Jump to content

[Book Spoilers] EP 205 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not even close to "similarly". In the books, she throws down her spear and asks, "mercy, m'lord", and falls on her knees in a quiet and dignified way. In the TV show, she falls on the ground like a cringing dog and begs for her life in a simpering tone. When mercy is granted she pretty much sobs in relief and starts kissing Robb's boots (or the hem of his cloak or something). I really hated that, she looked pathetic and cowardly instead of strong and dignified.

Okay, so "similarly" was a bit of a poor quaifier for me to use. The point I was making was that she asked for mercy, bent the knee, and ended-up a servant of House Stark, just like in the books. Quibbling about how she did it is ridiculous. They're adapting an entire series, of which she is not even a 2nd-tier character. We're lucky she even resembles book Osha in that they're both female and that she wasn't cut completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis fan here. He may not be the most socially adept person in the Seven Kingdoms, but he seems to be fighting the actual battle that's going to matter in the long run. The one at The Wall

That, and TV Stannis really cemented himself as Stannis in this episode. I was on fence about him last week, now I'm sold

Yup. Plus, I've said it before and I'll say it 1000 more times: I'll take a King who fights for the crown because he has no choice but to do so without completely ignoring the law, and who is just (even if he might be too strict at times) over someone who wants the crown for his own aggrandizement. Of the 5 Kings in the war, Stannis and Robb were the only ones I would've served, if it was real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Face turn"? Book Stannis was fairly likeable up until Renly's death. Then it was all over.

Ever since he is at best an anti-hero, and that at his best moments. He is basically a mafia boss that happens to have a reason to protect you - he is even demanding "protection" money and other "favors" from the people he swears to want to serve.

If anything, he is getting worse in his morality. As of ADWD he actually claims in a letter to Jon Snow that he will kill the prisoners that he made at Deepwood Motte except for the highborn, yet no one seems to have noticed that.

Stannis as a good guy is basically a fandon creation. It lacks support from the actual books.

In other words, you dislike the character because he acts like real-life historical medieval lords acted, especially when on a war-footing, instead of some romanticized fairy-tale King Arthur wannabe. Stannis is probably the most authentic character in the whole series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. Stannis at least is fighting for what is his by rights. No one in the entire series, save for Dany, has a better claim to the Iron Throne than Stannis Baratheon.

Given the fact that Joff, Tommen, and Myrcella are products of Cersei and Jamie's incestous acts, the throne passes to Stannis by default.

Yes, he may be too strict at times. But to be fair, that's how lords and kings ruled their subjects and bannermen in medieval times. The "Give them an inch, and they take a mile" proverb is very clearly in Stannis' doctrine, and rightfully so. At least he has a sense of duty and honor. He punishes those who break the law, and rewards those who help him/ swear fealty to him. Davos is a living example of that.

If he would just punt Melissandre out of Westeros, because she's blatantly playing him like a fiddle, only an idiot wouldn't have noticed that by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Plus, I've said it before and I'll say it 1000 more times: I'll take a King who fights for the crown because he has no choice but to do so without completely ignoring the law, and who is just (even if he might be too strict at times) over someone who wants the crown for his own aggrandizement. Of the 5 Kings in the war, Stannis and Robb were the only ones I would've served, if it was real life.

So you are putting the letter of the law above actual competence, support and moral character?

Would you support Joffrey if he were Robert's son? If not, why?

I'll leave the matter of whether Stannis may be fairly described as "just" for another time.

Edited by LuisDantas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, you dislike the character because he acts like real-life historical medieval lords acted, especially when on a war-footing, instead of some romanticized fairy-tale King Arthur wannabe. Stannis is probably the most authentic character in the whole series.

I dislike him because he claims to be a far nobler man than he actually is. And he is getting worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. Stannis at least is fighting for what is his by rights. No one in the entire series, save for Dany, has a better claim to the Iron Throne than Stannis Baratheon.

Given the fact that Joff, Tommen, and Myrcella are products of Cersei and Jamie's incestous acts, the throne passes to Stannis by default.

