Game of Thrones [2]

*sigh* I love this show

All the good bits Figgy. Shame it turned a bit sucky.

You're like Rhett Butler Figgster, a sucker for lost causes.

I was thinking a bit about why this show feels as jarring to me as an adaptation as it does, and it struck me that it at least in part is down to their handling of good and evil. In the books George goes out of his way to keep the evil brand of his protagonists. His characters are grey as opposed to black and white, good and evil. And, in his own words, the battle between good and evil takes place in the human heart, in the heart of his characters. It's an internalized struggle.

In the show however they seem to have flipped this on it's head. Not only do they go out of their way to portray a character of either good or evil, they go out of their way to set up a good evil dynamic in most situations.

For instance you have the two outside claimants to the Iron Throne Daenerys and Stannis. Daenrys is the good claimant, the saviour who frees slaves and cares about the good of the common folk. By contrast Stannis must be evil, all the way down to burning his daughter. Stannis has repeatedly been used as a foil to set up the goodness of another character. They also did it with him and Renly. Renly was played up as the good alternative to the evil alternative of Stannis. You have the two scheemers of the story, Varys and Littlefinger, where Littlefinger is the moustache twirling chaos is a ladder villain. So, by contrast, Varys must be good. Right down to supporting their "good" choice for the throne.

I think you can go on like that for a while, and this dynamic seems to be introduced to anything. One thing is good or evil, so it must have it's opposite.

To me, this not only seems like taken out of a "Scriptwriting 101" book, but it also shows they are not telling the story of A Song of Ice anf Fire. To my mind it removes the foundational characteristic of the books and the original story.

That all sounds like complaints related to recent events in the show. That is to say, I think some character arcs have been handled in a mostly good way thus far in the show. Take, for example, Jaime Lannister. In the first season he pushed a little child out of a window to what he hoped was the child's death. His character has changed since then and, although I believe this arc reached its most interesting point last season, Jaime has become an entirely sympathetic character.

I suppose I see what you mean. There really isn't anything wrong with him now. The worst thing he has done within the last two seasons was to force Cersei to have sex with him near the body of Joffrey was it? Is that right?

So, yeah, his character has definitely cleaned up. To say that everyone is either good or evil is an oversimplification, but to say that flawed characters from the books have been made to become far more sympathetic is perfectly accurate.

I don't think there can be any dispute that the show is a lot less nuanced than the books. (Well, some people will probably dispute that, but whatever.) You raise some good points about contrasting characters, especially Littlefinger and Varys. I hadn't thought of their show characters in those terms but, after S5, what you say makes a lot of sense.

On the other hand, I don't believe the hype about "everyone's all in shades of grey" is really entirely true of the books. There are plenty of totally irredeemable villains there. Tywin, Roose, Ramsay, Craster, and Randyll Tarly are just a couple of examples. And there are several straight-up heroes. Dany in the books is pretty conventionally heroic in a way you'd expect from a fantasy novel, though of course GRRM goes out of his way to highlight her inexperience and paint a perhaps more plausible portrait of how such a "heroic" mission would go. Same thing with Jon Snow. But most of the Starks are portrayed in very sympathetic terms, as are various characters. The more interesting moral element of the books is that people don't line up neatly in good vs evil sides. They're forced into alliances and rivalries by all sorts of factors that don't have anything to do with anyone's moral character, but that doesn't mean that moral characters is completely absent.

(None of the above should be construed as taking anything away from Martin's numerous grey characters. Many of them are highlights of the series -- Tyrion and Jaime especially, Theon too depending on how much sympathy you'll grant him, among others -- but I wouldn't call them the rule.)

One thing that really struck me when I was reading the snippet from Winds of Winter was how much of a little punk-ass Theon still was. I've gotten so used to the whimpering, fearful, utterly contrite Theon of the show that seeing him in his full obnoxious glory again was like discovering the character all over again.

''In the show however they seem to have flipped this on it's head. Not only do they go out of their way to portray a character of either good or evil, they go out of their way to set up a good evil dynamic in most situations.'' Blue.

I totally disagree with this analysis. The show has Stannis as a typical almost stereotypical grey character, neither good nor bad. He is neutral. he does both good and bad things that's what makes him interesting. he is capable of mercy and capable of single minded murder, he can both love his daughter and sacrifice her for the greater good (in his mindset). He has always been shown in the tv show as utterly ruthless and obsessed with the conquest of the iron Throne, the blood sacrifice seems totally part of his determination to get power at any cost. Yet he does love, and is capable of regrets. he is not bloodthirsty in the conventional sense, and he wishes to be a good king only he is prepared to go too far to achieve it and betrays himself and his family and his army. In one way he is weak, he has become sexually obsessed with Melisandre, and is totally under her spell.
As for Littlefinger and Varys, we don't know exactly what Varys is up to yet. He is another grey character capable of murder in one minute and benign the next, that's what makes him interesting too. Dany is also capable of somewhat bloodthirsty actions, she is chaotic and inexperienced, changing her mind according to her advisors preferences. She can have someone put to death in a fit of anger then regret it later, she can have someone buried alive or crucified. Shades of grey again. I would argue that very very few of the characters are black or white, I think maybe only Sam and Gilly are truly good, and the Boltons truly bad. All the rest are realistically human with faults and good points joined together.

