Jump to content

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


Cron

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, StepStark said:

Where do people get those weird ideas that:

1) Cersei in the books is undeveloped and one-dimensional character?

2) Cersei in the show is complex and layered character?

Since you're already on this site, you might as well visit the books section sometimes and read at least some of the threads there about Cersei in the novels. You'll see that great many other readers managed to catch things you obviously missed on your reading.

As for Cersei in the show, what layers and complexity do you actually see in her? Could it be that maybe you're confusing bad writing with complexity? Just for example, it's not even clear that she actually loved her children. As everyone around her and she herself kept repeating in the first few seasons, that was her main characteristic back then. But now, she doesn't seem to be grieving for Myrcella and Tommen. So which is it? Did she love them, or not? Is she remembering them at all? LOL!

It's not complexity, people. It's bad writing and inconsistent characterization.

I think her mind is gone now and losing tommen was essentially the last straw. Now there is nothing she holds dear and she has the power she has always wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Sure, as did Tysha - seems accepted in George's world, apart from the fact that Tyrion is not comfortable with it (afer having done it himself!).  I personally feel George put it there to make us readers uncomfortable but in that sort of era certainly 14 was the norm.  In the UK, where I live, it is 16.  

It is true to say that different people develop at different rates but, by and large, the woman matures physically sooner than a man her age.  Okay, stating the obvious lol yet the "protection" seems to be all for the woman.  We are normally not alarmed, within limits, at the age of the boy but at the age of the girl... Having, once upon a time, been a female teenager, I can assure you the female is more likely to initiate it and be more cunning about it lol (okay, speaking for myself lol).  Although I really campaign for female equality and, goes without saying their safety!!! I do feel that the men get the grief more often than not when discussing sex in any way.

This being said, hey, I am not in any way trying to trivialise child molestation and worse!  I have worked in the field in fact, for my local authority's legal department in the Child Protection team as a lawyer and a lot of what I saw there was truly horrific!  One case even made the national news and there were times when I went home in tears...

 

Personally I think people are more bothered by actually having it described. Dany for example has her sex scenes described in detail rather then it just being said that they had sex. I have a hard time picturing jon as a fifteen years old. For example in the first book it goes into incredible detail with dany and drogo and when you read it your like this is pretty intense and then it does that "she turned fourteen that day" and you feel horrible. I am just really glad that the jeyne and ramsey scenes weren't put into detail but spoken of. Also with tysha and tyrion they were both young and again we don't see detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, snow is the man said:

 

On 6/4/2017 at 9:12 AM, Prof. Cecily said:

The story of an historical princess abducted by an English king when she was 12 might interest you- the story of Isabella of Angoulême

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_Angoulême

My own modern mindset is shocked by the brutal treatment of animals in the saga- even our gentle Sansa uses starving dogs to murder her husband (to keep her hands clean?).

 

I think that was more about using his own dogs against him. He was so proud of them and even threatened jon and others with them and it felt like justice. She didn't starve them though.

 

 

Quote

I think that was more about using his own dogs against him. He was so proud of them and even threatened jon and others with them and it felt like justice.

This is where my 21st century mindset kicks in, as recognising yet another betrayal of Ned Stark's principles.

By using starving animals to exact 'justice', Sansa keeps her hands clean. SHE doesn't kill her husband, rather the starving dogs do.

Keep in mind that by catering to her thirst for revenge, rather than having Ramsay detained to face trial, Sansa reverts to the lowest level of power usage- might is right.

 

And also, keep in mind the philosophy of her lord father, Ned Stark- 

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”

Sansa perverts this philosophy, twisting it to satisfy her desires. I can't imagine Lord Stark would ever consent to such an atrocity as Sansa commits.

Remember Ned's decisions when he sat the IT as the King's Hand and the cases of the horrors committed by ser Gregor Clegan are denounced before him.

 

Quote

She didn't starve them though.

Think about what you're saying.

After Winterfell is delivered into Jon Stark's hands, are the dogs fed and cared for?

