To me Game of Thrones will never be the same (S4E8 discussion)

[Ickorus]

Spoiler: No plot spoilers inside, just putting this here for those that don't want even the faintest hints of the future.

Don't give up hope just yet, the events of the latest episode have some massive repercussions that will be well worth watching.

 

[Trueflame]

Hahaha. Yeah, Oberyn dying was rough, in the books too. I think the difference is in how characters are presented in the books and the show though. In the show, the characters get screentime, and are all roughly equal, right? But in the books you only have a select few characters from whose perspective GRRM writes. Oberyn wasn't one of them. Hell, Robb wasn't one of them! So when a character like that bites the dust it is surprising, sad, and tragic, but ultimately not too important.

I don't think it's too unrealistic either. Oberyn is a great fighter, but throughout the series the Mountain has been presented as quite literally a mountain of a man. Something more than human, but almost like a force of nature and carnage with a sword.

And finally, don't give up hope. There are some good things on the horizon, probably by the end of this season, if it aligns with the book at all.

 

[Unspoken_Request]

Even Machiavelli (often portrayed as the ends-justifies-all-means philosopher) recognized that morale repugnance can cost tyrants their power.

Hell, The Prince wasn't even nearly as bad of a book as people make it out to be. It was quite literally saying "this is what it actually takes to succeed at ruling a successful nation/empire, this is what has worked for past and current leaders and why, and this is what has failed." It may not be the reality of politics during his time (and back to the Roman Empire) we like to believe about humanity, but it was the reality. At no point did the book claim, as so many people seem to imply it does, that the only way to succeed was to be a ruthless tyrant with no morals or honor. It was also a book that called out the stupidity of inherited rule and how a competent ruler invested in his nations/empires future would hand-pick a competent successor, not simply let his eldest son inherit it, whether he was actually capable of doing so or not, because in many examples he gave, the son was not and the entire nation/empire suffered for it.

Agreed. We read the same book. And that is why I wrote "portrayed as the ends-justify-all-means philosopher". Still, Machiavelli is clearly a pragmatist and remains the more prominent thinker associated with removing (for the most part) the idea morality from the daily exercise of power.

The fact that Martin's take on political struggle is way more negative than the prime example of such a pragmatic point of view shows just how unrealistic Martin's "game of thrones" really is.

I do not think that politics in the medieval or modern era was ever that ruthless.

Basically, imho, Martin is a pretty bad political thinker, which unfortunately reduces the quality of his books.

 

[Silvanus]

Spoiler: ADWD Spoilers

I'm not sure I agree. While Stannis is more "dedicated to the cause", as it were, his force is a pittance, and this is a time when men of warm blood really need to be banding together. Jon understands this. His support of Stannis seems to be primarily motivated by spite of the Lannisters. From a human perspective this is perfectly understandable, but Jon is meant to have left such worldly motivations behind. Ramsay, for instance, only threatens to attack the Night's Watch AFTER it is revealed Jon is meddling. Jon has put the Night's Watch in direct peril through his actions.

Spoiler

Come on, we cannot blame Jon for Ramsay's threat and the possibility of his attack. Ramsay responds in absurd, ultra-violent, unpredictable ways; the responsibility for Ramsay's actions rest on Ramsay, not Jon for provoking him.

It would be better for all concerned for men of warm blood to band together. But I stand by what I said about a realm united under Lannister and Bolton would not lift a finger to save the Watch, or to defend the Wall. They never cared before, and they don't now.

Spoiler: ADWD Spoilers

Her uncle was indeed trying to break the law, and sheltering her was the MORAL thing to do, but once again fell outside his purview as Commander of the Night's Watch. They are to take no part in the politics or wars of the realm. They are meant to be of a singular purpose. Same goes for attempting to rescue "Arya". Of course we want Jeyne rescued. It's human and kind. But from the point of view of the Commander of the Night's Watch, it's a pointless, reckless decision. Everything he does that imperils the Watch imperils all of Westeros. Jon knows the stakes. He knows what waits for them north of the Wall.

Spoiler

He does, indeed, but the rescue mission for Jeyne did not sap the Night's Watch's resources, or its power, and it didn't stir the pot with Marsh, because he was completely unaware of it.

As for sheltering Alys; I would counter that handing her over to a usurper is also a crime. He would abetting usurpation.

Spoiler: ADWD Spoilers

And then there's the mission to Hard home. Noble, yes, but ultimately doomed. A failure of pragmatism. And his final call to march on Ramsay...I actually begin to think Ramsay is in the story as the anti-Jon Snow. A man so nakedly, immediately vile...and possibly threatening Jon's favorite sister to boot...that Jon simply cannot help but take the bait. He abandons his sworn duty, and calls for others to do the same, all in the name of slaking his need for justice.