Stannis is not ruthlessly and single-mindedly obsessed with the Iron Throne. Rather, he believes that he must fulfill his duty as the next-in-line for the kingship. That is his main driving character trait: an immovable belief in the importance of duty and living up to your responsibilities without complaint or excuse. The sexual infatuation you speak of Figgs is not there in the books. Or if it is, it is certainly not as blatant as in the show.

That is one aspect of his death that made sense. He didn't plead for life or threaten; he expected Brienne to "do her duty." Of course, Stannis really should not have deferred at all to his dead younger brother as a legitimate authority figure, but he had already lost everything in the show so by that point who really cares anyway. I think its also questionable whether he would have considered killing her rightful king a woman-knight from Tarth's proper "duty."



I think that we know exactly what Varys is up to. He has stated his desire to preserve the country from war and the tyrannical rule of bloodthirsty kings. He has set himself up in opposition to Goatlips Littlefinger, both politically and philosophically (their two definitions of chaos), and he has aligned himself discretely with Danaerys and Tyrion, the two crowd-favorite characters of the show (and of the show runners). It's not like with Littlefinger, where we know of his nefarious ways but haven't really received any hints of what his next plan is, especially after all the round-a-bout wrangling of plots this last season within which he first supports Cersei and then helps bring her down or something.

Here is my view of who is, as of this last season, truly bad and truly good. And I think this stands up to the test of these characters not having done anything outside of their good or bad alignment in the last season. Perhaps in the past they did, but now that has stopped, I believe.

Good:
Danaerys, Actually she is too misguided and stupid to be truly good
Sansa,
Arya,
Jon Snow,
Bran,
Tommen,
Myrcella,
Davos,
Theon,
Jaqen,
Doran Martell,
Varys,
Samwell,
Gilly,
Brienne,
Tormund,
Missandei,
Shireen,
Grey Worm,
Podrick,

The Bad:
Petyr Baelish,
Melisandre,
Ellaria Sand,
the Sand Snakes,
Roose and Ramsay,
Myranda,

and the Ugly:
Tyrion,
Tycho.

I disagree with some of that list. Littlefinger and Melisandre are selfish and self absorbed, ruthless, merciless in some instances, but I wouldn't say they were bad. I wouldn't say that Theon and Jaquen were good either, they are ambiguous characters, neither good or bad, but grey.

I haven't seen the last season, but my impression has been more shades of grey, for all except the Starks. But even Arya shows a darker side. I can see that they have gone a bit more black/white than the books, but I can't see calling Theon good and Stannis evil. Theon destroyed Winterfell; Stannis fights the white walkers.

I can understand that view if you haven't seen the latest season, Halfwise. But when you do you'll see all those signs of something bad come to fruition.

Expect to hear something about the King who cared, about putting the cart before the horse, about the only war that really matters? Don't.

It's all Stannis all consuming ambition for the Iron Throne.

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'll try to respond to some specifics later, but I think I should clarify that while my post could be read as absolutist, it wasn't really meant that way. I guess it's the nature of conversation and discussion to word yourself a bit towards the absolutist when you want to be assertive. What I rather was trying to get at is what I see as general trends. In the the show and in the books. So, while concessions could be made to a black and white reading of the story and characters in the show, I think you can still observe this general trend of pushing characters in one direction or the other.

I would say the same of my use of the terms good and evil in the last post. My use of those terms was meant to be read broadly. When I talk about good and evil, I as much talk about good and bad, better worse even. It is for me a question of degree, not quality.  

Which is why I don't disagree with you, Figg. I'm not necessarily saying that there are any straight up black and white good or evil charactes in either the book or in the show, but my contention as a book reader is that the show introduces the subversion of pushing central characters in one direction or the other. Realizing that this is a conscious effort by the showrunners, and that they actually are doing it by pitting central characters against each other, good and bad, and then imnbung them with the characteristics they feel good and bad characters should have was a eureka moment for me. Now, I will certainly not deny that Eldo has a point, and discussing to what degree Georges characters actually are grey is an interesting discussion in itself, (I would say as a general trend George works more in the direction of keeping characters in the grey area, and to a lesser degree predisposes the way they should be seen) the problem I think is rather that this pitting characters against each other, having one good and one bad alternative, goes against the way George is trying to write this story. In other words by doing this subversion they are failing to adapt a central aspect of the work they are adapting. Meaning this is no longer the same story that George is telling in the books, which is why I said I found it jarring from an adaptional point of view..