Do you honestly see a throne as a right? Do you feel that monarchy should be reestablished in countries that gave up on it?

Yes, he may be too strict at times. But to be fair, that's how lords and kings ruled their subjects and bannermen in medieval times. The "Give them an inch, and they take a mile" proverb is very clearly in Stannis' doctrine, and rightfully so. At least he has a sense of duty and honor. He punishes those who break the law, and rewards those who help him/ swear fealty to him. Davos is a living example of that.

Maybe he was that way once. We can't know, since he is so different by the time he meets Renly at Storm's End. Davos seems to believe he was.

If he would just punt Melissandre out of Westeros, because she's blatantly playing him like a fiddle, only an idiot wouldn't have noticed that by now.

But on that, at least, Stannis is very honest. He puts up with Melisandre because he needs her power to attain his ambitions. Weren't it for her living shadows, she wouldn't have stolen Renly's bannermen and his campaign for Kingship would be cut short.

He is correct in that analysis, albeit choosing to overlook the moral prices involved and the long-term results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are putting the letter of the law above actual competence, support and moral character?

Kingship is not, nor is it supposed to be, a popularity contest.

Would you support Joffrey if he were Robert's son? If not, why?

I would support that he had a just claim, but then so did the Mad King. There's a difference between being unpopular and being a tyrant.

I'll leave the matter of whether Stannis may be fairly described as "just" for another time.

Even Varys describes him as just. Men like Ned and Jon Arryn would never have commiserated with him were he not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natalia Tena has been so impressive in the role that GRRM has stated that he's even adjusted his plans for Osha's role in the books because of her portrayal.

Eeeek!  I don't really like reading that.  I understand the need for changes to the plot by the TV adaptation... but I don't like the idea of the TV adaptation polluting the original story GRRM is telling/going to tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you honestly see a throne as a right? Do you feel that monarchy should be reestablished in countries that gave up on it?

The last time I checked nowhere in Westeros had anyone even considered any other form of government, so your point is... pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

she wouldn't have stolen Renly's bannermen and his campaign for Kingship would be cut short.

They were *HIS* bannermen from the start is what you seem to be missing. He was the rightful King (and still is). Renly was a usurper, playing at being a king as though it were a popularity contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eeeek! I don't really like reading that. I understand the need for changes to the plot by the TV adaptation... but I don't like the idea of the TV adaptation polluting the original story GRRM is telling/going to tell.

I imagine he's just adding scenes/dialogue for her. We'll have to wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kingship is not, nor is it supposed to be, a popularity contest.

To an extent that is true. However, when one puts the notion of a deserved kingship on the table, it is only fair to ask on what basis that kingship would be deserved.

Renly had a good answer to that. Stannis has a very lame one, half based on a self-serving and unproven interpretation of the law. The other half of his claim is even worse, based on lies and hypocrisy.

I would support that he had a just claim, but then so did the Mad King. There's a difference between being unpopular and being a tyrant.

Even Varys describes him as just. Men like Ned and Jon Arryn would never have commiserated with him were he not.

None of them knew that he was a betrayer and a kinslayer, however. Odds are good that in fact Stannis changed a lot for the worst since they last saw him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last time I checked nowhere in Westeros had anyone even considered any other form of government, so your point is... pointless.

Maybe you are forgetting that both the Night's Watch and the Ironborn hold actual elections, then.

More to the point, if you are willing to allow that there must be a King, both common sense and actual history show that inheritance laws are useless or worse as a way of deciding who should be the King.

I can see the appeal of believing that the True Lawful Successor should be King and put the painful matters of succession to rest. Unfortunately, that Does Not Work. Laws are blind, and can't possibly tell an inept or cruel monarch-to-be from an Aegon V. That is why people can and must trump their letter every time.

For an actual historical example (and argument against strict laws of succession by blood), see this Wikipedia paragraph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva%E2%80%93Antonine_dynasty#Five_Good_Emperors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Kings are thieves and Conquerors, and yet Robb was chosen.. so he is as legit as it gets.