I thought it was interesting writing...positioning Jon so that his inherent "goodness" erupts as a critical moral flaw. Remember what Mormont says to him?

"Craster is his own man. He has sworn us no vows. Nor is he subject to our laws. Your heart is noble, Jon, but learn a lesson here. We cannot set the world to rights. That is not our purpose. The Night?s Watch has other wars to fight."

Or Maester Aemon?

"Jon, did you ever wonder why the men of the Night's Watch take no wives and father no children? So they will not love, for love is the bane of honor, the death of duty. What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms...or the memory of a brothers smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy."

Jon keeps failing to learn the lessons they are trying to impart to him. He gives into temptation time and time again, and ultimately pays the price for it.

Spoiler

He gave into temptation in calling to march on Winterfell, yes. But not "time and time again"- he's walked the line. He's contributed more to the safety of the Wall than any other Brother, by going under cover and imparting vital information; by leading the defence of the Wall; by making peace with the Wildlings that want peace. Nobody else has offered anything approaching a solution to any of these problems: not Thorne, not Marsh, nobody. Even the aid given to Stannis was given with the possibility looming over his head that Stannis may simply take what he wanted otherwise. As it is, Stannis fights against the darkness, and to bite the hand of the only figure of any power willing to battle the Others... that would be suicide.

 

[4Aces]

After this season, we go into the material from book 4 which is a massive waste of time. The season after that it is into book 5 which is more of the same. No major plot development, and it obliterates the few people that had any chance at being a protagonist. Martin's favorite saying in the books "words are wind" sums up books 4 & 5, and the storm is coming.
This is not a spoiler, but a warning. Abandon all hope that any major plot development is going to take place over the next two seasons, and get ready for some really lame, massively long, side quests. HBO has full committed to the show however, so hopefully they are going to perform a massive re-write which introduces something worth watching.

There is one reason to keep watching for the rest of this season. Trust me, I know what I am talking about.

 

[Fox12]

Because you're going to claim I didn't give your rigorous analysis a fair shake, let's look at one. Let's look at Ned Stark.

When Eddard was taken captive, there was little chance of him surviving. His province was in open rebellion

The North rebelled after he was taken, but I suspect you're just condensing timelines.

Martin uses narrative misdirection by saying that he can be sent up north to the wall if his son stands down. Unfortunately this is incredibly stupid. First of all, it's out of Cersei's character to spare someone who may be a threat, or knows about her incest.

1. Cersei didn't kill Jon Arryn
2. Cersei chastises Jaime for attempting to kill Bran, calling it stupid and reckless, and suggesting she could have convinced him to remain silent
3. The Lannister's eventual reaction to Stannis sending out word of the incest is to smear him in return. Nothing happens as a result of Stannis's revelation. NOTHING.

She's paranoid and ruthless, so her offering to spare Eddard makes zero sense in that context.

Killing Eddard ignited the war with the North and threw the seven kingdoms into Chaos. Not killing Ned would've meant a sworn traitor knew an ugly secret, one that he was not likely to repeat as long as she held his daughters as wards.

It was a betrayal of character for her to do that.

No, it wasn't. You haven't established that.

Second, for Eddard to go to the wall, he would have to be sent past HIS OWN LANDS, which are currently in open rebellion.

An open rebellion which would have ended the second he agreed to take the Black. Is he going to plot an escape and allow Sansa and hypothetically Arya's heads to roll? Does that sound like Eddard Stark? His brother is at the wall. His "bastard son" is at the wall. He views the Night's Watch as an honorable institution. Why would he not go to the wall?

That's not even an option.

Why?

You make some fair points, some of which I agree with, and some of which I don't. You're right, Eddard probably wouldn't sacrifice his children in some kind of foolish rebellion, and if he did, he would probably have given his support to one of the Baratheons, not himself, like his son did. I would argue, though, that it would still benefit the Lannisters to keep someone like Eddard close to the chest, like at Casterly Rock. They don't have to kill him, just hold him. Sending him north puts him closer to all of their enemies, who are in revolt, or who could potentially declare revolt. Even if Eddard doesn't join their enemies willingly, he still has important information that the other rulers could use to their advantage. Remember, the information about the incest wasn't out yet. It would make more sense to keep things quiet.