But even a non book reader can see that the characters in the show are not easily definable by their relationships into such concepts as good vs bad. within each character is both good and bad, and that goes for 99% of them. Only the Boltons are comedy villain bad, the rest of them, Stannis in particular, is a pretty complex mix. That's why they are so engaging to watch, and why the Boltons are at the end of the day so boring to watch, because they are one-note baddies with no nuance. The show shows people being people, Jaime progresses and learns things from Brienne, he goes on an interior journey, he isn't 'pushed' into being good, he just evolves. Arya goes on another journey, she remains Arya while also becoming more ruthless. Theon goes on one of the most dramatic redemptive journeys of them all. He starts off as an arrogant and selfish young man, is basically deconstructed and rebuilds himself through insanity and pain to begin to show human feelings again, and remorse for his betrayal of his 'family'. Even Sam goes on a journey of discovery, learning to respect himself through his friendship with Jon. its very interesting to watch. I think you are trying to fit them into a preconceived pattern which just isn't there.

You're like Rhett Butler Figgster, a sucker for lost causes.- Forest

The Boltons in the book are bit evil... only really Ramsay who seems a bit mental. Roose actually begins to turn Theon back to being The on in the way he treats him.

The book tries to show characters from their point of view.. writing in their words so you can understand why they are doing what they are doing.

The problem that any TV show has is that you are always looking in and therefore have to make your decision based on their actions, not usually the reasons behind their actions. Sometimes there is a little exposition that may try to explain, but you never know if that is part of a diversion or what they are actually thinking or feeling.

that's true Lance. these are things that I have picked up by watching the show, non of it is implicit just by watching casually, you have to pay attention seasons back to get whats going on sometimes. for example imo it was set up a couple of seasons ago that Shireen would come to a sticky end. It was the relationship she had with her mother, things said by Melisandre, all the kings blood stuff, the fact that Stannis insisted Shireen should go on the travels with them although she would have been safer at home. it was set up ages ago so it wasn't at all a surprise when she was eventually sacrificed. Its the straw that broke the camels back in many ways, Davos in particular will be interesting to watch, as he was more a true father to Shireen. I think what Stannis did in the show has made a lot of people pissed off with the way his character has been portrayed or warped, but I reckon the books would have done the same eventually. Martin must have told D&D that Stannis was on a hiding to nothing.

That's a very good point, Lance. The books with their point of view appraoch are very internal, and we see everything from a characters point of view. One thing I think people, D&D included, put too little weigth on is the fallability of those point of views. They misremember, they get things wrong, and they are highly highly biased. One striking example is the character of Carol (Show!Cersei), who is almost completely correspondent to how she sees herself in the books. But the reader is supposed to see past that to the actual reality of how terrible a ruler she is. It is almost like D&D read what was on the page and bought straight into it or something..

I LOVE Cersei too. Not as a person though, as a literary character.

Carol is a completely different character in my mind. In an odd way, she’s almost like what Cersei thinks she is. She struggling against all those assholes who disrespect her because she’s a woman. Her brother/lover is useless and dense no matter how much she patiently explains things to him. Margaery is a scheming manipulator who’s consciously trying to take Tommen away from her, just out of spite. There is no one she can trust around her, she’s better off ruling on her own.

But whereas Cersei is so myopic it boarders on delusional, and paranoid that everyone is against her, it’s hard to fault Carol for anything. Like, Kevan IS an misogynistic asshole, Myrcella IS being obviously threatened, Margaery IS a catty Mean Girl who’s manipulating her son for her own catty purposes and wants to send her to a retirement home. She is never shown to be short sighted. Remember how in 4x04 she dealt with the problem of the Iron Bank demanding its money and got rid of Mace Tyrell in one smooth move. Brilliant! Like, actually.

(And then she rearms the Faith Taliban for… reasons. But that was so random and came so out of nowhere, it’s hard to comment on or call it out of character. It was just bad writing.)

Carol had no blood on her hands. Cersei was literally participating in torture sessions and assassinating the pope. And even when Carol does something, like cause poor random little people to be decapitated by randos, she’s so super understanding about their failure. “Mistakes will be made,” she says.

And for a show that jumps at the chance to sexualizes everyone and everything, Carol is oddly desexualized. Cersei’s hamfisted and hateful use of sex to manipulate men is entirely absent. Like, they had to go all the way back to the first season when she had sad sex with Lancel that one time in order to find a reason to slut shame her. And, of course, Cersei didn’t in anyway deserve to be slut shamed either, but they just made to situation so comically Black and White with the poor lonely single mom and the evil religious fanatics persecuting her, that it was… comical.