No. They're maintained in starvation so Sansa can enjoy the spectacle of her husband's horrific death.

Again, my 21st century mindset rebels at such an action.

Still, this is all from the HBO production. We'll have to wait to see how GRRM plays out the recapture of Winterfell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Thank you; fascinating story.  As for animals, yes, mine too but okay Sansa did not starve those dogs, Ramsay did!  Whether she fed them or not afterwards (as far as I can remember) is unclear.  Ramsay treatted men and animals the same... as the animal he was himself!

I'm glad you liked the story of Isabella of Angoulême- I found it an intriguing footnote to the influences of ASoIaF.

You might find the story of Prince Eustace interesting, too!

Quote

...Around 10 August 1153, Eustace brought his army to what was one of the greatest monasteries in England: Bury St. Edmunds. The monks welcomed him with great splendor and held a fine dinner for him. Prince Eustace, however, needed money to pay his soldiers. When the monks refused to hand over the sum he demanded, Eustace ordered his men to loot the monastery and lay waste to its lands5 .

The ruins of the Abbey at Bury St. Edmunds. Image: Creative Commons.

A job well done, from his point of view, Prince Eustace returned to Cambridge castle. He then sat down to dine – on food looted from the monastery. As Eustace took his first bite of food, he became crazed and fell into agonizing death torments. By some accounts, he died immediately6 and by others he lasted a week and then died. Naturally, the monks saw Eustace’s death was at the hand of a vengeful Saint Edmund, who was defending his monks and infuriated by the insulting desecration of his lands.7

The accounts of Prince Eustace’s death vary.  Some suspected poison. Some said Eustace died from grief (not choking or poison), as a result of his father’s betrayal in beginning to treat with Duke Henry.8 No doubt, however, the Church saw it as divine approval when, on the day Eustace died, Duke Henry’s first legitimate heir was born.

to read the entire story, go here:

http://history-behind-game-of-thrones.com/gameofthrones/joffrey-baratheon/purple-wedding-eustace

 

And yes, It's Ramsey who starved his dogs for a week, yet, and I maintain, Stansa uses the starving animals to provide herself with a grotesque revenge and widowhood, all whilst keeping her hands clean.

It's hardly an edifying incident, to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, snow is the man said:

I think her mind is gone now and losing tommen was essentially the last straw. Now there is nothing she holds dear and she has the power she has always wanted.

You may think that, but actually nothing in the show indicates that D&D wanted to convey that. But even if it was what they wanted to convey, it would still be a very unsatisfying and unrealistic development, because losing your mind isn't really helpful if you're trying to rule a kingdom political elite of which you just exterminated with an unprecedented massacre.

And I have to repeat once more, her love for her children was her number one characteristic. It was her defining characteristic, as D&D themselves said many times. But then she leads Tommen to his death and she's more-less okayish with it? It didn't disturb her or her plan at all? Does that sound realistic to you?

In truth, Cersei in the show is a testament to D&D's utter inability to identify even with characters they clearly worship. They obviously don't even know what to do with Cersei's love for her children, just like they never did, as seen with the inconsistent number of children she gave birth to in the show. Just like countless other times, show lovers put much more effort and time into explaining D&D's writing, than D&D initially put into the writing itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If being "pretty much numb" is an adequate substitute for feeling realistic grief because the very last of your children just died (thanks to you, by the way), then yes, Cersei is a "great character". The problem is, by that criteria every character in every show is a "great character". LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

I'm glad you liked the story of Isabella of Angoulême- I found it an intriguing footnote to the influences of ASoIaF.

You might find the story of Prince Eustace interesting, too!

to read the entire story, go here:

http://history-behind-game-of-thrones.com/gameofthrones/joffrey-baratheon/purple-wedding-eustace

 

And yes, It's Ramsey who starved his dogs for a week, yet, and I maintain, Stansa uses the starving animals to provide herself with a grotesque revenge and widowhood, all whilst keeping her hands clean.

