Book vs. Show characterisation of SanSan: A TV Critic's Analysis

[Gannicus]

Now, this is an example of things I can't help but challenge. How is Tywin flat in the books? He is possibly the most dangerous person in the entire series, the only one we know of that committed a Westerosi equivalent of a genocide, and not once, but twice (or even three times, if we count the sacking of King's Landing in). And yet, he is a craven, as evidenced when Joff insults him upon receiving the news about the Red Wedding. A man who was a coward all his life, managed to become the most feared person in the entire realm. Is that a flat character? And it's not just what we witness Tywin do or say. In the books, we know all there is to know about his father and his late wife. Or, more precisely, we still don't know the whole truth about his life, but we know he never stood up to his once friend Aerys, even though Aerys made inappropriate advances toward Joanna Lannister occasionally. And we know a lot about his always wounded pride, over his children being rejected (Rhaegar/Cersei) or ordered by someone else (Jaime). And the best thing is, Tywin appears in how many chapters in total? I just checked at The Tower of The Hand: 16. In at least half of them he barely appears at all. And yet, he's constantly subjected to in-depth analysis, for example in threads like this one and this one and this one (ther's more of those, but these are just from the top of my head). Maybe it's flat for you, but for the love of God please tell me what is the dimension Charles Dance brought in with his portrayal.

What are you talking about man? How do you gather Tywin was a coward all his life? Did you take nothing from the conversation with Genna and Jaime? A boy of 10 was the only one to speak up. He puts the Joffrey to bed, when he had the opportunity he fucked the Mad King over.

Tywin is many things, but a coward was never one of them. He's not going to go rushing in like Robert. He's more cunning but never afraid to act if he has the means.

Don't get me wrong, Dance is one of the few actors who are doing a pretty good job in GoT, and I think he physically fits the part perfectly. I have no problem with his acting, but with the writing, and especially with the notion he was flat in the books ant therefore he's a richer character in the show. The show can only look rich if we completely disregard any number of layers and any complexity from the books, which is, my friend, what I think you just did with your post. (Back on topic: Just like some objectors to SanSan constantly do.)

Really dude? There are a number of fantastic actors on the show. I'm sorry you disagree but many people prefer several of the characters the way they are portrayed on the show better than the book characters. Certainly Tywin is one of them.

[Miodrag]

(but I am not a purist and don't mind about 98% of the adaption they have made.)

And one more thing: it isn't about purism. Call me a purist if you want, I don't mind, because I am a purist in general. But my objections have nothing to do with purism.

For the sake of argument, let's say D&D are adapting The New Testament. But, you know, the audience won't feel for a 33 years old virgin. It's much better if Jesus is a widower. Even better: a single parent of three adorable kids. And this Judah guy, it's lame if he's Jesus' follower. I mean, you don't betray the man you follow, right? No, Judah has to envy Jesus. Why not... yes, Judah can be employed in Jesus' shop, and on top of that, he has a wife who's in love with Jesus, so Judah is jealous, too. Fixed. Everything works now. Of course, the whole "Son of God" thing stays, along with crucifixion and resurrection. So, at the end of the day, the story wasn't altered that much. It hit all the right points, and the trajectory is more or less the same, after all. And all the changes were necessary because of a different medium.

Now, if I was to object that adaptation, would you still think it's because of my purism, or because the adaptation is the worst mistreatment of The New Testament ever?

Before someone says it, yeah, I know ASOIAF isn't The New Testament. But, it is a damn good story, which was, and this is the best part, picked for an adaptation by D&D and HBO. If they recognized the potential of the story, they might as well use it, right? They might, I don't know, follow all those brilliantly developed themes and stories and characters, instead of recognizing them only in DVD commentaries, as is the case with SanSan.

[Gannicus]

You don't see how show creators, writers, producers and directors aren't accountable for poor adaptation? Hmmm, it would be like saying that we don't see how killer is quilty of killing someone...

Yes, they have great actors. Great veterans, great young actors... And somehow half of the storylines fall flat. Tyrell storyline finished in E08 just like that, without even a proper closure, Tyrion seems to suffer over RW more than Sansa, and half the characters have been remodeled into stereotypes Martin deconstructed over the course of 3 books... It's like they are tearing apart entire Martin's work... Look at the wedding scene where the focus has shifted from Sansa to Tyrion's misery... Luckily, it seems that only Ramin Djawadi understood that the victim of the wedding is actually Sansa... I agree that Dance and Rigg brought new dimensions to their characters, but for every Dance's scene you have 20 scenes in which D&D's adaptation is completely off. Theon's torture scene, Melisandre and Gendry's almost-sex scene, Ros, Shae, Talisa, and so on and on... There are serious problems with the adaptation and it is one of the main reasons why the show isn't recognized as it should have been.

There are things about the show that I'm disapointed with also. I was ripshit that one of my favorite parts off the series was taken out of ACOK, Jon and the rangers. I just shake my head everytime I watch a Stannis scene. All I could do was face palm when I watched Dany get carried away like a messiah. There are a lot of things they haven't got right. That said I think people are still way too harsh.

Even the purest of book readers disagree on interpretation. One way or another someone is going to be disappointed. This is one of the most ambitious tv projects ever taken on and it's impossible duplicate what GRRM created.

They have done a lot of things well and in some cases they have even improved things. Theon burning the letter to Robb, Robert and Cersei's talking about their marriage, Arya and Tywin scenes, even Shireen teaching Davos to read was a nice touch. Yes, it's different from the novel and in some cases not as good. But it's still a damn fine show that has been generating millions of viewers week in and week out.