We see thing in a different perspective and "we can't posibly think of being ruled by a king". It is a cultural thing, like "I would not wear or made my woman/daughter wear a burka" , Also oriental people have others views we western have a concept that "The customer is always right", so If i made a request in a restaurant i should receive what I asked for. Oriental people don't see this way, they see that "The chef vows for his dish, and wouldn't let anyone changed as it pleased, and possibly ruin the dish, as the fault would fall in him".

All this views aren't wrong, they're just foregin for us.. If you lived in somewere else you'd have different ideas, like think it is ok to be ruled by a king.

I think independent of the regime there are social relations that will always appear, the work and the power of ruling will be divided also in similar fashion.

George Martin shows this a bit, by the eyes of Tyrion, as Tyrion cross the sea he is eventualy sold as a slave, and he than states that "The slaves live better lives than the peasent in Westeros"

Another view, is the obvious contrast between the Westerosi people and the free folk beyond the wall (Wildlings). For the free folk, their freedom has a obivous value that the westerosi can't grasp.. for the westerosi the confort of "The south of the wall" is way better than the "freedom of the north".

Worse (or better) the Westerosi people don't think they're bound, they think themselves free, and they see the "freedom" of the Wildlings a frightfull thing that bring chaos and destruction, they clam the "laws" as we do too (we western).

We want the law, we want to "lose the freedom to steal, abduct and rape", because we fear that this is done to us.

So the Free folk is freer than Westerosi, that are Freer than the Slavers from Maareen.... and yet how much more free you get, the harder your life get, because you yourself have to protect you and those you love, and no one will anwser for "crimes" made. It is a trade off.

So yes, it is possible to live "well" in a monarchy system , as we live in a republic... there will be trade offs, that I myself can't make but only because I lived all my life in a republic, If I was born in a monarchy I would probably strugle the same way about "being more free in a republic", and maybe I would not want it.

Edited by Menos Grande
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were *HIS* bannermen from the start is what you seem to be missing. He was the rightful King (and still is). Renly was a usurper, playing at being a king as though it were a popularity contest.

No, no, no. Nope. No way whatsoever.

What is it that makes some people think that Lords can be someone's bannermen against their wish, and without their explicit consent?

Or, for that matter, that Stannis can be the "rightful" King when he did not establish his right in any way, shape or form? Without proof that he is Robert's successor, nor a favorable judgement from someone else?

Renly had actual support. Stannis had an unproven claim, an unhealthy amount of hurt pride, and a failing and rotten moral character that led him towards broken tactics.

The Tyrells, Florents and other Houses were not and could not possibly "be" Stannis' bannermen until and unless they actually gave Stannis support. Even if there was no controversy about who is Robert's inheritor, that would still be true. There is a reason why Joffrey scheduled fealty cerimonies practically at the moment he sat at the Iron Throne; they are needed and not at all optional.

Stannis is emphatically not entitled to the support of any specific Lord just because Robert died. Nor is Joffrey, or for that matter anyone else. Fealty is far too important a matter to be actually ruled by something as mundane and mindless as a law.

Edited by LuisDantas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you are forgetting that both the Night's Watch and the Ironborn hold actual elections, then.

More to the point, if you are willing to allow that there must be a King, both common sense and actual history show that inheritance laws are useless or worse as a way of deciding who should be the King.

I can see the appeal of believing that the True Lawful Successor should be King and put the painful matters of succession to rest. Unfortunately, that Does Not Work. Laws are blind, and can't possibly tell an inept or cruel monarch-to-be from an Aegon V. That is why people can and must trump their letter every time.

For an actual historical example (and argument against strict laws of succession by blood), see this Wikipedia paragraph:

http://en.wikipedia....e_Good_Emperors

I hear you and I actually agree on a philosophical level, but the point is moot. We aren't debating political science here. The Iron Throne is passed from ruler to heir, by right of birth and blood. The end.

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...