It's hardly an edifying incident, to be sure.

lol Bury St Edmunds is very near where I live.  At work right now so cannot send a longer reply for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, snow is the man said:

Personally I think people are more bothered by actually having it described. Dany for example has her sex scenes described in detail rather then it just being said that they had sex. I have a hard time picturing jon as a fifteen years old. For example in the first book it goes into incredible detail with dany and drogo and when you read it your like this is pretty intense and then it does that "she turned fourteen that day" and you feel horrible. I am just really glad that the jeyne and ramsey scenes weren't put into detail but spoken of. Also with tysha and tyrion they were both young and again we don't see detail.

Yes, a detail description defenitely has more impact on the reader

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Cron said:

Better change your "location," then, cuz it says "Winerfell."

Hope you don't have anything against wine, though.  I thought the Greeks loved wine.

Ohhhh....now i realised what you meant.:unsure:

Yeahh it was a mistake thanks for pointing that out!!!!:thumbsup:

PS ( i dont have anything against wine but personally i dont like it.):stillsick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StepStark said:

If being "pretty much numb" is an adequate substitute for feeling realistic grief because the very last of your children just died (thanks to you, by the way), then yes, Cersei is a "great character". The problem is, by that criteria every character in every show is a "great character". LOL!

There are so many non-reactions to things, so many blank stares, every character is great by that standard. The show is supposed to tell the story, but they don't, so fill in the blanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Le Cygne said:

There are so many non-reactions to things, so many blank stares, every character is great by that standard. The show is supposed to tell the story, but they don't, so fill in the blanks.

Exactly. "Complexity" never looked as empty and meaningless as in the hands of D&D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

You may think that, but actually nothing in the show indicates that D&D wanted to convey that. But even if it was what they wanted to convey, it would still be a very unsatisfying and unrealistic development, because losing your mind isn't really helpful if you're trying to rule a kingdom political elite of which you just exterminated with an unprecedented massacre.

And I have to repeat once more, her love for her children was her number one characteristic. It was her defining characteristic, as D&D themselves said many times. But then she leads Tommen to his death and she's more-less okayish with it? It didn't disturb her or her plan at all? Does that sound realistic to you?

In truth, Cersei in the show is a testament to D&D's utter inability to identify even with characters they clearly worship. They obviously don't even know what to do with Cersei's love for her children, just like they never did, as seen with the inconsistent number of children she gave birth to in the show. Just like countless other times, show lovers put much more effort and time into explaining D&D's writing, than D&D initially put into the writing itself.

GRRM said that whether she loves her children for themselves is up for debate. I'd say that there's no debate in the novels: Cersei's abusive to Tommen, is more interested in using him than she is in educating him, all result of GRRM's decision to turn the character into one-dimensional evil in Feast. Once he's into her pov, GRRM has her make one cruel, stupid mistake after another: She recreates the Faith's armies, hands her navy to an unreliable admiral, is cruel to Jaime because of his hand, alienates the Iron Bank, refuses to be educated on anything, is obsessed by prophecy, is paranoid, shows zero foreign policy sense upon discovering that the Ironborn are harrying the coast...all this on top of delightful behavior like blinding people who watched a puppet play and sending an ally to be vivisected by Qyburn. She does literally nothing that is not completely evil and completely stupid in the novels. Even her longing for her son during the Walk of Shame is based on her belief that she can use him to save himself; while walking, she's thinking over and over again various versions of "Tommen is a good boy, will do as he's told."

The show's Cersei is still cruel, still evil, but not entirely so. That's not evidence that D&D are being inconsistent, but evidence that they want to keep her from turning into a personification of idiotic evil. So the show cuts some of the stuff that turns her into an Essosi monster: she still alienates the Bank and rearms the Faith, but she doesn't blind the puppeteers, doesn't hand a friend to Qyburn, doesn't hand the navy to a scoundrel. Her plot vs the Tyrells is a tad less stupid, in that she at least blames Loras for something that can't turn around and get her; Lancel's confession does not grow out of her accusations against Loras.