As for Cersei, she didn't kill Arryn, but she probably would have if given the opportunity, and if she thought he was a threat. Her eventual paranoia comes from her desire to protect her children, and eventually from a desire for personal power. It doesn't make sense for her to send her enemy where he can still be a possible threat. It would make more sense for her to keep him at the rock as a prisoner, where she could hold him prisoner if things went well, and kill him if they didn't. In any case, I like some of your insights.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

As for Cersei, she didn't kill Arryn, but she probably would have if given the opportunity, and if she thought he was a threat. Her eventual paranoia comes from her desire to protect her children, and eventually from a desire for personal power. It doesn't make sense for her to send her enemy where he can still be a possible threat. It would make more sense for her to keep him at the rock as a prisoner, where she could hold him prisoner if things went well, and kill him if they didn't. In any case, I like some of your insights.

Cersei's need to fear Eddard Stark died with Robert Baratheon, which is why she killed him (amongst other reasons, you can speculate Robert's death had been a goal of hers for some time). He was the primary threat to her safety. Once Eddard made the error of trusting Baelish, his status as a traitor was established, and any rumors he attempted to ignite regarding Cersei and the parentage of her children would've been easily dismissed as the ramblings of a traitor, much as they were with Stannis.

Eddard would've been little to no threat at the Wall. You could hypothesize that he could've betrayed his oaths and tried to rally the North, but the first honorbound Northman he came across would likely have taken his head off for deserting The Watch. Not that he ever would. Stark was very much a "my word is my bond" type, and he was paralyzed by the threat to Sansa in any case. She was the entire reason he gave his false confession to begin with. Stark was done. Cersei knew it.

Frankly, killing him at that stage was woefully reckless and kicked off a chain of calamities, both for the Lannisters and the realm. There's a reason Joffrey doesn't make anyone's short list for sensible, forward-looking rulers.

Cersei's paranoia doesn't really start to bloom until after Joffrey is dead. At that point she starts seeing schemers in every cupboard and comes completely unhinged.

Anyway, thanks for the collegial response.

 

[Fox12]

As for Cersei, she didn't kill Arryn, but she probably would have if given the opportunity, and if she thought he was a threat. Her eventual paranoia comes from her desire to protect her children, and eventually from a desire for personal power. It doesn't make sense for her to send her enemy where he can still be a possible threat. It would make more sense for her to keep him at the rock as a prisoner, where she could hold him prisoner if things went well, and kill him if they didn't. In any case, I like some of your insights.

Cersei's need to fear Eddard Stark died with Robert Baratheon, which is why she killed him (amongst other reasons, you can speculate Robert's death had been a goal of hers for some time). He was the primary threat to her safety. Once Eddard made the error of trusting Baelish, his status as a traitor was established, and any rumors he attempted to ignite regarding Cersei and the parentage of her children would've been easily dismissed as the ramblings of a traitor, much as they were with Stannis.

Eddard would've been little to no threat at the Wall. You could hypothesize that he could've betrayed his oaths and tried to rally the North, but the first honorbound Northman he came across would likely have taken his head off for deserting The Watch. Not that he ever would. Stark was very much a "my word is my bond" type, and he was paralyzed by the threat to Sansa in any case. She was the entire reason he gave his false confession to begin with. Stark was done. Cersei knew it.

Frankly, killing him at that stage was woefully reckless and kicked off a chain of calamities, both for the Lannisters and the realm. There's a reason Joffrey doesn't make anyone's short list for sensible, forward-looking rulers.

Cersei's paranoia doesn't really start to bloom until after Joffrey is dead. At that point she starts seeing schemers in every cupboard and comes completely unhinged.

Anyway, thanks for the collegial response.

Perhaps, but Stannis would have likely revolted regardless of what happened, since he sees himself as having the proper claim to the throne. Renly was silent for a time, but we know that he was hungry for power, already offered support to Eddard against the Lannisters in the first book, and was very popular. The Lannisters already fear his rebellion before he actually did anything. The moment Cerseis son turned into a tyrant, Renly would be able to seize the opportunity for war. My point is, they probably wouldn't want Eddard in a position where their enemies could access him, at least not until the war was over.

Also, I apologize our conversation became slightly heated before.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Perhaps, but Stannis would have likely revolted regardless of what happened, since he sees himself as having the proper claim to the throne.

Definitely, although I'm not sure much comes of it without the Lannisters already embroiled in a war with the North, and thus significantly weakened. Heck, the crown could've probably called on Northern banners and had their support in the war.

Renly was silent for a time, but we know that he was hungry for power, already offered support to Eddard against the Lannisters in the first book, and was very popular.

Renly is the wild card, as we don't know if he seized what he viewed as an opportunity, or if he planned to try and usurp all along. We likely still have Stannis sailing south to attack his brother though, while the Lannisters would have an unmolested army waiting for them at King's Landing instead of being bogged down in the Riverlands fighting Tully and Stark alike.

