[Book & TV Spoilers] Insightful interview with writer Bryan Cogman

[protar]

Im pretty sure some people agrue for Talisa just out of spite yet that does not mean that there are no people around who genuinely like her, just because you havent seen them does not mean they dont exist.

I never said there wasn't and I'm willing to admit that I was wrong to accuse Duke.

The Duke did not say Jeyne is a non character because she is quiet and shy, he/she said Jeyne is a non-character because she is one, she is not fleshed out in least, she is nothing more than a plotdevice to have Robb forsake his oath to the Freys, even after the marriage she was not really fleshed out. And whether you like it or not Talisa is three-dimensional, she was originally intended to be Jeyne fleshed out but she became her own character during writing, that happens.

And if you watched season 2 then you should have realised by now that Talisa was fleshed out in the series, we know her intent, why she does what she does and whats her stance about things, how she sees the world, etc. Thats a lot more than what we know of Jeyne in the books.

Can I just ask a question? If Talisa was originally intended as a fleshed out version of Jeyne, why is she nothing like Jeyne in personality or background? To me that says that D+D's idea of fleshed out, is to simply make her more in-your-face and noticeable.So yes, Jeyne was a flat character and a plot device, but there were still personality traits there they could've used.

And really Talisa isn't that fleshed out. Moreso than Jeyne perhaps but not by much. Telling a sad story or asking "probing questions" isn't depth; any bit part can be given those lines. Really all she does imo is act as a means for D+D to spout their modern ideals that don't actually fit in with the show.

OK, I will give you that my "clearly" statement comes across as a bit provocative although I didn't consciously intend that to be the case. For that I apologize. But all that stuff where you slagged off Talisa with the fanfic remark basically is saying "your opinion is wrong and you don't know what you're talking about." There's no reason for things to get so personal. And I wasn't even inviting a debate about Talisa, just pointing out that what Weiss outlined there was a big part of her appeal (to those who find her appealing).

For the record, this was my first post here, before I encountered the vitriol that comes with discussing Talisa:

Anyway, this was all supposed to be about whether or not Catelyn is supposed to be blamed for the red wedding on the show, and I don't think that is borne out within the show's content, and the inside-the-episode interview doesn't indicate that either.

You're quite right, got a bit carried away and started yet another Talisa debate. Moving on.

[Daske]

Let's say I found my girlfriend cheating on me and (quite understandably) got angry about that and stormed off down the pub. As a result I childishly get very drunk because I don't give a rat's arse anymore at that moment in time. Because I am drunk, feeling sorry for myself and angry I get into a stupid bar fight and punch some random guy on nose for no fair reason.

Whose fault is it that the poor guy has to go to hospital?

(i) My girlfriend who annoyed me about something unconnected to the man in the pub, or

(ii) me for being a stupid idiot?

[Helghan]

Can I just ask a question? If Talisa was originally intended as a fleshed out version of Jeyne, why is she nothing like Jeyne in personality or background? To me that says that D+D's idea of fleshed out, is to simply make her more in-your-face and noticeable.So yes, Jeyne was a flat character and a plot device, but there were still personality traits there they could've used.

She is different from Jeyne because during writing she became her own character as I mentioned already, this happens. Thats also one of the reasons Im guessing her name was changed. D&D could have kept her Jeyne and then you would have a reason to complain she is different. All they did is use the character they wrote instead of changing Jeynes non-character into something she is not.

And really Talisa isn't that fleshed out. Moreso than Jeyne perhaps but not by much. Telling a sad story or asking "probing questions" isn't depth; any bit part can be given those lines. Really all she does imo is act as a means for D+D to spout their modern ideals that don't actually fit in with the show.

So how do you think a character should be developed? Not showing their actions, motivation or their past? Thats your idea? Do you honestly believe that standing in the background being a non-character like Jeyne is in the books is developing a character?

And by the way show me some proof of Talisa not fitting in with the show, she does not fit with the northenern sure, but thats not the same.