Same's true of her relationship with her children. She doesn't pay attention to Tommen's feelings as she's more interested in Marg's control over him and how that affects the Lannisters, but she's not entirely responsible for his decision. She and Marg together drive him to suicide, as they're both using him for their own ends. On the other hand, show Cersei does express love for her daughter; I found her speech about Myrcella's burial moving.

This has consequences for her relationship with Jaime. Jaime's break with Cersei in the novels was too easy, frankly: he finally sees her as she is (and there's no good side to GRRM's Cersei) and makes a break. On the show, since Cersei is relatively human compared to her novel counterpart, his break is taking longer. This is good, especially as it doesn't create a good-evil dichotomy for the twins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kimim said:

GRRM said that whether she loves her children for themselves is up for debate. I'd say that there's no debate in the novels: Cersei's abusive to Tommen, is more interested in using him than she is in educating him, all result of GRRM's decision to turn the character into one-dimensional evil in Feast. Once he's into her pov, GRRM has her make one cruel, stupid mistake after another: She recreates the Faith's armies, hands her navy to an unreliable admiral, is cruel to Jaime because of his hand, alienates the Iron Bank, refuses to be educated on anything, is obsessed by prophecy, is paranoid, shows zero foreign policy sense upon discovering that the Ironborn are harrying the coast...all this on top of delightful behavior like blinding people who watched a puppet play and sending an ally to be vivisected by Qyburn. She does literally nothing that is not completely evil and completely stupid in the novels. Even her longing for her son during the Walk of Shame is based on her belief that she can use him to save himself; while walking, she's thinking over and over again various versions of "Tommen is a good boy, will do as he's told."

The show's Cersei is still cruel, still evil, but not entirely so. That's not evidence that D&D are being inconsistent, but evidence that they want to keep her from turning into a personification of idiotic evil. So the show cuts some of the stuff that turns her into an Essosi monster: she still alienates the Bank and rearms the Faith, but she doesn't blind the puppeteers, doesn't hand a friend to Qyburn, doesn't hand the navy to a scoundrel. Her plot vs the Tyrells is a tad less stupid, in that she at least blames Loras for something that can't turn around and get her; Lancel's confession does not grow out of her accusations against Loras.

Same's true of her relationship with her children. She doesn't pay attention to Tommen's feelings as she's more interested in Marg's control over him and how that affects the Lannisters, but she's not entirely responsible for his decision. She and Marg together drive him to suicide, as they're both using him for their own ends. On the other hand, show Cersei does express love for her daughter; I found her speech about Myrcella's burial moving.

This has consequences for her relationship with Jaime. Jaime's break with Cersei in the novels was too easy, frankly: he finally sees her as she is (and there's no good side to GRRM's Cersei) and makes a break. On the show, since Cersei is relatively human compared to her novel counterpart, his break is taking longer. This is good, especially as it doesn't create a good-evil dichotomy for the twins.

I don't deny for a second that Cersei in the novels is an evil sociopath. I'd even say that is the point of her character: she utterly doesn't care for other human beings, not even for her children. But it doesn't make her one-dimensional, because while often being driven by her contempt for others she is also vulnerable and scared and envious and funny and proud and so on. I'd say that her character is a brilliant study into obsessiveness over self and nobody and nothing else. She is also less intelligent than she thinks she is and she's really not up to the task of governing the realm, so yes she makes one wrong decision after another. But in that regard she really isn't anything special, since the entire story is full of people making wrong decisions. Ned Stark for example, made a ton of wrong decisions, though of course his motives were the exact opposite of Cersei's. So to conclude, characters that are depicted so deeply as Cersei can hardly be one-dimensional, even if, like Cersei, they have one overwhelming characteristic that overshadows and influences everything else (self-obsessiveness in her case). And of course, there is the dynamic between her and Jaime, which is not something I'd ever describe as "easy" like you did. All kinds of things needed to happen for Jaime to finally see that she's just abusing his desire to protect her. First of all, he had to lose his hand, so that he isn't able to physically protect anyone any more, and in the novels that is the point where their relationship starts to change for good, while in the show the non-existent hand is not really an issue between them.