[Miodrag]

What are you talking about man? How do you gather Tywin was a coward all his life? Did you take nothing from the conversation with Genna and Jaime? A boy of 10 was the only one to speak up. He puts the Joffrey to bed, when he had the opportunity he fucked the Mad King over.

Did you take nothing out of Tyrion's thoughts during Joff/Tywin confrontation? Did you take nothing from Tywin's strange, visibly disturbed conduct after he stays alone with Tyrion? Did you take nothing from the fact that he tricked his way into the KL and then sacked the city and committed a massacre? Do you really think men who aren't cowards have to hide behind unparalleled, but highly intentional cruelty (opposite to the cruelty of, say, one Randyll Tarly, which comes generic, as in, not calculative)? Do you think a man with any level of self-esteem would ever fuck his son's ex, and a whore in that (which means, he didn't even have to seduce her, all he had to do is pay her)? Is there a single example of Tywin's combat prowess or bravery in all the five books (which, if there's none, does speak a lot, since we're talking of the man who was engaged in wars all his life, but somehow was never truly endangered)?

This is way off topic, so I'll stop here. Allow me to point you to the thread The Psychology of Tywin Lannister, in which this subject was discussed at great lengths by myself and other posters. Some of them disagreed with me, some agreed, but at the end, my notion didn't appear that much shocking.

Really dude? There are a number of fantastic actors on the show. I'm sorry you disagree but many people prefer several of the characters the way they are portrayed on the show better than the book characters. Certainly Tywin is one of them.

I have a same question for you then: In what way is TV Tywin better than book Tywin? And one more: What characters are better portrayed on the show than in the novels? I'm all ears.

(To the OP - sorry, I know this is a derail, but we are discussing books vs. show for days now, hopefully you won't mind if we leave SanSan for a minute or two. And, in a way, all these comparisons between the books and the show, SanSan included, are connected, I believe.)

ETA: added a link to the thread I referred to.

[Mladen]

(To the OP - sorry, I know this is a derail, but we are discussing books vs. show for days now, hopefully you won't mind if we leave SanSan for a minute or two. And, in a way, all these comparisons between the books and the show, SanSan included, are connected, I believe.)

Are you actually apologizing to yourself? :)...

There are things about the show that I'm disapointed with also. I was ripshit that one of my favorite parts off the series was taken out of ACOK, Jon and the rangers. I just shake my head everytime I watch a Stannis scene. All I could do was face palm when I watched Dany get carried away like a messiah. There are a lot of things they haven't got right. That said I think people are still way too harsh.

Add to that Theon's torture scene, Sansa's storyline in Season 3, Margaery/Anne Boleyn union, Yara in Season 2, then entire Ros/Pod/Shae/Talisa/Bronn crap, making Tyrion look like a hero, unnecessary sex scenes and some inconstistencies, and that is no longer pile of things you can ignore. I simply am not too harsh, I believe when you have good material in front of yourself, you have to dedicate some time eploring all the nuances of the thread. Why I hate every adaptation of Anna Karenina? Simply because it doesn't live up to source material... Why we were pleased with LOTR? Because it showed amazing world of Middle-Earth. Lion's share of the fans think that even Tolkien would be quite satisfied with Jackson's adaptation... Problem with GoT is that it goes in opposite direction from Martin. For where Martin deconstructs stereptypes, they are actually creating them... Not everything is bad, but for every great scene, we have 20 bad...

[Miodrag]

They have done a lot of things well and in some cases they have even improved things. Theon burning the letter to Robb, Robert and Cersei's talking about their marriage, Arya and Tywin scenes, even Shireen teaching Davos to read was a nice touch.

Re: Theon burning the letter

Do you really think D&D and Bryan Cogman added something that wasn't there in the books? You think Theon wasn't conflicted in the books? You missed all those hints at his misgivings about what he has done? Don't get me wrong, burning the letter was a good little scene, one of the very few examples of successful adaptation from the written medium to the visual one; but, how is that an improvement? Honestly, I think one can see that as an improvement only if one misses how much more of Theon's conflict Martin showed in the novel.

Re: Robert and Cersei scene

I'm not nearly as fascinated by that scene as great many other readers seem to be, but, at the end of the day, it wasn't bad. It showed nothing particularly interesting - other than Cersei's non-returned love for Robert, which is a complete fabrication of the show - and it had some clumsy dialogue (they said they wanted to show how the two of them did communicate throughout their marriage, but in fact it really feels like two people who didn't see each other for years and suddenly decided to clear every issue between them), but it wasn't bad scene, and it ruined nothing. I didn't like it (big deal!), but it didn't bother me. Still, I see no improvement there.

Re: Arya and Tywin

I see this notion all the time. But I see no support. What did we gain from their conversations? Of from the fact that Arya served him, instead of his soldiers? What greater good was her book horror in Harrenhal sacrificed for? In my humble opinion, Arya in Harrenhal is one of the strongest stories not only in ASOIAF and fantasy, but fiction in general. If you allow me to be personal, the first kill she orders from Jaqen was the point in which, on my first read, I was finally persuaded I'm reading a genuine masterpiece of literature. AGOT was full of great moments, but not before Arya whispers Chiswyck's name to Jaqen I was sure Martin is after much more than just an excellent story. And not to mention Arya listening to Roose-Freys conversation at the end of ACOK. All that was sacrificed for what?

Re: Shireen and Davos

OK, nice touch. In fact, Davos may be the only major character that wasn't altered/ruined in the show. But, Davos' arc is so intertwined with Stannis', and the latter is so ruined, that even TV Davos suffers as a consequence.

[Miodrag]

Are you actually apologizing to yourself? :)...