[protar]

She is different from Jeyne because during writing she became her own character as I mentioned already, this happens. Thats also one of the reasons Im guessing her name was changed. D&D could have kept her Jeyne and then you would have a reason to complain she is different. All they did is use the character they wrote instead of changing Jeynes non-character into something she is not.

Yes she's different from Jeyne but why? If originally she was meant to be Jeyne we can assume that originally she had the same traits as Jeyne, but somewhere along the line these traits were changed. Why did they feel that traits such as shyness and being quiet weren't viable? The only explanation is that D+D didn't like them.

So how do you think a character should be developed? Not showing their actions, motivation or their past? Thats your idea? Do you honestly believe that standing in the background being a non-character like Jeyne is in the books is developing a character?

Did I say that? I never made any claims to Jeyne being three-dimensional, or even more developed than Talisa. I was just saying that virtually all Talisa does is spout D+D's ideals. That's not good character development, that's a transparent attempt at making a moral.

And by the way show me some proof of Talisa not fitting in with the show, she does not fit with the northenern sure, but thats not the same.

Well what about the fact that a commoner (and by Westerosi standards she is a commoner.) would never be able to talk to (or even consider talking to.) a king like Talisa does, questioning his motives and morals. And Robb's guards certainly would never allow her to just prance into his tent like she does. What about the fact that her whole anti-war spiel is just incredibly modern, as is her anti-slavery ideas, considering she was raised from birth to accept slavery.

I'm sorry but to me, Talisa just doesn't fit with the world Martin has created.

P.S: I swear I really will move on now.

[protar]

Let's say I found my girlfriend cheating on me and (quite understandably) got angry about that and stormed off down the pub. As a result I childishly get very drunk because I don't give a rat's arse anymore at that moment in time. Because I am drunk, feeling sorry for myself and angry I get into a stupid bar fight and punch some random guy on nose for no fair reason.

Whose fault is it that the poor guy has to go to hospital?

(i) My girlfriend who annoyed me about something unconnected to the man in the pub, or

(ii) me for being a stupid idiot?

D+D don't read these forums, you should email them. I assume that you're directing your post at them not me, because it's them who blamed Cat for Robb's actions, not me.

[Daske]

Really all she does imo is act as a means for D+D to spout their modern ideals that don't actually fit in with the show.

Her main point seems to be 'war is hell', which especially as a nurse seems a very reasonable viewpoint. Is this really a modern only view? And surely most of the population of Westeros would agree with her anyway.

[Daske]

D+D don't read these forums, you should email them. I assume that you're directing your post at them not me, because it's them who blamed Cat for Robb's actions, not me.

Well I think 'blame', 'fault' and 'cause and effect' are being used interchangeably and misinterpreted. Which is why it seems D&D are being misquoted in this way.

Yes, they intended Robb being upset with Cat to be the straw that broke the camel's back, but that's different to making it the one true reason or Cat's fault bad things happen. I don't believe they want the audience to blame Cat, and that is not how it is showing on screen so far.

Interestingly, what I think may happen is that they could play up the idea of Cat blaming herself for 'pushing Robb away'. But again that's very different, and could actually elicit even more sympathy towards Cat by the audience. Especially at the RW.

[Helghan]

Yes she's different from Jeyne but why? If originally she was meant to be Jeyne we can assume

Well what about the fact that a commoner (and by Westerosi standards she is a commoner.) would never be able to talk to (or even consider talking to.) a king like Talisa does, questioning his motives and morals. And Robb's guards certainly would never allow her to just prance into his tent like she does. What about the fact that her whole anti-war spiel is just incredibly modern, as is her anti-slavery ideas, considering she was raised from birth to accept slavery.

I'm sorry but to me, Talisa just doesn't fit with the world Martin has created.

P.S: I swear I really will move on now.

She isnt exactly a commoner, and she talks with Robb mostly in private and Robb does not care about it nor is he any more a King than Renly or Balon btw.

