.

This strikes me as a very strong point.  For Cat to reveal Jon's true lineage would bring great danger to all Starks, in all likelihood.

55 minutes ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

If Jon's identity would be known only to Ned and Cat, it wouldn't change things for other Stark children. And after Robert's death it would be even less relevant. Even as L+R son he would be a bastard for society and have no more claim then any Blackfyre pretender.

Great food for thought here, too...but there's a good chance Jon was NOT illiegitimate, and is in fact the "true" heir.  As you probably know, Targaryens can and have had multiple wives at the same time.  It is very possible (perhaps even probable, in my opinion) that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cron said:

Great food for thought here, too...but there's a good chance Jon was NOT illiegitimate, and is in fact the "true" heir.  As you probably know, Targaryens can and have had multiple wives at the same time.  It is very possible (perhaps even probable, in my opinion) that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married.

You are right. R+L marriage would be a turnpoint, but has to be proved. And at this moment we don't have any prove. I assume even Ned wasn't aware of it. And even if Ned has known that R+L were married it would be safier for everybody to keep it even more secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

That is what you think. What I think is that he knew that Cat would had betrayed Jon in a heart beat.

 

Yes, your free to think what you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the quote you constantly use to back up your biased wishes, explicitly means the exact opposite of what you claim it does. 

Would Cat have betrayed Jon for the sake of her own children? Perhaps, I would presume the same would be true for most parents, but it doesn't change the fact that the text supports that Ned did trust her.

So again, think what you want, but your thoughts on the matter are purely fan-fic, and are contradicted by canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

You are right. R+L marriage would be a turnpoint, but has to be proved. And at this moment we don't have any prove. I assume even Ned wasn't aware of it. And even if Ned has known that R+L were married it would be safier for everybody to keep it even more secret.

Yeah, I really wonder whether Jon's parents will ever be proven to the satisfaction of Dany and others in Westeros, much less that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and he is legitimate.

We can continue to get confirmations through Bran's greenseeing, but why would anyone else in Westeros believe him, other tan the Starks themselves?  Bran's not exactly a neutral third party in the matter, he's barely more than a kid who "happens" to be Jon's half-brother or cousin, take your pick.

Same with Howland Reed, why would anyone but Starks believe him?

Guess we'll find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cron said:

Yeah, I really wonder whether Jon's parents will ever be proven to the satisfaction of Dany and others in Westeros, much less that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and he is legitimate.

I assume there must be other people involved in the whole R+L thing. F.e. those who helped Lyanna elope, a septon who married them or witnesses of a ceremony etc. We just don#t know anything about them, but probably they will appear later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3. Oktober 2016 at 8:29 AM, Meera of Tarth said:

I am not a fan of what happens in the books in her first chapters but the fact Dany is aged up in the show doesn't make me feel less unconfortable, she is miserable there and would always be, regardless of her age

being forcedor raped (even if you are married in Medieval times) is always a gross thing. period.

Yes, of course the "marital" rape of Dany in the show makes me hugely uncomfortable! 

But the point is: it is meant to make the watcher uncomfortable, it is brutal, cruel and straightforward rape, not romanticized at all. A clear description of an awful situation.

While in the books Martin romanticized the abuse of a very young girl, suggesting that the frightened and shy child would be easily aroused by her abuser, rape turned into vanilla romance ideology. The situation may be glorified and on the surface easier to digest but the ideology behind it is imo gross: She doesn't really dislike it, she'll come around as soon as you do it. An abuser's wet dream.

Now I am sure that Martin really, seriously intended to romanticize the situation, it was a different time at the beginning of the nineties and the awareness for the topic of child abuse was much lower. I bet Martin would never have written it that way today and the show corrected an error from Martin's side. I love Martin's books but we can find some misogyny even in the works of the greatest writers.

If the show had given the situation the same way Martin did back then there would have been a shitstorm about rape ideology all over the web. And rightfully so. This way the show made a clear statement and preseted a disturbing and ugly act of marital rape as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Woman of War said:

Now I am sure that Martin really, seriously intended to romanticize the situation, it was a different time at the beginning of the nineties and the awareness for the topic of child abuse was much lower. I bet Martin would never have written it that way today and the show corrected an error from Martin's side. I love Martin's books but we can find some misogyny even in the works of the greatest writers.

If the show had given the situation the same way Martin did back then there would have been a shitstorm about rape ideology all over the web. And rightfully so. This way the show made a clear statement and preseted a disturbing and ugly act of marital rape as such.

Unfortunately. the show managed to make the same mistake later with Tommen / Marg.

And they don't even have the "different time / lower awarness when writing"-excuse. Which I am reluctant to give GRRM either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×