No, to brashcandy, but you do have a point. See, that's what I was talking about. She's abusing me. She's Ramsay to my Theon. Because of her, I'm the perfect case of confused identity. Just look at my nick and you'll see the depth I spiraled into. I don't know who I am any more.

Seriously now, brashcandy was involved in this whole essay enterprise from the very beginning, and she was an enormous help, along with Milady of York, which is why she deserves to be treated as a host (or co-host) of this thread. Just like all of you who contributed so much to the discussion deserve an apology for derailing (though, truth be told, I do believe any thread can benefit from a little derailing, if careful and well-intended the derail is).

[Gannicus]

Did you take nothing out of Tyrion's thoughts during Joff/Tywin confrontation? Did you take nothing from Tywin's strange, visibly disturbed conduct after he stays alone with Tyrion? Did you take nothing from the fact that he tricked his way into the KL and then sacked the city and committed a massacre? Do you really think men who aren't cowards have to hide behind unparalleled, but highly intentional cruelty (opposite to the cruelty of, say, one Randyll Tarly, which comes generic, as in, not calculative)? Do you think a man with any level of self-esteem would ever fuck his son's ex, and a whore in that (which means, he didn't even have to seduce her, all he had to do is pay her)? Is there a single example of Tywin's combat prowess or bravery in all the five books (which, if there's none, does speak a lot, since we're talking of the man who was engaged in wars all his life, but somehow was never truly endangered)?

This is way off topic, so I'll stop here. Allow me to point you to the thread The Psychology of Tywin Lannister, in which this subject was discussed at great lengths by myself and other posters. Some of them disagreed with me, some agreed, but at the end, my notion didn't appear that much shocking.

Well first I have to thank you for making my point about why adapting the books onto TV is so difficult when the readers themselves don't agree.

To me none of that points to cowardice per say. He's an awful human but that doesn't necessarily make a coward. The fact is we know he confronted Joffrey on numerous occasions. He stuck up for his sister when he was a boy. And we just don't know what Tywins role was on the battlefield.

I despise Tywin, but cruelty is not always synonymous with being a coward. I would call Tywin ambitious, clever, and ruthless. But it seemed to me he was always willing to do something bold if he and his house could benefit.

I have a same question for you then: In what way is TV Tywin better than book Tywin? And one more: What characters are better portrayed on the show than in the novels? I'm all ears.

(To the OP - sorry, I know this is a derail, but we are discussing books vs. show for days now, hopefully you won't mind if we leave SanSan for a minute or two. And, in a way, all these comparisons between the books and the show, SanSan included, are connected, I believe.)

ETA: added a link to the thread I referred to.

The show has brought him to life in a way I never pictured when reading the book. It's hard to explain or quantify that but when I was reading the book he just seemed more like a pure villain as a leader and a father. He wasn't a one dimensional comic book villain, but I l can see more humanity in the show Tywin.

It could just be that we get more scenes. The scene with Jaime, the scenes with Arya at Harrenhall, The extra scenes with Cersei and Tyrion all added depth to his character. We still see the assholic douche father driven by legacy, but we also get to see hints of emotion and caring. I think Charles Dance does the subtle emotion thing perfectly. Even when he tells Tyrion about the day he was born, Dance's voice cracks ever so subtly you can tell it hurts him and it makes the scene so much more powerful.

As for other characters on the show that I like better, I would say they are for similar reasons. They are more relate-able and likeable.

Off the top of my head

Cersei

Tyrion

Varys

Jorah

have been changed extensively but I prefer the change. You might say making Tyrion an outright good guy takes away a dimension of a character. That's true but the story itself doesn't suffer. While I'm not bothered by the show turning Tyrion into a better human for its own sake, in general I like making the POVs more sympathetic since we're not privy to their inner dialog on tv.

I also like what the show has done with the characters of

Bronn

Robert

Olenna

Thoros

Joffrey

Jaime

Jeor

Theon

Rickon

Brienne

Davos

ect...

I could list more, but what's the point. Although some characters have been altered a little they really have done an admirable job casting. While changes to Stannis, Jon, and Sansa have been annoying they aren't beyond saving at this point.

These are some good threads pointing to the positive aspects of the tv show.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/94371-favourite-original-line/

and

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/67416-best-change-in-character-from-book-to-series/

[Gannicus]

Re: Theon burning the letter

Do you really think D&D and Bryan Cogman added something that wasn't there in the books? You think Theon wasn't conflicted in the books? You missed all those hints at his misgivings about what he has done? Don't get me wrong, burning the letter was a good little scene, one of the very few examples of successful adaptation from the written medium to the visual one; but, how is that an improvement? Honestly, I think one can see that as an improvement only if one misses how much more of Theon's conflict Martin showed in the novel.

I was fully aware of his conflict in the book, but as you say it was a successful adaptation. Yes, I'll even say it was an improvement because it was such a powerful moment on the TV screen.

I also enjoyed hearing Theon saying his father died in KL in season 3. That could just be the Stark in me.

Re: Robert and Cersei scene

I'm not nearly as fascinated by that scene as great many other readers seem to be, but, at the end of the day, it wasn't bad. It showed nothing particularly interesting - other than Cersei's non-returned love for Robert, which is a complete fabrication of the show - and it had some clumsy dialogue (they said they wanted to show how the two of them did communicate throughout their marriage, but in fact it really feels like two people who didn't see each other for years and suddenly decided to clear every issue between them), but it wasn't bad scene, and it ruined nothing. I didn't like it (big deal!), but it didn't bother me. Still, I see no improvement there.

So you don't think it was an improvement, that's fine. The vast majority of people did. If it doesn't even bother a purest like yourself but it's loved by thousands of book readers I'm going to call that an improvement.