Her "war is hell" stance is not modern at all, and really you are trying to agrue that her anti-slavery ideas dont fit the world of Westeros? When Eddard Stark wanted to punish Jorah for selling poachers as slaves and Mormont had to run to Essos to escape him? Westeros itself is pretty anti-slavery as well.

I guess we have to agree to disagree about her but her war is hell and anti-slavery stance does fit the world Martin has created.

[Khal-a-bunga]

Weiss' quote seems to pretty clearly indicate that his entire "world-view" has been shaken up by all of the events that have happened throughout both seasons one and two. Honor seemed easy when Robb was at Winterfell with his family, particularly Ned. But as his campaign to save Sansa and Arya goes on, he begins to see the world for what it really is. This idea that being honorable can save you, or help you to achieve your goals - simply by the virtue of honor itself - is gradually shaken, until it ultimately falls apart once Catelyn releases Jaime.

But let's start at the beginning, not the end. First, Bran is pushed out of a window and crippled by an unknown member of the Lannister family while the King is visiting Winterfell. Eventually his father is held in a dungeon cell for "conspiring" against the crown, and he is executed for treason. Both Sansa and Arya effectively become hostages of the royal family, at that point. Robb's first victory in battle comes at the expense of the 2,000 men he used as a diversion. Stannis declares himself King, claiming that the children of the Queen were born through an incestuous relationship with her brother. Renly declares himself King despite the line of succession. A loyal friend betrays him, and attacks the North; killing Rodrick and taking Bran & Rickon captive. Robb's own bannermen begin to advocate the torture and execution of their prisoners, in spite of the fact that Sansa and Arya* are still captive in King's Landing. And then his mother releases Jaime; their best advantage in this on-going war. It's a lot of shit to happen to someone over the course of a year, to say the least.

I've discussed this too much on these boards already to want to go further into it, but based on what the show itself has presented, and how D&D have described the thought process behind their choices, saying that the show or D&D are going to/attempting to "place the blame" for the R.W. on Catelyn doesn't seem like a very reasonable conclusion to come to.

[dtones520]

Weiss' quote seems to pretty clearly indicate that his entire "world-view" has been shaken up by all of the events that have happened throughout both seasons one and two. Honor seemed easy when Robb was at Winterfell with his family, particularly Ned. But as his campaign to save Sansa and Arya goes on, he begins to see the world for what it really is. This idea that being honorable can save you, or help you to achieve your goals - simply by the virtue of honor itself - is gradually shaken, until it ultimately falls apart once Catelyn releases Jaime.

But let's start at the beginning, not the end. First, Bran is pushed out of a window and crippled by an unknown member of the Lannister family while the King is visiting Winterfell. Eventually his father is held in a dungeon cell for "conspiring" against the crown, and he is executed for treason. Both Sansa and Arya effectively become hostages of the royal family, at that point. Robb's first victory in battle comes at the expense of the 2,000 men he used as a diversion. Stannis declares himself King, claiming that the children of the Queen were born through an incestuous relationship with her brother. Renly declares himself King despite the line of succession. A loyal friend betrays him, and attacks the North; killing Rodrick and taking Bran & Rickon captive. Robb's own bannermen begin to advocate the torture and execution of their prisoners, in spite of the fact that Sansa and Arya* are still captive in King's Landing. And then his mother releases Jaime; their best advantage in this on-going war. It's a lot of shit to happen to someone over the course of a year, to say the least.

I've discussed this too much on these boards already to want to go further into it, but based on what the show itself has presented, and how D&D have described the thought process behind their choices, saying that the show or D&D are going to/attempting to "place the blame" for the R.W. on Catelyn doesn't seem like a very reasonable conclusion to come to.

Yeah, I have never really understood how people on here formulate their opinions about the subject without thinking that they are just going way overboard because the creators changed a character that was written in the book. You can lay everything out for them but it will still all come back to TALISA SUCKS D&D ARE DUMB.

