Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
btfu806

Game of Thrones deaths won't match books, George R.R. Martin says

Recommended Posts

On 8/28/2018 at 5:39 AM, Angel Eyes said:

Burning her in the show was pointless. Selyse hanged herself, most of Stannis' army deserted, Melisandre deserted him, and he finally gets decapitated by Brienne, who abandoned Sansa to torture just so she could get a crack at killing Stannis.

Disagree 100%. 

That was the culmination of Stannis entire character arc on the show. His arc led to the decision and had been leading there since the second season. 

By deciding to burn her, Stannis lost the inner conflict that was the whole point of his story. His tragedy was sealed when he made that decision. 

His story was never about would he win the throne, defeat the Boltons etc. It was always fundamentally about what would he do in order to win the throne, what would he do in order to fulfill his duty as he saw it. 

By killing Shireen he fully revealed himself as a character. 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

Disagree 100%. 

That was the culmination of Stannis entire character arc on the show. His arc led to the decision and had been leading there since the second season. 

By deciding to burn her, Stannis lost the inner conflict that was the whole point of his story. His tragedy was sealed when he made that decision. 

His story was never about would he win the throne, defeat the Boltons etc. It was always fundamentally about what would he do in order to win the throne, what would he do in order to fulfill his duty as he saw it. 

By killing Shireen he fully revealed himself as a character. 

I agree with you in the sense of how the show portrays him. That is how he was portrayed, do anything at any cost to win sort of guy. That's just not how he is in the books. Hence why people think the burning would be pointless, book Stannis wouldn't do it.

And I will be honest, personally, especially in the beginning of the show, I had a hard time in my mind separating them (book and show Stannis). I wanted a show that was just like the books and it was probably foolish of me to think that. So when I see future Stannis actions taken, I automatically put it with book Stannis and just don't understand how it would ever get there because it doesn't make sense. But for show Stannis, it does make more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, btfu806 said:

I agree with you in the sense of how the show portrays him. That is how he was portrayed, do anything at any cost to win sort of guy. That's just not how he is in the books. Hence why people think the burning would be pointless, book Stannis wouldn't do it.

And I will be honest, personally, especially in the beginning of the show, I had a hard time in my mind separating them (book and show Stannis). I wanted a show that was just like the books and it was probably foolish of me to think that. So when I see future Stannis actions taken, I automatically put it with book Stannis and just don't understand how it would ever get there because it doesn't make sense. But for show Stannis, it does make more sense.

Have you read this?

https://shakespeareofthrones.com/2018/05/18/stannis-baratheon-macbeth-revisited/

I felt this was a very astute analysis that does a great job pointing out all the MacBeth influences on Stannis story in the books. 

If this is true, I wouldn’t be so certain Stannis story is not leading to the same place in the books.

Share this post


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

Have you read this?

https://shakespeareofthrones.com/2018/05/18/stannis-baratheon-macbeth-revisited/

I felt this was a very astute analysis that does a great job pointing out all the MacBeth influences on Stannis story in the books. 

If this is true, I wouldn’t be so certain Stannis story is not leading to the same place in the books.

I haven't, but it is an interesting read. Thank you for pointing it out.

The influences of his character can be argued there, sure. But there is a lot that can be argued against. Off the top of my head, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship is nothing like Stannis and Selyse's (Lady Macbeth is the person who essentially pushes Macbeth to go for king, while Stannis believes it is his duty). Also, Melisandre has powers like the witches but Mel believes she is actually believing she is doing good and helping. The witches are a version of fate and foreshadow his downfall. They are never "on Macbeth's side." But anyway, that's more on comparing the stories which could be a whole other topic ..... so while it may be true that there is some similarities, I highly doubt GRRM would write it exactly as is. So if he changed it up and decided to do a Macbeth/Macduff hybrid, then the burning of Shireen really wouldn't make sense.

The big thing though is Martin himself has compared Stannis more to Tiberius Cesar in I,Claudius (though he does mention there are others).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2018 at 7:53 AM, jcmontea said:

Have you read this?

https://shakespeareofthrones.com/2018/05/18/stannis-baratheon-macbeth-revisited/

I felt this was a very astute analysis that does a great job pointing out all the MacBeth influences on Stannis story in the books. 

If this is true, I wouldn’t be so certain Stannis story is not leading to the same place in the books.

Stannis' thing isn't ambition.

Stannis is based off of I, Claudius' Tiberius Caesar. And I, Claudius' Tiberius didn't want to be Emperor. It was forced on him by his mother and it made him more miserable than he already was.

And well, Stannis' reasoning for why he burn a child isn't for more power but it's to save people as that is his duty as king. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Stannis' thing isn't ambition.

Stannis is based off of I, Claudius' Tiberius Caesar. And I, Claudius' Tiberius didn't want to be Emperor. It was forced on him by his mother and it made him more miserable than he already was.

And well, Stannis' reasoning for why he burn a child isn't for more power but it's to save people as that is his duty as king. 

 

 

Which Stannis are you talking about?

the show or the books? If we are talking about the show, it is clearly ambition. The writers said so in the inside the episode 509 and the story pretty clearly lines up with that. Its an ambition that you could argue was justified since the was Robert’s legitimate heir and thus has the duty of Kingship, but he was still ambitious. 

In the books its not that clear cut since the writer has not been as direct and it has not happened yet. But I tend to agree with that writer. There are just too many parrallels with macbeth to think ambition is not also a factor. Its just that unlike MacBeth Stannis has a rightful claim and is more justified in that sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2018 at 3:24 PM, btfu806 said:

In my own personal opinion, Jon has taken on so many roles in the show it's hard to see what he will be or won't be in the books. I think he took on fAegon and Rikon's stories. It's possible he may have taken on others (and it makes sense) but I have a hard time seeing what his role will be in the books. Since I think in the 6th book, his main job is just getting back to life... ha. Now I know he is the "main hero" most likely of the story. But as far as the majority of his decisions and what he does in the show, I have no idea how it will go in the books. Kinda excited for it even though I am not a big Jon Snow fan.

Yeah I agree. I also think he was given some of Stannis's role. I think the show writers have basically decided that he is the hero of the story and it makes sense to cut other characters out and give him their storylines to emphasize that. I just think his role will be a bit different in the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, KingMudd said:

Yeah I agree. I also think he was given some of Stannis's role. I think the show writers have basically decided that he is the hero of the story and it makes sense to cut other characters out and give him their storylines to emphasize that. I just think his role will be a bit different in the books.

I agree with that as well. I think they wanted to simplify the story (nothing wrong with that) and making Jon the "main hero" does make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×