Carol is in many ways actually a good character, but she is NOT Cersei Lannister.

http://theculturalvacuum.tumblr.com/post/122448538664/after-i-read-cerseis-walk-of-atonement-she-became

Mrs Figg wrote:But even a non book reader can see that the characters in the show are not easily definable by their relationships into such concepts as good vs bad. within each character is both good and bad, and that goes for 99% of them.

They are more so than in the books, and it's a trend of their writing and adaptation. Sure, there is greyness left in the story, a lot of it carries over from the books even when it's not supported by the show writing. There's a reason Stannis was such a compelling character right up until they had him burn his daughter for.. little or no reason. And that had nothing to do with how D&D wanted him to come across. They've been pretty open about hating him, thinking he would make a terrible ruler, and having a whole lot of failings they addded to his character.

Mrs Figg wrote:I think you are trying to fit them into a preconceived pattern which just isn't there.

This was a criticism of the show as an adaptation, so patterns in the books not being repeated in the show is what I was getting at. And yes, this is an area where I feel the show both fails to capture an important aspect of the story told in the books, and by comparison comes off worse than them. Which to my mind could tie in with the amount of peole both on here and elsewhere who has seen season 5 as a distinct drop in quality. This is just a little part of me trying to understand what I feel has gone wrong with the show.

''And for a show that jumps at the chance to sexualizes everyone and everything, Carol is oddly desexualized. Cersei’s hamfisted and hateful use of sex to manipulate men is entirely absent. Like, they had to go all the way back to the first season when she had sad sex with Lancel that one time in order to find a reason to slut shame her. And, of course, Cersei didn’t in anyway deserve to be slut shamed either, but they just made to situation so comically Black and White with the poor lonely single mom and the evil religious fanatics persecuting her, that it was… comical.''

whoever wrote this is comical.
What exactly are they complaining about here? that Cercei isn't shown shagging her way round Westeros? They would probably just have accused D&D of sexism if she had. I disagree that Cercei in the show is 'just a poor single mom' how ridiculous. She has manipulated her power to have Margery and her brother potentially sent to their deaths, and seemed to enjoy doing it. She has awakened the Faith and unleashed all manner of horror on herself through her arrogance. She has sexually manipulated her brother into doing anything she wants. Her one and ONLY redeeming feature is the love she has for her children. This is not the same show that I watched at all.

just ignore me when I get my crabbit on.

Cersei in the TV series is certainly not a 'poor single mom (mum).' But she definitely isn't book Cersei either. Book version seems to be very good at playing the short game but without understanding the consequences over a longer period. That seemed to me to be why Tywin wanted her back at Casterly Rock and wanted Jamie to get out of the Kingsguard. He could see the potential that was unleashed later when he stopped being so arrogant and went out trying to fix everything (instead of doing the opposite in the TV series and potentially causing a war).

The TV series seems to portray her as just a complete, power hungry villain that is obsessed with power. Seeing it from her point of view in the book actually shows that she believes what she is doing is the right thing. Robert Baratheon was hopeless as a leader and the Lannisters propped the kingdom up with their wealth.... get rid of him and Lannisters rule through the marriage. Good short game.

Mrs Figg wrote:

Lancebloke wrote:5 wasn't...

yes it was.

Save it for the Who thread.

Lancebloke wrote:Cersei in the TV series is certainly not a 'poor single mom (mum).' But she definitely isn't book Cersei either. Book version seems to be very good at playing the short game but without understanding the consequences over a longer period. That seemed to me to be why Tywin wanted her back at Casterly Rock and wanted Jamie to get out of the Kingsguard. He could see the potential that was unleashed later when he stopped being so arrogant and went out trying to fix everything (instead of doing the opposite in the TV series and potentially causing a war).

The TV series seems to portray her as just a complete, power hungry villain that is obsessed with power. Seeing it from her point of view in the book actually shows that she believes what she is doing is the right thing. Robert Baratheon was hopeless as a leader and the Lannisters propped the kingdom up with their wealth.... get rid of him and Lannisters rule through the marriage. Good short game.

Actually in the show she  comes across as a woman stuck in a medieval type world where the male heirs get the kudos from dad (even Tyrion) and she is forced to watch on the sidelines while they do worthwhile jobs, while she is frequently forced to marry and breed at his command. Her bitterness at this comes across very clearly. She turns to drink to numb the sheer boredom of being relatively intelligent. obviously she isn't as clever as she thinks she is, and shit backfires, but I do get a sense that her horrible character was forged by what sex she was, and her horrible family. She isn't just a one-note villainess. I think Jaime was the only man she could stomach having sex with, but I don't think she loves him like he does her, and part of me thinks it was her getting revenge on Tywin and her husband in her own twisted way.