They twist scenes and their intentions to fit their viewpoint, even though the show creators have clearly laid out for us how they made their decision, why they made it and what was behind the actions. Like the scene where Robb and Cat are talking before Robb marries Talisa, Robb is telling Cat that he is in love with Talisa and wants to marry her, Cat tells him that he shouldn't do that and they have a very typical young man vs. mom argument and Robb does what he wants without his moms approval. He wasn't going to her to get her permission, he was going to tell her and get her on board, but people make the argument that Robb marries Talisa to spite Catelyn.

But, the people who are anti-Talisa are always going to be that way, so there really is no point in arguing with them.

[protar]

Uh huh, just demonise the opposition. You do realise right that nothing sends a clearer message that you don't have a point than resorting to such tactics right?

I'm not twisting scenes to my viewpoint just because I disagree with you. We're simply interpreting things differently. You can wave all those other justifications for Robb's actions in my face, but D+D have specifically cited Cat freeing Jaime as the tipping point. I'm just going to take that as fact from now on because despite large arguments on the matter no one has come up with a proper counter for this.

Robb sleeping/marrying with Jeyne/Talisa is the cause of the RW (I sincerely hope no one is disputing that but you never know with some posters.) and Cat freeing Jaime is the (final) reason for this. So Cat's actions are on link away from the RW in the show. That's how I came to the conclusion.

[Daske]

You can wave all those other justifications for Robb's actions in my face, but D+D have specifically cited Cat freeing Jaime as the tipping point. I'm just going to take that as fact from now on because despite large arguments on the matter no one has come up with a proper counter for this.

It doesn't matter if you take it as fact - the tipping point is clearly not the most important factor in this, it's just that, a tipping point. Something finely balanced that a small gust will tip it over the edge. Why take into account that one factor alone when other reasons (like being in love or Robb having free will) are so much more important? It's illogical.

Robb sleeping/marrying with Jeyne/Talisa is the cause of the RW (I sincerely hope no one is disputing that but you never know with some posters.) and Cat freeing Jaime is the (final) reason for this. So Cat's actions are on link away from the RW in the show. That's how I came to the conclusion.

So, if it's the final act that is so important, then actually Talisa saying 'yes', probably was the very final deciding factor. If she had said 'no', they would not have married, and the RW would not have happened. So, is it Talisa's fault as she had the final say-so? Of course not. No more than Cat's. It's bonkers.

In all honesty, even if you are somehow right and even if this is D&D's bizarre plan, this will not be end result on the screen even if they think they are doing that. There is no way after the RW people will be calling for Cat's head on Twitter just because she upset him in an unconnected scene a year ago. It will of course be (mainly) for the ***ing Freys. So what would be the point?

I just think some of you just want to find ways to slag off D&D on the flimsiest of premises. And this is really flimsy.

[Khal-a-bunga]

It doesn't matter if you take it as fact - the tipping point is clearly not the most important factor in this, it's just that, a tipping point. Something finely balanced that a small gust will tip it over the edge. Why take into account that one factor alone when other reasons (like being in love or Robb having free will) are so much more important? It's illogical.

So, if it's the final act that is so important, then actually Talisa saying 'yes', probably was the very final deciding factor. If she had said 'no', they would not have married, and the RW would not have happened. So, is it Talisa's fault as she had the final say-so? Of course not. No more than Cat's. It's bonkers.

In all honesty, even if you are somehow right and even if this is D&D's bizarre plan, this will not be end result on the screen even if they think they are doing that. There is no way after the RW people will be calling for Cat's head on Twitter just because she upset him in an unconnected scene a year ago. It will of course be (mainly) for the ***ing Freys. So what would be the point?

I just think some of you just want to find ways to slag off D&D on the flimsiest of premises. And this is really flimsy.

I'd also add that, if this were D&D's plan all along, why would they choose to make Catelyn a fairly more sympathetic character than she is in the books? A lot of the people I know that have read the books didn't care for her, and I've seen on-line that there are many that share that view, so it's not an isolated thing.