It's nice because we get to see a more sympathetic side to Cersei. It adds depth to her character instead of being the child killing caricature she could have been portrayed as.

Re: Arya and Tywin

I see this notion all the time. But I see no support. What did we gain from their conversations? Of from the fact that Arya served him, instead of his soldiers? What greater good was her book horror in Harrenhal sacrificed for? In my humble opinion, Arya in Harrenhal is one of the strongest stories not only in ASOIAF and fantasy, but fiction in general. If you allow me to be personal, the first kill she orders from Jaqen was the point in which, on my first read, I was finally persuaded I'm reading a genuine masterpiece of literature. AGOT was full of great moments, but not before Arya whispers Chiswyck's name to Jaqen I was sure Martin is after much more than just an excellent story. And not to mention Arya listening to Roose-Freys conversation at the end of ACOK. All that was sacrificed for what?

I guess for me I found her time in Harrenhal slower than you. I thought the snappy dialog between the two was more entertaining then spending most of her chapters quietly trying to avoid being beaten. I guess it comes down to a matter of opinion, but the majority seems to be quite happy with this adaptation as well.

Re: Shireen and Davos

OK, nice touch. In fact, Davos may be the only major character that wasn't altered/ruined in the show. But, Davos' arc is so intertwined with Stannis', and the latter is so ruined, that even TV Davos suffers as a consequence.

I would agree the TV show as really messed up Stannis this season.

It's at the point where you wonder why Davos is even following him. I'm hoping the show addresses that issue in the coming seasons.

[Gannicus]

Are you actually apologizing to yourself? :)...

Add to that Theon's torture scene, Sansa's storyline in Season 3, Margaery/Anne Boleyn union, Yara in Season 2, then entire Ros/Pod/Shae/Talisa/Bronn crap, making Tyrion look like a hero, unnecessary sex scenes and some inconstistencies, and that is no longer pile of things you can ignore. I simply am not too harsh, I believe when you have good material in front of yourself, you have to dedicate some time eploring all the nuances of the thread. Why I hate every adaptation of Anna Karenina? Simply because it doesn't live up to source material... Why we were pleased with LOTR? Because it showed amazing world of Middle-Earth. Lion's share of the fans think that even Tolkien would be quite satisfied with Jackson's adaptation... Problem with GoT is that it goes in opposite direction from Martin. For where Martin deconstructs stereptypes, they are actually creating them... Not everything is bad, but for every great scene, we have 20 bad...

I totally agree we saw too much Theon this season, that was "torture" to watch. Certainly the show has made more mistakes than the stuff you and I have mentioned, but that 20:1 ratio does seem like you are being a bit harsh. Why even watch the show if it's that bad? For me I'm not bothered by half the things on that list. Although they are different, they don't take away from the story as a whole. I'm actually more intrigued by the Sansa, Shea, Tyrion, triangle going on in the show than I was in the book. I would agree Sansa does get short changed a little in KL, which must be annoying as a Sansa fan. But like many readers I never found her chapters too interesting until she makes her escape from KL. The sex stuff, and even the Bronn/Tyrion/Podrick thing is silly but hardly a game changing adaptation.

Although it's different than GRRM's story I would argue that having Tyrion as one of the hero's is not only a good change but an important one. But that's for another discussion, as I don't want to send this one completely off the rails.

[Miodrag]

Well first I have to thank you for making my point about why adapting the books onto TV is so difficult when the readers themselves don't agree.

We don't have to agree. That's the point. We can disagree on interpretation of any character from the books. But we can't disagree about interpretations of characters from the show, because there's nothing to interpret. They're all one-note, and those notes keep being repeated over and over again. Perhaps not all characters from the show are like that, but at the moment, I can't remember a single one that is complex enough to be demanding for interpretation.

To me none of that points to cowardice per say. He's an awful human but that doesn't necessarily make a coward. The fact is we know he confronted Joffrey on numerous occasions. He stuck up for his sister when he was a boy. And we just don't know what Tywins role was on the battlefield.

Allow me to point once again to the scene in which Joff insults Tywin. I'll quote Tyrion, who, after everyone else leaves, stays alone with Tywin. This is what he notices:

“The boy is thirteen. There is time yet.” Lord Tywin paced to the window. That was unlike him; he was more upset than he wished to show. “He requires a sharp lesson.”

For the part I emphasized, I see no other explanation. Why the hell would Tywin be upset so much, and why would he try to hide it? And is this the first time he tries to hide it, or is it maybe that he's hiding it much longer, maybe all his life? And the main question: Why would Martin bother to write this line? And then I realized, Tywin is actually the only one of the lords whose bravery is questioned so openly. And it's not even the first time it was questioned, because we see that neither Ned nor Robert thought highly of Tywin's bravery. And, it's not like the lords of the realm hesitate to go to war with him. He is feared among smallfolks, and among lesser lords, and for a good reason, but virtually none of the high lords seem to have any respect for him in that regard. Just compare it to Ned, whose appointment for The Hand instantly disturbs every living soul in the capital. Jorah Mormont fled from Ned all the way to the Essos, and Jorah is no coward. That is reputation, and Tywin has none, I'm afraid. The fact that we don't know how does Tywin hold himself in combat, even though he's a veteran of numerous wars and battles, is telling. There is not a single example of Tywin's bravery that we know of, while there's plenty of those for Robert, Stannis, Ned, Oberyn, Davos, Greatjon, Jaime, Barristan... And it all fits psychologically: his father was weak, and he felt unprotected as a child, and he never overcame that fear. And on top of that, we have Joff's words. Now, Joff may be the most unreliable among unreliable narrators, but he does say this:

The boy surprised them all. Instead of scuttling safely back under his rock, Joff drew himself up defiantly and said, “You talk about Aerys, Grandfather, but you were scared of him.”