Also, I apologize our conversation became slightly heated before.

It's all good. I was being pretty snarky.

 

[Monsterfurby]

My thoughts exactly. What does "writes 'by the seat of his pants'" mean? Sorry, my english is not perfect and somehow I can't make sense of it.

It's a silly way of saying that he improvises (i.e. he creates his plot while sitting down to write). There's a bit of a discourse going on amongst writers that distinguishes 'pantsers' and 'plotters', with the latter being writers who plan out every minute detail of their story before they even write the first page of actual prose, while the former kind wants to see the story unfold before them as they write without being biased or directed by a plot.

Of course, in reality, most writers fall somewhere between the two extremes - Martin likely has a general game plan in his head and many ideas as to what he wants to build and do, but connecting the dots is hard work if you don't plot out every story arc, and sometimes you just go back and rewrite entire chapters, if not books. Martin actually said that this was kind of how he worked in an interview a while back, and as someone who has experienced the problems of a pantser-type-writer first hand, I do really sympathize.

 

[svenjl]

I for one went to bed in a state of depression after episode 8. Not because Oberyn died, or the way he died, or because of what might happen to Tyrion (I haven't read the books). Simply because I'm tired of the body count overall and the number of utter pricks that routinely seem to be rewarded for their behaviour. I don't give a crap about Joffre choking on his puke given he was the cause of multiple episodes of misery for so many people. I WANT JUSTICE!!!

I admit to being a bit of an idealist, so I like the "bad guys" to lose. GoT is ridiculous in terms of the relentless destruction of people's lives. Ramsay Snow/Bolton deserves a special kind of justice. He is an utter monster/psychopath. Anyhow, I think I need a break from the show even before finishing the season. The breadcrumbs of joy and humour are too few to sustain me at the moment.

 

[Magmarock]

I should've mentioned this in the first post but I also feel that the Lannisters have over stayed their welcome. I just don't find them interesting anymore and I was hopping that Obreyn would be the end of them.

They continue to take a lot of screen time when I would rather they spend more time on the Boltons.

 

[Buckets]

Same thing happened to the Prince in the books, but thankfully all is not as it seems with the mountain.
It it also an important story plot which brings the Martell's into the tale so kind of necessary, gruesome as it was.
Even knowing it was coming I was still saddened by his death as they picked a great actor for the role who had all the charm and style I had imagined from the books.

 

[thehorror2]

Without spoiling too much, things have to turn out that way to get some of the most interesting Lannister character development in the entire series. And the Mountain isn't out of the woods, either...

 

[maxben]

John Snow is a traitor's son, who twice betrayed the Night's Watch. The first time he defected was to take part on the usurper's side of a war, the second he collaborated with the enemy. Finally John betrays "the side that fights for the living", demonstrating that not only a man of no loyalty but that he is also willing to sell out humanity.

Ned Stark is a "traitor"? He tried to prevent usurpation; Joffrey was not the rightful king, by blood or any other measure. He tried to make sure the throne passed to Robert's lawful heir.

As for betraying the "side that fights for the living", that sounds just absurd. He's done more than almost anybody else to defend the Night's Watch.

I am basing it off of the fact that he was loved. Where everyone else brought "rights" and "money" and "war" to the table, he was able to gain loyalty purely off of his charisma (remember, he had no real claim to the Storm Lands). It is mentioned in the books that he knows how to make friends very easily, and was loved by the peasants. I don't remember if its in the show, but in the books he was the Master of Laws at the Small Council.

Also, his tactics of waiting for the Starks and Lannisters to kill each other before charging in with an objectively larger army was very smart (though it smacks of Tyrell planning to be honest), showing that he was patient and had a head for tactics.

He was Master of Laws, but seems to have spent his time on the council making japes. In the meetings we see, the only Small Council member to bring anything meaningful to the table was Ser Barristan (who holds the position ceremonially), and by all accounts when Jon Arryn was Hand, he and Stannis pretty much ran the meetings.

As I said before, being liked does not mean much. Ned Stark was loved, but people seem to agree he didn't have a head for King's Landing politics.

Was Ned loved? I guess for his loyalty and his honour by the upper class, but I don't think that there is any indication that the peasants cared. Anyhow, our difference is over whether we think he could handle King's Landing. I think so. I think that by his very nature King's Landing politics would have been simpler. The big problems were the Lannisters and succession, without either of these issues what does he have to deal with politically? All he needed to do was kill/jail his brother and the the Lannisters and he would have been done. Anyhow, if you compare him to all the other claimants you can't tell me that any of them could be better than he could. Stannis, Robb, the Lannister children, Daenerys? He is the only one who understands the city and has flexibility enough to lead such a complex empire.