Although it's obvious that D&D have chosen to give Catelyn less agency (for lack of a better word) than she had in the books, the end result of that has been a more sympathetic character, in my opinion. She's a mother, first and foremost, and a protective and somewhat reckless one, at that.

I think the real surprise of the Red Wedding for a lot of non-readers won't be Robb dying, but Catelyn being murdered as well. Obviously Robb dying will be a big deal, but I think even a non-reader is starting to understand that this is a war Robb is not likely to win, considering the odds against him. But, as I've said, I think the Catelyn of the show has been portrayed as a more sympathetic character than her book counter-part, which would be a bit incongruous with the idea that D&D are somehow trying to "blame" Catelyn for the Red Wedding.

[Dragon greyscale]

really you are trying to agrue that her anti-slavery ideas dont fit the world of Westeros? When Eddard Stark wanted to punish Jorah for selling poachers as slaves and Mormont had to run to Essos to escape him? Westeros itself is pretty anti-slavery as well.

I guess we have to agree to disagree about her but her war is hell and anti-slavery stance does fit the world Martin has created.

Spot on. And let's not forget Dany's mission against slavery which is basically all she's about post-asos.

Really, this whole "too modern for asoiaf" argument against the tv show doesn't hold at all. Asoiaf books are modern books to begin with,regardless of what age they're set in.

[protar]

It doesn't matter if you take it as fact - the tipping point is clearly not the most important factor in this, it's just that, a tipping point. Something finely balanced that a small gust will tip it over the edge. Why take into account that one factor alone when other reasons (like being in love or Robb having free will) are so much more important? It's illogical.

So, if it's the final act that is so important, then actually Talisa saying 'yes', probably was the very final deciding factor. If she had said 'no', they would not have married, and the RW would not have happened. So, is it Talisa's fault as she had the final say-so? Of course not. No more than Cat's. It's bonkers.

In all honesty, even if you are somehow right and even if this is D&D's bizarre plan, this will not be end result on the screen even if they think they are doing that. There is no way after the RW people will be calling for Cat's head on Twitter just because she upset him in an unconnected scene a year ago. It will of course be (mainly) for the ***ing Freys. So what would be the point?

I just think some of you just want to find ways to slag off D&D on the flimsiest of premises. And this is really flimsy.

I'm really not sure why you're attacking my logic when all I'm doing is quoting D+D's logic. In the interview D+D specifically highlight Cat's actions as the cause of the Robb breaking his vows. What came before doesn't matter in this argument because it's Cat they chose to focus on. Nor does it matter how it's going to come across on screen, because that's not what I'm talking about either. If D+D attempt to make Cat less sympathetic (I feel they have.) then even if that doesn't translate properly onto the screen, it will still have been their intent regardless.

And really there is plenty of evidence for Cat being made into a weaker, less sympathetic character. Virtually all of her proactive decisions are given to other characters from Robb suggesting the alliance with Renly, to Brienne leading her out of the back of the tent for christ's sake. The moments when she takes the initiative in combat are gone. And of course, without the news of Bran and Rickon, her freeing Jaime comes across as incredibly idiotic and unsympathetic.

Which leads to the question: Why on earth was the news held back anyway? There is literally no reason other than shifting the blame to Cat.

[protar]

Spot on. And let's not forget Dany's mission against slavery which is basically all she's about post-asos.

Really, this whole "too modern for asoiaf" argument against the tv show doesn't hold at all. Asoiaf books are modern books to begin with,regardless of what age they're set in.

ASOIAF is not set in modern times though and it's supposed to be a gritty, realistic fantasy. Are you really saying that if Renly and Loras started a gay rights campaign that that would fit in with the world? That it would fit in if men and women were treated entirely equally?

Dany's anti-slavery campaign makes sense because she has experience being sold herself and heavily identifies with Westerosi morals and ideals were slavery is illegal. Talisa's anti-slavery campaign does not because she's been raised her whole childhood to accept slavery. In such a situation it doesn't make much sense for someone to go against slavery just because a slave saved her brother. It would probably make her more kindly towards slaves but the cognitive link between "slave saved my brother" and "slavery is bad" simply wouldn't be there. Is it completely outside the realms of possibility? No, it could happen. But god, it just screams Speshul Snowflake to me.