Oh, my, hasn’t this gotten interesting? Tyrion thought.

Lord Tywin studied his grandchild in silence, gold flecks shining in his pale green eyes. “Joffrey, apologize to your grandfather,” said Cersei.

He wrenched free of her. “Why should I? Everyone knows it’s true. My father won all the battles. He killed Prince Rhaegar and took the crown, while your father was hiding under Casterly Rock. “ The boy gave his grandfather a defiant look. “A strong king acts boldly, he doesn’t just talk.”

When he says that 'everyone' knows it's true, that means he heard it from someone, just like Tywin and Cersei speculate afterwards. And if Joff did hear it from someone, then it means he's not alone in thinking his grandfather is a coward. Be it Robert (as Cersei thinks, and she's probably right), or someone else, it doesn't matter really. What matters is the fact that Tywin's courage is questioned openly (not to mention that Tyrion doesn't seem like a stranger to the notion Joff brought up), unlike the courage of any other high lord in the saga. And Martin did find it important enough to put it there, so might as well analyze it.

I despise Tywin, but cruelty is not always synonymous with being a coward.

Exactly, which is why I brought up Randyll Tarly. He's also cruel, but he isn't a coward. Far from it. And, his cruelty is a lot different than Tywin's. First, Randyll is always cruel. Tywin's cruel only when he wants to be, and he wants to be cruel whenever he fears something, or when he 'pays his debts'. Second, Randyll does his dirty work on his own, and he doesn't use trickery.

I would call Tywin ambitious, clever, and ruthless. But it seemed to me he was always willing to do something bold if he and his house could benefit.

What bold things has he done in the series? I can't remember a single one. As for the rest of your points, in the next post.

[Mladen]

I totally agree we saw too much Theon this season, that was "torture" to watch. Certainly the show has made more mistakes than the stuff you and I have mentioned, but that 20:1 ratio does seem like you are being a bit harsh. Why even watch the show if it's that bad? For me I'm not bothered by half the things on that list. Although they are different, they don't take away from the story as a whole. I'm actually more intrigued by the Sansa, Shea, Tyrion, triangle going on in the show than I was in the book. I would agree Sansa does get short changed a little in KL, which must be annoying as a Sansa fan. But like many readers I never found her chapters too interesting until she makes her escape from KL. The sex stuff, and even the Bronn/Tyrion/Podrick thing is silly but hardly a game changing adaptation.

Although it's different than GRRM's story I would argue that having Tyrion as one of the hero's is not only a good change but an important one. But that's for another discussion, as I don't want to send this one completely off the rails.

Theon was never-ending hell... And, btw, it wasn't even as perverse or scary as I thought it would be...

When it comes to Sansa, I have a feeling that her scenes was always about someone else but her. Her first scene was LF playing her, then we have QOT and Margaery, then the scene with Loras showed he is gay, then travesty of the wedding where her misery was supposed to be nothing comparing to Tyrion's "horror". In entire episode, there wasn't a moment for the viewers to comprehend that she is the victim there, not Tyrion. And should I mention the last scene, where again Tyrion is feeling worse because of Sansa than Sansa who lost her family? I mean, enough is enough... I am not book purist and I did find some changes for the better, but entire season 3 was cpmpletely awful to watch when it comes to Sansa. We basically retrograded with her...

[David Selig]

Tywin is no craven IMO. He's utter scum, but he's no coward. Joff as usual was talking nonsense, which he heard from an idiot (King Bob). Staying away from the war and joining the winners was the smart thing to do. Sure, it was dishonorable and cynical, but not cowardly.

For the part I emphasized, I see no other explanation. Why the hell would Tywin be upset so much, and why would he try to hide it?

Because he realised his grandson is a complete idiot unwilling to listen to reason.

What bold things has he done in the series? I can't remember a single one. As for the rest of your points, in the next post.

Starting the war of the Five Kings when it looked it would the Lannisters against everyone. Not suing for peace when Robb beat him at WW and Renly gathered a 100 00 strong army. Dealing with the Reynes and Tarbecks.

[Miodrag]

Because he realised his grandson is a complete idiot unwilling to listen to reason.

Don't think so. Tywin's a smart man, he figured out how idiotic Joff is long time ago. And later on, when he faces Jaime's 'unwillingness to listen to reason', he conducts at the opposite manner: he's inhumanly calm for so long Jaime can't stand it any more. No, this was something else. He is personally affected by Joff's remark. Very affected. More than in any other occasion in the series. I don't think Martin would put it there just to remind us Joff's an idiot.

Starting the war of the Five Kings when it looked it would the Lannisters against everyone. Not suing for peace when Robb beat him at WW and Renly gathered a 100 00 strong army. Dealing with the Reynes and Tarbecks.

In fact, it didn't look like Lannisters are going to be against everyone. Maybe I'm remembering wrongly, but I don't think anyone suggests Tywin was involved in the murder of Robert. Which means, Robert's death came as a surprise to him. And I guess he didn't like that surprise, because he used a lot of money to buy Robert's 'friendship'. As long as Robert's alive, Tywin can be pretty certain The Iron Throne won't come at him. It's Ned who worries Tywin, and Ned is supposed to fall into the trap in The Riverlands. And that is why Ned's so eager to confront Robert with Tywin. because he senses that is the key to the coming war. So, Tywin marching to war was probably a miscalculation, much more than bravery (though, truth be told, going to war is never cowardice, and I'm not saying everything Tywin ever did was cowardly, but that he was a coward all along, and that's not the same thing; in fact, I consider him a 'high functioning' coward). As for not suing for peace, we have to factor his pride in the equation. Even cowards can have pride, especially if they're lord of a great house. But, his hiding behind the walls of Harrenhal is also telling. Yeah, it was also smart, but somehow Tywin's smartness is never bold. Always cunning and as safe as possible, but never bold. Can you imagine him challenging the Targaryen dynasty the way Jon Arryn did? As for Reynes and Tarbecks, I see nothing brave there. Exactly the opposite, I see only cowardice there, because only a coward can annihilate whole families. The way acts towards a bitten enemy speaks volumes, and Tywin's actions are of a coward.