The problem with Cersei in the show is that D&D probably thought, like some of the readers obviously, that Cersei in the books is one-dimensional and that the characters need "improvement". But the way they "improved" her is utterly wrong, because at one point she's a pure sociopath and at the next moment she's willing to sacrifice her ambitions for true love for example. And of course sociopaths are not like that, because not caring for other people is exactly what makes them sociopaths.

Just to be clear, I don't think her scenes in the show would make much sense even if she wasn't as inconsistent as a character. For example, she constantly threatens to burn something to the ground, and yet before the very last episode she never did do it, even though a lot of people actually gave her a reason. As I already said, she's constantly expressing her love for her children, and yet none of their deaths seem to disturb her that much. And so on. But by far the biggest problem with Cersei in the show is that D&D tried to "improve" her, which certainly means that A) they didn't understand her character in the books and how rich that can be exploited on the screen, and B ) they have no idea how to write a complex character and they're confusing it with constant flip-flops of someone's personality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

...

The problem with Cersei in the show is that D&D probably thought, like some of the readers obviously, that Cersei in the books is one-dimensional and that the characters need "improvement". But the way they "improved" her is utterly wrong, because at one point she's a pure sociopath and at the next moment she's willing to sacrifice her ambitions for true love for example. And of course sociopaths are not like that, because not caring for other people is exactly what makes them sociopaths.

Just to be clear, I don't think her scenes in the show would make much sense even if she wasn't as inconsistent as a character. For example, she constantly threatens to burn something to the ground, and yet before the very last episode she never did do it, even though a lot of people actually gave her a reason. As I already said, she's constantly expressing her love for her children, and yet none of their deaths seem to disturb her that much. And so on. But by far the biggest problem with Cersei in the show is that D&D tried to "improve" her, which certainly means that A) they didn't understand her character in the books and how rich that can be exploited on the screen, and B ) they have no idea how to write a complex character and they're confusing it with constant flip-flops of someone's personality.

Think about Tywin from the novels. He is almost perfect, because he is contradictory, unpredictable, impossible to pigeonhole. He detests Tyrion, but starts a war against the Riverlands because of Tyrion's kidnapping, then attempts to kill him by putting him in the vanguard of his army, then makes him acting Hand over KL, then takes all credit for the defense of KL from him, then attempts to hand him the North by marrying him to Sansa, then does not lift a finger to help him during his trial, then offers to save his life and send him to the Wall after the trial. It's that "inconsistency" that humanizes Tywin.

That is very much like Cersei and her kids on the show: Cersei loves her children, but she also loves power. She's a player more than a loving mother. She grieves their deaths and demands vengeance, but she also uses their deaths to her own political advantage. It's not inconsistent, it's what makes her human rather than an Essosi villain which she is in the novels. I wish GRRM had never offered use Cersei's pov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, kimim said:

Think about Tywin from the novels. He is almost perfect, because he is contradictory, unpredictable, impossible to pigeonhole. He detests Tyrion, but starts a war against the Riverlands because of Tyrion's kidnapping, then attempts to kill him by putting him in the vanguard of his army, then makes him acting Hand over KL, then takes all credit for the defense of KL from him, then attempts to hand him the North by marrying him to Sansa, then does not lift a finger to help him during his trial, then offers to save his life and send him to the Wall after the trial. It's that "inconsistency" that humanizes Tywin.

That is very much like Cersei and her kids on the show: Cersei loves her children, but she also loves power. She's a player more than a loving mother. She grieves their deaths and demands vengeance, but she also uses their deaths to her own political advantage. It's not inconsistent, it's what makes her human rather than an Essosi villain which she is in the novels. I wish GRRM had never offered use Cersei's pov.