[Daske]

I'm really not sure why you're attacking my logic when all I'm doing is quoting D+D's logic. In the interview D+D specifically highlight Cat's actions as the cause of the Robb breaking his vows. ...

...

There is literally no reason other than shifting the blame to Cat.

Again, I think this is just confusion on how you are interpreting words like 'blame' and 'fault' and 'caused'.

You can use these words to mean 'cause and effect', simply that. One action happens and another happens as a result with no guiding hand, ulterior motive or intent following through. And there is no doubt that Cat's actions were a factor in Robb's decision. No argument here, but it's clear this was just the catalyst that sped things up on pre-existing conditions.

Or you can use these words to mean someone is guilty of something. That there was intent in the cause so that the final result had been pre-planned to have a negative outcome. It is this that I disgree with. This is why I think D&D are being misinterpreted.

[Khal Porno]

I think the fact that Weiss says "she's done something terrible - in his eyes" clarifies that he doesn't believe what she's done is wrong. If he and Benioff disliked Catelyn and wanted the audience to hate her, that could have been very easily achieved.

[boojam]

Dany's anti-slavery campaign makes sense because she has experience being sold herself and heavily identifies with Westerosi morals and ideals were slavery is illegal. Talisa's anti-slavery campaign does not because she's been raised her whole childhood to accept slavery. In such a situation it doesn't make much sense for someone to go against slavery just because a slave saved her brother. It would probably make her more kindly towards slaves but the cognitive link between "slave saved my brother" and "slavery is bad" simply wouldn't be there. Is it completely outside the realms of possibility? No, it could happen. But god, it just screams Speshul Snowflake to me.

Apparently , and George has never explained, while the Valyrians were slavers, when the Targaryens came to Westeros they were not slavers and never imposed it , recalling that the Targs were pure blood Valyrian. There may have been Valyrians who were abolitionists, it seems possible. So seems natural that Dany would be anti slavery for the reasons given and from her heritage. It's not so clear Viserys would have been so inclined.

Tho Westeros , as George has described it, is essentially feudalistic serfdom for the majority of people , this was a modified form of slavery in the history of our world.

[PatrickStormborn]

ASOIAF is not set in modern times though and it's supposed to be a gritty, realistic fantasy.

I hope you see the problem there.

And no, ASOIAF is not especially realistic. It's based on a medieval time period and GRRM tries to keep things in line with the context, but it's not particularly accurate.

Dany's anti-slavery campaign makes sense because she has experience being sold herself and heavily identifies with Westerosi morals and ideals were slavery is illegal. Talisa's anti-slavery campaign does not because she's been raised her whole childhood to accept slavery. In such a situation it doesn't make much sense for someone to go against slavery just because a slave saved her brother. It would probably make her more kindly towards slaves but the cognitive link between "slave saved my brother" and "slavery is bad" simply wouldn't be there. Is it completely outside the realms of possibility? No, it could happen. But god, it just screams Speshul Snowflake to me.

Since when was Talisa on an anti-slavery campaign? She just gave up her life of nobility in Volantis because her experience at the Rhoyne made her realise how shallow her lifestyle was. At that moment she came to understand that class boundaries meant nothing; when her brother was drowning, it didn't matter that he was high born, he was dying, and it no longer mattered that the man was a slave, because he was saving her brother. In that kind of situation I'd find it hard not to believe that her views would change. Even moreso considering that Talisa was still quite young at that point, IIRC.

There are problematic aspects of Talisa's character, but some of these problematic aspects are part of other characters in the books, so I don't really see the problem.

Oh, and I hope you realise that it doesn't always matter what sort of background a person has had. Jorah Mormont certainly wasn't raised as a slaver, yet he sold slaves just like the people of Slaver's Bay do.