[Colonel Green]

Exactly the opposite, I see only cowardice there, because only a coward can annihilate whole families. The way acts towards a bitten enemy speaks volumes, and Tywin's actions are of a coward.

Tywin is generally known for being generous to beaten enemies, from what we see, including allowing the Riverlords to accede to the king's peace. Annihilating the Reynes and Tarbecks wholesale is, within the world Tywin operates, considered to be good policy if you're looking to establish a forbidding precedent and make up for a period of sustained weakness in his house.

[gibbles545]

I think it is important to note that although D&D are the main writers, there are other producers and writers who have an influence over what appears in the TV show.

The unamed producer who insisted on nudity in the blackwater episode, HBO not liking the idea of Vargo Hoat so replacing him with Locke instead.

So I think although D&D aren't blameless for how the Sandor/Sansa relationship has been portrayed it is not entirely their fault.

[Miodrag]

I think it is important to note that although D&D are the main writers, there are other producers and writers who have an influence over what appears in the TV show.

The unamed producer who insisted on nudity in the blackwater episode, HBO not liking the idea of Vargo Hoat so replacing him with Locke instead.

So I think although D&D aren't blameless for how the Sandor/Sansa relationship has been portrayed it is not entirely their fault.

The unnamed producer is, as far as I know, most definitely Benioff or Weiss. Only two of them are producers that actually are on the set, and in charge of it. All those HBO producers have other business, and they're not consulting directors or actors.

As for Locke, I don't know why they removed Vargo, and I think Vargo would be a joy to watch, but Locke doesn't bother me. At least, he doesn't speak moronic lines like great many other characters in the show do. Had all the changes been dealt with as intelligently as Vargo/Locke was, my puristic self would raise no voice against D&D. If it was up to me, I'd put Vargo in the show and not Locke, but Locke is really not an embarrassment on par with Talisa, TV Shae, TV Robb, TV Cat, TV Sansa, TV Theon, TV Stannis, TV Mel...

[Miodrag]

As promised, let's go back to characters you see improved on the screen. You say yourself you find them more relate-able and likable. But, even if it was true, it doesn't mean it's inevitably an improvement. Ramsay, for example, would be way worse if 'likable'. And the same goes for Cersei. Her role in the story demands for her not to be likable, and Martin never crosses that line: even when we sympathize with and feel sorry for her, in her Walk of Shame, she isn't likable. She's arrogant at first, and completely broken at the end, but not likable. And it doesn't mean she has no depth. On the contrary, Martin gave her a lot of depth, no later than in the Blackwater chapters (in fact, throughout entire ACOK she's fleshed out in all her layers). That's the nature of ASOIAF's complexity: even unlikable characters are vivid and have depth. Adding some likability to Cersei is not doing her a service. In fact, it may hurt her complexity, just like it appears to be the case in the show. The same goes for Varys: he's supposed to be a walking mystery, and not likable (and he definitely shouldn't be into verbal sparring with Petyr, just like Petyr shouldn't either). Jorah, too. He is not supposed to be some handsome and joyous fellow, because his role in Dany's story doesn't make much sense then.

Look at Locke, as an opposite example. For some reason, Vargo's out, and Locke took his place. But, they didn't make Locke more sympathetic or likable or whatever than Vargo. And that's why Locke can play the role Vargo played in the books. Because, likable persons just don't cut hands of their captives.

As for the rest of your list, you probably won't be surprised if I tell you I disagree with every single one of those examples. But let's focus on Jaime. In the show, he killed a kin over nothing! Just for the kicks of it. As D&D commented: they wanted to remind the audience how dangerous Jaime can be. That's what I call for the kicks. That scene would be terrible and illogical even if the poor lad wasn't related to Jaime. But he was. It's one of the two sacred traditions in Westeros. There's not 200 of them, only two: guest rights and no kinslaying. And they made Jaime break number two. What for? To show he's dangerous?! Now, how then a portrayal of Jaime can be on par with his book origin?!

As for Tywin, you say it yourself: "The show has brought him to life in a way I never pictured when reading the book". And that just might be it - you just never pictured him so richly. And it's OK, some people's imagination just doesn't work the way it's suited for reading books like ASOIAF. I can't claim that's the case with you, but I'm pretty sure that's the case with a lot of guys saying they love all those "improvements" in the show. Martin's close third person narration doesn't leave much possibility for detailed descriptions of people, and much is left to reader's own imagination. And some readers' imagination isn't inspired, or just doesn't wotk that way. So it maybe isn't surprising when one has better impressions on TV characters than on their book origins. But, this here is, the way I see it, the battle of opinions, not impressions. You're entitled to your impressions, and at least you're presenting them in a civil manner, but opinions are way better to debate.

[Gannicus]

We don't have to agree. That's the point. We can disagree on interpretation of any character from the books. But we can't disagree about interpretations of characters from the show, because there's nothing to interpret. They're all one-note, and those notes keep being repeated over and over again. Perhaps not all characters from the show are like that, but at the moment, I can't remember a single one that is complex enough to be demanding for interpretation.