 

[Silvanus]

Was Ned loved? I guess for his loyalty and his honour by the upper class, but I don't think that there is any indication that the peasants cared. Anyhow, our difference is over whether we think he could handle King's Landing. I think so. I think that by his very nature King's Landing politics would have been simpler. The big problems were the Lannisters and succession, without either of these issues what does he have to deal with politically? All he needed to do was kill/jail his brother and the the Lannisters and he would have been done. Anyhow, if you compare him to all the other claimants you can't tell me that any of them could be better than he could. Stannis, Robb, the Lannister children, Daenerys? He is the only one who understands the city and has flexibility enough to lead such a complex empire.

Again, I have yet to see any indication of skill, with politics or otherwise. Renly did not earn any of his positions; has no record of note; has no accomplishments to his name. Being quite popular during a makeshift tournament at Bitterbridge does not a king make.

It's quite clear in ADWD that Ned was well loved among the clans (Flint, Norrey, Wull, Liddle, etc), and they're generally very overlooked.

 

[acillies45]

If you haven't watched up to the show: SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS.

Alright, first of all, I HAVE read the books, and when I read that part, I literally put the book down and didn't come back to it for a day or two. I agree that this character was my favorite to read about. He was fun, he was a master of both intrigue and fighting, and he was interesting.

What I figured out after his death though, was that he had one major weakness: he KNEW he was all of those things. He KNEW that he was one step ahead of everyone in Kings Landing. He KNEW he could beat anyone who was thrown at him. And he KNEW that if he got the chance to fight the Mountain, he could not only win, but he could beat a confession out of him.

His weakness: Hubris.

Sure, the Mountain was on his back, spear in belly. Sure, any other man would've keeled over from that. But he forgot that he was dealing with a man called 'The Mountain Who Rides'. A spear to the belly was not going to kill him.

Plus, yes the Mountain was in heavy armor, but I don't think we haven't seen him in that armor yet. He literally lives in it. It's like a second skin to him at this point. If it wasn't, his size and strength wouldn't count for anything. A smaller, quicker man would've killed him by now. So we know he has to be unnaturally quick too.

Oberyn, as much as I loved him as a character, was too much in his own fantasy to even consider defeat.

People say that GRRM likes to kill off characters for fun, or for shock value. I don't think that's the case though. I mean, he may have a nice little chuckle here and there, and there may be plot defining deaths that he KNOWS he has to write in from the start, but I think he's a bit more of a naturalistic writer. I think he kills people only if they do it 'to themselves', or get really unlucky. Sure, he kills off a lot of like-able characters, but that's because we've been conditioned to think that a character who is heroic, and/or good, is invincible.

In actuality, if you read (or watch) most popular series out there, the hero is getting constantly into a bad situation, mostly because they put themselves there. Look at Harry Potter. He should have died many times over. In a more 'realistic' (as realistic as HP can be) book, he wouldn't have lasted three books. GRRM doesn't write a death for shock value, he writes it because in a more real world setting, that person would die.

Anyways, that's my take on the situation. RIP Red Viper. RIP.

 

[Tayh]

Alright, first of all, I HAVE read the books, and when I read that part, I literally put the book down and didn't come back to it for a day or two. I agree that this character was my favorite to read about. He was fun, he was a master of both intrigue and fighting, and he was interesting.

How did you manage to become so attached to a character that barely got any screen, er, pagetime in the book?

Spoiler: Spoiler just in case

As far as I remember, it's only *after* his death that his background starts getting fleshed out, via exposition from his family in Dorne.

 

[acillies45]

Alright, first of all, I HAVE read the books, and when I read that part, I literally put the book down and didn't come back to it for a day or two. I agree that this character was my favorite to read about. He was fun, he was a master of both intrigue and fighting, and he was interesting.

How did you manage to become so attached to a character that barely got any screen, er, pagetime in the book?

Spoiler: Spoiler just in case

As far as I remember, it's only *after* his death that his background starts getting fleshed out, via exposition from his family in Dorne.

True, he is little more than a glorified side character. But what GRRM had written about him made me like the character a ton. I didn't know his back story, but I didn't like I needed to.

 

[Raesvelg]

I quit watching the show on the grounds that I didn't feel like paying HBO's subscription fees for the one thing I was watching on their network, but I can honestly say that the best part of the entire show for me has been watching the reaction of the people who never read the books.