Consistency is not the same as predictability. That Tywin uses Tyrion any way he wants at the moment is not inconsistent: in those rare moments when he actually thinks about Tyrion, he hates him, but of course he can sometimes put that hate aside if Tyrion has a role to play in his schemes. That is not inconsistent, and yet it is unpredictable, just like real people often are. What would be inconsistent is if Tywin claimed at any point that he loved Tyrion, or that someone even believed that. Now that would also be unpredictable, but in a very wrong way.

I honestly can't understand why do you think that Cersei in the books is some cardboard villain. She wasn't one even before her POV chapters, but in AFFC and ADWD she is fleshed even more and even deeper. Yes she does everything wrong, but that doesn't make her one-dimensional. That makes her incompetent and way out of her league. Her mistakes are totally in line with her character because she clearly is obsessed with herself. Contrary to you, I think that writing her as POV in later books was essential, because otherwise she would be perceived as one-dimensional villain. But this way she definitely can't be, because each and every of her flaws are revealed in details, which is exactly the opposite of one-dimensional villains (who are usually evil just because the story needs them to be evil).

As I said already, if you think that Cersei in the books is one-dimensional, just visit books section on this site and read some threads where she is discussed, and you'll see how meticulously her character is written. Who knows, maybe you won't change your mind even then, but I think you should try. At least, you are very decent and respectful, which is not something one can often find in show lovers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Valedina said:

Ohhhh....now i realised what you meant.:unsure:

Yeahh it was a mistake thanks for pointing that out!!!!:thumbsup:

PS ( i dont have anything against wine but personally i dont like it.):stillsick:

HARRRR!!!!

Glad to be of service.  I think I liked "Winerfell" better, though.

Sounds like a natural place for Tyrion, and "The Imp's Delight."

Don't like wine, huh?  What do you like, then?  Or do you just not drink, or too young to drink, or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

This is where my 21st century mindset kicks in, as recognising yet another betrayal of Ned Stark's principles.

By using starving animals to exact 'justice', Sansa keeps her hands clean. SHE doesn't kill her husband, rather the starving dogs do.

Keep in mind that by catering to her thirst for revenge, rather than having Ramsay detained to face trial, Sansa reverts to the lowest level of power usage- might is right.

And also, keep in mind the philosophy of her lord father, Ned Stark- 

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”

Sansa perverts this philosophy, twisting it to satisfy her desires. I can't imagine Lord Stark would ever consent to such an atrocity as Sansa commits.

Remember Ned's decisions when he sat the IT as the King's Hand and the cases of the horrors committed by ser Gregor Clegan are denounced before him.

Think about what you're saying.

After Winterfell is delivered into Jon Stark's hands, are the dogs fed and cared for?

No. They're maintained in starvation so Sansa can enjoy the spectacle of her husband's horrific death.

Again, my 21st century mindset rebels at such an action.

Still, this is all from the HBO production. We'll have to wait to see how GRRM plays out the recapture of Winterfell.

Agree with all this. In fact as far as I'm concerned this isn't even Sansa any more. Sansa in the books is very compassionate, so much show that she is uncomfortable when Joffrey is murdered. Whereas this version (Fansa? Asnas?) is the exact opposite. When Reek tells her of his horrific treatment at the hands of Ramsay, she says she's glad about it, and would have done the same thing.

As far as her killing of Ramsay goes, she subverts the Northern ways and natural cause of justice for personal vengeance; Ramsay ought to have been trialled and then executed by the person who passed sentence (probably Jon). What about all the other people who Ramsay wronged, such as the Cerwyns, and Reek? Where's their say in the matter?

What I found most chilling of all was that having fed a restrained prisoner to his dogs, Asnas smiled about it. That was sickening, being very much the actions of a villain, and about as un-Sansa as you can get. It's also completely unoriginal. Arya (who's supposed to be basically the opposite of Sansa) did the same thing (smiled) after killing Polliver, and probably some others on her hit list too. Completely villainous characters like Ramsay and Joffrey did the same. When Ramsay says that he's part of Asnas now, it sounds to me like he managed to turn her into the monster that he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...