Allow me to point once again to the scene in which Joff insults Tywin. I'll quote Tyrion, who, after everyone else leaves, stays alone with Tywin. This is what he notices:

“The boy is thirteen. There is time yet.” Lord Tywin paced to the window. That was unlike him; he was more upset than he wished to show. “He requires a sharp lesson.”

For the part I emphasized, I see no other explanation. Why the hell would Tywin be upset so much, and why would he try to hide it? And is this the first time he tries to hide it, or is it maybe that he's hiding it much longer, maybe all his life? And the main question: Why would Martin bother to write this line? And then I realized, Tywin is actually the only one of the lords whose bravery is questioned so openly. And it's not even the first time it was questioned, because we see that neither Ned nor Robert thought highly of Tywin's bravery. And, it's not like the lords of the realm hesitate to go to war with him. He is feared among smallfolks, and among lesser lords, and for a good reason, but virtually none of the high lords seem to have any respect for him in that regard. Just compare it to Ned, whose appointment for The Hand instantly disturbs every living soul in the capital. Jorah Mormont fled from Ned all the way to the Essos, and Jorah is no coward. That is reputation, and Tywin has none, I'm afraid. The fact that we don't know how does Tywin hold himself in combat, even though he's a veteran of numerous wars and battles, is telling. There is not a single example of Tywin's bravery that we know of, while there's plenty of those for Robert, Stannis, Ned, Oberyn, Davos, Greatjon, Jaime, Barristan... And it all fits psychologically: his father was weak, and he felt unprotected as a child, and he never overcame that fear. And on top of that, we have Joff's words. Now, Joff may be the most unreliable among unreliable narrators, but he does say this:

The boy surprised them all. Instead of scuttling safely back under his rock, Joff drew himself up defiantly and said, “You talk about Aerys, Grandfather, but you were scared of him.”

Oh, my, hasn’t this gotten interesting? Tyrion thought.

Lord Tywin studied his grandchild in silence, gold flecks shining in his pale green eyes. “Joffrey, apologize to your grandfather,” said Cersei.

He wrenched free of her. “Why should I? Everyone knows it’s true. My father won all the battles. He killed Prince Rhaegar and took the crown, while your father was hiding under Casterly Rock. “ The boy gave his grandfather a defiant look. “A strong king acts boldly, he doesn’t just talk.”

When he says that 'everyone' knows it's true, that means he heard it from someone, just like Tywin and Cersei speculate afterwards. And if Joff did hear it from someone, then it means he's not alone in thinking his grandfather is a coward. Be it Robert (as Cersei thinks, and she's probably right), or someone else, it doesn't matter really. What matters is the fact that Tywin's courage is questioned openly (not to mention that Tyrion doesn't seem like a stranger to the notion Joff brought up), unlike the courage of any other high lord in the saga. And Martin did find it important enough to put it there, so might as well analyze it.

Exactly, which is why I brought up Randyll Tarly. He's also cruel, but he isn't a coward. Far from it. And, his cruelty is a lot different than Tywin's. First, Randyll is always cruel. Tywin's cruel only when he wants to be, and he wants to be cruel whenever he fears something, or when he 'pays his debts'. Second, Randyll does his dirty work on his own, and he doesn't use trickery.

What bold things has he done in the series? I can't remember a single one. As for the rest of your points, in the next post.

Don't think so. Tywin's a smart man, he figured out how idiotic Joff is long time ago. And later on, when he faces Jaime's 'unwillingness to listen to reason', he conducts at the opposite manner: he's inhumanly calm for so long Jaime can't stand it any more. No, this was something else. He is personally affected by Joff's remark. Very affected. More than in any other occasion in the series. I don't think Martin would put it there just to remind us Joff's an idiot.

In fact, it didn't look like Lannisters are going to be against everyone. Maybe I'm remembering wrongly, but I don't think anyone suggests Tywin was involved in the murder of Robert. Which means, Robert's death came as a surprise to him. And I guess he didn't like that surprise, because he used a lot of money to buy Robert's 'friendship'. As long as Robert's alive, Tywin can be pretty certain The Iron Throne won't come at him. It's Ned who worries Tywin, and Ned is supposed to fall into the trap in The Riverlands. And that is why Ned's so eager to confront Robert with Tywin. because he senses that is the key to the coming war. So, Tywin marching to war was probably a miscalculation, much more than bravery (though, truth be told, going to war is never cowardice, and I'm not saying everything Tywin ever did was cowardly, but that he was a coward all along, and that's not the same thing; in fact, I consider him a 'high functioning' coward). As for not suing for peace, we have to factor his pride in the equation. Even cowards can have pride, especially if they're lord of a great house. But, his hiding behind the walls of Harrenhal is also telling. Yeah, it was also smart, but somehow Tywin's smartness is never bold. Always cunning and as safe as possible, but never bold. Can you imagine him challenging the Targaryen dynasty the way Jon Arryn did? As for Reynes and Tarbecks, I see nothing brave there. Exactly the opposite, I see only cowardice there, because only a coward can annihilate whole families. The way acts towards a bitten enemy speaks volumes, and Tywin's actions are of a coward.

I've heard you're arguements and read the quotes. I'm no closer to thinking he is a coward. I think that evidence is flimsy at best and it's a conclusion that doesn't seem to be shared by anyone in the Kingdom except Joffrey and maybe Robert. That's not exactly rock solid support

As promised, let's go back to characters you see improved on the screen. You say yourself you find them more relate-able and likable. But, even if it was true, it doesn't mean it's inevitably an improvement. Ramsay, for example, would be way worse if 'likable'. And the same goes for Cersei. Her role in the story demands for her not to be likable, and Martin never crosses that line: even when we sympathize with and feel sorry for her, in her Walk of Shame, she isn't likable. She's arrogant at first, and completely broken at the end, but not likable. And it doesn't mean she has no depth. On the contrary, Martin gave her a lot of depth, no later than in the Blackwater chapters (in fact, throughout entire ACOK she's fleshed out in all her layers). That's the nature of ASOIAF's complexity: even unlikable characters are vivid and have depth. Adding some likability to Cersei is not doing her a service. In fact, it may hurt her complexity, just like it appears to be the case in the show. The same goes for Varys: he's supposed to be a walking mystery, and not likable (and he definitely shouldn't be into verbal sparring with Petyr, just like Petyr shouldn't either). Jorah, too. He is not supposed to be some handsome and joyous fellow, because his role in Dany's story doesn't make much sense then.

We differ here because you want the show to be an exact replica of the novel. Cersei, Varys, Jorah, ect are supposed to be something in the novels. That's fine, but I like the TV's version of the characters better. I think the story is better and more believable because some of the characters have been humanized characters and in particularly the children are older.

If you let go of preconceived notions you might find this version and these characters enjoyable as well.

As for the rest of your list, you probably won't be surprised if I tell you I disagree with every single one of those examples. But let's focus on Jaime. In the show, he killed a kin over nothing! Just for the kicks of it. As D&D commented: they wanted to remind the audience how dangerous Jaime can be. That's what I call for the kicks. That scene would be terrible and illogical even if the poor lad wasn't related to Jaime. But he was. It's one of the two sacred traditions in Westeros. There's not 200 of them, only two: guest rights and no kinslaying. And they made Jaime break number two. What for? To show he's dangerous?! Now, how then a portrayal of Jaime can be on par with his book origin?!

I agree that scene with Jaime was unnecessary. I didn't like it, but that doesn't wash out some of the other good moments he's had.

As for Tywin, you say it yourself: "The show has brought him to life in a way I never pictured when reading the book". And that just might be it - you just never pictured him so richly. And it's OK, some people's imagination just doesn't work the way it's suited for reading books like ASOIAF. I can't claim that's the case with you, but I'm pretty sure that's the case with a lot of guys saying they love all those "improvements" in the show. Martin's close third person narration doesn't leave much possibility for detailed descriptions of people, and much is left to reader's own imagination. And some readers' imagination isn't inspired, or just doesn't wotk that way. So it maybe isn't surprising when one has better impressions on TV characters than on their book origins. But, this here is, the way I see it, the battle of opinions, not impressions. You're entitled to your impressions, and at least you're presenting them in a civil manner, but opinions are way better to debate.

Hahaha...bs bro my imagination is way better than yours. ;)

(sarcasm intended)

Look I like the novels better. But the show does get a lot of flak that it doesn't always warrant.

I'm a little confused by the bold if you care to clarify.

[Miodrag]

Hahaha...bs bro my imagnation is way better than yours. ;)

Sorry if my statement looked arrogant, it wasn't meant like that. On the contrary, I share the same 'problem' myself, just like anyone who's raised in this video crazy culture that is so dominant for the last 50 years or so. By the very nature of the beast, video material encourages something that is called "a passive consummation" (that would be my English translation of the proper term in Serbian, but I guess you know what I mean). I was born into that situation, and my imagination couldn't help but suffer. With years I learned how to work around that problem, but I still have to put considerable effort into imagining things and characters I'm presented with via written medium. e.g. in an abstract way. And Martin's close third person narration - which, by the nature of it, can't rely on detailed descriptions, opposite to more traditional 'neutral narration' that can and often do - only increases the challenge. With that narration you win some and you lose some: while it's very rewarding in psychological portrayal of characters, it's very demanding for readers to imagine them in their heads. Some people are blessed with an imagination that doesn't suffer from this - hence all those wonderful illustrations of ASOIAF characters and places - but many other readers, myself included, aren't that lucky.

As a matter of fact, Sansa was among the characters I kept imagining wrongly. Jaime too: in my head, he was always black of hair, even though he's one of the rare characters that are described to us from the get-go. Robb also. And it's not only with ASOIAF. For example, Jay Gatsby was always vague in my head, and therefore, when I watched the older adaptation, Robert Redford completely replaced the image of him in my head, just like Leonardo DiCaprio did with the newest version, even though I read the book before watching any adaptation whatsoever. Luckily, experience learned me to approach the written media differently. Some ten or 15 years ago, I'd possibly share the popular notion that this actor or that one completely 'owns' the role and brings dimensions that the character didn't have in the source material. Nowadays, however, I'm positive it's almost always the case of what mediums designed for "passive consummation" offer against what mediums that rely on "active consummation" demand. Because, if you think about it, there is no other reason why Danaerys in my head wasn't as beautiful as Emilia Clarke is. Martin wasn't shy in repeating how attractive she is, and yet 'my Dany' wasn't as attractive as Emilia is. It was a failure of my imagination, just like suspect is the case with many other readers (of course, I don't claim that is the case always, but from what I know of other people, it often is).

I'm a little confused by the bold if you care to clarify.

Once again, there was nothing pejorative in my stance. But, when people say something like "I like TV Jon", how am I or anyone to debate it? The same goes with "I don't like TV Jon", of course. Those are all impressions, and not opinions, and one can't debate impressions. Nothing wrong with impressions when they're presented in a polite and decent manner, even if they're strong ("I adore TV Jon" or "I hate TV Jon"), but they're impossible to debate. That's what I was saying. And I always try to offer my opinions, not impressions (if they're supported by some concrete reasoning behind them, they automatically become opinions), and I hope I usually succeed in that.

To be continued in the next post.